User talk:VoiceOfReason

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Nope, you were in the right place

I saw that he had been blocked by someone else exactly one month ago (at the same time of day even) and ... uh, got confused. He's blocked now. (Today's my first day as an admin--don't hurt me!) -- Merope Talk 17:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VKI Studios

Hey -- just so you know, when you see an article on a company not claiming importance or significance, the proper tag to use is {{db-corp}}. If the article claims importance for the company but the content (not the existence) of the article is blatantly promotional, {{db-spam}} is better. Thanks! Mangojuicetalk 19:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you. :) The article was clearly posted to promote its subject. But the argument that an article on a NN subject was posted just to promote its subject reaches way too far for the comfort of people at WT:CSD -- speedy deletion of spam should stick to cases where the content was actually an advertisement. Look for things like "We offer (blah and blah) services" or "The hottest new company in ..." or things like a list of products with prices. CSD A7 will capture most attempts to list a nn company on Wikipedia: but if A7 doesn't apply and the content isn't advertising, it probably deserves a more careful look than a speedy deletion. Mangojuicetalk 19:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Suck and fuck

Your recent edit to Suck and fuck (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 17:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The bot's got this one wrong; there was nothing vandalous about my edit. VoiceOfReason 17:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    Hmm, hmm, hmm... odd -- Tawker 17:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    No, you speedy delete tagged it.... that should have overriden it -- Tawker 17:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Andrew Stephenson

Please see [1] BenBurch 00:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinking log pages

In the talk page for Scramel, I attempted to wikilink the Special:Log/delete page showing that the article had already been deleted repeatedly. I tried Special:Log/delete/Scramel and a few other combinations; none worked. Is there a way to do this? VoiceOfReason 21:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could try using an external link (Like this), but it seems inefficient. - Dinnerbone (Talk/Cont) 22:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Code for external link: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Scramel link text] - Dinnerbone (Talk/Cont) 22:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Was kind of hoping there'd be a solution that didn't involve an external link. Is there? VoiceOfReason 23:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Only external links work because even though the page is on Wikipedia, it is only accessible using a different URL. Normally it is "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/" but in this case it is "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title="...). So an external link is your only option (unless you wanted to copy all the text to the talk page or a sub-page of the talk page and create a link). Cbrown1023 00:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Rodneytom.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rodneytom.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rodneytom.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rodneytom.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. Chowbok ☠ 23:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Your image is kinda caught in the crossfire in a long-running feud between Irpen and I, so I just thought I'd leave a note here, where it's quieter.
It was really cool of you to spend all that time on the phone with the Washington government people. However, there's still a problem. We need our photos, with limited exceptions, to be able to be editable and distributable by anybody, even for profit—not just us. Since these guys said it was only okay to use on Wikipedia, it doesn't currently meet those conditions. They'd need to release the image into the public domain, or under the GFDL or an appropriate Creative Commons license. If that's not the case, we can only use this image under a "fair use" claim—and wikipedia policy is that fair use images can only be used if they could not be replaced in the future by free ones.
Sorry for the confusion on this. Please let me know if you have any questions. —Chowbok ☠ 01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Chowbok is right; there is a long-running debate about this. It's going on at various places, including here and here. It's ridiculous to think these are the types of images that some editors think shouldn't be in the project. Common sense seems likely to carry the day, but I'll be interested to see what the end result is. For the record: I think it's a good image, and it's fairly sourced, and should stay. Jenolen 11:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zune astroturfing

Had an edit conflict with one of your changes while improving the astroturfing bullet in the Zune article. Please go here if you want to discuss. --Tom Edwards 19:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on fair-use policy amendment

It's here if you want to look at it. Most opposition at the time stemmed from what opponents considered to be too narrow a time window; only one or two people anticipated the endless disputes this seems to have engendered, and no one seems to have realized how this would alienate a lot of people who do a great deal of image uploading. Daniel Case 14:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Case, I disagree, for the record. There are people here that relish deleting these images, especially from those that publicly disagree with the way the policy is being enforced. I think the "jihadi" comments from VOR elsewhere are dead on, and I commend him for trying to be the Voice Of Reason, aptly named. While I commend you on trying to find some way of dealing with this, said group believes they are in charge, and they will allow almost no rationale to succeed to retain any fair use image of a living person. Period. Until and unless that rationale is defeated and changed, you are largely pissing up a rope. I've stopped loading images of any kind to Wikipedia, period, until that happens. Tvccs 13:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed your comment on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BenBurch#Solicited_Comment, which I was dragged into.
There actually is a strong, vocal, but demoralized minority of users who feel just as you do VoiceOfReason about fair use and copyright. The key is too organize.
I am on a self-imposed short leash, because I once was indefinetly banned for copyright violations, pushed by User:Gmaxwell, after I had the audacity to question User:Kelly Martin. So although I cannot organize a group, I would love to join one, if you know of one that exists, or if you create one in the future.
See User:Travb/Fair_use#Wales_Shuts_Down_Straw_Poll.2C_Calls_Fair_Use_Photo_Proposal_.22Meaningless.22 and User_talk:Cedars#I_hope_you_won.27t_leave Travb (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Show of Support

I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed your 12 megaton logic bomb at Image_talk:GregoirePicture.jpg, and I hope, through the continued efforts of users such as you, Tvccs and many others (myself included), we can restore some bit of sanity to the image deletion hysteria currently sweeping through Wikipedia. Keep up the great work; that Rodney Tom thing is the other prime example of Fair Use idiocy taken past its logical extreme, and it's things like that which really illustrate how far off track this policy has gotten.

Jenolen speak it! 10:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Vote here: Wikipedia:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos/Vote Badagnani 20:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fitzmas (second nomination)

I replied in-thread. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 01:18Z

[edit] Your comment solicited

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BenBurch

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenBurch (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Image:NewAndImprovedTheDoorsLiveInDetroitalbumcover.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:NewAndImprovedTheDoorsLiveInDetroitalbumcover.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. MECU≈talk 17:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/o/i/User_talk%7EVoiceOfReason_388e.html"