User talk:Aido2002

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aido2002	Photography	Tell Me What You Think	Talk

Hi. Leave me a message, and I'll get back to you.

Please note: some messages and other itmes have been removed from this page; you can view them by browsing this page's history. (NOT ARCHIVES, HISTORY.)

I now leave old messages on the page as most people do, I no longer blank the page after a while. I used to do this because you could read the past messages in the history, but if nobody can comprehend this...

To start a new discussion topic, please click here.

---

Archives

• Archives, page 1
• Archives, page 2
• Archives, page 3
• Archives, page 4

---

[edit] Galleries of images

The WNBC gallery does violate fair use criteria. It says this:

The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.

The station logo at the top of the article and the few images of newscaters already illustrates the relevent points of the text. A gallery of images does not illustrate much of a relevent purpose and is purely decorative. If they were intergrated into a history section, about different eras of WNBC, the case for fair use would be stronger, but even then we would only need 2-3 images, not the 11 present in that gallery. Hbdragon88 22:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a history section. The logos are just put there. I asked on WP:MCQ just to see if I was right or not and the reply [1] also agreed that there weas no critical commentary on the gallery of logos. Hbdragon88 03:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Telecommunications

Hi,

I have made some changes to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications lately, which I think you are the father to. Please feel free to comment on what you think about this, and perhaps add something to the "todo" list. Mange01 00:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WNBC

I did not realize I was removing valid edits when I reverted others, and that is my fault. Sorry about that to you and everyone else in the Wikipedia community. aido2002 04:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's no big deal! We learn from our mistakes.  :-) —David Levy 04:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I know, I just felt like I should say something. aido2002 04:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being so considerate! —David Levy 04:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"its too bad that much of the edits to this page are either stupidity, or me reverting it..." (your edit summary) 20:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The above is an uncivil personal attack. Please refrain from claiming that other editors are stupid.

2. I have not involved myself in the logo issue, but I've repeatedly asked you to consult my discussion with Rollosmokes and our Manual of Style regarding the correct format for channel assignments. These are written numerically throughout Wikipedia, and it defies common usage to deviate from this style. Please stop reverting this element without discussion. Thank you. —David Levy 05:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack, I was saying I think that the idea that this is all that is going on there is stupid. We have discussed it, none of us changed our minds, so I guess this goes on until someone stops caring. aido2002 16:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

1. You didn't reference the stupidity of the situation. You referenced the stupidity of others' edits. Please refrain from making such statements (which certainly don't help to resolve disputes).

2. At no point have you discussed the channel assignment issue. I've repeatedly explained that the spelled-out format contradicts Wikipedia convention (noted in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, the guide with which our articles are supposed to comply) and that of most people and publications. Have you read my discussion with Rollosmokes? —David Levy 16:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Your continual, discussion-free defiance of clear Wikipedia consensus and the MoS cannot be interpreted as anything other than a bad-faith act.

2. Regardless of their use in the article, the WNBC logo images were properly deleted, as the accompanying descriptions contained no source information and no fair use rationale. Re-uploading them was entirely inappropriate.

If you continue to engage in the above misconduct, you will be reported for administrative intervention. —David Levy 23:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re-uploading them was not "entirely inappropriate." AManinBlack deleted them, and said in the deletion log that he did so because they were orphaned. Because they should not have been, and were orphaned by him, re-uploading and restoring them to the page was the right course of action to take. aido2002 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I know that you're familiar with our fair use criteria (which you've cited), and I direct your attention to criterion #10. —David Levy 01:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do acknowledge that I am not familiar with the fair use policy, so feel free to add the info. The copyrights are held by NBC Universal. aido2002 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition to copyright/source information, it's important to add a detailed fair use rationale for each article in which the images are used (explaining precisely how the fair use qualifications are met). Given the fact that the fair use qualifications probably aren't met, that would be quite difficult in this instance. —David Levy 03:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the image was by no means the correct course of action to take, the only real issue was the lack of attribution, which you could have added. aido2002 04:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, that wasn't the only missing information. Did you read my above reply? —David Levy 06:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We talked about this. the rationale is that they help the article, they illustrate what we say, and are vital. aido2002 04:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

1. No, we never discussed this. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

2. Your opinion that the images are "vital" doesn't make them so. I'd like to be able to keep them (as I agree that they're interesting), but there really isn't a strong fair use argument here. We have no prose regarding their history or significance, and you even removed the slightly specific descriptions that we did have (not that these were sufficient). In any event, the image pages themselves contained absolutely no fair use rationales. —David Levy 05:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

They are vital for the same reason pictures are vital in a history textbook. aido2002 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC

The comparison isn't valid, given the fact that the images don't illustrate anything covered in the article. I'm very interested in the station logos (and I'm considering a career in TV graphics design / digital editing), but it does appear as though we lack the legal right to display them as a gallery. —David Levy 03:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Go after the original uploader about the fair use rationale thing, I am the wrong person to talk to for it. aido2002 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're the right person, as you're the one who re-uploaded the images without the appropriate information. We don't "go after" uploaders and wait for them to correct the problems. We delete the offending files. —David Levy 03:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

amaninblack should not have deleted the images, he orphaned them, and several people were against it. He did not have a legitimate reason to, I hope you can agree with me on this. aido2002 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't. He was enforcing Wikimedia Foundation policy. It doesn't matter how many people want to ignore the policy (which cannot be negated via consensus). It would have been irresponsible for him to have not orphaned the images when he deleted them, as this would have left broken transclusions behind. —David Levy 03:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus was that it did not violate policy. aido2002 23:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Among which users did this consensus form? How eager were they to include the logos and how familiar with policy were they? You, for example, have demonstrated a great deal of eagerness to include the logos ("They are vital...") and little familiarity with policy ("Yes, I do acknowledge that I am not familiar with the fair use policy..."). —David Levy 15:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I am not firmilliar, but I can read. I couldn't tell you anything about any of the other rules, I would have to go check, but that is beside the point. They did not violate policy, and that is clear. aido2002 03:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• de-indent I have to agree with David Levy. The overuse of the logos does violate our policies here Aido. They were properly removed. There's been a significant amount of discussion about this, and the outcome was that such galleries are to be removed.
• Also, per User_talk:Menasim/Userboxes/User_Google#Trademark I removed the font colorings from your inline google userbox on your userboxes page. The use of the font colorings violates Google's trademark/copyrights to the logo. Please do not re-add the colors. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 17:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)