| Revision as of 21:28, 28 August 2016 editGerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers380,543 edits →OTD: I know since what to think of arbcom and "evidence".← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:33, 28 August 2016 edit undoThe Rambling Man (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors286,429 edits →OTD: omnishamblesNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| :{{tpw}}*hand in air* "I know that one miss!!!" ;) ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 08:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC) | :{{tpw}}*hand in air* "I know that one miss!!!" ;) ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 08:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :: Hand in air seen, did you also known that the vote that made majority cited a diff, saying "concerns me deeply"? It was ]. I know since what to think of arbcom and "evidence". --] (]) 21:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC) | :: Hand in air seen, did you also known that the vote that made majority cited a diff, saying "concerns me deeply"? It was ]. I know since what to think of arbcom and "evidence". --] (]) 21:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::: After the last Arbcom debacle I was involved in, I have no faith at all that this will end justly. I see some individuals relentlessly attempting to ban me, some of them hysterically so. Oh well, we have a month of drama-mongering ahead, at the least, and given Arbcom's last shambolic attempt to do anything realistic, you could say we may see something concrete at Christmas. Fascinating to see the worms crawling from the woodwork to try to exempt themselves, e.g. RD users suddenly going cold on the deal. ] (]) 21:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:33, 28 August 2016
Good luck
Well it seems Arbcom and the lynch mob are hell-bent on getting their pound of flesh. I wish you all the very best during this time. I, for one, will not be cutting off my nose to spite Misplaced Pages's face, and will continue to fight against mediocrity, ignorance and slack-handedness as long as I am able. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Non-free pictures
Out of interest (I dont ever deal with images/copyright so am just asking for education) whats the deal with pictures of actors in character? Where a biography subject is notable for a specific role, whats the rationale for not allowing a picture of them in character for illustration? It certainly falls under the legal exemption (not wikipedia's version) for fair-use. It is practically impossible to get a non-free version as all pictures/screenshots will be copyrighted. While it wouldnt pass as a picture to illustrate the actor, it is common enough practice to have pictures of actors in their more famous roles. (Prompted by Steven Hill) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- My limited understanding is that somehow, we can use fair use images for actors in their character guise, but we can't then use the same image for the actor. I guess that the rationale of the character image is that it somehow improves our readers' interpretation of the article. The Steven Hill article appears not to be fair use at all so we can use it anywhere... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
OTD
Three years ago, a majority of arbitrators voted in the infoboxes case to ban an editor, who had contributed to this discussion. Guess whom? (help: not me) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher)*hand in air* "I know that one miss!!!" ;) Muffled 08:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hand in air seen, did you also known that the vote that made majority cited a diff, saying "concerns me deeply"? It was uncollapsing an infobox. I know since what to think of arbcom and "evidence". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- After the last Arbcom debacle I was involved in, I have no faith at all that this will end justly. I see some individuals relentlessly attempting to ban me, some of them hysterically so. Oh well, we have a month of drama-mongering ahead, at the least, and given Arbcom's last shambolic attempt to do anything realistic, you could say we may see something concrete at Christmas. Fascinating to see the worms crawling from the woodwork to try to exempt themselves, e.g. RD users suddenly going cold on the deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hand in air seen, did you also known that the vote that made majority cited a diff, saying "concerns me deeply"? It was uncollapsing an infobox. I know since what to think of arbcom and "evidence". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)