User talk:Wtstoffs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Images

Please do not remove content from your talk page. Blanking any page can be considered a form of vandalism. You may wish to consider archiving old discussions; take a look at the move page if you would like to learn more about moving and renaming articles.

Specifically, your blankingof the image warnings and the image templates from the images themselves without fixing the underlying problems is not considered acceptable. If the source of an image cannot be demonstrated, then the image cannot stay on Wikipedia. BigDT 15:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I re-examined everything and in the case of the five images for which you blanked the warning, but did not provide a source, I have listed them at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 July 8. Please note that as these images obviously came from a website somewhere and were not scanned, the source actually needs to be the URL that they came from. I have no objections to keeping them if the source can be demonstrated and it can qualify for fair use. Please examine the images and leave a note on the IFD page if you are able to find a source for the images. BigDT 15:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] College Football Project

Hello, I noticed that you have edited a College football related article. You may be interested to know that there is a college football WikiProject which you can join if you like. We would love to have you! I also think you may be interested in creating the Florida Gators football page. Please see some other examples of what this page would contain by looking at the Master Team Table within the project. --MECU≈talk 12:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UF/CU coaches

Thanks for the comment, and sorry for my strong language in the comment. The most important thing is to clearly annotate it in an accurate footnote, as I've tried to do. I tend to think keeping it current through 2006 makes sense for all of them, because that's probably most intuitive, especially as the season's almost over. But I'm fine with leaving it as is for someone else to come along and update when the season's done. Cheers, PhilipR 22:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Urban Meyer.jpeg

Hey Wtstoffs. There is a lively debate about use of promo photos on wikipedia. My name is Jeff and I Do not support the interpretation of WP:FU as implemented by user's like User:Chowbok. They believe that Wikipedia should be free of all promotional photos that are "replaceable with an equivalent" (i.e. an amateur photo from flickr). Their rationale is being debated in many places, and take it a step further believing that all promo photos should be deleted and let someone else deal with finding and uploading a free alternative.

And many other places I've no doubt missed.

I and many others who support use of fair use promotional photos have not been successful in changing the actions of Chowbok and rampant deletion and changing of many hundred's of useful images from Wikipedia articles continues. One good example is the Jennifer Granholm article which had a great promo photo replaced by a terrible photo. I seek to raise the profile of this issue through challenging promotional photos on high profile article's like this one. I'm sorry, really I am, but fair use policy as implemented by Chowbok has left me with few viable options.

I invite you to join the battle for Promotional Photo usage on Wikipedia and the protection of Fair Use concepts. --Jeff 07:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove the "replaceable fair use" tag from the image. If you disagree with it being marked thusly, leave that tag but also add the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag to the image page. Thanks! —Chowbok ☠ 01:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Stop removing that tag. It is considered vandalism, and it will get you blocked. Please don't let it come to that. —Chowbok ☠ 02:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey Wtstoffs. In one of your reversions, you said that I believe the images is usable, so I shouldn't put the disputed tag on it. Unfortunately, what I believe wikipedia policy is is currently on the losing side of interpretation. So that means the image must go despite what I believe. Through my actions I was trying to raise awareness, so you can help out on the pages I've linked perhaps? --Jeff 02:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I solved the problem with Urban Meyer's image, but I will join your fight against the dark side. :) --WTStoffs 04:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
And yet, oddly, you proved the usefulness of the project by your actions. We now have a free image instead of a fair-use one. This is a good thing. See what deletion threats accomplish? —Chowbok ☠ 04:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
No, because I happened to have connections with someone who owns a website to my favorite team. Most Wikipedians do not. And regardless, I prefer the well-lit, frontal promotional shot more than some practice photo. I just happen to value free time a little more than the photo nazis out there. --WTStoffs 04:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Gee, this seems to have solved things :rolls eyes: .

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Urban Meyer.jpeg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Urban Meyer.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

feydey 04:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have express, written consent of the copyright owner. I will try to get him to post it on his website. --WTStoffs 04:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knock it off

Seriously. It's just petty and immature. You'll get nobody on your side with behavior like this. —Chowbok ☠ 05:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. BigDT 05:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I didn't

Look at the histories. I didn't remove your frivolous tags from any of my images. Other editors did. Don't falsely accuse people of stuff on top of everything else.—Chowbok ☠ 05:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I am only tagging your images as they have no verifiable copyright information. If you would be so good as to prove you took the images we can remove the tags. Thanks! --WTStoffs 06:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:POINT. BigDT 06:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and? I have no proof the images uploaded to Wikipedia are from the person doing the uploading. If Wikipedia wants to be safe, they must allow uninhibited image tagging. --WTStoffs 06:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explain

Please explain what you are doing with the image tags claiming copyright violation of some football picture on Flickr. -- Samir धर्म 05:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The images tags are still there last I looked. --WTStoffs 06:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
None of these are copyright violations of the image you cite -- Samir धर्म 06:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
What exactly are you referring to? --WTStoffs 06:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Okay, now you've been blocked for disruption. You've (1) mistagged images deliberately as copyright violations and (2) referred to administrative edits to revert the same as being vandalism. You will cease from any such activity when your block ends -- Samir धर्म 06:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This user's request to have the autoblock on their IP address lifted has been DECLINED.

disruption

You have not been autoblocked. However, you have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock|your_reason_here}} to your talk page. -- WinHunter (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: declined unblock requests may only be removed after two days or when the block has expired.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "I only legitimately tagged images that could not be proven to be GDFL. After I asked for proof, I was blocked. Seems unfair and a bad implementation of Wikipedia policy."

Decline reason: "You were not simply blocked. You were asked why you tagged the images as such, and failed to provide a reason. The tags were not legitimate; the images had in their descriptions acknowledgment that they were taken by the uploader, and the URL you provided had nothing to do with any of the images in question. You seem to be doing this in retaliation for a similar tag that was placed on one of the images which you uploaded. As such, this is a clearly intentional disruption, which does warrant a block. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.
Eu de toilette. I asked for proof that the uploader owned the copyright. She clearly has no such proof. Why should I not just claim I took all photos that are tagged?--WTStoffs 07:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any proof that I own the copyright to what I am typing right now? No? Then assume the uploader is not lying unless you have a specific reason to doubt the uploader, including a counterexample (as was used on the image you uploaded). This screams of retaliation, especially since the URL you provided as a counterexample is the one used on said image. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
So if someone can assume that the uploader is telling the truth, how do my images get tagged? I am not retaliating, just applying the same principles as they have been applied to me. Perhaps administators on here should judge with an equal hand. Agreed? --WTStoffs 07:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You were blocked for inappropriate tagging. I asked you why you were tagging images that were not copyright violations of a cited url. You didn't reply twice and continued in the same fashion. Your block is perfectly fair. Please do not disrupt in a similar fashion again, or you will be blocked for longer -- Samir धर्म 07:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Your image was tagged because a counterexample was provided, just like I said should be, and you have not provided proof that you are that Flickr user. It was tagged previously because a non-FU alternative was or should have been available (read up on fair use images here and such; we don't like using them when we need not). When asked for a reason for your tagging spree, though, you provided none whatsoever and just continued on. You were trying to prove a point by being disruptive. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You tagged Image:Mather tower.jpg as being a copyright violation and labelled it as copy of a flicker photo of Chris Leak. That's totally disruptive and it seems you are just trying to make a WP:POINT. Be thankfull I'm not an admin. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 08:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting...

I left this message for Tim Casey yesterday here:

Hi... I see here that you say "all rights reserved", but this photo was uploaded to Wikipedia and the uploader says you released it under the GNU Free Documentation License here. If this image has truly been released under the GFDL, that means that anyone can copy this image, edit it, and sell it or use for advertising. Can you confirm that you indeed licensed this photo under such terms?

Today I received this reply:

no, I have never set my photos to allow anybody I do not list as a friend to use my photos for anything. This isn't the first time this has happened, so I'm probably doing to have to make all of my photos private.

I hadn't marked your photos as copyvios before (you seem to think I did, but it was a different editor), but I will now. —Chowbok ☠ 21:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Tim freelances for GatorCountry. GC's owner said to use any of Tim's photos—though I'm not sure he ever told Tim about it. I'm contacting the website owner now to see if he can contact Tim, but in the meantime feel free to tag away. Of course, if you deleted all the images from Flickr, then there would be no way to find another image outside of the "promotional" one... --WTStoffs 01:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't see the current photo GatorCountry's website, only on Tim's flickr space. We allow many Flickr images, but that's because those ones are under a free Creative Commons license; this one isn't. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
GC has a billion galleries, and that includes pay galleries that a normal user cannot access. I was instructed to take ones off the Flickr website since they are easier to link to (and don't use up GC's bandwidth). If you do look at the free galleries, though, you will see Tim Casey does in fact work for them. --WTStoffs 03:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
By all appearances it looks like it's Casey's own personal space, and not part of his freelance work. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Besides that, unless the photo was released by the team or person in question, it doesn't really count as promotional... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The original photo was a media guide photo. Chowbok flagged it as improper use of fair use since there was a non-FU image available. Of course, now she has flagged the non-FU ones, so the original would be good again.--WTStoffs 03:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Then go back to it. If the RFU tag is added again, dispute it the normal way that's outlined inside the template rather than getting into a revert war over it. Though despite Chowbok's own reverts, according to the template you should be permitted to outright remove the tag unless a proper reasoning is provided on the talk page, which the users failed to do in this case... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
No, the uploader is only entitled to remove the RFU tag if there was already an assertion of irreplaceability on the image page before the tag was added and if that assertion is not addressed by the tagger. If there is not an explanation of why the image is irreplaceable at the time of tagging, the tagger is not obligated to provide an argument at the talk page, and the uploader cannot remove the tag. Please see the discussions at Template talk:Replaceable fair use which clarify this. —Chowbok ☠ 04:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I misread. Go me. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I talked to the guy at GC and he said he told Tim to okay the photos after this whole mess... --WTStoffs 22:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Have him change the licenses on the respective Flickr pages. That way there can be no dispute about his intentions. —Chowbok ☠ 22:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tim Tebow.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tim Tebow.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 ☠ 20:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Chris Leak.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chris Leak.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. MECU≈talk 03:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Joakim Noah.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Joakim Noah.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. Mosmof 19:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Albert-and-Alberta.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Albert-and-Alberta.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. Mosmof 19:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/t/s/User_talk%7EWtstoffs_66c5.html"