Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:23, 11 July 2007

Archives
Jun 2007

Trying to avoid "spam"

Hi -

An editor called Montco gave me your name and asked me to connect with you. We have a series of audiocasts, each of which briefly covers a telecommunications term or concept. It was recommended we link these into the relevant pages on Misplaced Pages. When I did so, they were removed for "COI" and "SPAM" reasons. Having reviewed your policies, I believe it was the fact that I linked to our blog page where there is a flash player to play them (instead of the audio file itself), and that the audio file has an intro and trailer that identify our company and invite registration to our blog and podcast series.

If we were to create audio files that excluded these promotions, and we linked the audio files directly (instead of the blog), would this still be consider spam/COI? If you want to see examples of the audio files I'm talking about, you can find them at podsnacks.com.

Thanks

Michel 3:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll check it out later today - thanks for getting in touch with me. Videmus Omnia 13:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

COI tag on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

We were having some trouble with the inventor of AHP Thomas Saaty Template:TSaaty and his wife Template:RozannSaaty deleting criticisms to AHP and replacing it with advertising. The current version is not so much where the COI lies but in the changes the Saaty's have been making. I was looking for an appropriate tag but I guess I missed the mark by puting a vandalism warning tag on the article itself. I removed your tag because the current version is the one that existed before the COI problems. I'm open to any advice on better ways of addressing this. Thanks. Hubbardaie 13:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Just watchlist the article and report any new problems at WP:COIN, like you already have. The administrators who frequent that board will warn and/or block should that become necessary. I left a 'uw-coi' message on the talk pages of the editors involved also. Videmus Omnia 13:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll do that.Hubbardaie 13:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of Image:Ap munich905 t.jpg in Operation Wrath of God

User:Joshdboz is disputing the removal of Image:Ap munich905 t.jpg from the article Operation Wrath of God. If you would like to comment please do so at Talk:Operation_Wrath_of_God#Use_of_Image:Ap_munich905_t.jpg_in_this_article so we can get a broader opinion of whether use of the image in this article meets WP:NFCC. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 14:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

I've been on Misplaced Pages for 5 years, and have received plenty of both honors and criticisms. But never until today have I received a barnstar for my comments on a touchy subject, from someone who disagreed with me. That shows character. – Quadell 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure! And thanks for the compliment... Videmus Omnia 18:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hello, Videmus Omnia. Could you please stop tagging images for speedy deletion because they lack a fair use rationale? Tagging these images with {{no rationale|month=June|day=25|year=2007}} places the image in a category such as Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 25 June 2007. Tagging them for speedy deletion is redundant and merely clogs Category:Candidates for speedy deletion with hundreds of images; an admin will clear the dated categories after 7 days. These deletions were put on hold until July 1, 2007, which has caused a backlog, but they have resumed. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 20:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Videmus Omnia 20:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Scalzi

Wow, that was fast! I can't tell a lie, I knowingly and willingly made a change on Scalzi's page that was false. Scalzi is a jerk and treated Quatloo like crap (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Fred_Saberhagen) when Quatloo wouldn't accept his unverified source on Saberhagen's death, I wanted to give him a taste of his own medicine and maybe teach him why Misplaced Pages is so strict about verified sources. It was probably immature and undoubtedly wrong and is the only time I ever have or will do something like that, I'm really a good Wikier I swear :)Hexrei 20:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but please don't do that anymore, thanks. Things like this cause Misplaced Pages to get bad press (remember Sinbad?) Videmus Omnia 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Lynn Gottlieb

There is absolutely no copyright issue on the Lynn Gottlieb, which was rewritten in its entirety, with all necessary independent sources provided. The only apparent "copyright issue" is the fact that a release of any of the earlier material no longer present on the article. If there any genuine copyright violations, please specify them on the talk page, as required by Misplaced Pages policy. Alansohn 01:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Copyright_problems/2007_July_5/Articles, as stated in the template on the article page. Although it has been reworked, much of the copyvio text remains. I understand there's an assertion of permission, I'm just saying it needs to be verified via WP:OTRS. Videmus Omnia 01:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

model for fair use rationale for record albums

I added a fair use rationale to Image:TornBetweenTwoLovers.jpg You may wish to add a similar fair use rationale to any other album images that are missing one. --Eastmain 02:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Scalzi again

WTF you edited the TALK PAGE? I brought up a valid point. It wasn't a personal attack, it was the truth, and it was a valid subject of discussion for people who might try to work on his page in the future.Hexrei 03:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not on any particular side, but the talk page is for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. Please take your battle off-wiki, it doesn't belong here. Videmus Omnia 03:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did take it elsewhere, he just started censoring that elsewhere. I guess I could start a whole new site devoted to preserving the discussion he chooses to delete and thereby ensure that my side is heard, but I'm not that into helping his career. Anyway, sorry you're in the middle of this. I appreciate your lack of partisanship.Hexrei 03:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And by that I mean I won't mess with his pages anymore. Might egg his house though :PHexrei 03:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Videmus Omnia 03:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate speedy deletion tagging of images

Hello.

This post is in relation to your speedy deletion tagging of the following images:

• Image:Lounge against the machine.jpg
• Image:Tuxicity.jpg
• Image:I'd like a virgin.jpg
• Image:Rc-snc-cover-small.jpg

And possibly many more.

I'd like to make two points about your actions:

1. I think you are being very over-zealous in tagging these fair use images. It was very clear from the pages that use them, that they were being used in the correct manner. Technically the image pages did not contain a specific rationale for their use on each specific article, but rather than tagging them for speedy deletion you should have added that rationale yourself (as I have done). All you needed to do was copy'n'paste the rationale from a similar image page and edit it accordingly. Simply tagging them for deletion instead of fixing the oversight yourself is somewhat irresponsible.
2. As has already been pointed out on your Talk page, it is inappropriate and somewhat disruptive to tag images for speedy deletion because they lack a fair use rationale. Fair use images without an obvious rationale should be tagged as {{no rationale}} instead (not as well as). Tagging them for speedy deletion is redundant and merely clogs Category:Candidates for speedy deletion with hundreds of images. If you are using a bot to add these speedy tags, please either modify the bot or stop using it.

—gorgan_almighty 09:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm disappointed with your use of the terms "inappropriate", "over-zealous", "irresponsible" and "disruptive" above, I ask you to voluntarily withdraw them. Any actions I took were in line with policy. So far as album cover rationales go, a) it's not my responsibility, but the uploader's, and b) I understand I'm probably in a minority opinion on this, but personally I believe that 99% of the album cover images on Misplaced Pages are merely decorative and don't contribute to the understanding of the subject in a way words cannot. An exception would be if the article actually contains commentary about the album artwork that the reader can't understand without an image. They're also probably the most abused non-free images on Misplaced Pages, being frequently used to illustrate not only the album, but articles on the various songs, the band itself, and discography lists, normally without any rationales for the various specific articles per WP:NFCC#10c. For example, see the non-free image gallery on Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine, which is not justified by any rationale and is likely a violation of content policy.

That said, I don't feel strongly enough about this to actively go out and seek deletion of every album cover image. If the uploader has at least attempted to justify inclusion per WP:NFCC, I generally leave it alone. But I'm not going to add rationales for images I don't feel are needed, especially when the uploaders have ignored obvious instructions that the rationales are required.

I get what you're saying about the redundant tags - until I got the message above, I didn't realize how gigantic the 'no rationale' backlog was. But I haven't put any more of those images into C:CSD since I saw that, even though what I was doing was in line with policy. It was obviously annoying deleting admins, so I knocked it off. And no, I'm not using any bot. Videmus Omnia 13:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The comments by gorgan_almighty seem to me exactly right. To reply by saying that you are just following policy (as you say elsewhere on this page) is like saying "I am only following orders". You are clearly violating the SPIRIT of Misplaced Pages by not adding the obviously-relevant rationale tags, which would be constructive and take just as much effort as adding all those destructive speedy-delete tags. These actions of yours are essentially acts of vandalism, no matter how much you try to justify them by saying that you are following policy. You are not contributing to Misplaced Pages. You are damaging Misplaced Pages by using the letter of "policy" to violate the spirit behind the policy. Please stop. Grimbergfriend 11:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you create your user account solely to comment on my talk page? And honestly, I'm not a Nazi. The real damage to Misplaced Pages comes from users who added copyrighted material without fulfilling the legal requirements to protect the Foundation from claims of copyright infringement. Videmus Omnia 11:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

First, no one called you a Nazi, as far as I can remember; they called you a legalistic vandal, which is a very diffferent thing. Besides, your justification for your tagging is completely spurious: Misplaced Pages is not subject to legal sanctions simply because tags are missing on images that are in fact covered by fair use. No one can sue over the lack of a tag - only over actual violations. You keep tagging images that are not legally liable in any way whatever, and the legal status of which is not even remotely affected by the presence or absence of a tag. An image that is obviously covered under fair use (and which you could easily have labeled as such) is not legally liable because it lacks a tag labeling it as fair use. Again, your justification of vandalism is legally and morally spurious in every way, and it doesn't get any less spurious because you keep repeating it. And I notice that you've also used the completely diffferent justification that you think some images are merely decorative - which has nothing to do with legal liability. Now please just stop. Grimbergfriend 11:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NFCC and WP:CSD#Images and media. This is policy, I didn't just make these up. Videmus Omnia 14:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I did not and would not refer to Videmus Omnia's actions as vandalism. I feel they are unhelpful and somewhat disruptive, possibly even a violation of WP:POINT. But they are not vandalism, because they were done in good faith. —gorgan_almighty 10:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Issue with Jam155.jpg

This is about Image:Jam155.jpg....I added both fair use rationale on page and also my reasons in favor of in non-content free criteria. I hope that meets your criteria posted in my talk page

Burnwelk 18:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi - FYI, we don't normally accept this type of image on Misplaced Pages per the non-free content criteria, Item 1, because this individual is presumably still living and someone could make a free image of him. Are there any special cirumstances that apply here (i.e. some reason no free image can be made)? Videmus Omnia 00:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kelli Maroney.JPG

Welcome, and thank you for contributing to Misplaced Pages. An image you have uploaded, Image:Kelli Maroney.JPG, was marked as having been released under a free license by the copyright holder, but no evidence of this release has been provided. If notice of the release is on the copyright holder's website, please link to it in the image summary. If the release is a response to a request for copyright permission, the full request and response must be forwarded to OTRS. If you need help in composing a request, the example requests for permission may be helpful. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 10:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The permission was forwarded to WP:OTRS. Videmus Omnia 10:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Tags

PLease note Template:Filmrationale for use on film images and Template:Biorationale for deceased people after 1923. Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 14:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah - didn't know about those templates. Thanks! Videmus Omnia 14:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Control Relay.jpg Derating Factor.jpg

The two images that you have brought into question were created by me for use in the textbook principles of electronics. I am the exclusive holder of the copyright for these images and have released them into the public domain. Best regards,User:Carl142

Ah, that explains it. Could you please expand the source information a little so the copyright information is verifiable? Also, this has got some helpful info. Thanks! Videmus Omnia 00:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mary Elizabeth Winstead

No problem! Every now and then I look at recently uploaded images to see if I can be useful. I figured I'd post this one since I found it just before that actually happened, but didn't realize that it had only been up for a few minutes at the time. Thanks for the comment, I'm always glad to lend a hand. Hewinsj 00:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

After taking a look, be careful with those images. The Comicon one has all rights reserved, and the premier image lists no derivative uses. I don't mind, but there are some people on here that won't consider that meeting "free" use criteria. Hewinsj 04:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you check the image description page, I got GFDL licensing by e-mail directly from the photographer. The permission has been forwarded to WP:OTRS, they just take a while to update the image. I only upload images with no questions of copyright. Videmus Omnia 04:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Glad to see your on top of things. Hewinsj 05:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Century (book)

Hi. I have removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Century (book). Speedy deletion criterion G11 applies only to cases of "blatant vandalism", which I do not feel is an accurate description of that article. If you still believe the page ought to be deleted, please {{prod}} it or nominate it for deletion via Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Please feel free to contact me if you disagree with my assessment or have any questions. Cheers, Black Falcon 01:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's fine. Thanks for the note. Videmus Omnia 01:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A favor

Hi, could you help me? See this and my talk page. Good night, – Quadell 04:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)