Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:28, 14 September 2006

Please click here to leave me a new message and I will respond on your talk page.

Archives of Old Comments:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 (incl. recall), 20, 21, 22, 23

Coats of arms

Hi Crzrussian

I just noticed your edit to coat of arms. I quite understand your motivation for removing the British insignia and the Polish one didn't look very appropriate, but what is the problem with the Australian image? The image is copyrighted, yes, but by vector-images.com which allows Misplaced Pages to use raster images of flags / coats of arms drawn by this company. These images are used in hundreds of articles, so if you think there is a general problem with images from this company, could I possibly persuade you to contact them in case we need a broader permission? I just figured that your Russian is better than mine :) The relevant talk page about these images seems to be here: Commons:Template_talk:Vector-Images.com, where I noticed that modification is discussed. Cheers. Valentinian 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Promophoto massacre

How in the name of all that's holy did you orphan a dozen images of U.S. State Attorneys General of my uploading without as much as a hello on my talk page!? How exactly can a designated promotional image not be fairuse in the article about its subject? How the hell else can one illustrate a biography if not with a portrait? Is fairuse impossible in those articles? I eagerly await the your justification of your actions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

See the edit summaries, and WP:FU, the page they refer to. ed g2s • talk 01:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I did. You've cited me an assertion from a guideline, an assertion with which I vehemently disagree. What about my other questions? - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If the person in question is living, then Fair Use is unnecessary. Send a polite email requesting a freely licensed image, or we can wait until a free picture is taken. ed g2s • talk 01:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude: they don't promote dead people. There are no {{promophoto}}s of dead people. Do you once again mean to tell me that {{promophoto}} fair use is impossible on a living person's bio? I am going to revert the whole set. If the truth is as you say, each image has no possible fairuse. Take one or more of these images to WP:IFD and solicit a consensus of your fellow editors. BTW, I am incensed at the way you've gone about obliterating large amounts of my work without as much as a courtesy notice! - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

One can release a promotional photo, and have the person later pass away. I have no need to take these images to IfD as they clearly fall foul of our (recently updated - with the consultation of Jimbo) guidelines. I urge you strongly not to revert any of my edits, as to do so would be in clear conflict with our Fair Use policy. Also do not take this personally, I was merely going through the category and your uploads were grouped together. ed g2s • talk 01:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I realize that you have no need to take them to IFD. However, I cannot accept your unilateral actions on the subject, guideline or not. I am entitled to request and receive full process. Note, that I am not dismissing the possibility that you are correct - but I am positive the case is not clearcut, and richly deserves that a consensus of users be formed before action is taken. Problem is, you've already tagged them for {{orfud}} and they need to be de-tagged and de-orphaned in order that they should not be deleted during the pendency of the IFD. In the interest of propriety etc. etc. may I ask you to roll your article and image edits back yourself? It'll take you a less than a minute with admin rollback. You may then pursue the deletion of the images through regular channels. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is clear cut. Such photos are clearly not allowed under out Fair Use policy as recent clarified in our guidelines by AlisonW ("Further to discussion on IRC channels between Jimbo Wales and verious admins and editors" Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use). An IFD consensus would not bypass our Fair Use policy. ed g2s • talk 01:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

IFD consensus will not bypass our fairuse policy!! It will determine what that policy requires!! If an IFD consensus decides our fairuse policy permits such use, then that will be the right thing to do!! You are driving me up - the - wall!! - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

So you are claiming that the guideline does not apply here? Have I misread "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like ... would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use"? What is so special about this case that an exception should be made? ed g2s • talk 01:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This may also be of help:

Should the currently used unfree images of cars, celebrities and buildings be deleted? Should only the ones uploaded after this clarification (September 9) be promplty deleted? --Abu Badali 10:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes, and those that can more easily be replaced (current cars, buildings) sooner than later, but all will need to be eventually in the interest of having an open and free Misplaced Pages. Whilst this 'clarification' has only recently been added it is only making more explicit a requirement that has always been there and the date of upload of an image makes no difference to our Fair Use policy. --AlisonW 12:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If you believe an article I wrote fails WP:V and wish to have it deleted, you can propose it for deletion, but if I object (reasonably or not!), you have to build consensus for your action, just like any other editor. You've read the guideline correctly. I dispute the validity of that clause! I dispute the application of that clause to the images I uploaded, even if the clause itself is valid. I am not on IRC, IRC is not Misplaced Pages, I have no idea what took place there, and shouldn't have to. Your last posting on my talkpage was unresponsive. I believe you have been unilateral and obstreperous. On a personal aside, you have also seriously pissed me off. I am not going to revert you yet, and will now take this whole discussion to WP:ANI. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you have taken this so personally. If your dispute of my actions comes down to a dispute with the clause I quoted then I suggest that you take up your problem at Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use as it is far beyond the scope of an IFD, although seeing as the clarification came from Jimbo I don't see you getting very far. ed g2s • talk 02:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)