Uploaded by Dionyseus (notify | contribs). OR. Orphan image, several months ago I intended to have it used for the oral sex article, but another illustration was chosen. Dionyseus 02:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Quill (notify | contribs). Old non-commercial only image uploaded in good faith in mid 2004. However it should still go, getting a free licensed photo of a miniature fox terrier to replace this should be quite possible so per WP:FUC #1 it can't be used under fair use on Wikipedia.- Sherool(talk) 06:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not so easy. Miniature Fox Terriers of this quality are rare outside of Australia. The dog breed articles for rare breeds all suffer because of the difficulty in getting photographs as owners/breeders are paid for them and don't want them released into public domain and/or their dogs exploited. So you can get a bad picture of a MFT or a poorly bred/crossbred one, but not necessarily a good one. So I would say leave it for now, it's a nice shot and representative of the breed. Deleting without an excellent replacement makes no sense to me. Quill 05:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well we have a fair number of Wikipedians from Australia too. It should hardly be impossible (if you disagree you need to at lest write a convincing fair use rationale for the image as we don't allow the license the image is currently under and it's high time we deal with these old grandfathered non-commercial images). Also my experience is that if you put a deacent looking unfree image in an article "temporarily" while waiting for someone to make a free replacement that replacement will be a long time coming. A good example is the spine image below, the article have used a low resolution unfree gif image since it's creation in 2004, only when I put it on IFD did someone take the trouble of looking for a free licensed replacement (and as it turns out we already had a much better image on Commons). Some images will take longer to find than others naturaly, but generaly speaking using unfree "stand ins" tend to delay that process a great deal. --Sherool(talk) 06:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by ClockworkTroll (notify | contribs). Old non-commercal only image uploaded in good faith in 2004. It should however be possible to get a free licensed ilustration of a spinal cord so we rely can't justify keeping this around. Not the highest quality either- Sherool(talk) 06:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Dostick (notify | contribs). Old non-commercial only image uploaded in good faith in 2004, however these images require a fair use claim to be used now and this image should be replacable so no likely fair use claim possible on Wikipedia per WP:FUC #1- Sherool(talk) 07:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Fortinbras (notify | contribs). Old non-commercial only image. Uploaded in good faith back in 2004 however we need a fair use claim to use non-commercial images now and this one should be replacable and thus fail WP:FUC #1. A user made drawing or diagram (or simmilar material from NASA) can easily transport the same information.- Sherool(talk) 07:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Smoth 007 (notify | contribs). I uploaded this image myself for the Tiger Force article and was led to believe it was public domain under the work U.S. federal government or Department of Defense. Since then it has been bought to my attention by user:Hankpac that the image was actually self made by him and is not the work of the U.S. federal government or Department of Defense. Because I found the image on a p2p network I cannot verify this therefor I think it would be appropriate to just delete the image as per criterion I4 since I am unsure if it is eligible for W:Logos use--Smoth 007 20:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Notjames116 (notify | contribs). Orphaned image. It seems from a comment left on the uploader's talk page that the corresponding article was deleted with 'prod'- Arbitrary username 21:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Eattrash (notify | contribs). This is a random picture that someone put on the egotism page. The picture is irrelevant, and the page doesn't need an image either. Vandalism from the looks of the text added along with the picture, most likely a prank.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.72 (talk • contribs)
