User talk:Hackajar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User talk:hackajar/Archive/Archive 03. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Contents

[edit] Image:Jack-Carter.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jack-Carter.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 that provides substantially the same information. 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, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, 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. Abu badali (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Richard viguerie.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Richard viguerie.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 that provides substantially the same information. 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, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, 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. Abu badali (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chandrasekhar image

Thanks for the heads up. I share your feelings. I mean we are talking about a tiny grainy picture of a scientist. It's not like you have the Mona Lisa on loan. Who's going to sue you for making money out of this? It's not even worth the stamp money for the cover letter to the lawyers. Plus everyone else is using it no problem on the net. They got it on a technicality. As I said before it's a bit difficult to take the picture of a dead guy. Nonetheless I feel very discouraged by this process. Is it really worth pursuing this petty affair? Take care. Dr.K. 17:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey -- I don't know why people are picking on this particular image: the guy is dead and very significant. The biggest concern I have, actually, is the fair use claim: why is this a "historically significant photo"? That's the critical thing. Surely, not every picture of an important dead person is historically significant, but historically significant photos are generally permitted under fair use. Chances are, it's not historically significant, just some portrait.... can we find a photo of him winning the Nobel Prize? Then it could illustrate his winning of the nobel prize, which is historically significant. That said, this image will not be speedily deleted: you have done what you were required to do as an uploader, and the image deserves an WP:IFD debate at least at this point. Mangojuicetalk 02:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all your great work. Dr.K. 16:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration re: Abu badali

Hi. I am writing you because you were one of the respondants on the RfC about Abu badali that was started back in November. There has been no substantive comment there for over a month and User:Abu badali has never bothered to respond to the RfC. The last comment on the talk page of the RfC was a suggestion to take it to arbitration, which is what I propose we do. Accordingly, I have created a shell/draft listing to add to the list of Arbitration Committee matters here. I've listed your new there, preliminarily, as a complaintant. If you are not interested in participating, please remove your name. If you are, please add your comments as we must prepare a 500 word summary of the case. Thanks for your attention - Jord 15:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chandrasekhar.gif

Thanks for your message and your efforts Hackajar. They actually changed their policy three days ago. It must be that they saw our debate! See also my Chandrasekhar comments on the image deletion page. Take care and I really appreciate your support. Dr.K. 13:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Viguerie

Hey, I know that what I posted on the Richard Viguerie article wasn't neutral... but if you actually go to the website, its just a forum that is full of very uneducated people that aren't necessarily conservatives, just ignorant. Its not highly reflective of Viguerie anyway. I was very surprised by the content of the website after watching him on C-SPAN earlier that afternoon... it just doesn't seem like the kind of thing one would want linked to their name. I would suggest just removing it altogether, but even C-SPAN had it as what one would see underneath his name in a television news graphic, if you know what I mean.

I wasn't trying to vandalize as much as I was actually trying to put some truth to the mention of "conservativehq.com", which isn't a conservative blog as the article had originally said but rather a plainly dishonorable forum. Fifty7 00:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it's difficult to dodge NPOV comments when updating an article. True, his web site might not be compleate, or a normal place for conservitives to patron for comments and group huges. All the same, it's what he purports to being his home base, as you mentioned above (in his interviews). We are not here to judge or downplay signifigence of facts, just to state they exisit. Ironiclly I'm a left leaning liberterian, in which I do not agree with 90% of his views. I actually took on monitoring and updating this article as an exersise into how well I can hold a NPOV over a figure in which I do not favor their views!Hackajar 02:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/c/User_talk%7EHackajar_6eab.html"