User talk:Chowbok/Robth's RFU Explanation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] deletions
Please do not delete others' work. Discuss it all right. This is what this talk page is for. --Irpen 05:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- An amusing thing to hear from the fellow who deletes every comment that annoys him from his talk page with the edit summary "rm troll". Anyway, why do I have to add my "discussions" about a page in my userspace to the talk page, but Jeffness's "discussions" are fine to go on the main page? —Chowbok ☠ 06:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I wasn't posting discussions, I was posting a summary of the opposing viewpoint. The talk page (here) could then be used for discussing changes if you disagreed with any statements in it. Why do you fear people understanding the other side?--Jeff 06:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why am I obligated to give you equal space in a page I set up for my own convenience? What if I'd put all this on my user page? Could you still add your response? Can I add a response to your little rant about us "assholes" on your user page? If not, why not? —Chowbok ☠ 06:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, because you cite it to everyone whos posted an image that you tag RFU. That broadens the scope of the article. Plus, honestly, I still don't think you have a mandate to go around deleting images properly used under fair-use.--Jeff 06:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why am I obligated to give you equal space in a page I set up for my own convenience? What if I'd put all this on my user page? Could you still add your response? Can I add a response to your little rant about us "assholes" on your user page? If not, why not? —Chowbok ☠ 06:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I wasn't posting discussions, I was posting a summary of the opposing viewpoint. The talk page (here) could then be used for discussing changes if you disagreed with any statements in it. Why do you fear people understanding the other side?--Jeff 06:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
(resetting indent)
Which action? The tagging of images as RFU and getting them deleted? It would be very difficult because Wikipedia's entire image policy is inherently flawed, fragmented, and inconsistent. Here are the main problems standing in the way of us seeing eye to eye.
- Any existing policy supporting the deletion of fair-use was created by people who advocated it first. There was little outside notice until images started to be deleted and that's when others noticed. That's where I came in. Qualdell, Robth, yourself, Wales and others had their way with policy and contrary viewpoints only came afterwards and are ignored. Plus, there's lots of people that put in alot of work finding legitimate fair use photos and are having their work deleted in a manner that isn't respectful of their contribution.
- Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images.2FMedia is the page cited by RFU deletionists to advocate the deletion of fair-use media. The reasoning is on a page about speedy-deletion.. What does RFU have to do with speedy deletion?
- Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria The definition of what a replaceable fair-use image is ambiguous. You and I obviously define equivalent in completely different terms. Also, what defines a public figure? There's a ton of gray area here that makes for perfectly valid disagreement, it should be our goal to have very little gray area.
- Your RFU tagging doesn't (or didn't at first) include any effort to verify if the image was really replacable. There's lots of public figures that it's difficult to get a photo of, but they are still public figures.
- personality laws.
And the biggie, and one that might get me off your back:
- RFU works great on things like cream pies, cars or species of tree, but you ventured into promotional photos of people and that's where i largely disagree with you. I think promotional photos are great and the finest example of what fair-use allows. I think promotional photos is the single largest point of contention on this issue between you and I. Actually, if your side agreed to leave promotional photos out of the RFU witch-hunt, I'd have nothing more to complain about. I imagine that would take care of alot of other people, as well.
--Jeff 06:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed at the lack of response--Jeff 20:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You protected the wrong version
Why do you protect the version of the page that is lacking content? Shouldn't the page with the content be protected?--Jeff 06:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- m:The wrong version. This is all really quite silly. The page is now tagged as an essay, and it should be clear that it is just an opinion. As such, Chowbok is free to have an essay in her own userspace present her opinion. If you wish for there to be an essay presenting the opposite opinion, you are free to create one in your userspace. I'm done with this for tonight (I can't believe I spent the better part of half an hour on it); please just place your thoughts on a subpage of your own userspace instead of fighting over a subpage of someone else's. --RobthTalk 06:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your ability to cite every damn relevant page in the wiki-verse continues to amaze. You'll still understand, however, that any essay placed on my userspace will go unread because im not the one going around tagging RFU like it's going out of style (well ok, I did one night, but that didn't work out).--Jeff 06:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
