Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:Shota mimi love volume 2.jpg


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it. 

The result was to delete the image.

Replaceability
This image is being used as an example of the art form. This particular publication is not discussed in the article, and a free alternative could reasonably be found, as was done at lolicon, a similar subject. J Milburn 15:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The lolicon article and image is a good example to why a free image should not be used (in Shotacon). The lolicon image is not even japanese art, so it's a bit like having a picture of Donald Duck in the Anime or Manga article, two articles that, by the way, are filled with copyrighted images (as far as I can see, no one has complained, I wonder why...). Also, that picture (in Lolicon) isn't very professional (that's an understatement), if you buy a lolicon manga the art you'll find in it will, most likely, be quite different. Moreover, it's always possible to draw free images, depicturing anything, but that's no reason for deleting all fair use-images, as the quality of the free ones tend to be lower.


 * If you have a free, good shota image, you're free to upload it. I don't, and I don't know where to find one, so let's use this one in the meantime (the same goes, of course, for all other fair use-images on Wikipedia). Tarabunta 16:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. You do not appear to be familiar with our fair use policy. Because a free image could reasonably be created or found, we do not use fair use ones. We have non-free images on Donald Duck because a non-free image of Donald Duck could not be made. I can't comment on how professional the artwork is, I am not a fan of either artform, but it certainly looks like a young girl drawn in an anime style to me. J Milburn 16:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with your policies, and see below. Can you explain to me why it's okay to have copyrighted images in Anime and Manga? Because the situation is the same. As shota is a form of manga/anime, and there's a lot of non-shota manga/anime, it follows logically that it's easier to find free images for the manga/anime-articles, yet the copyrighted ones there are accepted (and we all now the reason, stop pretending).
 * I can comment on how professional it is (as I am a fan). And it's not, it doesn't look like lolicon usually do.
 * "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect." The answer is no, I'm not aware of any such image, which means this image is fair use, which means I revert your change. Tarabunta 16:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If the publication was discussed in-depth within the article as a notable shotacon publication, then perhaps there would be a case for the image. As it stands, there is little case, and I have been here before. The last time, the discussion spilled out onto several pages, and the image ended up deleted. Also, please note this argument. I am not going to edit war with you, but I will tag the image as up for deletion on the article. J Milburn 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You've not answered my questions, as you have no arguments, and you obviously have a thing against shota images. If you think shota is immoral, which you obviously do, Wp isn't the right place to start a moral war. That you're censorship attempt succeeded last time is noted. 81.216.236.207 17:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My God, assume good faith. I am incredibly anti-censorship, as it happens, I am just also extremely pro-free culture, and dislike anything copyrighted being used on Wikipedia, except where strictly needed. The arguments I have made stand- the image could be replaced by a free one, and the specific publication is not discussed in detail in the text. The questions you have asked have been about fair use images in other articles. In response, I explained a free image could not be produced of Daffy Duck, or whoever you said, and I linked to this argument. What questions have you asked that I ignored? J Milburn 18:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For fucks sake, I can't prove that there is no alternative picture. That's like proving there's no unicorns. If YOU claim there's a free alternative, which you do, prove it. Since your so-called arguments are wp-links, I'll give you one: Negative_proof. Also "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying". You've vandalized the shota-article, and lied about you being incredibly anti-censorhip (true, the latter happened after I stopped assuming it), which means I'm not required to assume good faith, also: WP:FAITH2. What questions? You've not answered why you aren't "Replaceable fair use"-tagging all pictures in the Manga and Anime articles. Tarabunta 18:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that there was a free image, just that one could be reasonably created. My 'arguments are Wikilinks' simply because my arguments are based around policies and guidelines. I'll choose to ignore you accusing me of being a vandal and a liar, as anyone can see that I am not. You are blatantly not assuming good faith, and choosing to take my actions as censorship, instead of attempting to improve the encyclopedia. And I have already answered that question, twice. Last time- this is my explanation of why it really doesn't matter to the case at hand. J Milburn 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why can't you say why you've, TWICE (at least), "Replaceable fair use"-tagged pictures in the shota-article, and, as far as I can see, zero times in those two other articles? Of course I'm assuming censorship when you don't answer. It would take you 1 minute to remove the images in those articles, yet you don't. I seek an explanation, you give none. Then I have to guess.
 * It can't be reasonably created (that's the reason there's no free image in the article, and that's the reason lolicon has an image that's not lolicon). Simple as that. Unless you deposit $200 at my bank account, so I can hire a japanese shota artist, and an interpreter. That's ok to me (I wouldn't say that's "reasonable", but if you're infinitely rich...). As I said, the same goes for *all* fair use-images. Tarabunta 19:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Album covers, book covers, screenshots, copyrighted characters- they can not be reproduced. If you have a problem with other images on other articles I advise you raise the issue on the relevent talk pages. However, we are here to discuss this particular image. This image is replaceable when being used to demonstrate shotacon, and so not welcome here. J Milburn 20:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha. *I* have a problem with other pictures? No, but *you* should have, or else you're lying (alternative 3: you think there should be different rules for different articles). You're hiding behind policies because you know you don't have any arguments. We are here to discus why you're applying double standards, one for things you don't like and one for other things. Album covers, book covers, what do they have to do with the said two articles? Obviously you're interpreting the fair use-policy wrongly, it *is* in line with FU-policy to use copyrighted material even when it would be technically possible to create free images. Why? 2 reasons. 1: the free material would have lower quality, and therefore would make Wp worse (lolicon is a good example, having that picture is close to lying). 2 (unimportant as long as 1 stands): no one is, in fact, making these free images, so in practice it stands between no images at all (lolicon being an exception; se reason 1) or a copyrighted one under fair use. If you check out other articles at Wikipedia, you'll see that, because of these 2 reasons, fair use-images are used quite extensively.81.216.236.207 21:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I presumed you must have a problem with the images, the amount you moaned about them. If you have no problem with them, shut up about them. Album covers etc have nothing to do with the given articles, I was just pointing out how your 'all fair use material could be recreated freely' argument was wrong. As for me misinterpretting the fair use policy- you need to reread point one of our fair use policy. The little rant you go on afterwards talks about using material in a way that completely goes against point number one. I have been using this fair use policy in arguments for a long time, you are the first person to say that I misunderstand it. Also, please, assume good faith, stop accusing me of things. We disagree- can we not discuss the matter without resorting to cursing, accusations and insults? The reason I 'hide' behind policy is that I have no need to make arguments, as the policies and guidelines do that for me. I would not want to patronise you and copy out what is said on those pages. J Milburn 22:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Who's moaning? But there's no more to be said (at least not before you come up with any arguments or answer my questions, which will probably happen February 30). The picture remains for at least a week (I take it?), I can always re-add it if someone censors it away after that (some people obviously love doing that, interesting creatures). Actually, could you tell me were to report users who try to censor Wp? As substituting thinking with policies obviously is encouraged (haven't stopped you from breaking against WP:FAITH2 three times though, you're a tad bit selective when it comes to which policies to throw in people's faces and which to "forget", interestingly you show the same selectiveness when it comes to enforcing or not enforcing FU-laws (not that they're saying what you're saying they're saying, but...)), we could call it a crime against WP:CENSORED. Tarabunta 22:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're moaning, you won't shut up about these images in other articles. I am yet to see any questions I haven't answered, please do point them out. Re-adding the picture after it has been removed would count as disruption, which could well get you blocked, so I would not advise it. Nobody here is out to censor this image, will you please just accept the fact I am concerned about our fair use rules, and Wikipedia has my full support in being uncensored. If you honestly think that I am breaching all of these policies, we can seek a third opinion? J Milburn 10:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. Why aren't you tagging the images in Anime and Manga? 2. Do you have any proof that there are alternative free images and where are they? But proof perhaps is un-Wikipedian, Wp is faith-based. 3. Yes, good idea. You censor Wikipedia and I get banned. Then Wikipedia obviously is run by evil, power-hungry moralists, that would be interesting. Are you trying to compete with Conservapedia? 4. Ok, I add another image after one of your admin buddies have censored this. Tarabunta 13:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[Deliberately resetting indentation] In answer to point one, once again, I will give you all the argument I need to. This. In answer to point two, I do not, but I do not need it. To quote our fair use policy- "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (emphasis mine) Yet again, I am not censoring Wikipedia, I am making it more free. And, trust me, you aren't the first person to say that Wikipedia is comprised of facists, nor will anyone take you seriously. When this image is deleted, it will be deleted for being a violation of our fair use rules, not for being obscene, which it isn't, by any stretch of the imagination. If you are blocked, it will be because you are deliberately behaving disruptively, in order to undermine the policies and procedures of Wikipedia. J Milburn 15:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly support deleting image, SqueakBox 18:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good argument. Tarabunta 18:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The arguments have been elucidated by others and I have nothing to add, SqueakBox 19:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure Milburn is one person. And as this isn't a voting booth, I don't understand what you mean. Explain. 81.216.236.207 21:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

Fair use policies allow for the image to be used on an article on the series "Shota Mimi Love" and not on the article on Shotacon.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 09:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)