Image talk:HubertLaws1.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was to Delete the image.

[edit] RFUD

press image - should not be deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tvccs (talk • contribs).

But do you dispute it's replaceable? --Abu Badali 04:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I do, and you are engaged in clear harassment - your criteria on CD covers, having reviewed your user page, would delete nearly every CD cover on Wikipedia, and it's now clear you are engaged in a personal attack. Tvccs

How is this image irreplaceable? Explaining this here is more productive that listing my mistakes. --Abu Badali 10:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Abu badali, please explain to us how you plan to get a replcaement image and why it would adequately replace the current one. TIA, --Irpen 11:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just like any other image of a living, free, healthy person. Either click him in a public appearance or ask someone who alredy did to release the image under a free licensing. You'll be surprised to know how well this works. --Abu Badali 11:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And as I have stated, there are many of these people I know personally who refuse to provide a GFDL image - this viewpoint that if one person or some will when then everyone should is ludicrous - as I have posted elsewhere, one of the people I've added material to on here told me, and again, I quote, "fuck that!". His opinion is just as valid, if not more, as it's his images we're talking about, images he is otherwise very generous with on Wikipedia including original images not otherwise available, many of which could never in fact be replaced, but no matter what my, or his, argument, I'm sure some people will apply the "they're not dead yet" motto above all else. Tvccs 22:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Our fair use policy forbids using a non-free image if a free image could be created that could be used in its place. See criterion #1 and counter-example #8. In this case, it would be possible to create a free image; therefore this non-free image may not be used. Whether a free replacement image exists or not at this time is not relevant. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This image presents no unique information that any other picture of him taken in the foreseeable could not present (assuming it's roughly contemporary). While it arguably qualifies as fair use, it does not comply with our policies designed to encourage the production of free images (currently a parasitic twin attached to fair use) because it could be reasonably replaced with a free image that provides the same information. Postdlf 16:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, please note that user:Quadell pastes the identical entries to dozens of the talk pages. Make sure you realize that before deciding whether his challenges are in good faith. --Irpen 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Does repetition imply bad faith? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In your case, yes...it does...there are far better ways this could have been handled, and at least Oden, who also tagged my images by the dozen, had the courtesy to post his changes at my page, not mark pages as a CSD, and more importantly, both assisted with several images, provided examples, and found ways to be actually cooperative, even though I've had a higher standard generally applied to my work than most of the other images on Wikipedia . What you do is go on mad tagging sprees without specific notification while you and your contemporaries pursue an absolutist point of view that deletes nearly every image of any living person regardless of whether a free image is in fact available, and wastes countless hours of otherwise productive effort, while few of the images claimed to be substitutable are actually replaced, and some of those that are should never have been used in the first place because of poor quality, especially of the magical living persons. As I have suggested elsewhere, those who espouse this viewpoint need to become the Wikipedia worldwide free papparazzi. Using a quality image supplied by an artist as a part of a press kit, etc., is in no way, shape or form parasitic, that view is so far from any common sense standpoint as to be absurd. What you are doing is nothing but destructive in pursuit of an absolutist attack on fair use images of living persons, regardless of their actual real replaceabilty. As I have stated before, and practiced, I have no problem with replacing fair use images with free images of generally equal quality, but the reality is that many, many artists and notable persons will not offer a GFDL image, and with good reason, and no free images actually exist. For all you know a living artist could be in a nursing home, in a Tibetan monk retreat, or on a year-long ocean voyage and no image could even theoretically be gained - they have to die before we can use a Fair Use image. As I've said before, if a free image exists, find it, before deleting fair use, and do something constructive, as opposed to destructive. There is no doubt several of the free or nothing advocates have specifically targeted every image I've uploaded, making me spend hours and hours dealing with this before the deadline expires and my work is automatically deleted. Yet it's all in "good faith". Tvccs 22:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your accusation is incorrect and unwarranted. I haven't explicitly tagged an image as CSD in 6 months -- unless you're referring the {{rfu}} -- and I never tag images without informing the uploader. Whenever anyone has questions, I try to answer them in a courteous way. I don't go on "mad tagging sprees", I clear out the backlog, and I make sure to follow policy when I do. If an image of a living person is argued to be irreplaceable, and the argument isn't specious on its face, then I don't delete it, even if I personally believe the image is replaceable. I have never targeted you personally, and I strongly doubt that anyone is out to get you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A check of my user image contributions shows that in the past few days nearly every image I've uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged and targeted by someone about something. Fortunately, very few people have to endure what I have, at least so far. I visit pages where I've added images to others and my images have been tagged while others have not. Said tagging has generally been done by the people on the Chowbok comment and other pages espousing the most extreme viewpoints regarding Fair Use. This isn't rocket science, it's fact. And when you talk about notifications, you didn't provide a list of the images you've been pulling Fair Use disputed tags from only minutes after I'd posted them, and only after I found what you were doing did you offer a general explanation on my page for your actions. Facts are facts. I will, and already have begun, posting notices to the talk pages for every disputed image so that the people willing to stand up against this extreme anti Fair Use position can also be heard, and I commend those willing to do so when they see the attack levels generated in cases such as mine. Tvccs 00:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A check of your user contributions shows you have disputed more than 30 images of mine in the last day. In every case you appear to have argued that any living person has the ability to have a free image created regardless of whether one exists, and there are no exceptions. Your viewpoint is quite clear - if a person is a living person, then any Fair use image should not be used - that it's possible that a high quality image could be taken at some point by someone they would give away under GFDL, and that's the only position. The reasonableness you claim above is totally absent, and I can only interpret that any argument that someone makes for a fair use image of a living person is inherently "specious" on its face, and your "reasonableness" is guided by that belief. Most of the rest of Wikipedians who have spent thousands and thousands of hours finding and uploading Fair Use images would totally disagree with any pretext of reasonableness when faced with your stated views on my Image discussion pages. Tvccs 00:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, I went through every rfud image, to offer my thoughts. Yours were among them, because you have disputed more rfu images than anyone else. I wasn't targeting you; I was commenting on all rfud images. Second, it is not my view that fair use images should never be used for living persons, and if you check my history you'll find several cases where I've argued that a fair use image should be kept for a living person under certain circumstances. Please don't mischaracterize my views. Third, I do not apologize for removing rfud tags from images where there is no dispute evident. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My comments regarding your attitudes reflect your comments on my image pages, and you appear to have challenged hundreds and hundreds of images and copy and paste the same comments over and over again per other users who disagree with your interpretation of policy and how they have responded to your wholesale deletion requests - enlighten us all with what criteria you believe exists to use fair use examples of living persons, and provide specific examples - it would also be interesting for you to provide the numbers on how many images you have disputed of living persons total, versus the number you have actually approved of in writing on here - thank you. Tvccs 19:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And I now note for the record that you have failed to respond to the question I asked concerning specific examples and proof of your own self-professed "reasonableness', which almost none of the rest of us find factual. Tvccs 23:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)