User talk:Chowbok/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Fair use for Trans-Trem

I'm sorry for removing the tag, I thought once you add fair use rationale that you don't need it anymore. If there is anything else that I did wrong with the image please fix it and if there is anything more that I need to do to provide fair use rationale please tell me. Thank you and sorry again. - Patman2648 22:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe people get mad at you

Because you tag that it should be possible to replace it, and it isn't? Do you ever do your own research to find out that indeed it is replacable? That's why. You don't know what you're talking about when you tag it. Why don't you stick to subjects that you have a clue on? What, do I have to draw a picture of the guy in Microsoft Paint for it to be acceptable? - Trebeloblues

Regarding the Watt image you tagged,

Mr. Watt himself provided the image to me and gave his full permission to use it on Wikipedia. If you want to see a copy of the e-mail I will gladly provide one. In the meantime, I am removing your tag. --CJ Marsicano 00:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you honestly care?

If you were incorrect? Trebeloblues

Instead of saying they are not properly tagged why don't you tell us how to propperly tag them?

Ok mate, it's obvious I can't properly tag my images, how should I tag them? These aren't just the first pictures I happened to find, it took some time and effort, so I really wouldn't like them deleted. So far you've corected me on Image:ShavoOd.jpg and Image:Wayne-x.jpg. Please help, these are good pictures. Respectfully, --Mudel 08:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not change my copyright tags

As above, do not change my copyright tags, thank you.

Your edit of the tag on the page linked below removes a legal condition and you are taking away a condition of use (for the author to be credited) that is allowed on this site.

You may want to note that the tags I use were agreed to be ok by strict deletionists.

What was your reason for editing it???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dsc00708.JPG#Licensing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monucg (talk • contribs) 12:51, November 20, 2006 (UTC-6)

Re: your message on my page

Right I got that part wrong...

Please just leave my tags alone, I've had to put up with hours of debate and finally agreement to get it to the stage it’s at.

I don’t need people going around editing them for apparently no reason, I’d really prefer to use the limited amount of time I have on this site for uploading images and adding or editing text that improves this site.Monucg 19:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Would it have been too hard to ask "could you use the above attribution tag, as it'd help with categorization?"?

Rather nonsense such as "How is "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that copyright holder is attributed" different from "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that this photograph should not be reproduced unless the author is credited”".

I’ll use that tag. Now please just leave me and my copyright notices alone. You really don’t have any business changing other people’s legal notes what ever your intentions are. Monucg 20:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You can very much regard me as hostility in regards to people editing a legal copyright note without permission.

If you’re not a trained lawyer, you may want to consult one before editing a copyright notice.

I’d advise looking for one who specialises in both intellectual property law and publishing laws which govern the internet sites such as this one. Monucg 20:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

These need to go?

Yes, I'm sure we're getting sued :/ Just like the thousands of websites using them every day... Like you said, they're no compleatly wrong, so why not jut leave them be? Nobody minded for the past months, and turth be told, NOBODY CARES, no really, nobody cares, well okay at least the people that might sue us, they don't care.... no really, they don't.... I'm serious... And anayway, how do you know they're trademarked huh??

/Respectfully --Mudel 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Salisbury image you tagged,

This is a photo that is owned by myself and supplied by my campaign manager for the Guelph municipal election, 2006 article. This is an official campaign photo. Please indicate exactly what licence should be used and I will make the changes. I have looked through all of the reference material and cannot get over the Wikibable - call me simple - but I just can't figuer out what to do --User talk:earthartist 00:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagged for deletion

I responded here several days ago. What happens next? Is it upto you to discuss or will somebody else consider the issue in due time? Will the image be deleted on 11/24 as supposed? Ekantik 01:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Band pictures

Why don't instead of deleting band pictures, add Template:Replacethisimage instead? That way Wikipedia always has a picture of a band on their page, as when one is aquired (taken, or asked for permission) it can be quickly and painlessly replaced. That way editors wont get mad at you, and instead will use that energy to search for a different image. This would save both you and the other party much time that would otherwise be spent bickering over what is and is not appropriate for Wikipedia.Dark jedi requiem 05:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Weird Al image

Someone already found a free image (Image:WeirdAlYankovic.jpg) which is now in use instead of the one you tagged. So Image:Weird-Al.jpg can be deleted. ~~ Gromreaper^(Talk)/_(Cont) 02:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tina Louise.jpg

Judging from your recent comments, particularly relating to the example of an image of Bettie Page, I was wondering if you'd consider removing your tag from this image, as Louise is now in her 70s and this photo depicts her during the only period of her life that she actually had a career. Cheers, Postdlf 02:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Also

The tag you are putting on pages such as Western Addiction is incorrect. It reads that the image is getting speedily deleted, while in all reality it is not. Please stop adding this to Wikipedia. Dark jedi requiem 01:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the template Template:Speedy-image-c under pictures in the article. Not to mention the way you're doing it is messing up infoboxes. Dark jedi requiem 02:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You did mess up the userbox. We're all held to such high standards here at Wikipedia. You could always read the rules instead of giving me such a hard time over something that's obviously fair-use (and on that note, useable on Wikipedia). Dark jedi requiem 02:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As it is the former, I do expect users to make simple errors. But in your case... during your crusade of yours to delete every single fair use image I'd rather myself (or anyone else for that matter) not have to clean up after you. So while you denude Wikipedia of millions pictures you don't damage anymore userboxes, and I don't have to clean up all of your typos. I'm sure you'll find yourself in agreeance. Thank you kindly! Dark jedi requiem 02:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have replied to your message on my talk page. Just click on my signature. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Donelly photo comment by you in my talk page

I am boiling down my comments to a more pertinent reply now that I have digested your message; see the History file for the previous longwinded reply (that seems to miss the point in some respects) about how I don't really care to be involved in these articles any more, wondered why you were stripping out content I worked hard to get a record label's official "promo photo" permission on, how I generally have gotten tired of dealing with articles on these artists for reasons like being misquoted by an artist once and things like your tagging a photo without asking first about whether it was "possible" or not. That's a waste of space on your page, and sorry I was upset about the issue.

It was not possible to get a "free documentation license" on the label's publicity photos at the time I asked. I asked for one. The person who represented Beggars for publicity photos at the time said he did not have the time to fool with getting lawyers' permissions that might take months and he declined to reply with an approval of a legalistic form like our free documentation license since it would require a lot of his time to get legal people to approve in his firm but gave me permission to upload the photo as a promo.

The only way to get one, unless Beggars could be persuaded to do now what they didn't feel like doing at that time, would be to chase after fans for amateur photographs. You are free to do this and should do so if you feel the urge to strip out content. I have done my best for wikipedia. I am sorry this has stressed me out but it's just that I feel you are removing content without doing your own footwork to better it yourself. I think removing content is something I personally would not do in cases like this without obtaining a better licensed photo first; it seems irresponsible to strip out content without your improving it yourself and if I were doing what you are bent on doing, I would do it one by one. But it's your crusade, not mine. You want to remove content, have the responsibility to improve it, not just decimate it. I worked hard on it and I don't go all over the whole wikipedia when I did my work -- I worked on one article at a time. I believe you should work on one at a time too. If you think you can do better, I'm all for you getting a better photo. I'll even send you an email with the contact information for the employees at the record label I contacted but they told me they did not want their email address posted publicly in our talk page. If you want any suggestions on who to talk to I'll be glad to send you it by email -- drop me a note in my email box. If you choose not to bother getting the "better license" you prefer, that's your decision. I already put my time in on writing it and obtaining you a good promophoto -- you want to remove it, I believe you should go and get a better photo license rather at the time you are stripping stuff out but that's just my opinion. Do what you think best.

If you think it's so easily replaceable, I am happy to see you replace it. I did obtain a photographer's free license permission for a Kristin Hersh article (related artist) once by contacting a photographer directly after her management company didn't help me with a photo when I asked, but I am not going to spend my time this way any more. If you are saying it must be possible to get one, go ahead and get someone's permission for a free license, I am all for it. I do not mean this negatively. I think it's a good idea if you can get one. I leave it up to you to do what you think should be done with your tag. I was not familiar with the crusade to remove promo photos. Perhaps Tanya's people or webmaster will supply a free license photo for you. Good luck, I can give you addresses to email. Emerman 04:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I was trying to make my comments above more lucid and understandable and wrote in my edit reason a minute or so ago that I thought you'd changed the page when I was trying to post it (edit conflict error on this page) but actually it's a different user who changed the page below while I was posting it, not you (you must be getting a lot of people stressed out by stripping out content). I got confused. I didn't want to mess up your page with too long of answers and have above boiled down my points better. Good luck with whatever you think is best. I looked at your links on the subject. I honestly believe you should do this one article at a time with responsibility. I do not feel that stripping out content without replacing it yourself and doing good research is a responsible way to treat wikipedia. My opinion. I'm not going to do anything further on this particular article myself; I mentioned to you previously several reasons I'm worn out on spending my time on these artists (history file), but I will help you with email addresses and URLs privately via email if you want to do the responsible thing and try to get a better licensed photo yourself. best, Emerman 04:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please! My computer connection is slow and I have several windows open slowing down my computer. I was trying to thank you but you keep running in making more comments in my page before I can finish editing myself on my own page. I don't have any problem with you getting the photos. Please get them and drop this, I was trying to tell you it's fine but you keep running in while I'm in the middle of typing clarifications on my page and I keep having edit conflicts and can't get my answers down before you go in and type a new message. Just understand I am fine with you getting the photos from whoever! I was trying to say that and you keep interrupting me on my own page. I take a lot of time editing myself, please don't write anything more on my page for at least 30 minutes because I'm trying to work on my own comments; I don't do rough drafts. Emerman 05:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i finished at my page. The bottom line is, it's good you have new photos that will be better licensed ready to go. If you'd just written me that in the first place I would have sent you an applause note in reply but we end up in the same place -- I agree with you that you should get the new photos! Thanks! Emerman 05:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please slow down

Judging from the timing of edits in your contribution history, you often determine that an image is "replaceable" in less than a minute, even though you have no apparent prior familiarity with the subject. This isn't a race, and you're only going to needlessly piss people off and make careless judgments by rushing so fast. I'm also concerned over the fact that you don't seem to spend much time adding to articles, let alone to the articles that actually feature the pictures that you've somehow determined are replaceable. More experience dealing with the editorial judgments involved in article content and with applying images to pictures can only strengthen your ability to interpret fair use policy and needs. Most importantly, please take the time to actually discuss replaceability issues with other contributors first by posting a message on the talk page of the relevant article, so an informed judgment can be made based on 1) the specific informative value of the image; 2) the informative context of the image, based on the time and place it was taken; and 3) the actual access people have to the subject to take a picture that adequately presents the same information. Thanks, Postdlf 04:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look farther back in my history, you'll see that I have plenty of experience both in editing articles and adding images (also see commons:Special:Contributions/Chowbok). I do look over every article before tagging an image, and while I may of course make occasional mistakes, I think in the vast majority of cases my calls have been correct. I don't think it's fair to judge me on the timing of my edit history without giving me specific examples of images I shouldn't have tagged replaceable. I certainly don't want to be dragged into a giant argument about every single promo photo of some college rock band that we have up here. If I were implementing a policy you approved of, would you also want to delay it in such fashion? —Chowbok ☠ 04:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't the policy, it's your understanding of it. Our first fair use criteria states that the replacement must "adequately give the same information." It isn't enough for it to simply be of the same subject. Also, Wikipedia:Fair use states that removal may be requested "if the image could reasonably be replaced with a free image that would provide the same value to the reader." That's what I'm asking you to focus on—whether a replacement is reasonably available, and whether the replacement would adequately give the same information. Each of these require some knowledge of the subject matter, to determine exactly what information the image is providing that another may not, and how accessible the subject is. Whether the individual regularly makes scheduled public appearances would certainly factor into how reasonably the photo could be replaced (that a band is still active and touring would satisfy this question); is this something you actually look into in the minute it takes you to tag the image? I also don't think it's unreasonable to post a message on the article's talk page asking for more information and alerting those most interested in the subject. Postdlf 18:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, despite the speed I'm going through these, I do think I'm focusing on how reasonable it is to expect an image to be replaced. If you compare my history to the promophoto list, you'll see that I'm skipping many images that I don't think or am not sure would be reasonable to expect a replacement. Also, there have been cases where I was convinced by a dispute after tagging it, and I have removed the tag. So I do try to use judgement here, although obviously anyone can question my thinking with this or that individual image. It was bothering me with the original RFU process that only the uploader was notified, as I felt people interested in the subject should also be made aware that the photo might be going away; I left a note about this on the template talk page, and somebody created a template to add to the captions on the image's page(s). Since this is there, I think that's sufficient to notify interested parties about the issue, and a talk page notification would be simply redundant. —Chowbok ☠ 19:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok, on reading the above discussion with you and Postdff, did you know that Donelly does not make regular public appearances any more? It is very rare for her to appear in public since her last pregnancy and it's hard to know when she'll play live again but I guess she will possibly play a show or two in the next year, perhaps, since she has a new album out (live from 2004 performances), though she may also opt not to tour at all since she is raising a new born and a young girl. However there are so many people who already took photos of her in the past maybe someone can obtain one GFDL eventually. Postdff's comment in this section has helped me learn something new about the fair use policy (re: how reasonably a comparable photo could be replaced). Emerman 20:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rasmus.jpg

Hi, I got your message regarding the tags on this image. The image is actually an image which is provided in high resolution as an approved image for press etc. So I effectively already had permission to use it. To be fair to you I didn't reflect this in the tag perhaps as well as I could have done. Could you please advise how it should be tagged, given that it can be used? Thanks, Pete. Brilliantinemortality 15:16, 24 November 2006 (GMT)

Picture you just added in Homelessness article

Hi Kim. I wonder whether it is wise to put a full-face picture of a homeless person in the Homelessness article (I assume you got a legal release -- of course, sometimes they don't hold up because a person may not be compos mentis) like the one you added from Chicago which you took. ( Image:Chicago Hobo.jpg|right|237px|thumb|A homeless man in Chicago, Illinois, 2006. ) We have tried to avoid facial identity, except for the well-known homeless street man in New Zealand. Thoughts? Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 15:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (talk)

Hey, Chowbok, I just saw this above comment. It is very interesting to me the issue of publishing photos taken of members of the public outside without their signed consent. I wonder what the rules are on that legally. I think maybe only in commercial situations rather than educational ones do people have to get a signed consent form, but I'm not sure. As for the matter of libel and slander problems by identifying a person by their face as being "homeless", that's the issue I guess that Bob is bringing up. Sorry to butt in, I just think it's an interesting topic. Emerman 16:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kim. Thanks for the feedback. Let's see how it plays out. As far as what User:Emerman is saying, it used to be a legal requirement to get a signed release ("the Model Release") from a full-face shot of a person if the photo was to be published. Otherwise, trouble. Crowds and "incidental" shots are different, and there are rules about that, but my knowledge is quite out-dated in this area. I haven't done serious photography in many years. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (talk)

The American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. have some guidelines on model releases, etc. It can be found here. It's a mix of person's privacy rights and freedom of expression. It's especially tricky photographing the homeless. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (talk)

Thanks, Kim, for your thoughtful work and help. Best Regards. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC) (talk)

New topic

Hello, Chowbok. By the way, I realize now that you weren't saying you have a photo ready to go, just that you feel some will eventually be available, that's fine. I would view the rationale for removing the photos that don't have free licensing that it might cause a change to be made sooner if you delete all the non free ones than if you leave it the status quo. The alternative view would be that a person should go through the work of improving the page like the previous person tediously did before removing it because until a free photo is found, what's been posted, often with great pains taken to get the photo approved, is superior to a blank space. Anyway, I get the point.

I'm writing you today to ask if you have any suggestion on how a person can keep up with new changes in policy. I wish that in my Account Settings I could select an option to receive notices at my email address of any new messages on my wiki User talk page and also an option to receive an email newsletter summarizing changes in policy from week to week to avoid surprises and confusion. How did you learn of the policy change on the photo issue? Is it a new offical policy or just a guideline? If you answer, you could start a new topic in my page. I am over my initial surpise on this topic. I'd like to keep up with changes in wiki policy so I can direct friends to follow the photo policy change especially. Thanks. I will try to find from your page links on this new policy situation. I did see a discussion including a quote from Jimbo Wales about how wikipedia is "powerful enough now" to demand free licensing. I think he doesn't realize that there are still a lot of artists out there who talk disparagingly of wikipedia. I could point you to links on people trashing wikipedia, including musicians. Our insisting that a photographer's photo of a musician be copied freely since we have no way to guarantee them their credit will be displayed by other sites who copy our photos and our simultaneous past insisting that photos not have a credit embedded in it, i think is too much. I think we should allow people to embed a photo credit since we want to take people's valuable photographic work and allow it to be copied around the internet; we should show we value the photographer's work ourselves and help guarantee they get a credit outside our site (by letting it be embedded). It's really hard to write people for these permissions anyway; some of them are arrogant and rude and don't want to help. I'm not likely to do anything more on it myself but am interested in helping explain new policy to friends. It is fine for you to update me in the future with news of any other impending deletions related to photos i uploaded. I may periodically clean up my page but I'll keep up with what you do. I just always found the photo requests to be difficult because I ran into too much resistance. I'm not sure I'd want my own photos to have that licensing either if I were the photographer (unless the photo credit were embedded), so I'll leave getting further photos than I was able to get to others. Emerman 15:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I found what part of the fair use thing is Policy and which part is Guideline since writing the above. I think one part of the fair use page is confusingly written: they say that if a photo is not fitting the ideals wikipedia has that a fair use photo not be something that is possible to photo (i.e. a living person could be photographed)...that this therefore means the tagged photo failed to meet fair use standards legally and that's not true. It could meet the standard legally but just not meet wikipedia's goal to not bother getting promo photos if a person is living and could be photographed, all academic in the end since it's a policy now. So anyway, I did read the rules now and have added more to my front User page, including links to your & Quadell's information on this subject. I do see the point of view that removing all nonfree photos might get people moving on actually getting some free ones instead of stuck in the status quo. I am instructing a friend to get new photos licensed the way you guys want for an article that's been up a while but i'm not going to be involved in posting it. The process of asking for permission was very tedious in the past so good luck to those who have to go through it in the future. I'll see about making my above suggestions about people getting notifications via email in the appropriate wikipedia forum or you could point me to one to make suggestions at sometime. Emerman 19:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

After looking at all that's involved here including reactions by others in the community, I agree with those who are suggesting that you notify people first because it's a new policy. Wait to go on a tearing rush to replace things for after people have had time to learn of the policy update or tell them. Start slow. Your understanding of the policy has been questioned by Postdff, an admin, too. I think you are needlessly antagonizing people when there is a better way to do things in a way that is harmonious to the wiki community. The tag would be more appropriate to use after the policy has been better introduced. Emerman 03:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

SHAVO

I demand you explain yourself why did you put MY GRAPHIC up for deletion? Because it's a computer graphic? Well let me tell you it was NOT ran through a Photoshop filter as you claimed, pardon, guessed. Would have I gone, printed the image and hand-drew a replica with a normal pencil or a simmilair technique, wich by the way I assure you I am quite capable of, scanned and posted it, would you set it up for deletion? I think not, so why are you setting this up for deletion? Because it was made on a computer? If that's the case as a graphic designer if feel insulted, regardless of the fact that this PHOTOGRAPH was edited and stayed simmilair, IT WAS edited, ti is NOT THE SAME, you can compare it to the old, this is MY OWN WORK, not an original one, but you can consider it as fanart, the last image was done with a simple digital photograph and pixel saving technique this is a collective of colored shapes, BASED on that photo, it is digital artwork. True it's not edited A LOT, but is, it is mine, I made it, I traced it and edited it, it wasn't very hard, still that's no reason for you to go deleting MY work, and I will keep comming back with more graphic editing techniques, each one different, each one will look like the original photo, trust me, I don't give up, and there are lots of image editing effects up my sleeve.

I will remove the deletion tag from Image:ShavoOd.jpg, you are welcome to put it up again, I assure you it will be removed within minutes again. Good day, sir --Mudel 18:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion tags are to remain up during the pendency of their listing; removal is considered vandalism. Remove the tag again and I will block you from editing. I'd also suggest you read up on what it means to make a derivative work of a copyrighted image; you can only make use of your derivative to the extent that you have a right to make use of the image from which it derives. Considering how the Corbis watermark is still legible, you obviously didn't change it very much. Or did you "trace" the watermark too? Postdlf 18:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Woods Tea Company

Not sure why you marked the Woods Tea Company picture for deletion, but.. maybe we could talk about it? The picture was pulled from their official site and says they're for professional use. When Woods Tea visits my school, images from their site are included on their posters. The band is small enough that there aren't any other decent pictures of all of them on the internet (I tried Google image searching), so their press stuff is the best I could do. Do you have any better ideas on how to get a picture? HelloAnnyong 19:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

frivolous tagging

You can't have the frivolous tags you whimsically attach to images stay for months. The discussion ensued, you did not provide a free alternative, nor a suggestion for a free image or how to get it. You can't have it your way just because you say so when the policy and common sense disagree with you. --Irpen 21:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

To second, your frivolous additions of tags violate the policies. Therefore, it is not vandalism to remove them. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a high time for your RfC and I see no point to discuss issues with trolls at the talk pages. One more offense on your part, BTW, is calling others' good faith edits "vandalism" as you do all the time. Take care, --Irpen 21:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. Oh, and if you are tempted to say that "so is calling good faith editors as "trolls", don't bother. Judging from how your activity is received by the community, WP:Troll does fit the description as well as several sectrions of the WP:Troll such as WP:TROLL#Edit_warring, WP:TROLL#Misuse_of_process, WP:TROLL#Pestering. --Irpen 21:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you enjoy pissing other people off?

I GAVE SO MANY REASONS FOr why they should be used and yet you try to claim you will ban me, just what kind of authority do you have?--Jack Cox 03:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You are one of the people who I deem a nitpicker, You pick at the smallest little things--Jack Cox 03:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Found a notation from you in my talk page

Please do not delete the band photo you have marked for deletion and messaged me about until I have had time to try to contact the photographer and ask the photographer if it can have the license you are insisting on. I only found the message from you today. I wish you would busy yourself with researching the writing of articles like I have done, but since you won't, please allow me to do what I have to do now that this policy change has occurred. I didn't know about it but see information on your page now that I am visiting here. A lot of work went into this, please allow me time to work on this instead of randomly rushing about deleting everything in the encyclopedia. Thank you. Requesting the different license is going to require I locate the photographer's email address and so forth, and I hope it is possible for me to locate him. Previously I did not know it was required to ask him for that type of license and I didn't insist on it, so give me a chance to find out, please. It is not easy to find good photos of this person that are CC or GFDL and you are wrong to insist that something just as good is available. Please allow me time to do this research instead of making yourself emperor of deletions. I would have appreciated a notice of the policy instead of a rush to deletion. I find this very rude. – Bebop 16:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't want to get into a long discussion with you over the obvious regarding rudeness of how you are approaching people with these irritating tags annoucing impending, final deletion instead of approaching people with a question informing them of a new policy they haven't known about. People should be given adequate time to get a new photo, considering in some cases it may have taken them *weeks* to get the original photo. But you are giving them "days"; you should wait to resort to nuking a photo till you've given someone adequate time. You seemingly can't be bothered doing that because you're in a huge hurry to rid the whole site of tons of photos instead of taking your time. It's obvious that demanding I either replace a photo immediately or you'll delete it in 7 days from when you posted it (or whatever time limit you gave from the date you put your "boilerplate text" on my page) would be percoved as rude by me, especially since I and many people don't see notes on their page for a couple of weeks; we don't live here at wikipedia. You should be giving people due time to replace photos after they see it, if it is possible to replace it with a "better licensed" image of the same quality, and it's not always possible. Currently it is not possible to get as high quality an image representing the band leader performing live by going to the band or anyone else in GFDL or CC status because I have checked with the band. They are going to try to locate someone who will grant such a license but it's not currently available. The instant one is available I will immediately upgrade the license or replace the image with one with what you demand.

Stop assuming it's possible to get a like image at CC status just because someone is alive. The artist about whom you chose to leave that ditty on my page is one who does not play regularly at all and is not based in the U.S.; his band is not even based in the same city as he. There are excellent photos available of him playing live but none are as yet GFDL or CC. I will obtain one as soon as one becomes available but for now it is not possible, therefore your notice is incorrect, please remove it. It is not possible to run out on the street and take a photo of him playing live with his current drummer as depicted, well photographed, and CC or GFDL licensed. They may not play again ever or for years, or might play, but nothing is scheduled, and their stated goal has been to not play until they get their next album on a label, which might or might not happen. You have no replacement photo, nor could you care less to get one, so please stop trotting out your notices. They are definitely rude because of the spirit in which you are putting them up, whether you get some others to cave in on this topic or not. Most people are sick of these pressure tactics to force them to instantly get something suiting you at the snap of a finger and it's unfortunate to see your complaints on a talk page that "people give you crap" about photos. You are the one giving people crap by pressuring people with deletion warnings and no fair chance to do something first while you don't get out and try to do anything about getting a better license yourself or find a different photo depicting the same subject matter (live shot singing, well photographed) in GFDL or CC. There is no better photo illustrating the band leader singing live currently licensed in GFDL or CC. I will get one as soon as one is available. It's not currently possible to get one so your statement that it's possible is false; the image is of live performance and he's not performing again any time soon. If it becomes possible, one will be obtained immediately now that I am aware of your demand. People are giving wikipedia their time and put in a lot of time to obtain photos you are capriciously tagging in an inconsistent fashion; you should work with editors after sending a head's up comment on their page (rather than an ultimatum tag demanding we do something or you'll delete it in a few days) and allow the editor at issue a month or two to make corrections till the policy has been widely circulated. A year from now, maybe it would make sense for you to go wild like you're doing all over wikipedia but you are premature at doing this so quickly and should give people a chance before you run half the editors out of here -- write them a good faith note, not a demanding ultimatum of deletion tag, give them a chance to first see it, which may take a couple of weeks, then a couple of months to do something about it, then after that, deletion could be considered, but I am offended at how this is being handled because it took time to get the photos, and not just "7 to 10 days" or whatever fast time frame you are demanding. Save the ultimatums until you have given people you give a head's up a chance or a year has passed for the policy to be known. Head's up is best at first, then tag later; otherwise, yes, I think it's rude. . – Bebop 02:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, you are not the messenger, you are taking actions that are not necessary. Wait until people have time to get something done instead of pressuring people unfairly. Let a person know about a new policy and ask them to see what they can do. Then delete it after a couple of months. Nobody ordered you to go around deleting photos. It's not the procedure. Can't you give a person a chance to do something instead of just going around deleting things? You haven't invested any time into this article, please allow me time to do something about it and no, it's not as yet possible to get a live shot GFDL or CC as yet, as I told you but you keep ignoring the point. Others have questioned your interpretation of the rules and I disagree with what you are doing. Bebop 02:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read the reasons already explained to you instead of writing me "why isn't it possible". I told you why it isn't possible in detail!!!!! You are taking up a lot of my time. Please stop it. I told you the person does not perform live much, will not perform live any time soon and I have contacted the band for all their resources about currently available GFDL AND CC photos; they are not yet available. Nobody knew they had to get any. It is not true these "shouldn't have been uploaded in the first place" -- the policy used to be that it was perfectly acceptable. There is no tearing hurry for you to make it be as though the past policy understanding everyone followed never existed. It may now be that people want free images but you should allow people time to learn of the policy, which you can tell them of and give them time to alter their article instead of going around like it's your personal duty to remove things people spent a lot of effort putting up and you yourself have mentioned that it wasn't policy till recently. I already gave you several reasons it is not replaceable. It's live and there IS NO GFDL OR CC image to that quality of the live concert information available; i have checked. You have not. I am in the process of trying to do something about that. You do not read the answers and I feel you are simply trolling for an argument. I don't want to hear from you any more about this. I have told you the situation. You have done absolutely no research on this issue and I have contacted numerous photographers and the band already. Why would it be horrible? Because it is a valuable addition to the piece to show the band leader performing live. Please use your brain instead of asking something obvious. You are antagonizing everyone and certainly I told you in one message I have the flu. I am tired and ill. Stop hassling me. I told you I am getting something done about it. Give me time. I have had less than one day. Stop sending me lists of questions to answer. I am really tired of this hassle from you. You have already been given more than enough reasons and I am sick of this bickering. I did not say I am not trying to make it possible but it is not currently possible. Nothing is available YET. I am not going to give up trying to get one. Please wait and stop rushing and pressuring people, as other admin have asked you. I'm sorry you are unable to see the value of images in an article. – Bebop 02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a note from you about wanting a conversation. It's not that I wanted to be "discourteous". It's just that I don't feel you respect the answers given and read them and that is, to me, discourteous. You come back and keep repeating the same question as though I haven't answered both in your talk page and in the photo page. That tends to make a person's blood boil because it's a holiday weekend, I'm getting over the flu as I mentioned, I don't have time to keep repeating myself or have long conversations about minutiae with people I have already taken the time to answer and begin research for, and told I am researching further about the subject you have notified me is a problem. I am trying. But you don't respect the replies you get and you don't give a person time to get more done to see if there in the future will be a possibility to replace the image with something free. It's not possible yet to replace the image with one that is well shot portraying the individual performing live and with a free license. But that doesn't mean I am not on the hunt to make it possible. The instant I have something free it's going in that article but photographers who have not made images available previously under the license you want are having to be approached with requests for freer licenses and having to be explained the legalities. You will see that I'll be among the first here to get it to be possible to have the image you want or the license you want on the image presently in the article if you will just give me time. I've only known about this since yesterday. I will be in and out of town today but in the next few days I will be working on this issue. I just don't want to have to keep spending time typing any more to you about it until I've got news for you because it is time consuming and you already are taking up my time with the research I'm doing on this in this huge rush for you. I don't think you respect people's time and work. I don't have time to be interrogated further is what I tried to say to you. I am now going out of town a few hours and will return today. I am not sitting at the computer in wikipedia every minute of the day but I will continue my work on this issue, just give me a few days (not weeks or months, days). Thanks. – Bebop 13:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Fair use images

Please stop letting me know which images you don't think should be tagged as fair use...whether they are or not. At this point I really don't give a shit. Thanks. :) Ric | opiaterein 20:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't You Threaten me with a Ban

Who the hell are you to threaten me with a ban your nothing but powerless and are trying to bully your critics into submission.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jack Cox (talk • contribs) 22:13, November 25, 2006 (UTC-6)

RfC

A request for commentary has been filed regarding edits and RfU templates you have added to images. Please follow the link to add your commentary to the designated space. [1]] Thank you. TheQuandry 04:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Vern Buchanan's Photo

Did you not read what I wrote on the talk page at all??? Once the politician takes office- that's January 3, 2007- he will receive a page on the official website of the US Congress. Since works of Congress are in the public domain, anything posted on that site will be free for use on wikipedia. However, until then, it is not possible to find a fair use image. Pictures that are currrently available of these representative-elects come from the websites of candidates and from photos that are released to or taken by the media. What I am saying is that this image should be used temporarily. In January, free images will become available. But as for now, press photos such as these are the only option. VitaleBaby 05:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Your response

I see you are now trying to slander me at other user talk pages accusing me in WP:Harassment. This is an interesting development and a very curious view. I suggest you then take it to WP:PAIN because Harassment is a serious offense and will result in my immediate ban. Or to ArbCom. As I am writing my view for the RfC of yours, I will now include this reaction you displayed as well.

That all aside, please be careful in the future with accusing others of anything. This unfair accusations brought in bad faith are WP:Harassment and WP:TROLLING. May I request that you read both pages. --Irpen 20:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I must say

It was quite childish of your high and mighty administrator to first block me and then send me a warning message that he will. Yes, shoot first ask questions later. And I don't want to hear a Well ti was quite childish of you to go vandalising wikipedia with the removal of the deletion tag. comment, because I don't look at it as vandalising wikipedia, meerly trying to help it by giving it a picture, let's face it enciclopedias without images are dull. I could easyly upload a fanart of somebody else, claim it is my own and let's see you prove it's not, however I'm not that low. Seems I will, mostly, have to make my own images, luckyly I have the skill, software and education to do so, while most do not. Anway let's see you think of a legal notion to delete me now! Having fun, --Mudel 21:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please let me finish the work I am doing on the article

Re: the PB article, I am in touch with the band. They forwarded me an email from you that had a "no reply" email address in it from you asking about their Flickr photos. Their flickr photos are up with copyrights reserved by the photographers. Please stop undermining my efforts to get photos from these people. I do not need your assistance. If I do, I will ask you for it. Please stop making this harder for me by your clumsy attempts at contacting the band, thus confusing them. I and they are working together in contact with photographers directly. Please allow me to get the information I am seeking and do not hassle the band further. I am already working with them on this. Also, please do not put words in my mouth on the RfC page. I do not understand what an RfC is but they told me it is to get a consensus about procedure. I disagree with you that there is a "war" going on. I wish you would work with people in a less combative way and listen to people when they answer you. I told you repeatedly I'm working on it, give me time to get the license from the photographers. You are only making it harder by the email you sent today that they forwarded. You gave them no reply address and confused everyone. I've explained it to them now, just leave it be and give me time. It's not up to the band. It's up to the photographer, please understand that. The photographer owns the copyrights, not the band on those photos. The photographer allowed them to put them in Flickr with rights reserved. – Bebop 21:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see response on my page. I also must adjust the above to acknowledge I have since learned that the "no reply" aspect to the email you sent them was just the version that was the copy they got in their Yahoo account since Flickr is connected with Yahoo. The band got confused and did not know that there was also a copy in their flickr account itself at first because no one has tried to send them a message there before. At any rate I just would like a chance to get finished with this project, give me a chance to get my work done on it. – Bebop 00:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC notifications

Hi, I saw that both you and Sebbeng have been notifying a bunch of people about the current RfC, and I'm asking you both to stop, as it can create an impression that the RfC is about who can muster the most supporters, and not about discussion. I'm going to post a notice on several centralized fair use discussion locations, but please don't do any more talk page notifications of this sort. --Robth^Talk 05:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Trilok Gurtu

In quickly scanning your page, it appears you have made a lot of people angry, and if this is an indication of your actions, I see why. I have tagged and disputed your claim that a free fair use image of Trilok Gurtu is somehow readily available, even though I did not upload the original image. I noticed in some cases you have at least self-righteously attempted to indicate where free images were available, but not in this instance. The image in question was uploaded from the artist's Web site, and was specifically placed there with an encouragement from said artist to download and reuse the image. The tag was appropriate and there is zero reason to protest this image existing on Wikipedia. If a better image exists, find it, and substitute it, instead of tagging the existing image for deletion. This is yet another example of so-called copyright protection run amok. Tvccs 05:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take my actions personally. Wikipedia policy is that a fair-use image can not be used if it can be replaced with a free image even if a free image does not currently exist. This is a controversial policy, and whoever implements it is going to be roundly attacked, but that doesn't mean this is some private whim of mine. I will be happy to discuss this with you further; I hope, however, that you not take the lead of some other editors who have messaged me and descend into discourtesy. Do keep in mind that even though you may disagree with my actions, I am undertaking them with the intent of improving Wikipedia. Looking forward to hearing back from you. —Chowbok ☠ 05:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply - I radically disagree with your premise, period, and am adding comments to the Rfc page to that effect. You assume an image is available, and deleting an image such as the one in question, when it is specifcally provided by the artist in question for purposes such as Wikipedia, should be used as such, and is of high quality. With all due respect, politeness in your reply is not a substitute for your actions, which end up degrading Wikipedia content, and the hard work of others, for no reason whatsoever other than your misinterpretation and overly broad implementation of the subject at hand. One of Wikipedia's greatest present weaknesses is editors who are more concerned with removing legitimate content than doing something that is actually constructive, and this is a gross instance of such. Tvccs 05:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer on image linking for User talk. Tvccs 05:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

Aw you snoop, you got it linked quoted and everything =)

That BTW was an inpersonal attack, this is a personal attack.

And I haven't called any editor "shits", meerly you a "shit". Shits would mean that they are united and have ingaged in a colaborated act, like united states of shitness, united shitdom, north atlantic shitty organisation ect. When someone is a shit he has comitted an isolated event, in your case being uneceseraly precise and annoying AKA a shit.

If it makes you feel any better, go have me banned for another 48 hours, no no make it a week just to make you feel really important XD Off to your RfC you, --Mudel 08:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the info

Thanks for the time you took to reply; I have replied to your messages on my talk page. I appreciate your finding the free image of Donelly. It's better than the grim looking one we had there and I wasn't into doing work on that particular article again, at least not as I feel currently about dealing with certain topics (which has nothing at all to do with you or your tag; it's more to do with bad experiences trying to talk to management companies for artists about licensing and disrespect from them). There are about three or four artist articles I feel I have done all I can do on and have given all I want to give of my time on (unless I change my mind some day), but I might do other articles on other subjects in the future. I had questions about your licensing info suggestions, shown at my talk page. I hope you can help me understand the best one to use or suggest to photographers in the future for those who don't want their photo later commercially sold by someone visiting wikipedia. I just thought of a nother question to add to my talk page, the part about why the tag on the photo you uploaded says something about needing confirmation from an admin. Will write the question there. Emerman 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I added questions and added a sentence or two to the questions that you were going to answer later too at my talk page. Emerman 17:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for info on the NC and ND licenses. Does wikipedia just want people to do CC by and CC by SA period and GFDL? Also, see question higher on my talk page about your irrevocability comment. Thanks again! Emerman 17:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are the questions I have added to my page in case it's easier for you to see them here:

Not talking about a photo by me. Talking about a photo from someone else. Do we upload things to wikipedia or wikipedia commons? I saw your photo of Donelly says it's in Wikipedia Commons? Thanks for all the info.

You say it's irrevocable if you release something CC? So is that the same on GFDL? Do I tell a photographer that if he does this, it cannot later be withdrawn by him and so he can't have it deleted from Wikipedia a year later or change his mind some day? Where did you learn of the irrevocability?

New question when you get time - Chowbok, when you put your photo up and someone used it on their front page after altering it, don't they still have to give you attribution if you had released it as attriubtion only even if the person made a derivative work from it? Do I explain that to the photographer that technically people are supposed to give a photo credit if they use the photo even if they change it if it is CC BY or CC BY SA? Emerman 17:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. The one item you didn't answer is the last one, whether a third party altering a photo of yours later after you released it on the internet CC by SA is supposed to have to provide a photo credit to you (technically) whether they put it on their website or a tshirt later? That's one I was trying to explain to someone else and I need to know. I'll try to find it in a faq. Emerman 20:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I got the last questions answered by email from a friend here, so no need to reply to the last questions. I appreciate the responses from previously. I help another user a lot of times by email and I have to make sure I understand everything properly. But I also know you aren't the help desk! Thanks again. Emerman 03:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sherilynfenn.gif

Could you please explain to me why you deleted this picture? It's an agency picture, it means the picture has been chosen by the actress and her agent and was intended for wide distribution and publicity. As you asked me to do, I explained all this on the Image:Sherilynfenn.gif discussion page and added a rationale for fair use in article Sherilyn Fenn. I've worked a lot to write a correct article about her, but you just deleted the picture without telling me why the rationale was not ok. I don't see why an agency picture couldn't be used for fair use.Qylecoop 00:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Untitled comment

One would wonder why someone would get flammed when they don't have a disclaimer on their talk page during the undertaking of a very touchy topic. Further, when one only points to an RfU as explination, others may get following words trickling through their head, "Oh I see, so when someone get's the blessing of Jimbo Wales, they no longer have to attempt to be nice, they can just say 'Have a problem talk to my lawyers'". Let's hope that a person who willingly takes on a touchy subject of image tagging could add a polite message on his talk page to help address people taking this personally. Hackajar 04:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You might get a kick outta this...

As the kids say, "by their fruits shall ye know them."[2] Postdlf 04:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it's true, I think Jesus lol jokes are great, they tend to show him in a friendlyer image, 'Buddy Christ' style from The dogma, if you will. Not so stuck up and serious as the catholics have for ages.

The dogma was an awsome movie.

Saint Matt also said that BTW =P

What am I a freigeist or something, as everyone seems to check up on what I type?? Heh, sweet.--Mudel 19:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Notifying Users of Image Problems - A How-To

When contacting users regarding an issue, especially when there understanding of Copyright tagging is incorrect there are obviously certin baslines that should be noticed -

1. A user will respond to person initating inquery on Image in question, not community portal where most open disscussions are held
2. Person responding will problably ask a veryation of "What exactly was done wrong?", and expect a response
3. Person coming to talk page riddled with flames by other people will engage person tagging image much the same as what he see's on talk page already
4. Without administartor status, person commenting will not be as nice to you in talk page
5. With no clear mission outlined (beyond a reference to someone elses view on topic) in your user page or on talk page, it is easy for people to think you work for a copyright holder, are board and looking to stir up trouble or attempting to take on roles of an administrator when your not
6. Tagging 1,000+ images in a short time will cause mass histeria, and thus, you have imposed the responsibility of managing hundrends of angry users coming at you. Perhaps if you dipped your toes in with only 50 images and mitigated peoples concerns it would not have spirled out of control.
7. Adding a bold remark to top of talk page to your RfU as an explination is not satisfactory. Perhaps something along the lines of:

"To assist in making Wikipedia a more legal forum of information, I have begun tagging images that may be infringing to the copyright owners. While I understand that not all images can get an alternitive free (as in beer) image, it has been outlined in recent policy that wikipedia must move away from 'fair use' images. I would like to advise you that 'PR Images' can be successfully posted on wikipedia but there still needs to be a link to evidance that publisher in fact releases all copyrights to said image. If you happen to have many images that were tagged, this is not a personal attack, but coencidence. Lastly, due to volume of images I am currently auditing, I cannot always respond to your inqueries either on my talk page or yours, instead advise you to review Copyright, Fair Use and Public Domain guidlines. If you still feel that I have tagged your image in error, please leave a comment both on my talk page with your explination and on the images talk page"

Hackajar 07:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

update

got a CC by SA 2.5 license confirmed by the photographer and updated photo. Thanks. Will research other photos I have worked on in the past. – Bebop 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use images

You're doing great work. Hang in there. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Good news, I've decided not to kill you"

I am well aware of the wiki no attacks policy man, and I am not commenting contributors, in theory I might know you and even like you, but I'd still think what you're doing is wrong, I'm commenting your work not you, sorry. Oh no, more block threats, what is a bloke to do? :/ How about using my brain (as unrelable as it may be) and not wiki policys. And the whole time I've had a blast and I did stay cool (like a bloody cucumber), sorry but I just love to make a fuss ^_^. I'm going to keep doing what I've been doing, and good news for you, stop posting on your talk page. Because wikifreaks like you make wikipedia SUCK. Bye. --Mudel 20:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (QUICK Postdlf, HERE'S YOUR CHANCE!)

One reason why the policy is crap...

...especially in the case of articles being handled by WP:H!P, is because more often than not, there are NO "FREE" repeatable images that can replace them. Since the articles monitored/created/edited by WP:H!P are music-related, images of the artists are beyond crucial, and removing them pretty much cheapens/lessens the value of the articles. Public domain or GFDL pictures of Hello! Project artists quite frankly, are not available to "replace" the pictures that have been posted with proper attribution insofar to the copyright holder.

More often than not, the standard copyrighted promotional image, meant for license without royalty for media outlets both offline and online - yes, that includes Wikipedia - is a much better representation of the subject than a free image. Using a poor-quality "free" image just because it is in the public domain does not do justice to either the subject or Wikipedia itself.

The more you subject otherwise usable images to your rather narrow interpretation of Fair Use policy, the more you do harm to Wikipedia. You might as well hit the "erase" button on wikipedia.org's servers at this rate.

With all that in mind, I suggest you step back from this for a good long while until you have a better understanding of the matter. --CJ Marsicano 05:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's one thing that has been pissing me off since you started all this... many of the photographs you have been tagging have no "repeatable free replacement" and/or have been given proper attribution according to existing Wikipedia guidelines. Simple as that.

To be perfectly honest, I'd rather play fair by having the photos in the articles, given proper credit, than have no images at all.

Just slow down already. --CJ Marsicano 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok did not create this policy. If you disagree with the policy, you might want to take it up with its author, User:Jimbo Wales. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-replaceability of images on articles supervised by WP:H!P

As the guy who founded WikiProject:Hello! Project, I'd like to point out the following points regarding why images like the one currently on the Yuko Nakazawa article should be left the heck alone: 1. They are distributed by Up-Front Works to be used by all manner of online and offline media. Copies of them are also distributed to their Japanese fan club. There are several Western sites devoted to Hello! Project that use and archive these photographs; Up-Front Works have made no public objections that I know of to the use of these visual representations on non-Japanese fan-run websites. Since fans like myself are usually the ones contributing/updating material related to H!P acts, the Wikipedia articles on H!P acts aren't much different. 2. The photographs are wholly important to their subjects since part of their appeal/notability is their looks, and accurately represents their public persona, which in turn would merit their notability enough to have an article on Wikipedia in the first place. An article on a pop idol whose appeal is both musical and visual without at a good quality visual representation isn't much of an article and doesn't fare well on the quality of Wikipedia as a whoie. 3. There are no "free" alternatives whatsoever. UPW does not allow still cameras into their live events, and getting pics of H!P artists that aren't tabloid bullshit (the Friday photograph of a disguised Mari Yaguchi with her then-boyfriend, anyone?) is next to impossible. (Go ahead and try to find "free" images of anyone in H!P.) 4. The removal of photos would set a very ugly precedent that would negatively affect the quality of Wikipedia. Most Wikipedia editors are bending over backwards when it comes to promo photos, album covers, and the like for articles.

Not to mention, there's that little matter of the Fair Use Clause in the US Copyright Act, which as currently written (and interpreted by the Supreme Court) would allow, for example -- gee golly whiz -- copyrighted publicity photos (with proper credit given) to be used on Wikipedia. Yeah, I know I keep bringing that up, but it's pretty damn important in the grand scheme of things.

There's probably a few other reasons for retaining these pics, but I can't think of them right now. --CJ Marsicano 06:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just chiming in here: I think everything you've said, CJ (except for point #4) is true. However, it is against our Wikipedia Policy to use that image. See WP:FUC for details. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just read WP:FUC and it seems to me like the images WP:H!P have been using for the articles it supervises do indeed fit that criteria. --CJ Marsicano 22:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A Message to You, Chowbok!

It's seems you have a long history of slapping bullshit tags on people's images. Will you just leave them alone and let them take care of the situation on their own. though, the problem is not so much what you do but the way you do it. Don't you even think of tagging my images! There I finally got that out of me. Adamv88 13:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I just learned from Adamv88's userboxes that this user is in 12th grade, this user has a profile on MySpace, this user needs to get a life, and this user just wasted your time. None of which surprises me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what's wrong with being in the 12th grade and having an MySpace page? Is he dumber and inferior to you now or something? Feeling cooler are you? There's nothing wrong with wasting time on wikipedia, as you always learn something new. --Mudel 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My MySpace is not one of those stereotypical ones with the bad color schemes, suggestive profile photos taken at weird angles, or some emo band playing in the background. However, their is in fact intellegent life on Myspace, Mike Watt has one y'know. Quadell thinks I'm immature yet he makes preconceived notions based on my age and the fact that I have a MySpace. Here's a good idea for a userbox "This user hates hypocrites". Adamv88 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine how Quadell got the idea you are immature. Slapping unsolicited messages on people's talk pages calling them "Nazis" is usually taken as a sign of maturity and tasteful restraint. —Chowbok ☠ 17:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm maybe when he indicated that he was in teh 12th grade and said he needs to get a life? Must imature people fit in that category, espetially in the 'need to get a life' part. And slaping unsolicited mesages doesn't mean he's imature, it kind of normal to do that. Good lord. And Nazi was an indication that he forced his will on him, you know, LIKE THE NAZIS DID and liek you are doing.--Mudel 22:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

PS I have got to stop posting on your talk page, soryr mate HAHA --Mudel 22:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I was exaggerating with image Nazi thing, but still this was just spur of the moment reaction to the other posts by people who were displeased with you.I'm just saying that there is obviously a better way to handle the situations. Adamv88 02:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's true, sorry I can't resist online arguing =) --Mudel 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to believe I said that stupid shit.

Non-free photos of bands

There is an interesting debate going on at Image talk:Wheatus 2005.jpg (regarding Image:Wheatus 2005.jpg). It has a potential effect on many other images, and I'm really not sure where I fall on this. If you'd like to chime in, your input would be valued.

Also, did you know about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali? I thought you might be interested. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rodneytom.jpg

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. As stated I believe that I have two rationales for considering this image legitimately here: permission of the copyright owner, and fair use. Even if the permission slip is faulty (as it may be), it's still a fair use. I question whether promo shots are truly repeatable; this is the image that Tom has chosen to represent himself in public presentation. It's a posed studio shot and has undoubtedly been approved by Tom himself. How would one repeat this? Going up to him with a digicam and saying, "Hey, Rodney... say cheese!" wouldn't do it. I can't think of any definition of "unrepeatable" that this image would fail that any other promotional image of a living person or existing product would also fail, which would render {{promophoto}} completely moot. The fair use criteria plainly contemplate press photos, nearly all of which are "repeatable" in a very loose sense.

I'm sorry that you and Irpen are engaged in a dispute, but I have no wish to be involved in it. VoiceOfReason 02:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your refusal to explain your claims at image talk pages

The next time you remove a Replaceable Fair Use tag, I will report you for vandalism. No matter how much you hate the policy, my interpretation of the policy, or me, you can't just take those tags off the image pages. This is the last time I'll warn you about this. —Chowbok ☠ 01:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok, please Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith. If Irpen removed the tag it must have been because the tag was added to a place where it did not belong. As we all have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, we all are just being bold and editing for the common good. Thank you. TheQuandry 02:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok, if the uploader believes in good faith that the image is usable under the FU clause and the uploader provided a gf rationale for such use and gave a source, the image may still be questionalbe, true enough, as the uploader may have made a judgement error. However, the courtesy and common sense demands that if you find this to be the case and you question the image's rationale, you provide the uploader and the rest of the interested users with the explanation at image talk on why you think his/her rationale is faulty. Such explanation belongs to an image talk similar to the dispute points raised by the user who tags the article as uncompliant with Wikipedia NPOV policy. No such tag can be added without explanation and there is no single case when I removed the tag when such explanation was provided by you or whoever.

Your dispute claim should address specific rationale given by the uploader as applies to the specific article rather than be a generic sentence pasted into hundreds of pages as done frequnetly by Quadell. Without such elaboration your FUD claim is meaningless and impossible to address by the user however much he is willing to satisfy you. Similarly to other disputed tag, your favored tag is meaningless if not accompanied with a specific explanation that is likely different in each an every case. Besides, using generic Quandel style "dispute" via pasting the same paragraph to hundreds of pages is also incivil. But completely disregarding the given fair use claim is worse than uncivil, it is disruptive.

I did not remove a tag in a single case where you or anyone gave an explanation on what exactly you dispute at the image talk. I did remove the tag in cases where no such explanation was given. If you want your tags kept, provide an image specific explanation at talk on why the FU claim is invalid. I am unimpressed by your threats and I welcome you to raise the issue on the admin boards as I would welcome your behavior being brought to even wider attention. But as a good will gesture, I will wait to remove your tags for now, to give you a chance to explain your grievances at talk in each specific case but please do so NOW out of courtesy to the editors who uploaded the image, first of all, and for the sake of the encyclopedia to which you claim you serve.

Please note that the current wording of the RFU tag that dictates how it is to be dealt with (responded with RFUD and never removed under any circumstances) is placed at the tag arbitrary, is not dictated by any policy and was not achieved by consensus. The tag being protected impedes the possibility of clearing this up. The tag disputes the compliance with policies the same way as the NPOV tag as explained above. Both are subject to 3RR. Otherwise, please provide the 3RR policy clause that claims otherwise, preferably not edited WRT to this issue within last, say, two months, like a sneaky "update" of the FU policy. There are very narrow cases where 3RR does not apply outside of simple vandalism. Such are removal of good faith AfD tags, true.

Your claim that RFU tag is similar to AfD does not hold water. That would be IfD. The analog to RFU in article space is "PROD" and note that PROD may be removed at any time and may not be replaced. Nevertheless, I do see an argument to treat RFU similar to POV or ACCURACY tags. But no way you can make a case for similarity between AfD and RFU. As such, RFU certainly falls under 3RR policy. At the same time, it should not of course be removed or added by sterile edit warring. Removal is acceptable, similar to NPOV or ACCURACY tags, if there seems to me a clear majority formed on the particular case or the tagger failed to explain his/her problems with the image. This is exactly the case why your tags where removed. Taking no position on the issue of the good faith of their placement, such objections are unexplained and cannot possibly be addressed, unless the image lacks source, rationale or rationale/source are frivolous.

Also, from the mere common sense it follows that if the fairuse image has an elaborate and/or self-evident rationale, whoever questions it needs to explain how s/he disputes such rationale. As such, the tagger should initiate a discussion and tagging the page without initiating such discussion is both uncivil and meaningless as users would have no idea what exactly is disputed. Yes, the burden lies with the FUI uploader to justify the image. However, once justification is provided, the common courtesy as well as common sense requires the tagger to state what exactly is the problem if he sees any in a non-frivolous, non-generic way but specifically in connection with the image in question. --Irpen 03:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Look isn't this all getting a little silly. I am here to contribute to wikipedia not argue like children. please do not tag my work and I won't bother you one bit. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A promise to review - Still waiting

When Will this get commented on?(as you said you would review it in a message on my talk page) Or do you prefere to stay on same course of mitigating flame wars aimed at you instead of resolving issues at core? Hackajar 08:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Image on Neck

Please take a look at the image on Neck. It's just plain bad quality (and possibly a pathological neck) and demeans Wikipedia. There must be something better! -- Fyslee 11:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply from Ernst Stavro Blofeld

yes mate I don't have a problem with them being disputed but it is the fact you will delete the images as soon as you can. If you just leave it tagged as dupsuted rather than wiping it out after one week I won't remove them. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Byut know I look on a page and because you have tagged it it says it will be deleted on 7 December no questions. I'm soory but if it will be deleted in one week I am removing the tags. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)