User talk:Cardsplayer4life/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Images

Hi there. I was clearing out some copyright question from WP:CP and came across Bud Walton Arena and War Memorial Stadium (Arkansas), both of which you have rewritten around the copyright, which is great. So I removed the infrining versions from the articles' histories. However, none of the images in either article has any source information attached (apart from one). Without the source, we cannot be sure of the copyright status of images. Please add a source and correct copyrighting information to these images within the next 7 days, or they will have to be deleted. Thanks. (PS: You can find this rule written down at WP:CSD in the Images section). -Splash^talk 21:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I meant that the image pages do not, at present, say where you got the image from. This means that, even when you say it is public domain, we can't be sure of that fact without being able to check the source. Did you make the images yourself originally? If so, you can edit the page and add {{PD-self}} to it (or {{GFDL-self}} if you prefer to use the Gnu free documentation license, the Wikipedia default).

If, however, you have taken the images from somewhere else, as it looks likely in at least some cases (e.g. the layouts) you need to add a message to the image page saying clearly where they came from, and under what copyright you claim they are available for use on Wikipedia. There is sometimes recourse to the 'fair use' doctrine, and in this case you would probably have a good chance at that. See the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags to choose the most appropriate one(s), if you have not created the images yourself.

Once you have added source and copyright information to the images, you can remove the {{nosource}} tag yourself. Does that help? If not, drop me a line again. (PS The new image you uploaded is quite blurry.) -Splash^talk 22:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm on the case. (Cardsplayer4life 23:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Image:Techniquesforfingers.jpg

Can you add more specific source information for Image:Techniquesforfingers.jpg? Without a source (other than just "public domain"), it may be deleted. tregoweth 22:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Senate elections, 2006 Grisham edit

Hi there. Saw you edited U.S. Senate elections, 2006 to say John Grisham may have serious interest in running for Senator Allen's seat in 2006. I couldn't find any serious published reports about this. Could you cite your source? Thanks. Velvetsmog 17:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. Well appreciated. Velvetsmog 16:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images listed for deletion

--The_stuart 17:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I did not upload all of those, but I will try to get all the source info I can to keep them from deletion. :) (Cardsplayer4life 23:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

Very cool and, thanks for donating those images to the public domain. --The_stuart 00:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burning Man editors category

I noticed you editting the Burning Man article. If you are someone who attends Burning Man or similar regional events you can add yourself to Category:Wikipedian Burners by editting User:Cardsplayer4life to include the text [[Category:Wikipedian Burners]].

Oh, and the photo and map are a great benefit to the article. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 03:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UArk

Continuing with my assumption that you are connected with UArk... many universities have official "archivists" or "historians," often affiliated with the library, and it might be worth the effort of trying to meet with one and get some suggestions on where to go for material for the UArk history section. You might ask about this rather odd-sounding statement that comes up in a Google book search for "frederick rudolph" "university of arkansas" fayetteville:

The new university spirit was likely to turn up almost anywhere, and in 1884, although the president of the University of Arkansas actually rejected it, he publicly charged that two subversive-minded faculty members had imported from the University of Virginia the two habits that were doing Arkansas the most harm: high standards of scholarship and faculty neglect of student conduct outside the classroom.

Dpbsmith (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not attend the University of Arkansas anymore, and live a long way away, I will pass on your info to someone who I think is there though. (Cardsplayer4life 19:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Copyright Problem with article Brian Wowk

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Brian Wowk, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! 24.126.34.97 06:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I will repost it in a more encyclopedic way. I was a little intoxicated when I did the first one, sorry! (Cardsplayer4life 09:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC))

Hi Cardsplayer4life,

If you look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Wowk, you will see that the administrator Shanel has ruled that "The result of the debate was keep ".

There was substantial argument for deletion by mikka (t), but Tawker, the person who originally marked the page for deletion, changed his vote from delete to keep for the re-written version. As you can see from the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Wowk the vote was overwhelmingly to keep the piece. Shanel posted a note about the ruling at the bottom of the Some references indicating the significance of Brian Wowk section of Talk:Brian Wowk. I know that you meant well, but lifting copyrighted material to compose the article was a bad way to start. --Ben Best 09:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks! I wouldn't call myself anywhere NEAR stellar yet. But give it time ;) Nach0king 00:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pig

Haha, indeed! You are correct. Good call. :-) Zsinj^Talk 04:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I must say, that was funny :) Imagine if it had been about the page Crackpot or Penis. — Deckiller 04:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You dudes are crazy ;-) Cardsplayer4life 04:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Barnhillarena.jpg listed for deletion

—fuzzy510 01:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand the objection listed. It sounds like from the cryptic statement "Free alternative could be taken" that the pic could be changed, but it isn't necessary unless I (or someone else) has an alternative. Until further clarification is provided, I will take it as such. (Cardsplayer4life 07:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Help or advice

I can see from your contributions that you are still a very active Wikipedian. You had good intentions to be helpful to the cause of cryonics in Wikipedia with your earlier efforts. You must now have had considerable experience with edit wars and how to handle them. Your help or suggestions to deal with an revert war currently happening on the Ben Best page would be appreciated. Background on the edit war can be found at Talk:Ben_Best#You_no_longer_own_this_biography and below. A quick glance at the history of Ben Best will show you that CRANdieter has been attempting to use that page as a means of disparaging me and of disparaging cryonics -- and that this has resulted in a revert war between him, his new sock puppet Freezer Man and 71.160.248.79, a cryonicist using an IP address. Assistance or advice from a more experienced Wikipedian such as yourself would be appreciated. --Ben Best 02:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for knowingly and intentionally creating a gallery of unlicensed media images on Big 12 Conference ([1]). Galleries of unlicensed media are prohibited on Wikipedia, and you are certainly aware of this, or should be, since was discussed on the article talk page and a warning was included in the edit summary removing the last instance of an invalid gallery. You were warned that recreating the gallery would be responded to by a block. Since you chose to do so anyway, you are now blocked. If you do it again after your block expires, you will be blocked for a week. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This block is out of process because Kelly is not acting on a real policy. She is just acting on an opinion she made up herself. Johntex\^talk 05:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Hi Cardsplayer. I'm really sorry you got blocked. I hope you don't let it interfere with your enthusiasm for Wikipedia. It's just Kelly. She goes on a rampage every six months or so. Unfortunately I can't unblock you, but the block will expire before you know it. Just to let you know, the block was improper and nobody (well, almost nobody) thinks badly of you or that you did anything wrong, quite the opposite. Hopefully, you can rise above the nonsense, after all a block from Kelly is a badge of honor in a way. Herostratus 06:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• While I can understand both sides of the equation here, I will agree that blocks are very embarrassing and, in this case, an extremely questionable step. Don't let this derail your contributions, as this is a very awkawrd situation that should have been avoided by both factions involved. — Deckiller 06:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I just want to say that I think that your block was unjusitified and, for lack of a better term, draconian. I hope that when your block expires toy continue editing and that you contribute on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2 if you wish to comment. Needless to say, this "discussion" (if you can even call it that anymore) has become unpleasant for most users involved. -- Masonpatriot 15:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your block

I raised the issue of your block both at User_talk:Kelly_Martin#Unblock_request and at WP:ANI#Block_of_User:Cardsplayer4life_by_Kelly_Martin. In both cases I was unable to obtain support for unblocking you. Haukur 13:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My block

Wow, thanks everyone for all the nice comments and positive support. I have never been blocked before (never even received a warning before). I would comment on you guys' individual pages, but I can't because I am blocked. I really enjoy editing on wikipedia, and wish I would have got a warning or something before being blocked. (you can look back at my post record, I am not a troll or anything like that) Reading through the policy, it seems as if I was indeed correct in my edits, as I understand it. I will be leary of any edits I make to pages in the future, as it seems making edits to pages might result in being blocked again in the future. I guess I will be hanging up my Wikipedia hat for awhile, since it seems as if I might be causing trouble that I did not intend to cause. I apologize if I did anything to cause too much trouble, I sure did not mean to. As a word of advice to admins, in the future it might be good to give out a warning telling an individual what they were doing wrong, before blocking them, especially when the policy is ambiguous at best, and direct them to the place where the official policy states they can't do what they are doing. (I still haven't received anything telling me why what I did was wrong. All references I have seen have only backed up what I did as being correct.) In any event, it has been fun. Perhaps I will be back in the future at some point. (Cardsplayer4life 16:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

Aw, shoot - it's worth another try. Haukur 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not involved in this, but I've seen the discussion, and just wanted to let you know that Kelly says on her talk page that she'll consider unblocking if you promise not to do it again. AnnH ♫ 16:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I promise not to do this specific action again, but not because I don't think it is justified, I just don't want to deal with the hassle associated with it. I will not apologize, however. It seems to me that the individual is trying to use moderation powers to change policy before it has been officially changed. I would have been happy to have a civil discussion, or any other such thing (as evidenced by my posting to the discussion page). But, as I dig deeper and read more, it seems as if the individual was simply abusing moderation power to get a point across before 1) the policy was made official, or even 2) the discussion leading up to an official policy had been completed. I harbor no ill will towards anyone, but as a Wikipedian that always tries to do the right thing, I have not run across such a case before. It has really darkened my view of moderators here (although I am sure most of them are fine) to know that they will block people without warning, or discussion of any kind (or, evidently, without an official policy to back up their action). Like I said, I do not see myself doing much editing in the future, because it seems impossible to know what individual moderators will simply decide what their interpretation of a policy is, without discussion or anything. (Cardsplayer4life 17:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

Your statement "without warning" is simply false. You know you saw the edit message that said anyone re-adding the category would be blocked, because you responded to other edit summaries with your edit summary on the edit that replaced the fair use gallery. --Cyde Weys 17:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There was no individual warning. I think you know what I meant by that comment. I was perfectly willing to discuss the matter (as evidenced by my post on the talk page), but the moderator Kelly evidently did not want to. I was also unaware that individual moderators had the right to change policy on a whim, without it being officially written down. This makes for a very shaky wikipedia, since nothing has to be written down, and in essence all moderators have full power to make policy decisions. (even though if you read through the other discussions, it appears other moderators disagree with this moderator.) This is why all official policies should be voted on, and written down, so that you can point people to the page detailing what the policy is. (Cardsplayer4life 18:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

I believe a rough consensus to unblock you has been reached on WP:ANI. I have now done so. Let me know if you can edit now, there might be residual autoblocks. Haukur 17:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you fell for a meatball:GoodBye. --Cyde Weys 17:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish people wouldn't quote that page so much. There's no reason to regard every message saying a person is considering leaving the community as insincere passive-aggressive emotional blackmailing. Haukur 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's why I say GoodBye applies: "I will be leary of any edits I make to pages in the future". Anyone being reasonable would realize they just need to stop adding fair use galleries and continue on with their editing. This block was for something very specific and it did not come out of the blue. However, anyone being unreasonable is going to try to draw emotional sympathy by saying they're afraid of "any edits [they] make to pages in the future". It's trolling for sympathy. A classic meatball:GoodBye. --Cyde Weys 17:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what a meatball is, other than something that goes on top of spaghetti. I will indeed be leary of any edits in the future, because an individual that is a moderator seems to have the ability to make policy decisions before such decisions are actually policy. I (as well as others) have no way to know what an individual moderator will decide, and since they will not have discussion, it seems as if there is no way to know what is and is not allowed. When people are unsure of what is or is not correct to do (since official policy does not seem to apply), they naturally will be more leary of making edits. It is a natural outcome of not being sure what an official policy is to be more reserved when making edits. This, of course, only applies to people with good intentions, since those wanting to vandalize will have no such reservations. In other words, having policy decided by individual moderators on a per case basis and not adhearing to any official policy only hurts those who have good intentions, without being a hinderance to those who have bad intentions. (Cardsplayer4life 17:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

You've now been blocked for 1 week after reverting to the fair use image gallery while logged out, which was easily confirmed with CheckUser (you know we have tools to match up IP addresses with accounts, right?). To everyone who was defending this guy: now do you see how woefully insincere his "Good Bye" was? He suckered you guys in to unblock him. He took advantage of you. --Cyde Weys 01:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, you really have a vendetta against me I can see, Cyde. Ok, let me spell this out for you. Look at the time the edit was made. It was the first page I went to. Now, look at the login time (presumably you have that info). Now look at the first pages I went to, or at the very least the first edit I made after logging in. You see a pattern, I assume? I didn't know I was blocked when I made the edit! I never said I did know. I said I wouldn't make further edits to the page, and that was subsequent to all of my edits (by my login and my unlogged in). The fact still remains that 1) it is an unclear policy (not clear), 2) I had received no warnings or discussion whatsoever before being blocked, and 3) the issues I raised about militant admins. (which you are apparently one as well).

You are blocking me in retrospect now? Something I did before it being known that I was blocked or taking part in any discussion whatsoever about the initial block?!?!? If you can not see the ridiculousness of this action, then I don't need to spell it out for you. I am going on vacation the day after tomorrow to see my folks anyhow for a stretch, so it really doesn't matter all that much, but when I return, please, please, please, please leave me alone. I don't know why you are blocking me again after I stated very clearly I would not edit the page again .(and haven't!!! look at the time stamps!!). Please quit bothering me is all I ask. Look at my edit history, I am in the habit of making edits that are beneficial. Reverting a picture gallery (of which policy seems to back me up) elevates me to the level of criminal? ...and then promising not to do it any more, but still getting blocked again? Surely you can see the hypocrisy going on here. (Cardsplayer4life 05:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. This little "I'm just an innocent user, I didn't know what the fuck I was doing" gambit worked once to get you unblocked, but it's not going to work again. You seem to think we administrators are a lot more stupid than we actually are. --Cyde Weys 15:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use profanity on my userpage. You obviously can't look at timestamps to see that I was unblocked AFTER the edits were made. Also, the edits occured BEFORE I said I wouldn't make the edits again. Also, the edits were made BEFORE a block was even known. You know as well as I that people make changes logged in or un logged in, and by your own admission the IP is tied to the username. Quit playing games, quit using profanity, quit blocking people just cause you don't like them because you know they are right, and above all quit bothering me, please!! (Cardsplayer4life 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Barnstarred!

For being wounded in the line of duty, this purple barnstar is awarded to Cardsplayer4life by Herostratus 17:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how "being wounded in the line of duty" applies to recreating deleted fair use image galleries. Don't encourage this kind of behavior. --Cyde Weys 18:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think he was referring to the subsequent treatment, and overall handling of the situation, which has been discussed quite a bit, so I will not rehash it again. (Cardsplayer4life 19:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

Hah! That's funny coming from you Cyde, given your support of Kelly's attrocious behavior. Johntex\^talk 00:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it makes more sense to support the guy who edits from an IP address to re-insert the fair use image gallery, because that's totally acceptable. --Cyde Weys 01:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, you clearly are biased and support Kelly. I really have nothing further to say to you. You have shown your true colors, and anyone looking at it from an unbiased view would see the problems that I have cited are an accurate representation of what went on. I really have nothing further to add, as it seems neither do you. I have said that I wouldn't edit the page again, I have pointed out the problems with the policy, and I have had a temporary block. I really don't know what further you want from me. Please leave me alone unless you have further points to raise. (Cardsplayer4life 05:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

• I will support an indefinite block now; this user (Cards) has caused admins to polarize ourselves against each other, which, in my opinion, is a severe test of the community's patience and the integrity of our trust of each other as admins. I am embarrassed. — Deckiller 01:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming you mean the user Kelly. If so, I am very much in support of that person being blocked, as they seem to be a very divisive individual indeed. You have my full support on that. If instead you are talking about me, I am not trying to test the patience of anyone. If admins are trustworthy, then they have no need to be questioned. I was simply pointing out (and had several people agree with me) that 1) the specific policy I supposedly violated was not spelled out clearly, 2) there was absolutely no discussion, warnings, etc. on the issue, simply a block, and 3) it appears (and this has been voiced by others, I didn't originally come up with this) that policies can be made at a moments notice by any admin without anything written down. None of these 3 points has been argued by anyone, just that either they are wrong or not wrong. If a concensus feels one way or the other on the issue, then fine, I could really care less at this point. I don't understand why I keep being focused on for the edit I made. I have moved on, and if you guys want to keep arguing about policy, that is fine, but please leave me out of it. I have stated that I will not make the same edit again, and this should be enough. I am rather tired of discussing it in fact. (Cardsplayer4life 05:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

• I'm very disapointed to here that you used a sock-puppet to evade your original block. That was a violation of community trust and it was not a smart thing to do. Johntex\^talk 05:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't use a sock puppet. I reverted a page before being logged in. I make changes all the time either before or after being logged in. I have not allegence to this username. Who cares if I am or am not logged in when the IP is tied to the username? Plus the fact that this was before it was known I was blocked. Please check the time stamps of everything, they speak for themselves. (Cardsplayer4life 16:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

So you are saying that you didn't know you were blocked and that you were not deliberately trying to evade the block? Johntex\^talk 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I wasn't trying to evade anything. I was trying to revert the page that I had already been trying to revert. I just went straight to the page and reverted it. I do that sometimes, just go to a page that I know I want to change and change it, without logging in. If you look at the time stamps, you can see that I didn't make any comments about the block, or edits or anything before I did the revert. Also, if you are an admin, you can further see that I didn't even log into the account before I did the revert. There was no possible way to know that I had been blocked, I was simply reverting the page again (and my reasoning for that has already been stated). In essence I am being blocked 2 times for the same reverts. I stated I wouldn't do it again, and so I my first block was taken away, but then Cyde went back in time, saw that I had not logged in during one of my reverts, and decided to block me again. In essense, going back in time to punish me again. Whatever, I don't care. I have more important things in life to worry about than the silly games that seem to be going on here. (Cardsplayer4life 17:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

"I was trying to revert the page that I had already been trying to revert. I just went straight to the page and reverted it." — This shows no intent whatsoever of discussing issues, just going about blindly reverting, and also shows a frightening lack of concern for why fair use galleries aren't allowed in the first place. --Cyde Weys 17:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cyde when he says "This shows no intent whatsoever of discussing issues, just going about blindly reverting,..." Even if I assume good faith that you did not deliberately edit while blocked, at the very least it was a poor decision to simply revert without trying to check the article history or Talk page to see if there was discussion that might have impacted your actions.

I think you messed up. It doesn't have to be the end of the world, though. I hope you will stick around and keep contributing, but don't follow the bad example of other people who act unilaterally without looking to engage in discussion. Johntex\^talk 17:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A word of advice

Hi Cardsplayer4life. I'm sorry some admins seem to be falling over you right now. The best thing to do, I think, is to stay WP:COOL and just walk away for some time, sleep over it, that sort of thing (I said something along similar lines on WP:AN/I). I hope you don't feel all too grumpy over being blocked again. Several admins (including me) have expressed their disagreement with this particular block, but because everyone wants to avoid wheel-warring it might take some more time before things are back to normal again.

In short, I think everyone involved would benefit from stepping back for a moment. If I can help out in any way, feel free to email me or to respond on this page. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 19:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on the above-mentioned discussion at WP:AN/I I have unblocked you. Please try to be careful with Wikipedia's 'fair use' policies in the future. --CBD 13:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problems

Hello Cardsplayer4life. I would like to ask to you to stop uploading images until you have a better grasp of both U.S. copyright law and Wikipedia's image-use policies. Going through just a subset of your recent uploads, I have identified each of the following images as either not including a detailed fair use rationale, or as missing accurate information about their source, copyright holder, or copyright status. They may each be deleted in seven days if this information is not discovered.

• Image:Adande.jpg
• Image:Curtis stone.jpg
• Image:TimCowlishaw.jpg
• Image:KevinBlackistone.jpg
• Image:JimArmstrong.jpg
• Image:BillPlaschke.jpg
• Image:Armstron.jpg
• Image:JackieMacmullan.jpg

Please review each of the following pages before uploading any additional images.

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags
• Wikipedia:Fair use

Many of your uploads were also incorrectly labeled as as being licensed under the GFDL. Understand that the GFDL is a very specific license that must be explicitly agreed to by the copyright holder, and that this is almost certainly not the case with any of the images above.

I would also like you to pay specific attention to criterion #1 in our fair use policy, which says that we do not allow the use of unfree images that could be replaced by a free alternative. This covers, among other things, accessible living people (like Image:Adande.jpg) and landmarks (like Image:Northsidegrizzly2.jpg).

If you have any questions whatsoever, please do not hesitate to ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. ×Meegs 01:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Meegs, I am updating the info to bring them up to standards. Regards. (Cardsplayer4life 23:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC))

Please read the above message carefully. We can not use unfree images for identification of these people — whether they "publicity photos" or not — under the first item of our fair use criteria. We are a free content project and only allow unfree images in a few very specific instances. These are not among them; using an image of Jackie MacMullan will hurt our chances of aquiring a free image of her that will be useable anywhere, by anyone, forever (just as her article's text is). Please also do not archive this message until this matter has been resolved (its presence on your talk page will prevent additional OrphanBot messages). Thanks. ×Meegs 08:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I apologize for archiving, I thought the matter had been cleared up by providing the source info and the promotional tag. So, you are saying promotional pictures are not allowed, but there is a promotional tag for photos? I am afraid I fail to see the logic in that. I did read through the fair use criteria that you linked to, and my understanding of it is that they should be ok. I was only adding them because I thought they would provide more info about the articles, but if they need to be removed, I am not attached to them or anything, so go ahead. I will try to be more careful in the future, but if promotional photos are not allowed, then that tag should probably be removed to cause less confusion to people. (Cardsplayer4life 08:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

In addition, after further study, in the fair use rules linked to, there is a specific case for Wikipedia:Publicity photos. The criteria of "applies to photos that are explicitly distributed for publicity purposes" and providing the source link have been shown in most cases (minus the Neil Armstrong one which is a duplicate that needs to be deleted, and the Cowlishaw one which is of poor quality, and therefore I will not take the effort to defend). (Cardsplayer4life 09:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

All images used under fair use must be accompanied by a detailed fair use rationale. Do not remove the {{no rationale}} tags from these pages unless one has been provided. Publicity photos, just as all of the other examples listed on Wikipedia:Fair use, are subject to the policy section of that page. None of these images meet the first criterion there. ×Meegs 09:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I am just confused. The policy section you refer to says "if no free alternative is available". This does not make sense for a number of reasons to reject the specific pictures I submitted. The Publicity photo is the photo distributed for this purpose. In essence, it is the "free" image so you do not have to go out and take one of the individual yourself. That is the point of a Publicity photo, and why it is specifically innumerated to be included in the fair use wording. Are you contending that these are not Publicity photos, or am I somehow otherwise misunderstanding you? Publicity photos are meant as a way to promote an individual. (in this context) The fair use rights come from their distrobution in the first place.

However, I am not going to go through and write a big long fair use rationale for each one, because this issue is simply not that important to me, and I do not have time to do so. I do not see what the purpose of deleting these is, since they currently fall into a spefically listed fair use case, but if you really want them to be deleted, then go for it. I do not see the purpose, but I really don't feel like fighting about it since it isn't that important to me, I just always think a picture makes an article a bit better overall, and deleting them for no real purpose makes wikipedia less desireable in the long run. (Cardsplayer4life 13:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

Publicity photos are not free unless their copyright holder has specifically said that they are. The reason to delete them, and the reason for this policy is so that people will be motivated to contribute free images of these people. Just because the current interpretation of fair use probably allows us to republish these publicity photos in the United States does not mean that that is the case throughout the world, or will continue to be the case in the future. ×Meegs 13:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that goes to the whole, "what country rules are the ones that govern?" argument. In essence, you are saying that the countries with the most restrictive rules should be the ones that limit everyone else. There are a whole lot of things that would also need to be removed if that were the case, because there are a lot of countries (China comes to mind, but many Mid East countries, etc. also) that would censor large parts of wikipedia, given the chance. All that nonsense aside, however, I think that famous people (or anyone for that matter) would probably be more inclined to let the versions provided for their publicity used, rather than have random people come up to them and ask if they could take their picture to put on the internet. (that would seem like the bigger nuisance to me) I don't see what these publicity photos have that are different than, say, movie promotional material (or TV shows, or any of a number of other things) which are scattered all over the place on wikipedia, but seem to be ok. I am not trying to be a big complainer, I really like wikipedia and all, it just seems a bit inconsistent to me that some promotional material is widely accepted and other promotional material is not. In any event, like I said, if this is the way it is, then its all good, I understand how these things go when it comes to copyright law and everything, better to be safe than sorry I suppose. (don't want the lawyers coming down on us) (Cardsplayer4life 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

The English Wikipedia web site is hosted in Florida and it is subject, right now, primarily to U.S. law. It would be nice if the encyclopedia were republishable in other countries, wouldn't it, especially in forms other than a web site? Incidentally, it's mostly western European countries that I know to have stronger copyright restrictions than the U.S.; French law has some ridiculous ideas. Anyway, U.S. copyright law has been getting stronger and stronger in recent years (Copyright Act of 1976, Copyright Term Extension Act, Digital Millennium Copyright Act), and it's hard to know how far it will go in the future. The policy is not just based on the law and the fear of being sued, though. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia (look at the logo) and dedicated to free content and part of the free culture movement. We want people to release the rights of their creations so that others can benefit and build on them. ×Meegs 17:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, of course, it just seems that certain pictures are harder to get than others, although I suppose that should not be an excuse. (Cardsplayer4life 03:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Burning Man Regional Events Infobox

I've started putting together an Infobox that can go on the Burning Man type events pages. When you have a few moments and can look at the example I've put together, I'd appreciate any comments you might have. Thanks, and Burn On! SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:05_map_blackrockcity.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:05_map_blackrockcity.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Aerialkylefield.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Aerialkylefield.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ccwaters 19:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:BaumStadium.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BaumStadium.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:BaumStadium2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BaumStadium2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:BaumStadium3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BaumStadium3.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:HoustonNutt.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HoustonNutt.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ----Robth^Talk 21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

See also Image:HoustonNutt3.jpg. --Robth^Talk 21:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)