Misplaced Pages

Main			Talk			Awards			Archives

RE: Final Warning

Please see my talk page--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no fair-use pictures of the actors available.--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusing

I don't want to get into the circumstances of the episode... I already went round and round way back when. Suffice to say the administrators in the middle of it were satisfied with the results. Why are you changing the results at this time? It seems very unfair, so no, it should not be there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The circumstances were clear. After being disruptive and repeatedly denying that he had sockpuppets, a checkuser found four months ago that Fyunck(click) and FreepRipper were the same person. Because of the disruption and the dishonesty, I really do not understand why the confirmed sockpuppetry notice should be either deleted from either his user page or placed in a discussion page archive. See this request. Tennis expert (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging

I just noticed your comments at User talk:Cory Malik and I was wondering if you could have a quick look at Image:DebbyRyan.jpg for me. I tagged this because the uploader had said it was PD but there was no evidence of permission. (The image appeared to be straight from debbyryan.com) The uploader added fair use information and a rational but, after initially deleting it, restored the PD copyright. I tagged it again but I was wondering if {{Non-free promotional} was the appropriate tag to use. The source of the image wassn't actually specified when I tagged it, it was listed as {{#if:Debby Ryan|Debby Ryan}} and I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. I notice that it has changed now, with attribution to Flickr, using a license that seems inappropriate based on Misplaced Pages:Upload/Flickr. I was going to tag it again but at this point I'm not sure how to tag it. There seem to be multiple issues. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The user in question has a bit of trouble understanding copyright law. As a rule, it doesn't come under fair use, the tag states: "Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. ". I'd put it up foor WP:IFD. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The images has now been listed at IFD. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

RockofLove.jpg, TheHughleys.gif

You tagged a series title card. how is it replaceable. This image is just an image of the entire cast.Which dispicts the show. if these are replaceable, you need to go to every tv show and delete the title card.All you are doing are tagging every image i uploaded and assume they are not fair-use.--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

J. William Williams-deletion

Okay, I'll go to DRV as you suggested. I don't like to do that without first checking with the delting admin first--I'm sure that you acted in good faith! Courteously yours! --Paul McDonald (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for being civil about it :) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Screen caps illustrating appearance of fictional TV characters

I noticed you are tagging some of these images as not meeting our fair-use requirements. Since no free-use image of a character in a copyrighted TV series can exist, they are not replaceable by a free use image and the fair use justifications note this. Most TV show character articles generally permit exactly one image in the infobox to illustrate the appearance of the character, something difficult to do with text. Your tagging of these images, a valid policy judgment call, seems to be going against an established precedent. --NrDg 03:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It was my understanding that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. I was further under the impression that having a picture of the actor or actress concerned is suitable. I've been looking for the relevant policy which states the 'one image' clause, but can't find it - if you can point me in the right direction, I'd be much obliged! When the user who uploaded them, however, is uploading images like Image:PorkersPickett.png and Image:IvanaTipton.png under fair use, one wonders if fair use does actually apply to a picture of a pig and a small white dog! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

A fictional character is not a living person (or animal for that matter). The illustration of a character in a character article is (and must be) of the fictional character, not the portrayer. No question that a picture of a real person, living or dead, with very few exceptions, in an article about that person specifically, must be a free-use image. The policy is WP:FUC but, like most policies, has interpretations that have evolved to practical usage. Check the character pages of most TV shows to see the practical implementation of the policy. Illustration of the appearance of a character has been generally permitted as fair use as they are judged to serve an encyclopedic purpose and are never available as free use images. The character exists only in the context of the performance which is always copyrighted. Outside of the performance it would just be a picture of the actor in costume. One illustration in the character article is sufficient for the encyclopedic purpose so more is no longer fair use and is just decoration.

I do question the validity of animal pictures by themselves as being of the character they portray in a show without some show context in the picture. The pig picture specifically just looks to be a generic pig picture and I don't see any encyclopedic purpose here. The dog picture does show some in-show context so has a stronger claim to be of the character portrayed. In both cases, there is already a fair use image being used in the info box of the article so subsequent pictures look more like decorations than necessity. --NrDg 15:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand the difference between a picture of the actor dressed as a character, and of the character himself. I understand WP:FUC, but it has as many arguments for inclusion, as against - for example, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." - Does a picture of Corin Nemec playing Jonas in Stargate:SG-1 significantly increase understanding? I'm not entirely sure if it does. I think we need clarification from other people here. MBisanz (talk · contribs) is quite knowledgeable, would you have an objection if I asked him to weigh in? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It is more a picture of the actor PERFORMING as the character that is being illustrated. The fact that it is also a picture of the actor in costume and makeup is incidental and somewhat separable - we cant use that same picture in an article about the actor. So far, judgment of most editors seems to be that illustrations of a character does "significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic". Likewise illustrations of any real person in that person's article also would be justified for the same reason but since free-use images are always possible cant justify the fair-use exemption. My thoughts on this subject are my considered opinions after analyzing the policy and the policy as implemented by the editing community at large up to now. Actor in costume looking pictures are marginal under the policy but I still think they serve an encyclopedic purpose. It would be interesting to see what other editors articulate about how they interpret the policy so I encourage you to get the opinions of other you trust. --NrDg 18:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes NrDg is right, as far as it isn't being used on a living bio, rather on some television character it should be just fine as free images of that isn't possible unless we get permission by the author & that's not very likely. We shouldn't be showing the "real actor", we should be showing the "fictional character" which again, we can't get under a free license if it's some televion screenshot without some permission through OTRS and that's why the picture(s) are under fair use when it comes to fictional characters on some televion show. --Kanonkas :  Talk  21:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I would generally say that in certain limited circumstances, it would be permissible under NFCC to use an image of a "character". There is no rule-set, but I think I can summarize my feelings as:

1. It is used minimally, a single image or for a group of characters a single composite image on an article directly addressing the character (not a list or just in an episode article).
2. Unlikely to be replaceable, I can probably find a free image of Patrick Stewart in his Startrek uniform (from say a fan-convention), so unless it is illustrating a particular oddity of the character, we should strive for more free image
3. Is not used for simple identification, a headshot of Dr. Who in an article on Dr. Who should be free, since I can realistically find a free image just showing the head of the actor who plays Dr. Who. To be non-free it should at least show specific attachments (star-trek borg) or a styled costume (Tom Hanks in a space suit).

I hope that makes it a bit more clear what my personal take is on the situation. MBisanz 21:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to accept MBisanz's stance on this. If there's a big difference between a character and an actor - such as Seven of Nine and Jeri Ryan], then I can see the need to include a picture of the character. When we're looking at a picture of Miley Cyrus playing a character who is very much like her, I can't see a fair use image standing up to scrutiny. Where the actor and character look the same, we should have a fair-use picture of the actor. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Your judgment call. Note that the examples MBisanz used all currently have fair-use pictures in the character articles even though pictures of the actors are available as free-use. You might consider using Ifd procedures on individual images that have reasonably thought out fair-use justifications instead of CSD as this issue is one of whether or not a particular image "significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic" and wider consensus about that issue on the specific image would be good to have. CSD just involves the judgment of the closing admin. I am content to let that admin decide. It won't be me. In general you have a supportable position - I just believe it is going against current established consensus. --NrDg 00:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I came across a page today that I do not think looks correct. The page is Boulder,Colorado, Take a look at the notable people. I think it should be in list format like every other notable person page. If you agree, could you please tag it for me for others to edit? Thanks..Keystoneridin (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sock Block Template

Hi there. I don't mean to try to bite you :) but please try to remember to subst all of the sockblock templates that you use. Thanks and if you would like to reply to this please use my talk page. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 15:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Blink

Excuse me? Shall I go around agreeing with your detractors? --Elonka 20:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No offence was meant! My comment was meant as a quote from him - I should have said, "just because you think she's incompetent, being rude will not solve things". I'll tweak my comment; I meant nothing bad from it, and I don't for a second think you're incompetent! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry for being a little quick on the draw. Generally the way I deal with those, if I really had to repeat the insult, would be to phrase it like, "CMLITC may or may not be incompetent, but using that term about him is still a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA." Make sense? Anyway, feel free to blank this thread, I think the point's made.  :) --Elonka 22:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries:-) people call me Cav/Cavalry, BTW :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:NeverSeenLight

Given that this user seems to be a troubled teen, my VOA-indef might be a bit hasty. I've left a bit of a friendlier note and will see if she/he will promise to stop with the attacks and try to work more constructively. Worth a shot. :) henrik•talk 21:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

ooh... Good luck - 15 year old extremist Christians aren't normally the most receptive of people. Still, if you can salvage a user out of it, let me know, and I'll give you a barnstar and buy you a beer :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'm not doing very well so far. Unfortunately it seems like you'll be keeping your beer, which I would happily have liberated you from :-) henrik•talk 21:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Aw.. At least you tried! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Greek Macedonia/Macedonia/FYROM userboxes

Hello!

In case you're interested where you more of those userboxes are located, I've found them on User:The Cat and the Owl and User:Alexikoua's pages. You're probably right that it's not a template, though, so they'd need to be deleted off of each userpage.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dar book's recent edits

Hello Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry!

The above user, who has repeatedly lied about his COI, claiming that he is not a member but a mere advocate of the religious organization that we are, by now, both familiar to, is proving to be a nuisance and has ignored my vandal warning regarding his repeated insertion of URL references ran by the person (or his organization) in question that don't fall under the reliable, third-party, published sources guideline of WP:RL.

As you may have probably observed, all the references used in the articles (the founder, the church, and apendant organizations and programs) in question are broadsheet newspapers (apart from the non-promotional portions of the basic info in the beginning of each article). I believe that statements like For almost two decades Soriano has maintained the ADD Foundation key charities for the widowed, disabled, neglected and fatherless and He established a charitable organization named "Bro. Eli and Bro. Daniel Foundation" to help the poor people in his country need reliable, third-party, published sources and not just claims from their own websites, for anyone can claim anything on their own website.

To add to that, this editor, Dar book, cannot even write proper English and almost all of his edits, even in unrelated articles, have been reverted because his English is messing them up. Since he is now completely gung ho in his editing and would not even consider my warning tag, would you kindly assist myself and other registered editors in keeping an eye to the following articles: Eli Soriano, Members Church of God International, Ang Dating Daan?

Thank you!

– Shannon Rose (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

He's quite obviously got a conflict of interest, I'll keep an eye on him. I would ask though: What's your connection? You do tend to call them a cult an awful lot, which might be equally COI-ish (no offence intended!).

Secondly, self-published sources aren't usually allowed; the policy is at WP:SELFPUB. This hasn't been explained to him, which is why he's a bit angry. He needs it explaining calmyly, without references to 'cult' - his family might be heavily involved, and I'd rather not get a topic-ban on him. We can salvage an editor out of this, I think! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, about what Shannon Rose said, I was very confused by what she keeps telling on my talk page reliable, third-party, published sources. I finally understand why my other account was blocked, because I tried to keep adding references of websites run by the Members Church of God International, which she won't even believe! First of all, she won't even believe that I am not a member of the said org. Well, the proof is, she already saw the unrelated articles, which have been reverted because his English is messing them up. I am not English and I'm only 14 years old, a sophomore of Marikina Science High School (she already found the first article I created). How can I join an org which I am still too young? Second, when references to negative sections are added by Conrad940 she doesn't even mind it. Also, why would an org buy a domain (website) just to lie; the same reason why I once asked her about her connection to the group. The reference is only mentioning of a famous newspaper, which to me is unverifiable. Unlike my references which can be accessed with just one click of a mouse. I think it's really a COI. At first she was very kind to me, but all other users' edits who are confirmed members of the org are reverted. I don't understand very well the RFC you mentioned to me. Do you mean that I'll just add the template? Thanks. Dar book (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)