Misplaced Pages

Fair use images

Hi, seeing that you allowed the Purple Frog image because it is very rare, I was hoping to be able to claim fair use on an image of a Gastric-brooding frog, both species are now "extinct" so realistically a new free image is probably not going to appear. There are quite a few images of these frogs on the internet, however none are under a free license, would it be possible to claim fair use on one of these images?--Tnarg 03:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can't just grab any old image off the Internet and claim "fair use." There has to be a reason why you want a specific picture. Image:Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis.jpg was taken by the person who "discovered" the species, which he released to the media specifically for species identification. If it was just some random picture of the purple frog, that would not have been proper. However, you say the frog is now extinct so perhaps if may be possible to find a picture from before 1955 -- that would be public domain according to Australian law (see Template:PD-Australia) and therefore you can just grab it and use it. Regards, howcheng {chat} 06:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The frogs were discovered in the 1970's so there isn't any photos from before 1955. However, there are some very interesting photos of these species, if you follow this link you will see one specifically where the frog is giving oral birth. This would be the best image for wikipedia (as it is the most encyclopedic, as it demonstrates what the frogs are known for), would it have been released for media purposes seeing that it is on at least 4 websites. Would it be possible to claim fair use on that image?--Tnarg 06:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the purple frog image, we don't know the circumstances of the photo and its release, although we can speculate. Seeing as it's extinct, a fair use claim on the image at might fly, but I'm still a little hesitant. It might be best to just cite that page as a reference and note that a photo can be seen there. howcheng {chat} 16:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

David Westerfield

On April 24, TripleH1976 asked you to protect the David Westerfield article because he was in an edit war with me. Which you promptly did. And it was HIS version you protected. Did you just blindly comply with his request or did you carry out an investigation? Had you investigated you would have discovered the following:

TripleH1976 is a known VANDAL: if you had looked at his Talk page you would have seen he was accused of vandalism by several different users. You yourself temporarily blocked him in February for violating the three-revert rule. And after you had protected the Westerfield article, he was given a “last warning” for vandalizing the Full House article.

So you protected the version of a known vandal. And what was he doing to the Westerfield article? He was repeatedly removing the content I was adding. In other words, he was vandalizing it. He COULD instead have added POV to the article, or to my individual edits - just the ones he didn’t like. Or he could have reworded my edits to make them (in his opinion) less POV. But he did none of that, he just removed them in their entirety.

Is that the sort of behavior Misplaced Pages approves? By protecting his version, you were encouraging vandalism.

I didn’t merely reinstate my version - which is what TripleH1976 was repeatedly doing with his version - I always added extra information at the same time.

Shortly before the article was protected, having made all the corrections I wanted to, and not wanting to merely indulge in TripleH1976's behavior, as an alternative method I instead added POV to his version. Someone else, 24.41.57.188, then reinstated my version, after which TripleH1976 reinstated his version WITHOUT the POV. I would argue that that was dishonest - at best, poor etiquette.

And what did my edits consist of? I was primarily correcting ERRORS in the article. And I STATED this in my summaries of my edits. As you would have seen from the History page for that article, had you carried out an investigation. So what TripleH1976 was repeatedly doing was removing corrections and reinstating an ERROR-filled version of the article. And you protected the ERROR-filled version.

I now have NO confidence in the accuracy of Misplaced Pages articles.

I was also, at the same time, rectifying the BIAS of the article. TripleH1976, whose knowledge of the case is poor and superficial (as you will see if you compare his contributions to the discussion page with mine, and you can even see that from my article edits which he was removing), firmly believes that Westerfield is guilty. In fact, there is much that is disturbing about the case, and I want to provide a BALANCE to the article. For example, evidence pointing away from Westerfield - including unidentified blood on the very bed the victim was abducted from - was ignored. The laboratory gave lack of time as their excuse. But the bottom line is that they were purely looking for evidence to convict him: determining the truth didn’t come into it. In a Death Penalty case that is utterly inexcusable. And TripleH1976 doesn’t want this type of thing pointed out, he dismisses it all as defense spin and my POV - even though I give my sources, many of which are prosecution witnesses, the prosecutor himself, and even the judge (as you will see from the discussion page).

After the article was protected, TripleH1976 and I engaged in a debate in the article’s discussion page. His contributions to that debate have been liberally sprinkled with personal insults and name-calling. That’s not acceptable.

But what concerns me more is that, now that the article has been unprotected (by someone other than yourself), I am going to again attempt to correct the many errors in it. And I suspect that, even though TripleH1976 has conceded in the discussion that I have made good points, in view of how emotional he gets and given his history of vandalism, he is going to again vandalize my attempts to improve the article. 196.15.168.40 04:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. Please read Misplaced Pages:Protection policy, from which I quote: "A protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Instead, go to the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute." If you haven't been able to resolve your dispute with TripleH1976, I suggest you enter dispute resolution. You may also wish to read, The Wrong Version. howcheng {chat} 06:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: IFD

Thanks for the tip... I was a bit confused because of the "and uploaded after May 4, 2006" thing on Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Is there any difference between {{nrd}} and {{frn}}? Chaos syndrome 20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I take it that the lack of fair use rationale on those images is not sufficient grounds for deletion then? Chaos syndrome 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I was merely erring on the side of caution in dealing with a user who has had a bit of a record for a somewhat lax interpretation of copyright. Chaos syndrome 20:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Imperato

Daniel Imperato has filed with the FEC and it has been validated by sources such as the Palm Beach Post and the Sun Sentinel, major papers in the South Florida area. Since then he has been receiving local and national tv coverage most recently being on ABC News National. I found this on Google:

ABC News: The Note Futures Calendar13, 2006: Daniel Imperato and Webster Brooks announce the creation of the "Independent America" party and their intentions to run on the ticket for the 2008 ... abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=140388 - Similar pages

Whoever thought that he wasn't notable before certainly can't say that now. I think his page should be put back up.

Quote marks

Regarding this edit...

Please remember that punctuation should be outside of quote marks, thus "Maid of Orleans", and not "Maid of Orleans,". Cheers, violet/riga (t) 18:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was WP style. I learned Turabian in high school, which always put the punctuation inside the quote marks. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam Sloan announcement

"I did not 'attempt' to post 100 chess biographies on Misplaced Pages. I did post 100 chess biographies on Misplaced Pages. All but one of them is still there. I merely waited until Ralf Callenberg, Paul Rubin and Louis Blair were not looking and reposted them. I added a new biography yesterday and no I am not going to tell you where it is for fear that they will vandalize it again." - Sam Sloan (samhsloan@gmail.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, 11 Jul 2006 05:23:13 -0700) http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/f245a0650c22f010?hl=en

"My Biography of Dimitrije Bjelica" - Sam Sloan (sloan@ishipress.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:09:34 GMT) http://groups.google.com/group/samsloan/msg/eefc91bb2aeda9d0?hl=en http://en.wikipedia.org/Dimitrije_Bjelica - Louis Blair (July 19, 2006)