User talk:Abu badali/Archive3: Difference between revisions

< User talk:Abu badali Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:41, 31 January 2007 editJohntex (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users21,715 edits New section← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:03, 31 January 2007 edit undoTechnoFaye (talk \| contribs)1,421 edits →violation of WP policy Next edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 536:		Line 536:
	==New section to your RfC==		==New section to your RfC==
	Hello, I have added a new section to your RfC. I really hope this will prove to be a constructive summary. Best, ]\<sup>]</sup> 06:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)		Hello, I have added a new section to your RfC. I really hope this will prove to be a constructive summary. Best, ]\<sup>]</sup> 06:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

			==violation of WP policy==

			you deleted my pic and, following WP policy to the letter, I had another admin undelete it and place it in the delete consideration list so others could comment on it first.

			You then bypassed that process and deleted it directly from the consideration list mere hours after it had been placed there, not giving others a chance to comment.

			please put it back per WP policy; that is what the image delete consideration list exists for.

			What you did is the equivalent of being a judge who found someone guilty, then bursting into the courtroom during the appeals hearing shouting "guilty! guilty!" and ordering the guards to drag the accused back to his cell and that the hearing be stopped.

			the proper thing to do would be to leave your MESSAGE about why you think the image should be deleted, not unilaterally disrupt and destroy the deletion review process.

			please respond on my user talk. note that "I think the image should be deleted" is insufficient response, as it ignores the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion is that the delete consideration list is the WP procedure for appealing a deletion, and you have disrupted that procedure.
			<br>] 17:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:03, 31 January 2007

Good catch

Hi. Good catch in the Cindy Crawford article about the movie poster. I must have been distracted or something. Thanks. Redux 15:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use images

When I initially joined Misplaced Pages, about 2 years back, I did upload a handful of images under the Fair Use criteria without fully understanding it. Eventually, most of them got rightfully deleted while a lot others remain. Your dedication to remove images tagged as Fair Use but not meeting the Fair Use criteria is inspiring. I will try remove the remaining Fair Use images in my free time. Keep up the good work! --Incman|वार्ता 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Guillotine choke

I forgot about that image, it's from the same series as these images in commons however I will admit I do not know the exact page it is located in in the choking manuals. –– Lid 14:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Barilko2.jpg

Next time becareful when tagging images with the fair use replacement tag like with Barilko2.jpg who was a hockey player who died in a plane crash 55 years ago and I doubt a free image can't be found, if there is any other images of him. Keep up the good work anyways. Thanks Jaranda 20:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ottl ima 010805.jpg

I hope you realize that this image is a bad faith nomination by another user. Kingjeff 23:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This might help to explain the situation. He has harassed me with several edits by gaming the system with reverts. Even though he technically didn't break the 3rr rule. But as far as this image is concerned, he followed me to the Bayern Munich Junior Team page where he found the image. He couldn't find anything to ligitimately revert on that page. So he's gaming the system trying to look for a technicallity so this image can be deleted. If this was a ligitimate or honest attempt on this image, then I wouldn't have made any arguement. Kingjeff 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Possibly offensive language in edit summary

Rein in the hyperbole, please; I am a Wiki administrator, I am quite familiar with policies and guidelines, and the phrase "ridiculous overprotectiveness" does not violate WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA in any way. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Images

I'm curious as to what you mean by "highly replaceble" for all these images you are tagging. You're using a "fair use criteria" as your reasoning, but I'm not seeing how this is applying to the images you are tagging. I just looked at a couple of them and they seem to come from screencaptures, and not from photographs that that are attempting to be sold, thus requiring a "free version" to be found. Bignole 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I can only assume when you say "more specific" you mean could I give you an example of an image. The first one I saw was the Rob Van Damme image; I think it was the one where he was holding two belts. I followed the source link back and it was from a set of images from one of the WWE shows. I was curious as to how this was something that needed to be replaced with a "free version," because it appeared to be a screencaptured provided by the WWE itself. Bignole 21:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That is what I am asking you. Where do you see that it is a "non-free license"? I'm curious if you are taking the time to find "equivalent" images that are "free," or if you are just tagging them because they aren't. Misplaced Pages wants free images, but sometimes there are not "equivalent" images that can be found or created that are free. I'm curious if you are taking the time to actually find an equivalent image, or if you are merely going through and tagging. I only say this because your contributions are riddled with nothing but tagging, and I hardly see anywhere where you have contacted all of the editors that submitted the works to find out if they have an equivalent. Not everyone goes through and finds every single Misplaced Pages policy, or even understands it for that matter, and if you do not properly explain what it is that you are telling them to do you cause conflict, as with Mikedk9109. You mentioned there was another version of the Rob Van Damme picture; where is it? I looked on his page but only saw the images you tagged. Bignole 22:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed that you don't upload images, or that you don't like images in any sense. What I said was that it appears you are merely going about tagging any image without actually looking into it. It appears that you expect people to run out and stalk these people till they can get an image of them doing something that actually fits into the article. Has someone created an image for RVD of him and his two belts? The image itself works with the article, because it's quite an accomplishment, and noting that with an image can help a page. Are you saying that people should by ticket after ticket till they get a picture of him with his two belts? I'm not up on the wrestling world, but if he doesn't currently have the belts any longer, and you needed an image of him with the belts, how do you propose creating that image? Bignole 23:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So now you think that articles should be restricted to a single image? As for it violating #8 on the fair use, if him winning two belts in the WWE is significant (I don't really watch wrestling so I can't begin to assume anything about it) then a photo of the event when he wins the second belt would be "significant" as described by fair use rule #8. Bignole 23:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand most of your image tags, because they appear to be profile pictures of people, but this "free image" question wouldn't really apply if it was an image of some person in the act of doing something. If the image is attempting to illustrate a significant event (i.e. Like RVD's double belts....if that was significant..again don't follow it) then it cannot be claimed that the same image could be "created", because it is an event that is in the past; unlike a living person that can easily have their picture taken by anyone (hence why I can agree with having RVD's infobox image replaced with that type of image). Bignole 23:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You said "holding a prize" wouldn't be significant...probably not if was just one, even though becoming a Champion is a significant accomplishment in other sports why not Wrestling, so him gaining two belts should be even more of an accomplishment in the wrestling world. An image of him accomplishing that goal is hardly "eye candy". It would be like images of wrestlers performing their "signature moves." It isn't eye candy, it's meant to help illustrate what is being said. I'm not trying to save the RVD image, it is just the first one I saw, thus it has been my example image as we've discussed this. Bignole 23:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems it would be harder to prove that it doesn't pass the FUC#8, as its "significance" can be rather opinionated. One can say "it isn't significant to the text" and someone else could say the opposite. What is "significant" to one might not be to the other; it isn't as clear as a profile picture not being "non-free". Bignole 00:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A good way to judge this is to read the article itself. If the event or belt is mentioned in passing as part of a paragraph, it most certainly is not notable enough. However, an entire paragraph dedicated to explaining the event and why the win was significant to the person's career, or even a whole section (i.e. several paragraphs) on this, would indicate that it is significant. It would likely be reasonable to use an image to depict something significant enough that the discussion spanned several paragraphs. For an event significant to have a single paragraph, it's debateable but I'd lean toward allowing it. Less than a full paragraph consisting of several sentences, it's clearly not significant enough. In any event, we need to limit the number of fair-use images. Some projects set the limit to a maximum of one per article. There's no hard and fast rule on this but admins tend to get antsy when there are more than two or three fair-use images per article, or more than one per page (that is, more than one per PgDn in your browser). --Yamla 02:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

In my understanding, it is possibly reasonable to use a fair-use image depicting when a person won a title as this depicts a specific event. The only debate is whether a free image could exist. However, it is not reasonable to create one in the future as the event only happened once. Here, I believe we should err more toward the permissive end of the spectrum. That said, we could only use a fair-use image attached to a paragraph specifically discussing that event and how important the event was to the person's career. Additionally, a hand-written fair-use rationale would have to explain that this was a one-time event of significance to the person's career. On the other hand, an image of a person just holding a prize would generally not be significant (it would be entirely suitable just to discuss this through text, the image adds nothing meaningful), however, nor would it not be replaceable. The person could again pick up the prize and have a photograph taken. Or the person's agent could release the image under a free license. The key point is that a person winning a prize or a belt or something is a significant event (well, assuming the prize or belt is significant to the person's career). A person holding a prize or belt that they won earlier is not a significant moment in that person's life. --Yamla 02:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Smallville images

There are two images on Smallville that are hidden. Please do not put an "abandoned" tag on them. They are hidden until the episodes that they correspond with air. Screencaptures were released early and I felt they shouldn't be viewed till the episode airs, sort of like plot summaries not being written till after the episode airs. And someone just put a "promotional" tag on there, it is just a film screenshot. Bignole 16:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

(Leatherface image)You don't have to be difficult all the time with the images, sometimes it's just as easy to contact the person that uploaded it and ask them. Bignole 16:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "what are they being used to" for the Smallville images? The title of the image corresponds with the title of the episode. Other than that you'll have to be more specific about what you are asking. Bignole 16:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Both are used in the same practice as every other episode image, as an image that is illustrating the episode. There is nothing "special" about them other than the same thing that is "special" about every other episode image on every other television show page. I merely "hid" them until the episode airs, one airs this thursday, and I think the other airs next thursday. I personally felt they shouldn't be shown until we have a plot to go with them. Bignole 16:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So what exactly are you claiming is wrong with the pictures? They have their sources provided, they aren't "eye candy" because it isn't like they are useless images, they are used to illustrate the episode just like a film uses an image to illustrate itself. You keep saying they are "unfree" images, but you cannot actually acquire personal images of filming taking place. Screenshots do not fall under the "unfree image" of "easily replaceable with a free version" as they are images depicting fictional settings and characters, and kind of restricted access. Bignole 16:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What part of "Screenshot" isn't making it? It has nothing to do with "unfree images;" it's a screenshot. There can be a million different screenshots, each one "replaceable" by the next, but the fact is that they would all come from the same source. Your argument makes no sense. "Ask yourself, can it be easily replaceable"....Yes, Sure...so could the next screenshot. That is why it is a screenshot. When I say "there is nothing special about it" I mean that I do not plan on including any other picture besides the one you tagged for that episode. "Special" as in there isn't something specific (other than it being the image for the episode) that is going to be used for. I.E. We aren't using one image for the episode and another image for something that happens in the episode that was significant and needs to be shown. Another example would be the episode "Sneeze". Now, One could have used an image to illustrate the episode as a whole, and then gone on to use another image of Clark and his "superbreath". This could easily create a problem because there is no need for two images, especially if one could do the job, hence the reason the one used is the one of him using his superbreath, because that was what the episode was about. "Rage" is about Oliver Queen using some type of drug to increase his strength and invulnerablity, hence the screenshot of him using a needle; "Static" is about a Phantom ZOne criminal (Batista) that is looking for Clark, hence the image of Batista. Bignole 16:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You aren't even making sense in your argument. First you say "if it can be replaced then it isn't free", which means you think it should be replaced. THen you go into removing it period. The only reason you are even arguing about this is because the image was hidden from view until the episode aired. That doesn't take away from it's "freeness". You are attempting to apply one policy to everything and you cannot do that. There are other things at work here, like the fact that this is a fictional television show article, and not some living breathing thing whose image can be easily attained/created. Bignole 16:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering that I'm following Misplaced Pages's policy on screenshot sourcing, I won't worry about it. Considering that it has been accepted practice to include an image for episodes, I won't worry about it. If you think that episodes should not have an image then I think you should take that up with every other television show episode that has an image, here's a though, why not start with all those Featured Lists of Episodes that have an image for every single episode. I believe there is a Featured List for the Simpson's episodes, and that's something like 17 seasons and counting, that's a lot of images for one page. You are trying to impose a policy for one set of articles that can't always apply to every type of article. These are not images of things that "can be easily obtained in a free manner". They aren't images of "living people or non-fictional objects" that any person with a camera can just walk up and take a photo of. These are images of fictional things that can only be obtained one way. Bignole 23:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Joe Paterno Fair Use edit

Abu badali,

I believe that the magazine cover image of the December 1986 Sports Illustrated that you removed from the Joe Paterno article is relevant to the article in question. I also believe that it is allowable Fair Use material under the very rule that you said it was disallowed under.

7. An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then fair use may apply.

While there is not an entire subsection of the article devoted to said magazine issue, the issue does hold significance:

"In December of 1986, Paterno was named by Sports Illustrated as their "Sportsman of the Year". He was the first college coach to be so honored."

The December 1986 issue of Sports Illustrated was the first issue in which a college football coach was awarded "Sportsman of the Year". Furthermore:

"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers
to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question,

with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above,

on the English-language Misplaced Pages, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.
...
Note: It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used directly in connection with the publication of this image."

The image in question seems to comply with these rules. If I have misunderstood something, please do not hesitate to let me know. I will not use the image in question until I can confirm with you that you agree that Fair Use applies. If you will not agree, then I will not use the image; I am not looking for trouble, just clarification. - Godfoster 15:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to get a life

The source on this was very obvious. Try adding things to the project, not just wasting other's time.

EuropeNationsByReligion_1097_Shepard's_europe_mediterranean_1097.jpg (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_shepherd_1923.html)Template:I--> Specifically: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/europe_mediterranean_1097.jpg

This is really picyune and petty action on your part—and 'Oh-so-transparent' inthat I tramped on your strict anal interpretation on the Fair use Images for deletion yesterday— proud of yourself? Don't be! Try figuring out why we do or care about somethings—it may help you make informed judgements and decisions instead of blindly applying a guideline. Like that soccer player image, this is fine in the USA hosted en.wp where both are in full conformance with US law. Template:IThing I wonder, is whether your heart is in providing information or in being a rules mechanic. If the latter, try studying law and let the rest of us get on with the project. Sheesh! // FrankB 20:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Being ok with US Law is far for enough for an unfree image to be used on Misplaced Pages. It must be ok with Misplaced Pages's policy on unfree material: WP:FUC. I don't know exactly which image you're talking about, but "soccer player images" usually fail the very first item of this policy, that says that unfree images can only be used when a free alternative can't be created. --Abu Badali 21:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, try to avoid edit summaries like this.

Best regards, --Abu Badali 21:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Replys and drains on my time

In reply, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Admin_Act_seems_questionable. That first paragraph is being interpreted way too broadly. If you truly believe that to be a right and proper interpretation of the implied 'reasonable amount of time' that should be in there, then the inmates are truly taking over the asylum, and wikipedia will definitely soon be seeing the last of me as an editor. I don't have time to bicker and quarrel over legal acts that benefit the project made in good faith. Any other action which diminishes that result by you is intolerable... including being a sea-lawyer or rules mechanic over trivial minor matters—perhaps in particular such acts. Template:I And do keep in mind that guidelines are NOT POLICY. I'm interested in a class product, and so should you be. See my comments on User_talk:Carnildo#Missing_information. Who in the hell has time for this picyune crap? And my edit summary was calculated to call it as I see it so do take a look in the mirror I provided you with that, and think about how your acts here impact other's time. Don't be a time stealer, but someone that adds value. As it is, I traded emails, including one at length with KingJeff on getting GNU or PD images to replace that one so that everyone can be 'happy', if that applies in this juvenile exercise of ill-judgement and ill-will. In the iterim, the article is now going to be missing a photo that is defacto in the public domain for all intents and purposes. Doesn't that strike you a bit wrong that you can maintain an strict rules oriented action based on a rule which never had an existance as a rule, but is one guideline among many—many of which are in conflict? If you care so little for your own time, try feeling guilty about wasting mine. I have far too little free time for this nonsense. // FrankB 21:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

On the way to cross-post this, I rescanned WP:FUC... Someone has really taken things to a ridiculous level with that first sentence or two. I don't and won't ever give a fart whether any other languge's encyclopedia can freely translate ours... which is all that the mission statement (the intro as is were) boils down to in pratical terms. Let those working the other languages take care of themselves. We have enough to do worrying about getting the English version right. Removing content is not right, but self-defeating. // FrankB 21:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't figure out where this is filed for comments. Doesn't appear to be () linked to any image discussion pages, so I figure it needs no further comment. Template:IPlease revert your template. I make it a policy to not revert, particularly, in a matter like this wherein I'm a principle editor. I've annoted the record with the above links already. Cheers // FrankB 23:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sorry, and heads-up (Images)

Thanks for the above requested fix up. Why didn't you point out this over all matter was a new policy when I'd said otherwise above. (I gave Jimbo an earful on the tagging for Policy being too similar to the ever present endless verbiage in guidelines as an aside to the WP:AN thread linked above.) So maybe that little good will come out of all that hot air.

(Sigh) Apparently some apologies are in order--you must have been patrolling a lot of images, not just taking juvenile aim because I spoke in defense of Kingjeff's image, though your timing leaves that open to question as well.

This talk page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons. Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2

If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message.

Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient.

Nominator: Please consider placing the template:

{{subst:Db-noimage-notice|User talk:Abu badali/Archive3|header=1}} ~~~~

on the talk page of the author.

Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.
This page was last edited by TechnoFaye (contribs | logs) at 18:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago)

I'm removing the tagging on Image:German1 shepherd German States Before and since the French Revolution I Baden .jpg which you tagged that night as well. I'm usually good (Anal, really) about adding links. Sorry—the bad blood on the image had me figuring you were one of the edit warring partisans.

Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient.

Nominator: Please consider placing the template:

{{subst:Db-noimage-notice|User talk:Abu badali/Archive3|header=1}} ~~~~

on the talk page of the author.

I assume there is no review process on these, so I can clear the tags on these as I add the source links should any others show up. Do acquaint yourself with the University of Texas Library in general, and the key Atlases and authors of same. 'Shepard' should have been good enough, may he RIP!

Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient.

Nominator: Please consider placing the template:

{{subst:Db-noimage-notice|User talk:Abu badali/Archive3|header=1}} ~~~~

on the talk page of the author.

When did this policy go into place??? (I've been off in real life, and if my car hadn't been totaled, would be still) Hopefully Jimbo is finally growing a backbone and sees the matured project needs some consistency. Best regards // FrankB 14:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Signature suggestion

More on courtesy to others and respect for their time...

Suggest you sign off and sign on so as to grab the UC version (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Abu_Badali&redirect=no) of the signature name you are using and redirect to this page. See example http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:FrankB&redirect=no. This suggestion implimented by many, I credit Mgm for the same advice nearly a year back now. Best wishes // FrankB 21:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Another Image Question

Sorry to bug you, but if on an image page it says "This photo is public", does that meen it's free? 75pickup (talk · contribs) 01:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Indian politician images

I would like to understand your rationale behind tagging all Indian politician photos with {{Replaceable fair use}}. Much hard work has gone into uploading those photos. When a replaceable image is found, the fair-use image can be deleted and new image used. But deleting all the images makes no sense to me. These are photos owned by the government of India. They should rightfully release all the photos like the U.S. government does. I honestly don't believe using them as fair-use is a violation of Misplaced Pages image policy. Can you please revert your edits and have a discussion first? -- Ganeshk (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

They are indeed a violation of Misplaced Pages image policy, at least for any politician who is still alive. Please see WP:FUC. We are not permitted to use copyrighted non-freely-licensed images to depict living people. --Yamla 17:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Yamla. Let me check the relavant policy. I have still asked guidance at ANI per below. -- Ganeshk (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I went through WP:FUC. I could not find the specific sentence about living people. Could you please quote the relavant sentence? Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You should be aware of this request on ANI. -- Ganeshk (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It is sad to see you continuing to tag fair-use photos for deletion without proper discussion. and for examples. -- Ganeshk (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you follow #1 strictly, there would no reason to allow for uploads on Misplaced Pages. Images add value to articles. It is not always feasible to find free-images all the time. ~~What do you expect from #8? Do you want the politician to be dancing?~~ -- Ganeshk (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have responsed on ANI. It may not always be feasible to find free images all of the time but for subjects where it is possible, Misplaced Pages has decided the choice is between a free image or no image at all. There are still plenty of places where free images cannot be created, however. For example, Natalee Holloway. Or images of fictional characters. --Yamla 18:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has decided the choice is between a free image or no image at all is simply not true. In fact, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights says All original Misplaced Pages text is distributed under the GFDL. Occasionally, Misplaced Pages articles may include images, sounds, or text quotes used under the U.S. Copyright law "fair use" doctrine. It is preferred that these be obtained under the most free (libre) license (such as the GFDL or public domain) practical. In cases where no such images/sounds are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available). Please don't mis-state the facts. Jenolen 23:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The full quote is "It may not always be feasible to find free images all of the time but for subjects where it is possible, Misplaced Pages has decided the choice is between a free image or no image at all". This is indeed the case, please see WP:FUC, first criteria. --Yamla 23:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Looks like an apology is in order. I jumped to the conclusion you were taking the deletion decisions unialterally. I went through all the links you kindly provided. I guess if Jimbo feels this way (as I had read), that's the way to go. :) Again appreciate your help. Now I have go back to learning the fairuse policy once again. -- Ganeshk (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith

I'm going to assume good faith on your part, and point out that you appear to be overlooking the "After adding this tag, please notify the uploader..." with your agressive "replaceable fair use/FUC#1" campaign. Please do not overlook that part, as it is contrary to the Misplaced Pages spirit, and could be interpreted as poor behavior on your part.

Put another way, if you're going to challenge my contributions to Misplaced Pages, please have the courtesy to tell me. Thanks! Jenolen 23:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Renato Aragão

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Renato Aragão. Please be careful not to remove content from Misplaced Pages without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Scottandrewhutchins 05:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I know we haven't got along in the past before, but I wanted to thank you for reverting that guy's vandalism on my userpage a couple of days ago. I appreciate it.--CyberGhostface 20:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Images

Dear Abu you are removing pics, but i fixed your request already? i dont know the problem i suggest you fix it yourself and not delete the images yes,

Willie200

Notifying uploaders

I just got a note on my talk page from a guy about an image I deleted which he was surprised by, as he apparently didn't get a talk page notification. I've seen a bunch of your notifications on people's talk pages, so I know you usually do these, but do make sure to give one every time; it's important that people get a chance to comment before a deletion. --Robth 23:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

For reference, the image was Image:HansReiser.gif -- Dgies 04:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops...!

Should I not have deleted that template? - Lucky 6.9 02:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputed images

Does it matter whether someone leaves a message on their talk page when they dispute whether a picture is replaceable? I'm not talking about any of my pictures but I've been taking a look at your contributions and was fairly surprised by this. It doesn't say that you must write on the talk page. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ceca raznatovic 36.jpg

Ok, I'm listening. As far as #1 of WP:FUC goes, I don't think a "free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" in the sense that I didn't see one or don't have one at my disposal. As for WP:FU#Counterexamples, it is fairly obvious that the purpose of putting this image isn't merely showing "what this person looks like". The entire turbofolk genre has a very pronounced visual component and this image showing the early look of turbofolk adds a lot to the quality and comprehension of the entire article.Zvonko 04:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Pelle Lindbergh

Hey. This person is not a living one. I reverted the disputed tag on Image:Pellelindbergh.jpg, because I believe you mistook this person to be alive? I added a fair use rationale in any case. Prolog 07:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfC

A couple editors, furious with me for daring to suggest their images are replaceable, have mounted a campaign of petty harrassment against me; their latest move is filing an entirely friviolous RfC. I hope you can comment if you have a chance. Thanks. —Chowbok ☠ 07:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Abu badali, I've never met you in the past but please do not allow yourself to be misled by the complaint of the disgruntled editor. I would welcome anyone's contributions at the RfC but please study the issue carefully before acting. Thanks, --Irpen 20:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. I wouldn't want you to comment without investigating first, nor did I mean to suggest that. —Chowbok ☠ 00:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Crazy 8's Article

Hmm... your edits to this page are not improving it at all! I'm going to, once again, assume good faith on your part, and hope that the reason you are being so very, very strict on this obscure Misplaced Pages article is because you have a genuine desire to improve the article... and not because, gasp!, it was created by someone you have a separate disagreement with. Because, you know, that would be pretty petty, and very un-Wikipedialike. In fact, you've taken what was a pretty good starter article on a regional band, and destroyed it with your edits. This, too, is contrary to the Misplaced Pages spirit of cooperation and consensus. But, I know you would never operate in a way that is contrary to that. So, I guess I'm puzzled by your actions here. Oh well... it was a good article, for a while. Thanks for your "help"! Jenolen 03:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Coreylat.jpg

Can you please explain to me why you feel this image is replaceable? It seems to me that any photo a place on this site is going to get tagged by you....

Ta-ni-ni 11:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Recently you reverted my edits explaining how a number of images were not replacable and told me to follow proper guidelines. I then progressed to opening up a discussion on a talk page of one of the articles to open up debate. The image was then DELETED within 24 hours. This is incredibly sneaky, and frustrating for people like me who are trying to play by these new rules. I would reccomend that next time this happens you do not revert unless the person refuses to discuss the matter, because images (and their talk pages) could get deleted in the time it takes for a discussion to occur. We are trying to make Misplaced Pages a better place, but if actions such as these continue to happen, a lot of good hard working Wikipedians may become too frustrated to continue, at the projects integrity will suffer. Now I will have to go through all the trouble of re-uploading the images, and then having to debate them once again when one of you warn me about re-uploading deleted images! -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The images that were deleted were similar images. Here is why they are not replacable (including the one you just tagged as being so.) They are promotional images depicting the team for a past event. The event is in the past. We can no longer aquire images from a past event. Therefore they are not replacable. The image is being used for an article profiling this past event. We cannot replace the picture with a newer one, because it would not make sense to use a photo from 2006-07 for an event from 2005-06. We have already determined with Image:Bobrae-premier.jpg that photos of living persons from the past are not replacable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I had opened a discussion, but the image was deleted before anyone could put any input in. That's the problem with the method that is being used, and is something I would like to see addressed. But anyways, these images are of curling teams, and curling teams change over time. Think of it this way. If we had a picture of the 1995-96 Ottawa Senators, would you put it up for deletion saying it was replacable? Certainly not! You cannot replace an image of a team from a past season. Curling is much the same. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say it is essential to illustrate the people involved in an event. The images can also be used to show the evolution of a team over the time, and therefore can be used in the historical context. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. How are we supposed to know what a team looked like if we don't have a picture of them? -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but we can't get "free" images from a past event. That's why these fair use one's will have to do. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Got your email

Hey, I doubt the photographer in Switzerland knows Portuguese but I do think the german url you sent me will help. I will let you know as soon as I get more information on the results of my license inquiries and show you what gets done. If you know someone who speaks German, it might be helpful but I may not have to go to that point. I want the guy to know what he's doing if he licenses a photo though. I'm making sure I get him the information although I think he'd just like to hurry up and be done. – Bebop 22:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I got the CC license on the photos designated by the photographer. He didn't like having to "read books", as he called it, about the subject because he doesn't have time but he wrote out a permission for CC by SA 2.5 in an email to me on two photos we'd had up of his. I appreciate your offer to help previously. These are the two photos from Switzerland showing Tav Falco singing in the Tav Falco's Panther Burns article. I'm checking on other photos I've worked on in the past so I'm not stopping just with these two. Thanks again. – Bebop 18:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

image criteria

This is the image Image:The Runners.jpg. --Darkneonflame 22:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ceca raznatovic 36.jpg

So, what should be placed as a source? And while, you're at it why were the other two images taken down in the middle of discussion? The source info may have been removed in the fair use discussion but there was no warning message or anything.

Seeing that the source for this image has been listed by you as "missing", am I going to find it suddenly taken down too. Zvonko 01:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Chad Wackerman

The image is a promotional image of Chad Wackerman - offered for that purpose - there is no free image available that I could locate - or I would have used it - if one exists - FIND IT. This is a correctly tagged and used image and should not be deleted. Tvccs 03:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As indicated above...get a life

Some of the images you are marking have been provided specifically to me for use on Misplaced Pages -this is ABSURD and harassment. Tvccs 04:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You have marked numerous images provided to me directly BY the artists for use on Misplaced Pages with their direct permission - you appear to believe there is NO such thing as a valid promotional image, and that is not Misplaced Pages policy, period. I am going to ask for an Rfc - this is ridiculous. Tvccs 05:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Just alerting you to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Abu badali -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-free photos of bands

There is an interesting debate going on at Image talk:Wheatus 2005.jpg (regarding Image:Wheatus 2005.jpg). It has a potential effect on many other images, and I'm really not sure where I fall on this. If you'd like to chime in, your input would be valued. All the best, – Quadell 14:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your undeletion of Image:Bob rae posed 2006 campaign.JPG

Zanimum, why did you undeleted Image:Bob rae posed 2006 campaign.JPG? Did you consulted the admin who deleted it? And why do you believe the image is "not replaceable"? Best regards, --Abu Badali 22:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

None of the flickr photos of Rae are CC-BY, I've yet to hear back from anyone I contacted, urging relicensing. Because a random Wikinewsie applied to attend a Liberal event early the campaign, and didn't show up, we're unlikely to be able to get into this weekend's leadership vote. Rae will either become the leader of the federal opposition party, and be extremely hard to get a hold of, or he will lose, and disappear into private retirement. Additionally, his campaign manager personally encouraged the image's usage. Until Monday, there's no hope in heck I'd be able to converse with them, to ask them to relicense the image, due to the busy last minute campaigning. -- Zanimum 22:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your refusal to explain your image claims reflects poorly on the claims you make and on youself

Please note that if the uploader believes in good faith that the image is usable under the FU clause and the uploader provided a gf rationale for such use and gave a source, the image may still be questionalbe, true enough, as the uploader may have made a judgement error. However, the courtesy and common sense demands that if you find this to be the case and you question the image's rationale, you provide the uploader and the rest of the interested users with the explanation at image talk on why you think his/her rationale is faulty. Such explanation belongs to an image talk similar to the dispute points raised by the user who tags the article as uncompliant with Misplaced Pages NPOV policy. No such tag can be added without explanation and there is no single case when I removed the tag when such explanation was provided by you or whoever.

Your dispute claim should address specific rationale given by the uploader as applies to the specific article rather than be a generic sentence pasted into hundreds of pages as done frequnetly by Quadell. Without such elaboration your FUD claim is meaningless and impossible to address by the user however much he is willing to satisfy you. Similarly to other disputed tag, your favored tag is meaningless if not accompanied with a specific explanation that is likely different in each an every case. Besides, using generic Quandel style "dispute" via pasting the same paragraph to hundreds of pages is also incivil. But completely disregarding the given fair use claim is worse than uncivil, it is disruptive.

I did not remove a tag in a single case where you or anyone gave an explanation on what exactly you dispute at the image talk. I did remove the tag in cases where no such explanation was given. If you want your tags kept, provide an image specific explanation at talk on why the FU claim is invalid rather than run sterile edit wars to force your tags in.

Please note that the current wording of the RFU tag that dictates how it is to be dealt with (responded with RFUD and never removed under any circumstances) is placed at the tag arbitrary, is not dictated by any policy and was not achieved by consensus. The tag being protected impedes the possibility of clearing this up. The tag disputes the compliance with policies the same way as the NPOV tag as explained above. Both are subject to 3RR. There are very narrow cases where 3RR does not apply outside of simple vandalism. Such are removal of good faith AfD tags, true. But AfD is in no way similar to RFU. An equivalent to AfD in image splace would be IfD. The analog to RFU in article space is "PROD" and note that PROD may be removed at any time and may not be replaced. Nevertheless, I do see an argument to treat RFU similar to POV or ACCURACY tags. But no way you can make a case for similarity between AfD and RFU. As such, RFU certainly falls under 3RR policy. At the same time, it should not of course be removed or added by sterile edit warring. Removal is acceptable, similar to NPOV or ACCURACY tags, if there seems to me a clear majority formed on the particular case or the tagger failed to explain his/her problems with the image. This is exactly the case why your tags where removed. Taking no position on the issue of the good faith of their placement, such objections are unexplained and cannot possibly be addressed, unless the image lacks source, rationale or rationale/source are frivolous.

Also, from the mere common sense it follows that if the fairuse image has an elaborate and/or self-evident rationale, whoever questions it needs to explain how s/he disputes such rationale. As such, the tagger should initiate a discussion and tagging the page without initiating such discussion is both uncivil and meaningless as users would have no idea what exactly is disputed. Yes, the burden lies with the FUI uploader to justify the image. However, once justification is provided, the common courtesy as well as common sense requires the tagger to state what exactly is the problem if he sees any in a non-frivolous, non-generic way but specifically in connection with the image in question. --Irpen 03:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In case you have different standards from most people on how you like people addressing you, many people do find being addressed by generic templates disrespectful or worse. This has been addressed at the RfC as well.

Also, I did not revert your tag readdition expecting you to add your comments to the given rationales at talk pages. However, I am a bit surprised that you resorted to all sorts of editing activities except providing such explanations? Not only I will not delete the RFU tags if they are properly explained, I will restore them if someone else deletes. I am looking forward for your good faith explanations of what's wrong with the original rationale that is tied to each specific case made to a specific image for a specific article.

Finally, I notice edits like . It took me less than a minute in each case to find the sources, exactly one minute that you were too lazy to spend. This suggests that you are doing this for any reason other than address the image problems because in the latter case you would have addressed them in the case where it takes so little time. I've seen people around here with similar attidudes and I reserve my judgement until I give a full opinion at the RfC. --Irpen 04:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

By source we mean the image's author andr copyright holder. The links you provided where to sites that happen to be using the image. But the do not seem to identify the image's owner. One of the sites, photobucket.com, hosts images uploaded by anyone. As a general rule of thumb, images found on Google are not autommatically promotional, and we shouldn't use them unless we're sure of it's origins. But thanks for the effort. Best regards --Abu Badali 04:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your not willing to look for sources yourself and instead resorting to content removal because such activity appeal to you under circumstances is the least of my conserns and was mentioned as a side note. Users more committed to Misplaced Pages will do that all right. I am more concerned with the rest of the said above. --Irpen

Please, WP:AGF. I have no idea where to start to discover where the image comes from. Searching on google, as you see, doesn't help much. --Abu Badali 04:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it telling that you prefer to discuss only the least of my concerns conveniently ommitting much more significant issues. As for AGF, it explicitely points out that such policy "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Now I expect you to say again something on the crucial issues above particularly your refusal to use talk to explain your image dispute.

I will quote User:Postdlf, an active participant of these discussions and, besides, a copyright lawyer who said:

"There are no categorically replaceable images. The only fair use images of living people that are in fact replaceable are those that "adequately provide the same information" that could reasonably be provided by a free alternative. This can't be determined without a consideration of the image content in relation to the use in the article." Postdlf 05:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoted by Irpen at 05:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Such considerations cannot be made in the edit summary and the summary is also hidden in history. There are good reasons why we have talk pages. Also, such considerations cannot be universally made by the claim of the one template applied to thousands of images in thousdands of contexts. Neither it can be made Quandell style by posting the same expert to the hundreds of image talk pages. --Irpen 05:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The edit summary will not get hidden in history if the tag was not removed. You criticise Quadell (and myself) for repling the concerns at talk pages with using a repeated text, but do you notice the disputes are almost always the same? Most of the time it is Either "Its a valid promotionional image" or "'I have permission to use this image" or "The copyright holder will not sue us". Rarely, the replaceability is really disputed. I see nothing wrong in using a template reply. I would even support the idea of creating a FAQ for such claims (hmm.... good idea...) . --Abu Badali 05:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You assertions are false. First, the edit summary is not visible by the user who gets to the image from the article. Second, disputes are very different AND fairuse claim's validity very much depends on the specific articles. Your lack of desire explain your disputes is clearly unproductive similarly to lack of desire to search for sources when they can be found within a reasonable effort. --Irpen 05:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me second Irpen - there is abundant reason to question good faith, and the above examples, along with many others on the Rfc page, point to why. If you have no idea of how to discover an original source, spend your time learning something constructive rather than your penchant for mass destruction. Tvccs 04:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted MMA images

Hi Abu badali, you commented on Image talk:Tatsuya Kawajiri.jpg that the image does not qualify under fair use because it does not satisfy "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." I asked what this means at the WikiProject because I can not find a free image for it. What do you think about other similarly copyrighted images such as: Image:Fedor.jpg, Image:Mirko Filipovic.jpg, Image:Wanderlei de Silva.JPG, Image:Matt-hughes.jpg, Image:GeorgesStPierre.jpg and so on -- do you think they are fair use or not? Thanks. Shawnc 17:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Onetwelve.jpg

Also, if all of my images are so bad, how come this image isn't tagged? Image:Onetwelve.jpg...it is the same copyright as mine... Ta-ni-ni 02:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Help! our page is being vandalised!

Hi There, I dunno who else to contact regarding this but our page: wikimusicguide has been vandalised with lewd and inappropriate text. My friend took it out but we hope that it won't happen again. I took down the IP address of the culprit: 222.153.22.66. I hope you can block this addy or warn him/her. Our page is very important and I would understand if you would feel the same for all the pages youhave done. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sugarhoneyicedtea (talk • contribs) 15:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Can you please tag articles with {{Rfu-c}}

Many images that you've tagged and had deleted barely get any input from users outside yourself and the closing administrator. Could you please tag articles with {{Rfu-c}} so if you've missed something, like the subject is a recluse, dead, or that its a historic photograph, people will be notified of it. At least the article watchers will know about it. This is something which fellow image tagged, User:Chowbok does quite well and I find it helpful. - hahnch e n 16:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

November 9

Greetings. I see you recreated Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 9 November 2006. It doesn't currently have any images in it. Do you still need it, or can I re-delete it? – Quadell 18:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding User:Irpen

I have started a thread regarding User:Irpen at WP:ANI (here). Feel free to comment. Sincerely, --Oden 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Re tagging and stalking

You have been repeatedly asked to provide meaningful good-faith explanations when you challenge the images with various tags. Unless you provide the tags with the specific explanations at the image talk pages, they will be removed.

If the purpose of your activity is the removal of information from the Misplaced Pages articles, such activity is unencyclopedic and has no place in Misplaced Pages. If the purpose of your activity is Misplaced Pages's being both informative and compliant with the policies, which permit fairuse on case by case basis, your unexplained tags do not help to achieve that goal. Worse, they contribute to the perception of the uploaders as being attacked for no apparent reason by the user who makes it his main activity to pick on users selecting them for various unrelated reasons and dig into months of their work in order to harass them and discourage them from contributing. Such activity is strictly prohibited by WP:Harassment and for a good reason.

Wikistalking is defined as the editing habit aimed at "causing annoyance or distress to another contributor" regardless of their "stated goal". Standard methods of image patrolling, if this is what you are interested in doing, are many. Some patrol alphabetically, some by topic, some by licence and some at random. It is also acceptable to check the contributions of the known problem users. This is not what you have been doing either. You stalked the editors you chose as your victims for whatever reasons going through the months of their contributions with an exclusive aim to avenge their disagreement with you on totally different matters as has been shown conclusively at your RFC and its talk.

However, your stalking is a separate issue from refusal to add tags and it will be addressed separately as appropriate. For now, I would like first of all to remind you that tags that challenge the specific image's being appropriate for a specific article have to be content and image specific as the user who ascerts the image's usability needs to know what exactly you dispute. The unexplained tags are pure disruption. Before you continue your tagging acitivity, as I can see this is the only activity that interests you in Misplaced Pages, you are requested to add non-generic case by case explanation to the images that you already tagged. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. --Irpen 07:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Geez, A.B.

I don't think you're completely worthless. You made me a better editor. Granted, it was taking a steel bar and smashing and twisting it until it bends to your will, but at least your cruel tutelage had some postive things come out of it. Know I know how to be craftly and manipulative. I fear admins no more! And you always gave service with a smile. Right before you slaughtered my images.

But I don't think you're helping your case with that grotesque demonic pic on your profile :/

Oh and did you see? Some guy gave me a special barnstar for sticking it to the man. I don't know whether to act smug or be really embarassed.

-User:Johnnyfog 9:10AM 12.12.06

Can you check whether this image is properly sourced

Hi, can you check whether this image is properly sourced: Image:Georgezimmer.jpg ? Dionyseus 01:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you quickly checked the history you would see someone has deleted my fair use rationale. I'll restore it asap as i always state fair use and source Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Candace kita.jpg

The website where it states that it is promo photo and can be used for any purpose is no longer available so please feel free to delete the image. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 16:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

green day image

WHY was the green day image taken off its page? it was under promo photo and had the correct license and rationale. U2 has an image like that, yet THEIRS isn't taken off. how is this image replaceable? obviously it sint because they're havent been any scrumshus 23:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:FU. Did you provide any evidence that it would be impossible to create a replacement image of this band? That is, that the band has broken up? If not, it is a direct violation of WP:FU. Note that the U2 image is similarly marked for removal. Even if it were not, the fact that another image violates WP:FU is grounds to fix that image, not to violate Misplaced Pages policy elsewhere. --Yamla 23:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note, under some interpretations, while a band may not have formally broken up, they may still be in a "cooling off" period, or "period of the drummer not speaking to the guitar player." These bands, while not officially dissolved, may in fact qualify for fair use, under current Misplaced Pages policy. Consult your local fair use discussion board for further updates.

Jenolen 11:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam.png

You earlier tagged an image I uploaded spam.png as violating fair use because free alternatives exist. I searched around and replaced and updated the image with a newer version. This version complies with wikipedia policy. The software shown is freely available under a free license as well as the source it was obtained from releases it's content under the GNU public license. The image and it's description can be found here. Image:Spam.png SirGrant 01:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A variety of things

1) If you know nothing about the The Crazy 8's, perhaps other articles on Misplaced Pages are more deserving of your attention? I, however, was a West Coast college radio station program director, and experienced much of the content in that article first hand. Yep, it's slowly slogging toward appropriate sourcing, and as soon as we can get some Oregon types interested (which, by the way, having the article in existence is a good start), we should see the content of the article improve. Not all pages reach featured status in a day. Let this one simmer.

2) I re-uploaded that Giuliana picture because it was part of the inappropriate User:Betacommand "Oops, I deleted all these images and never read the talk pages" incident of 11/27/2006. Okay, his bad --- but repeated requests to reinstate the image got nowhere. The talk page did get archived; I waited a while for things to cool off, I re-uploaded, ignoring the roadblock "improper fair use" tag, since I intended to make a proper fair use claim; and made that claim. Asked someone to read it. Put up the "holdon" tag to prevent speedy deletion -- put on the "Replaceable Fair Use Disputed" tag -- and, what do you know, it was speedily deleted anyway. So, I guess there can be no discussion on that image. After all, what's right RIGHT NOW is right forever? (Well, I mean, what was right when I originally uploaded the image, and had an admin make sure it was tagged and sourced properly, that was "right" right then, too. Tough to keep up with rules that can be changed on a moments notice.

3) I really thought you needed to post some sort of response at the "Request for Comment" in your name. It told me a lot that you wouldn't/didn't...

4) Let me give you some free advice; it's advice John Wooden's father gave to him: Never cheat, never steal, never lie. Don’t whine, don’t complain, don’t make excuses. Just do the best you can. Your life will be a lot better for it. Think about how you can apply that to your Misplaced Pages editing. Are your edits something you're proud of? At the end of the day, do you sit back in the Badali-chair, and sigh, "Ahh, I made Misplaced Pages better today." Please don't pick fights for "fun." And cool it on the WikiStalking. It's just really, really uncool.

Jenolen 11:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline

Hi. I'm posting this on your talk page because I have noticed that you are often active in one or more aspects of our image use and/or image deletion processes.

I would like to propose Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline as a guideline to detail the necessary components of a "non-free image use", or "fair use", rationale. At present, it's kindof a moving target. Some image description pages have a detailed, bulleted rationale, while others have a one sentence "this picture identifies the subject". Patroling Category:All images with no fair use rationale, I've seen image pages that explicitly have something of a rationale that have been nominated for a speedy.

This is not an attempt to change or influence the image use policy in any way - and I would like to steer it away from becoming a rehash of the arguments over recent changes to the fair use policy. The only purpose of this guideline is to assist users who upload fair use images in correctly and adequately documenting what they feel to be the rationale for using the images.

So I would like for us to formalize what is required. I have also created Template:Fair use rationale and I would like to propose that we use it or something similar as a template to assist users in creating an acceptable rationale. I have no particular attachment to the proposal as it stands now - I have created it only as a starting point. Please see Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline and the associated talk page to give your thoughts and ideas. Thank you. BigDT 19:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

OH PLEASE

You know damn well the only reason your after my images is because you want revenge for your little buddy Chowbok. Quit it right now, STOP IT! STOP THE MASSIVE TAGGING OF IMAGES.--Jack Cox 15:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect image tag

You posted to foregoing to my talk page, however the image in question was uploaded by User:Lightintheshadows. I have, in fact, never seen it before. - Jord 16:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Robert bertrand.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Robert bertrand.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 15:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read this

It fits your behaviour exactly --Jack Cox 19:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Image:Camjackson.jpg

Ok, I recently added the Canadian politician copyright tag to it. Is this not the right copyright tag? I know it failed fair use before I put the tag on it, but can we still not use it with the tag on it, assuming the tag is right? --James Duggan 20:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Alexandre Frota

Hi. I notice you've made edits in the past to the Alexandre Frota article. I've expressed several concerns about the article on its Talk page; please take a moment to read them and help edit the article to meet Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, or it may be deleted.

(If your edits were strictly of the maintenance variety, and this information doesn't interest you, please pardon any perceived intrustion.)

Thanks.—Chidom 02:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:ClarksonandQueen2005.jpg

Hi, you taged this image and sent me a message. The image was created by Rideau Hall during Queen Elizabeth II's Royal Visit to Saskatchewan. The image is from www.gg.ca and is protected under Canadian Crown Copyright. Please note that it is currently used on multiple pages and is therefore not an orphaned image, and it is already tagged. What is the problem ? Dowew 03:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Also please note that it is rather difficult to catch a photo of the Queen with the GG as she only comes over once in a while (usually every 5 years or so) and this image certainly helps to illustrate that vice-regal role of the governor general, the feelings of Adrienne Clarkson towards the Queen, and Canada's links to the Monarchy. Maybe someone could snap a photo, but it would not likely be relased into public domain since that would be a rather valuable image. Dowew 03:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Also please note that the current image being used on Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom illustrates her role as Queen of the United Kingdom, not her role as Queen of Canada. Because of the Statute of Westminister they are completely seperate offices. Dowew 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Change to Common.css

Per recent discussions, the way in which Persondata is viewed by Misplaced Pages editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Misplaced Pages articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata. More specific instructions can be found on the Persondata page. --ShakingSpirit on behalf of Kaldari 00:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Warning messages to User:SportsAddicted

Hey - I see you've plastered SportsAddicted's talk page with four pretty much identical warning messages. It wouldn't be a better idea to list them all together in one message, which fulfils the purpose of listing all the images for his interest, informs him what is wrong, as well as not annoying people with having to scroll through a lot of identical boilerplates? Just a suggestion! Sam Vimes | Address me 22:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all I agree with Sam Vimes, second of all in my understanding any picture that is not able to create anymore (due to the people being dead, or whatever other reason) would qualify to be accepted unde fair use including the tag added by me together with the source. Anyways, apparently this is not the case and if that's true I'm fine with that and let me know, but please do not mess up my talk page. Anyways, if this is the case I won't fight the decission and you can delete them right away. Please take the time to also remove the pictures from the articles when you delete them. May you find more pictures uploaded by me, which are copyrighted like this (I uploaded more pics of death people) feel free to place the copyright violation tags to it, but now I do know why don't mention them on my talk page as I will see them appearing on my watchlist anyways. Thanks for understanding. SportsAddicted | discuss 10:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Christi Taylor

When removing images from info boxes such as your edit to Christi Taylor, could you please not take out the field name as well? It will help those who may not be familiar with infoboxes know that they can add an image in that place in the box. Dismas| 22:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Disagreement for Sylvia Browne Article

I don't see what's wrong with the picture on the article for Sylvia Browne, I think this adequately qualifies for fair use criteria. This image appears on at least two of Sylvia Browne's book's (see the image description page for more information), and is to be appearing on Sylvia Browne's new book "Father God" To be coming out in early January.
As you are no doubt aware, when the image you use appears on a publicly distributed book, it qualifies as fair use under Misplaced Pages Standards. Feel free to contact me with any other questions regarding this issue, thanks!
Cameron Erickson (Camxx) 23:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

I am just geting started but I think someone has to do the work of ensuring fair use of images. Keep it up. A few for your list down below.

1) Image:DNAtree.gif - "This work is copyrighted and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket fair use categories.." Comment: seems an outright copyright violation

2) Image:Unlabeled Renatto Luschan Skin color map.png - "This is a derivative work ..." Original work cited cannot be found

3) Image: National Geographic - King Tut face.jpg - "This image is of a magazine cover, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the magazine.." Comment: Article already contains several other images. This doubtful copyright adds nothing and seems more for decoration.

4) Image:African Genetics (primal).jpg - Made by cutting down and rotating Misplaced Pages Commons Image:Map-African-migrations.gif. Comment: The Misplaced Pages commons image map referred to is nowhere to be found

5) Image:Woman redhead natural portait.jpg - "Woman with natural red hair Creative Commons Attribution licensed by cloud dinner ((- cc-by-2.0 -))" Comment: no record of any attribution license or by a cloud dinner

6) Image:Austrian female blonde whole.jpg - "female cc-by-sa by Mark Probst ((- cc-by-sa-2.0 -))" No record of Probst giving permission. His page has some nudes (http://www.flickr.com/photos/schani/338872796) but there is no statement of copyright release.

Images worth looking into

I know you are very busy but I wish to tap your knowledge of Misplaced Pages's image policies. E tac (talk · contribs)(a 95% reformed Wiki-vandal) has recently been quite busy uploading images. He has also tried to alter the licensing info on an image he felt should be used in an article but was a clear violation of WP:FU and was rm'd. Some of his images appear to be sourced OK(?) but most are full of holes and a great majority are used in violation of WP:FU. If you can spare a moment could you review the user's image activities and take appropriate action where needed. Here is a quick link to the user's image history. Thanks, cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to review User talk:Moeron#Dave Mustaine and User talk:Moeron#Stop removing my fair use images. Thanks! -- moe.RON 00:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Move request voting on Talk:Nike

FYI, started Jan 10. -- Matthead O 14:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Melissa Lingafelt

Re: this edit

If you cared about the standard of articles rather than about images, you would have noticed that the cause of the 404 was a formatting error when I inputted the reference, rather than a 404. Please be more careful next time. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Allison Brewer image

The image page does in fact say who created the contect - her leadership campaign - and that it was distributed freely. - Jord 15:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Johnny depp ecb29.jpg

i added source info. is that sufficient ?-- ExpImp 00:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use: Logo Question

Abu Badali

I am considering using logos on a page I am thinking of creating. The logos would be copyrighted images of the Fox News logo and the CNN logo. I did a little reading up and it seems that a low resolution image used to illustrate the item or organization in question is acceptable. Before I post however I would like your opinion as to if this is OK...better safe than sorry. Your feedback would be much appreciated. Thank you. --Tbkflav 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Bob Rae image

What discussion? On the image's talk page, there was no dispute that it was acceptable. On the more broad discussion page, it was not disputed. An administrator, User:Zanimum, removed your tag for deletion and declared that the image should be kept. Is your complaint that it is the lead photo? The image belongs with the infobox which is at the lead, if so, I will move it down the article. - Jord 16:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring the unfinished discussion at the image's talk page. User:Zanimum is the admin that had committed most image abuses that I'm aware of. I would suggest you to avoid his guidance. We don't use unfree image to depict living people, and we don't need an image him young just because the article mentions what he did when he was young. --Abu Badali 17:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I assumed the discussion there had finished because everyone who had commented in a 5 day period was in agreement with my position that the image can be used and an administrator had tagged the image to not be deleted. I did not seek "guidance" from Zanimum, and have not communicated with him/her, I merely pointed out that an adminstrator had closed the discussion. I have however now sought guidance from the administrators User:Yamla and User:Quadell who had helped me flesh out and agreed with the consensus I've mentioned above. - Jord 18:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fansites

I appreciate your opinion, but this is a public site where people are looking for additional information on this actor. You censoring a legitimate fan site, because you do not think it should be here, is down right Un-American. To me, it goes against everything Misplaced Pages stands for and I think it is completely elitest and ridiculous. The top fan site is ChanningTatum.org and the person who runs the blog is a co-web and the blog is linked to from ChanningTatum.org. If the fans and readers of the fan site feel that it is not helpful, then and only then should it not be considered a viable information source for this actor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WCFIRM (talk • contribs) 13:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Blocked

You have been blocked for 3 hours for wiki-stalking and violations of WP:POINT. Please take the time to consider how to make a more positive contribution. Thank you! Johntex\ 18:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

As per WP:STALK exception. Please ensure you refrain from retaliation of any sort for the block. That is to say, leave the blocking admin alone for a few days, just as a measure of good faith. Other admins, this is not an attempt to start a wheel war. I will not unblock again if this user is reblocked within the next few days. I believe the initial block was invalid as per the exceptions specified for WP:STALK.

Request handled by: Yamla 19:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My unblock request, (for the record)

The text of my unblock request was:

Admin Johntex acused me of "Wiki-stalking" and "dispruptions" after I had tagged some of the images he uploaded for deletion.

As it can be checked by reviewing the messages I left on his talk page, I tagged 6 images as in disacordance with the 1st fair use criteria, on image for lacking source information, and one image for being an orphan "fair use" image. All the taggins were done in accordance to the correct procedure. All the taggings were legitimate and I don't see any disruptive behavior involved. I reached these images after reading through Johntex's upload log , what is not considered "wikistalking" according to WP:STALK#Types_of_harassment: "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy (...) hose logs are public for good reason."

So, I ask to be unblocked because I feel the blocking reasons were invalid.

--Abu Badali 19:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Beach near Rio

That is quite an interesting coincidence. I don't make it to Rio nearly as often as I would like. When I do travel there (or anywhere) I try to take pictures and upload them to commons under a free license. Did you happen to veiw my gallery on Commons? I am a big supporter of free content, where it makes sense. I'm also a big supporter of fair use content, whre it makes sense. Best, Johntex\ 17:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your straight-forward question. I will give you a straight-forward answer: No, I don't think my edit was harmful at all. My edit introduced, factual, referenced information into Misplaced Pages. It is informative to the reader. Respectfully, I think it is a more useful edit than many of the ones you are making. (I do want to point out that some of your edits are good). To answer your earlier question, I absolutely feel you are targeting me because you are in fact targetting me. Johntex\ 18:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, I consider this edit of yours to be an honest mistake. None-the-less, it does seem like an indication that perhaps you should slow down just a tad in your image removal campaign. Johntex\ 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Danica Patrick

You recently removed Image:Danica Patrick.jpg from the Danica Patrick article, and then tagged the image as an orphaned unfree image.

Should not the tagging of the image have waited until there was a chance for feed back on its removal from the article?
The cover in question is from a book by and about the subject of the article, hence the article itself is in a fashion about the book. This is no different than including a DVD cover on a page about a film, the topics are inexorably linked.

—MJBurrage • TALK • 19:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Lampiao and his band heads

Oi, como vai? Estava querendo usar a foto que vc carrego no wiki italiano mas tenho duvida sobre a licensa. Vc tem certeza que a imagem é mesmo PD-old? —The preceding comment was added by Robertobra 11:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is a Request for Comment regarding Misplaced Pages administrator Yamla, located at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Yamla. If you believe you have anything to add, please considering doing so. Thank you. Justen 15:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

wikimeetup image

As you can clearly see, the date has past so I don't see why this is of my concern at all. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was planning on using it the next time January 20th, 2007 rolls around :-p -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, this is the most pressing concern I can think of at the moment. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine why. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

vida external link

I was going to link to a directory on dmoz.org, but then realized they didn't have a Vida Guerra directory. That's why I originally posted the link to the home page of vidazone.com then realized that people might think i was just spamming so directed the link to the gallery section of the site... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdb3sgte (talk • contribs) 03:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

New section to your RfC

Hello, I have added a new section to your RfC. I really hope this will prove to be a constructive summary. Best, Johntex\ 06:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

violation of WP policy

you deleted my pic and, following WP policy to the letter, I had another admin undelete it and place it in the delete consideration list so others could comment on it first.

You then bypassed that process and deleted it directly from the consideration list mere hours after it had been placed there, not giving others a chance to comment.

please put it back per WP policy; that is what the image delete consideration list exists for.

What you did is the equivalent of being a judge who found someone guilty, then bursting into the courtroom during the appeals hearing shouting "guilty! guilty!" and ordering the guards to drag the accused back to his cell and that the hearing be stopped.

the proper thing to do would be to leave your MESSAGE about why you think the image should be deleted, not unilaterally disrupt and destroy the deletion review process.

please respond on my user talk. note that "I think the image should be deleted" is insufficient response, as it ignores the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion is that the delete consideration list is the WP procedure for appealing a deletion, and you have disrupted that procedure.
Sys Hax 17:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)