User talk:Oden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Utilities: Newpages • Recent Changes • User:Oden/Boilerplate

Comment Regarding fair use images, please read Robth's explanation and read my Image FAQ before posting a comment.

This is Oden's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Oden.

"United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures.
Divided, there is little we can do — for we dare not
meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder."

— John F. Kennedy
Inaugural address (January 20, 1961)
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Oden/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Archive

Archives
1, 2

Contents

[edit] User:Grafikm_fr's personal vendetta

Renata, this is at best a disgusting personal attack. As for Oden, his behaviour was criticized by several other users (including your servant), so making it sound like Ghirla's crusade is at best inadequate. As for Ghirla himself, well, at least he's creating content, not taking fun in destroying it in the name of grand yet hollow principles like "free content" and "yeah sure, you can take a free pic of this star, just ask her". -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Amended: user has stated below that this post was not posted on this talk page. --Oden 19:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Amended: the user has stated below that this post was not aimed at this editor. --Oden 20:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
My This talk page is not a forum for your personal vendettas, do not use Wikipedia for your own personal agenda, instead try to find a way to assume good faith and to contribute in a positive way.
As concerns your attitude regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, such a statement gives cause for concern, and compels a need to review your contributions in greater detail in order to ensure that any material you have contributed (like Image:Teresa wong.jpg) is not in violation of policy. --Oden 18:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Amended as per below. --Oden 19:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It is not a personal vendetta, for instance there are at least two RFCs underway for your peers who exhibit a similar behaviour of stalking other people's contributions. Oh, and I'm sorry, after people like Chowbok and Abu badali, I can't assume good faith from people destroying content.
And by the way, my post was a reply to Renata, so it's not only your talk page, which you don't own. --~ Grafikm (AutoGRAF)
Are not all of us "peers" to some extent or another? Is it not our peers, yours and mine, who are subject to any RfC? When we throw egg on each other, do we not all end up with egg on our faces?
Well, my goal is not to be a pain for various editors by censoring their contribs. Unless a copyvio is in order, or if there an obvious FU abuse (15 screenshots of a game in an article for instance), there is no point to censor FU content, other than to be a pain for other editors. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I also find it ironic that you should use the term "destroying content" and reference WP:OWN in the same comment. How can anyone else destroy something that is not yours in the first place? The mind boggles. --Oden 19:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Text and photos are not the same thing. You can write whatever you want, all you need is a computer (well, and references too, but referencing is free, provided you do not copy-paste content). You can draw almost any graph or map, that's true too. However, you can't, realistically speaking, take any pic you would like to. That's where FU comes in. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Any privilege can be abused, so too can the privilege of uploading fair use images on Wikipedia be abused. Policy, like content, can also be subject to changes. User:Chowbok/Robth's RFU Explanation provides something of an explanation regarding the current state of fair use images on Wikipedia.
Regarding stalking, Meatball Wiki describes it as "repeated, out-of-process attempts to become involved in a victim's life". Content and contributions are, within reasonable limits, relevant. This is also why we have Wikipedia:Editor review, a voluntary form of examination. However, the truth is that any contributor can be subject to review at any time, just look at any RfA or RfC. --Oden 20:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reflected upon how several contributors which I have encountered place such a great emphasis on finding good images, and omit or lessen the importance of writing good articles.

My contention is that it is possible to write a excellent article completely without images, while the opposite is naturally impossible. Therefore there is no doubt that the most important goal for every editor must be a well-written article, and that the use of images is a secondary matter. The cavalier attitude which some editors display regarding the criteria for use of fair use images on Wikipedia diminishes, in my opinion, the hard work of other editors who write great articles and who then attempt to find images under a free license before resorting to a fair use image under the fair use criteria.

Wikipedia:Article development places the inclusion of any images among the stage of "finishing touches" to an article (here). All to often I have encountered articles (almost stubs) which lack basic features like infoboxes, lead-ins and sections, proper references and other flaws, yet the editor in question insists on a fair use image which serves no other purpose than to illustrate the subject (such as in Nataliya Dmytruk).

In one instance (Daria Werbowy) the fair use image took up more than a third of the article space. For the editor in question (User:Irpen) to spend so much time arguing about image quality to illustrate such a imperfect article suggests a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia (Image talk:Werbowy.jpg). Another editor (User:PageantUpdater) had uploaded almost 200 fair use images (view the first version of one article: Tami Farrell). Compare that with the current version: Tami Farrell.

Other language versions of Wikipedia do not allow fair use images, and I have begun to wonder if that is the best solution. --Oden 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (Please note that I am not commenting in general upon the contributions of the editors mentioned or on their persons, but only on their comments and actions regarding the fair use criteria and use of fair use images on Wikipedia).

[edit] Movie posters high resolution

I am all for making sure that all images on Wikipedia are free to use but I would prefer it if I was notified. The amount of film posters that are being tagged will make for a lot of messy pages when the images are deleted, especially if nobody has been notified of the chance of deletion (Quentin X 13:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

I have not tagged high-resolution images for deletion because I have disputed the assertion that they meet the fair use critieria. The tag in question, {{fair use disputed}}, does not require that the uploader be notified since the image has not been tagged for deletion. When an image is nominated for deletion the uploader will be notified (there is more information at WP:IFD).
It is important that fair use images on Wikipedia do not negatively affect the market role for the product in question, and I am concerned that the high-resolution images of film posters and album covers which you have uploaded could be used to print and sell pirated (bootlegged) CDs and DVDs. The consequence could be that Wikipedia becomes involved in a legal dispute with the original copyright holder.
If you upload web-resolution versions of the images in question under a new name you can tag the old images with {{or-fu-re|Image:NewName.ext}}. You could also upload web-resolution versions under the same name. --Oden 14:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Shahi image

I noticed your editors note [here] when I went to add the image [here] to her celebrity box, and I had wanted to ask you for an explanation. The image is a TV still from her work on the show "Teachers" and as such seems to qualify for fair use on wikipedia. However, I am not a copyright lawyer, just wanted to see what your rationale is before I add the image. You can answer here or on my talk page, whichever you prefer. -Markeer 22:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image in user namespace

Hello!

Thank you for removing the picture Christopher Walken.jpg from my usepage. I guess I didn't pay as much attention as I should have on the criterion 9 of the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. I'll have it in mind from now on! Good thing I haven't uploaded any images so far... :) --DimTsi 23:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried finding a replacement with a free license, but there was none to be found. If you have any questions on using images on Wikipedia don't hesitate to ask! --Oden 23:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Threats/User:InShaneee

Regarding this: It is not your responsibility to police Wikipedia, and threatening other users with action is not acceptable. If you have a problem with another user, deal with it through the proper channels. --InShaneee 07:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Are not editors who do new page, RC or new image patrol in some sense "policing Wikipedia"? Are not templates like {{bv}} threats of action? There is a fine line between being right and being rude, the hard part is not to cross over it. I believe the comment in question is justified when the admin in question makes a strong threat like "blocks with the length being increased each time" and does not enter into a dialouge.
The best way for a editor to improve his contributions is to learn from his mistakes, and if the admin who issues the warning does not enter into a dialogue the editor to which the warning was issued might feel that they have been treated unfairly or singled out. Alternately, if the admin perhaps made a mistake, admitting that mistake is the mature response. Refusing to enter into a dialogue, like User:Khoikhoi has done, is only childish. --Oden 12:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
An interesting thought occurred to me: is not your posting of this comment also an act of "policing Wikipedia"? If there were a problem to speak of, should you not also have sought remedy through a proper channel? --Oden 15:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Irpen

To add to this, especially repugnant is your "threatening" editors with "reviewing their contibutions" with intent to cause them distress by attacking their work in response to their criticizing you for your actions elsewhere. Stalking is specifically differentiated from legitimate patrolling by the intentions. It is the foul intentions of the actions that makes your activity harassment. --Irpen 07:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alex Bakharev

I asked you to stop using "scrutiny of contributions" as a weapons. I find this edit to be of a kind that I specifically ask you not to do because it harms the project a big deal. Please do not do such threats again or I would have to block you for disruption. I like your edits to Nataliya Dmytruk. They were positive and non-controversial. Maybe you would be better off if concentrate on this type of work Alex Bakharev 07:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That comment (diff) was in response to a message left by that editor on this talk page (diff). The same response is posted above, where the dialogue has taken place.
In all fairness, should you not also threaten to block User:Grafikm_fr if he posts comments like that again? I certainly found them disruptive to this talk page, the object of which is to improve the behaviour of this editor and not to engage in a personal vendetta with others. However after entering into a dialogue the user in question seems to understand that this page is not intended as a forum for two other editors to debate their personal differences.
Regarding "scrutiny of contributions", if a editor posted a comment stating that he disagrees with WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV or any of Wikipedia's other core policies, that editor's contributions would certainly be subject to review. Why should WP:IUP and WP:FUC, also policy, be regarded in a different manner? --Oden 12:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Khoikhoi

Oden, I didn't respond because you archived my comment, which gave me the feeling that you didn't want me to talk to you. Besides, it's only been like two days anyways, and it's clear that I have a sign at the top of my talk page that says "I may not respond swiftly to queries". I wasn't ignoring you.

Anyways, the warning was still appropriate. When someone critizes your actions, harassing them is generally not the proper way to solve a dispute. I'm not sure what the threat about an RfC was about either. We've only talked very briefly—how much evidence could you have? What else would the RfC be about? Khoikhoi 10:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You still have not responded on your talk page, after 10 days. Furthermore you placed that sign on your talk page after I posted my comment, my response and a third message urging you to respond. I am disappointed in your lack of participation in this matter. I also stand by my first response, my comment was not wrong, and the severe wording of your warning was not justified.
I archived my talk page because it was getting long and Werdnabot does not seem to be working properly. Since the original thread it is still on your talk page I will leave a message there for you to comment. --Oden 12:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I never reply to comments on my own talk page. Anyways, please don't misrepresent me. Nowhere did I ever "refuse" to reply to your comment. I'll check out the thread. By the "original warning", did you mean the one about the block logs? Khoikhoi 16:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes.--Oden 16:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I checked WP:AN/I. All I see is a thread called "Oden's threats". Am I missing something? Khoikhoi 16:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I am referring to your warning of December 2, 2006, I am reposting your warning and my response in a new section below; please respond to that. --Oden 16:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Amendment: it turns out that you did respond here, I must have missed that, which is my fault. I was monitoring your talk page, and you responded here (I seem to get alot of messages). I will strike my two most recent comments from your talk page, if that is alright with you? --Oden 16:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure, no problem. Khoikhoi 05:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/d/e/User_talk%7EOden_5a6d.html"