Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:00, 19 May 2007

Bot tagging dispute

Somehow this post got made to your archive 7 as well. Here it is again.

You were one of the respondents at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive241#Disruptive_edits_by_Tony_the_Tiger.

User:Pmanderson and I are preparing for WP:DR by attempting to understand each others arguments. You can see some debate at User:TonyTheTiger/DR_bot and more on his talk page. Actually, I am trying to understand his. It seems one contention may be that use of {{ChicagoWikiProject}} conveys a promise or responsibility to actively edit an article.

As stated on his talk page, I actually believe that a tag is appropriate for other reasons such as cases where

1. By virtue of their editorial interests and resources they are likely to be strong researchers capable of adding significantly to an article.
2. By virtue of their editorial interests and skills they are likely to be strong copy editors capable of refining an article.
3. By virtue of their editorial interests they are likely to be interested in vandalism fighting for an article.
4. By virtue of their editorial interests they want to monitor quality improvements for an article.
5. By virtue of the readership interests (related to their topic) they want to monitor and assist in quality improvements.

I believe that a project could become active in an article for any of the above reasons. The categorical screening for articles where the above are likely to be true is what we have used the bot for.

The project from which I gained my assessment experience was Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Biography. They currently have 373,659 articles tagged. Even if they had 250 members each active enough to actively edit almost 100 articles they would need to remove their tag from about 350,000 articles if they were promising to actively edit the articles which they are tagging. I am not aware of any such promise. A tag is a statement of relevance in this case. It is not harmful to the article being tagged. The long and the short of it is if we tag an article we will at times take positive actions on some. For example, I nominated Hillary Clinton for WP:GAC because even though it is a mid priority article for us I noticed it was well developed. I make no promise to get any more involved in the candidacy than this. Right now our main task is to identify our Top priority articles and keep on top of new partially assessed articles. Can you give me some clarification. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that if your project is tagging an article, your project should be taking an interest in that article, helping to improve and expand the article wherever possible. If it's not possible, then I'd question the use of tagging it, and if your unlikely to ever be in a position to edit the article, I would also question the use. We're not here to tag articles until the end of time and I'm quite disappointed that instead of editing away at articles, your both preparing for dispute resolution. -- Nick 19:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

{{no rationale}}

Hi Nick. Please use {{subst:nrd}} instead of {{no rationale}}. Doing so, categorizes the image by date whereas {{no rationale}} puts the image in an unsorted category. Thanks! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, remember to notify the original uploader that their image may be deleted. The code is on the {{nrd}} template. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of File:Underwood Carrie.jpg

This is a request for the undeletion of the File:Underwood Carrie.jpg. It was deleted on May 12, 2007 by you for the following reasons: (Unused non free image). I believe the deletion was made in error. The reason is that proper procedures was not followed in the deletion process. The uploader user:Eqdoktor who is still an active editor was not notified of the deletion notice {{subst:idw|Image:Image_name.ext}}. The image was deleted from the two pages it was used in Misplaced Pages by an editor who appears to be out to make a WP:POINT - contributions or has an improper understanding of the deletion procedures and/or WP:FUC policies. If its at all possible, at the very least rescue the related talk page as it has extensive discussions on the implementation of WP:FUC and why the image conforms to the policy - Thanks --Eqdoktor 06:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that image does not qualify for use under our non free image policy, in that we do not permit the use of non free images to illustrate living persons. The image was orphaned quite correctly and was deleted after the necessary 7 day waiting period.

This image should not have been uploaded at all and it will remain deleted, despite slight mitigating circumstances surrounding the deletion process, the image, should it be restored, would be deleted properly within the 7 days again, bearing that in mind, I see no good reason to waste another administrators time asking them to delete the image again.

With regards to your comments on the talk page of the image, I'm afraid your contention that any photographs taken at a concert are copyright-able to the concert promoter is fanciful and downright incorrect. Photographs taken at a concert belong to the photographer in the absence of any contract or explicit terms and conditions agreed to at the time of booking which say otherwise. This is because there is normally no previous copyright-able material present in any image and because there is sufficient artistic creation in the photograph, both of these criteria would make the photographer the sole owner of the image. In short, the creator owns the image. In the case of television and the screen capture, the same holds true, the creator - the cameraman - will have assigned his copyright over to his employer. The screen capture lacks any sufficent creativity to be considered for copyright protection in its own right, that, coupled with the fact that the screen capture contains material that is already protected under copyright by a 3rd party prevents a screen capture from being the copyright-able property of the creator. This is referenced in the Bridgeman v Corel court case, faithful reproductions of 2D works of art do not qualify for copyright in their own right but inherit the copyright of the original work.

Due to the fact images from concerts, film festivals, awards ceremonies, sports fixtures and such can be copyright-able to the photographer and released under a free licence of their choosing, we don't need non free images used to illustrate living persons.

Finally, although cliched "We are trying to create a 💕 here, not a pretty "ooh, look at all the pictures" encyclopedia" - so if you can't find a free image and it's the reader won't understand the article in the absence of an image, please don't include a non free image. Nick 09:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to restore the talk page with the {{rtd}} tag. Jenolen 10:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why ? Nick 10:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been pretty standard, when an image is deleted as replaceable fair use, to keep the talk page in place; helps serve as an archive of the discussion; can help prevent a complete re-writing of the same points elsewhere... it's a check & balance thing on RFU deletions. Do I have the name of the template wrong? Jenolen 10:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no debate regarding deletion of the image, it was simply deleted in accordance with our fair use policy. The talk page itself is a deletion candidate as a talk page without an article/image to go with it. I've undeleted it anyway, if you wish to copy it or move it elsewhere, that would be fine with me. Nick 10:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, a simple no would have sufficed... (/grin). Are you getting enough sleep?

The image was deleted without following proper Misplaced Pages procedures, I get a full and rather condescending lecture on WP:FUC which should not properly be happening on this talk page but on a deletion discussion page.

Anyways, Thank you for undeleting the talk page - it is now safely on my hard-drive.

Be that as it may, I believe this "back-door" deletion without a debate or discussion to reach a consensus with the uploader and/or community seems to me in "bad form" for Misplaced Pages. Building a 💕 may be a goal of the Misplaced Pages project but the key to achieve that goal is working in consensus. Misplaced Pages works by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process.

Leaving aside your beliefs and obvious prejudice against fair use images in Misplaced Pages, the image was deleted without following proper procedures as laid out in Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. I (the uploader) was not served a deletion notice on the image. Consensus was not reached as you (as the biased admin) and the image deleter has unilaterally decided to delete the image without a proper discussion on the merits of the issue. What is the harm in having a discussion in the correct forum and following the proper procedures? Why the rush to delete the image and avoid a discussion with the uploader/community to reach a consensus?

Kindly and please undelete the image, submit the image to a full deletion review. I have no particular love or attachment to the image (which is trivial for me to recreate) itself but I do have a big problem with the "rush to judgment" that seems to have been taken up with the issue. --Eqdoktor 12:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun 3

Nick, I understand that you closed the third AFD for Qian Zhijun based on the two previous AFDs. However, these AFDs were disputed at WP:DRV, a third AFD was opened by User:Viridae for the express purpose of letting it run its full course. Given the contentious history of this deletion, and in the interest of process, can you reopen this AFD and restore the article? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Second this. Completely improper, especially considering the way the discussion was going at the time of closure. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)