User talk:JohnDoe0007

I am sorry that my welcome was unhelpful - it is a standard message that must have been given to thousands of new editors. I have now removed it. Obviously, there is no way that I could have known that you have previously been editing anonymously. Obviously, as an experienced user you will appreciate the importance of the summary box and the fact that you cannot retrospectively add or edit a summary. - Poetlister 10:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to add my agreement, I do think that your response to a friendly welcome message was ungracious, to say the least. I'll also add a plea to use edit summaries; they're requested for every edit, and are a courtesy to other editors. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it surprising (and somewhat disturbing) that you should think that this is a gracious response to a friendly welcome template, even leaving aside the peculiar assumption that other people should (clairvoyantly) know that you had been editing as an anon:

"I must say your message comes off as a bit condescending. I don't know if it is a form message from some sort of template to send to supposed new users, but it is quite off-putting. I have been contributing to Wikipedia for quite some time but have only recently created an account. I am by no means a new user to the site. If in the future you wish to point something out to another user, you may do well to be mindful that trying too hard to not spark annoyance can sometimes do just that."

I've sometimes placed a welcome on the page of someone who had been editing for a while as an anon; I'm glad to sat that none of them responded like you, but instead left me a friendly message to say that in fact they weren't new, but thank you anyway.

Anyway, I have no wish to continue this further — but you might consider that not biting the newbie doesn't countenance biting non-newbies. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, you don't answer any of my points, but complain that I didn't mention one of yours. I didn't mention it partly because your assumption that I hadn't bothered to look at what I was commenting on didn't warrant a response, and partly because it was irrelevant — that your unpleasant comments were preceded by pleasanter ones doesn't excuse them, or affect what I said in any way. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warburg

I like what you've done with the Otto Warburg page. It still needs a lot of work, but it's looking better! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bicuspid (talk • contribs) 10:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] response to question about Torrie Wilson

The first thing to do is to leave a message for the IP user asking him/her to comment on the article talk page about why the material is being removed. It may be that the IP user has a good reason (in their opinion) for removing the material, or is related to the subject somehow. At least one of the IP user's edits was to remove vandalism, which makes me think the IP is removing the information in good faith. So please don't assume the IP user is acting maliciously. I do agree that it is better for the IP user to discuss the removals, rather than just repeatedly making them with no comment, so that everyone can find a compromise wording.

Let me know if your attempt at discussion is not successful, in a few days, and I will look at the situation again. CMummert · talk 02:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ashley_Massaro_Playboy_April_2007.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ashley_Massaro_Playboy_April_2007.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 07:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Candace Michelle Playboy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Candace Michelle Playboy.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation 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. w^{L<speak·check>} 03:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE

Fair use images, such as the playboy covers you uploaded, are not allowed in biographies of living persons per order of Jimbo Wales himself. It is a legal issue. The community tried to change the rule, but he intervened and overruled everyone. I'm just enforcing his rules. The alterations to the text puzzle me. The diff shows that I made the edit, but I didn't. The servers have been going crazy lately. It must have been a technical error. Peace, -- The Hybrid 22:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Animations take up too much memory, so we try not to add them to articles. That gif was obviously owned by the WWE anyway, so it was fair use. Peace, -- The Hybrid

This page documents most Wikipedia's policies on fair use materials. Parts of it are guidelines, and others are policies. There is a specific link buried somewhere within Wikipedia on some obscure page linking to Jimbo's overruling of the community that I will never find again, but it isn't important anyway. Policies are policies, and they must be followed. Could you provide me with a list of the pages where disputes over playboy covers are taking place, please? Recently 3 other editors and I have been encountering many, many CR violations, and as such we have basically memorized the policies on them. I might as well put an end to these debates as well. Peace, -- The Hybrid 05:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I was saying that looking at the actual ruling by Jimbo isn't important because it is a policy, and all policies have to be approved by Jimbo himself. If it is a policy, then he obviously approved it, so why do you need to read his actual words? Policy is policy, and I linked you to the policy. Peace, -- The Hybrid 05:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people. Its an essay arguing pros and cons, and it does not show Jimbo's mandate, but does make fairly clear that the current policy is to delete such images. --Tractorkingsfan 06:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha. I'm not really trying to argue with you or anything, I'm just trying to help. Sorry to butt in (I'm a friend of Hybrid's, his page is on my watchlist, I'm bored). I agree with all of your points, but the essay is in response to what seems to be "current Wikipedia rules." It seems to me that such an essay would not exist in response to a rule that doesn't exist. I've asked around about finding the ruling by Jimbo. Didn't mean to piss you off. --Tractorkingsfan 06:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm not an idiot, I realized before I put in on your page that it's only an essay and the support points are outnumbered by the oppose, etc. I'm an ally of Hybrid's, yes, for that reason I trust that if he says he saw Jimbo Wales outlaw fair use images on biographies of living persons then he did in fact see that. I certainly don't think he should be called a liar, and there may very well be people who can verify what he has said. But whatever, the bottom line is I don't give a shit about the topic at hand, so I shouldn't have said anything about it and I'm sorry to have started this with you. I left a message on Jimbo's talk page to see if anybody knows where and when Jimbo said that, I'll look around more and maybe something will turn up, it's late. --Tractorkingsfan 07:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I will. --Tractorkingsfan 07:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I linked to the policy. Here's the link again. See WP:FU. I don't appreciate being called a liar. Ask User:Yamla about this. She is an admin, and has made a career out of enforcing image policies, so if you don't trust me ask her. She will verify what I say. Also, ask users User:3bulletproof16 and User:Bmg916. They will also verify what I say. I am someone who has earned the trust of everyone around me, and if you doubt it just ask them. -- The Hybrid 22:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, anyone who hasn't heard of this rule obviously hasn't been on Wikipedia for any length of time. Where are these discussions taking place? -- The Hybrid 22:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Any non-free media used on Wikipedia must meet all of these criteria: No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as the basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken. (emphasis mine). Peace, -- The Hybrid 05:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the video that you link to on your page is awesome. -- The Hybrid 05:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a general MoS, be it official or not, that we do not use fair use images in biographies for any reason. I believe that it is official due to how widespread it is, and I will continue to enforce this until it is shown to be invalid because I have read Jimbo's statement, though I cannot find it. Please ask User:Yamla, or the help desk about this. Yamla has built her Wiki career off of her understanding of policies, and she specializes in images. The help desk is exactly what it sounds like. You ask questions about policies, and you get definitive answers with anything necessary to prove their validity. If you don't trust me, then I can't do anything since I don't memorize which policy articles contain each individual policy. In some cases we have 3 different pages devoted to the same principle, but each will contain a few policies that the other pages don't. There is no logic to how the policies are organized within Wikipedia, so people just learn to trust each other. Go to Yamla or the help desk, describe your situation in detail, and wait for them to give you the ok or find my elusive policy. -- The Hybrid 08:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)