File talk:No-EU.png

message: Imagine someone had this for the US, the UK, the United Arab Emirates or Nepal. It is just bad manners. ROGNNTUDJUU! 20:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

message: I can see how this image is offensive to some, but I'm concerned that this controversy will lead to an improper deletion. "Controversial" is not a speedy deletion criterion, and indeed, none of the General or Image/Media CSD seem to apply.  The correct move here, then, is to move this to WP:IFD and vet the deletion properly.  I hope the admin who handles this CSD follows through on that.  Vslashg (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this image is needlessly divisive, but per Vslashg, I do not think it meets a speedy deletion criteria. I would may support a deletion if it is taken to WP:IFD, but have removed the speedy tag in the meantime. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 13:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is solely used for divisive user boxes that get speedy deleted. It was thus speedy deleted itself but someone just restored it. Please show some respect and find a way to express legitimate concern in a way that does not offend others. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Others may like to read the discussion between myself and ROGNNTUDJUU! at my talk page. Note that I don't support anti-EU sentiments, merely hold the opinion that this image does not meet any of the speedy deletion criterion for images. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 14:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no longer used on any templates, but is in use by a number of users (possibly those who subst'd a template prior to deletion). └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 14:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously using a loophole to violate wikipedia policy against divisive user boxes. ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is, as yet, no formal policy regarding user boxes. You may like to read Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes. The speedy deletion criteria refers only to templates, and the template which previously made use of this image has been deleted. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 14:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: See WP:NOT - Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED - "Wikipedia may contain content that some users find objectionable or offensive.  This is one such example - it does not violate any Wikipedia policy and therefore should remain.  Its deletion automatically suggests that the EU should only be encouraged and that NPOV can only exist so long as it does not criticise the EU.  That is not something that should be encouraged.  DJR (Talk) 16:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are millions of ways to express legitimate concerns about the EU or any other entity without crossing out official symbols, which may offend those represented. Imagine if it was a different flag: 40px  ROGNNTUDJUU! (who thinks that flags should not be crossed) 18:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Imagine? Well, by creating those images you didn't leave much room for imagination. Now just ask yourself a question: why did you create them? If you simply don't like UK/US for some reason, then it's your thing. If however you want to demonstrate something, then you're guilty of violating WP:POINT. Misza13 T C E 18:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Even though the purpose of the tag is not offensive, the image could indeed be considered offensive since many consider crossed-out flags to be an insult to said flag's nation. That being said, what I suggest is to find a more suitable substitute to the crossed-out flag. I suggest having the initials EU crossed out, that will prove that you are against the European Union as an institution and have nothing against Europe's flag in and of itself. It would be quite explicit without insulting someon'e flag. If anybody who knows how to make tags (I'm too lazy right now to make one myself), may he/she make an "EU crossed" image and I'll gladly replace the image of the flag with the image of the initials. -Voievod 19:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll agree with that suggestion, but I still fail to see why the flag is a problem for anyone. It seems quite a few of the people using this image come from EU Member States anyway. - JVG 15:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people feel represented by the flag, there is no need to disrespect them by crossing it out. ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which CSD? 

message: ...and at least two other users agree with ROGNNTUDJUU! and me: Kingboyk  and Rusty2005 . De mortuis... 19:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the suggestion for crossing out the EU initials though thats probably a better idea and people should consider using it instead. Discordance 20:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really want to get involved with this again, but the fact that "at least two users agree" has to be put in perspective by the fact that about 100 users disagree (based on the number of users using the flag / commenting in the IfD discussion).  Food for thought.  DJR (Talk) 21:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: ...so presumably that explains why this is limited to user pages?  I apologise for being naive, but surely your point agrees with everything that has been said in defence of this image?  DJR (Talk) 23:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This image was part of the Euroscepticism article up until sometime earlier today when ROGNNTUDJUU! removed it saying: "no need to have this here, it is offensive and there already is a photo below"--Metros232 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I wasn't supporting or arguing against the removal of the image from the article.  I was just stating that it was because some people had questions regarding its placement in articles.--Metros232 12:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This image shows disrespect...