User talk:DanielNuyu
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1: November 7, 2004–June 3, 2006
Archive 2: June 7, 2006–May 22, 2007
[edit] Image:DavidOxtoby.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DavidOxtoby.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:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add
{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. - 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. -- Jonel | Speak 00:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Habsburg Spain FAR
Habsburg Spain has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Purgatorio 14:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Gardenofeden.JPG
 |
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Gardenofeden.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Jason Mraz - Mr. A-Z.jpg
|
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Jason Mraz - Mr. A-Z.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Oldmansea petrov.jpg
|
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Oldmansea petrov.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image source problem with Image:AUA logo.jpg
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:AUA logo.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 19:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Old Man and the Sea
The Old Man and the Sea has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
[edit] Warcraft: Heroes of Azeroth
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Warcraft: Heroes of Azeroth, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. -- Atamasama 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:UNLV logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:UNLV logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Svgalbertian (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: 3 Strikes
I will preface this by saying that I don't intend it to sound preachy, but merely to present a thorough overview of my belief of the policy behind my youtube deletion, and I understand that thoroughness can often come across as preachy.
The link to youtube on the youtube article (which I do assume there is, but also won't bother to check) is most likely not a link to a specific video, but to the www.youtube.com homepage. Wikipedia's Copyright policy, as I understand it, would allow for rare cases where the video linked to is clearly content owned by the poster, and thus clearly not a copyright vio. That case is common on youtube (kids posting their own camera phone videos or webcam videos), but these most common videos posted by their owners are usually not relevant to anything on wikipedia. If CBS or Freemantle's youtube account posted TPIR videos, it would eliminate the copyright issue, as would a link to a video on cbs.com or whatnot. But someone capping from TV and posting a video is clearly (at least debatably) an issue of copyvio, as the owner of the copyright in TPIR has not authorized the post.
The policy (in as much as you might argue that a policy page does not always represent the consensus, but for what it's worth, here's the page) is expressed at WP:EL#Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites. Besides the copyvio issue (WP:C#Linking to copyrighted works, which is linked to in that WP:EL section), there is the validity of external linkage under the EL policy itself. The way I read it, this would suggest that one would have to mention the requirement of Adobe Flash Player in their External Link to a youtube video; though item #8 on the list of "links to avoid" notes that links to sites that use plugins (Flash specifically being mentioned) are forbidden unless it's an article about those plugins or that media type. There is an exception at the outset for the "official page of the article subject", which youtube.com in YouTube would fall under. That said, "links to avoid" sounds to me like a general guideline rather than a strict policy. With the mass popularity and public acceptance of youtube, I would personally consider a link to youtube on an article where there is clear ownership (I personally have accepted and even reverted a link to a band's own youtube account/channel in the band's article, since they clearly record their own videos and thus own the copyright of everything they post. I do understand that there is an argument to be made even against that inclusion; though noone has made one at this point. A third policy point is #16 which says to avoid temporary content; I don't know enough about TPIR youtube videos, but a lot of TV show clips on youtube which are illegally posted have a short life as the copyright holder complains and has them taken down. I don't know if this is the case here, but sometimes that can be the case; NBC is very active in that regard.
All that said, I don't personally nix youtube links for technical reasons like that, as I personally think that a majority of users either have access to Flash, an extremely common plugin, or at least know what youtube is and know whether or not they have the resources to video video there. My deletes are typically for copyvio reasons.
I should clarify that I normally avoid the technicality of saying "this particular video is not owned by the poster and therefore is a copyvio" etc. etc. and just simplify my edit comment with something like "wikipolicy prohibits links to youtube due to copyvio". Perhaps in the future I should be slightly more "this video" specific? I have seen many other users nix youtube videos (mainly TV or film videos which are the clearest examples of copyvio videos). I don't personally dislike youtube links. I think they are good tools - especially on TPIR pages. It's much easier to understand a game from just watching it played than reading. But copyright is copyright, and that's a big issue. I also am a bit weary of one link like this one leading down a slippery slope to what used to be common in the pricing game articles until they were cleaned up; which is a link to youtube for every minor oddity that has ever occured on TPIR. Someone used the same number twice on Ten Chances? Here's a youtube video. Sometimes contestants don't know how to play Check Game? Here's an example on youtube. Once someone got won all five Plinko chips, but didn't win any money. Here's the video on youtube. It can get out of hand. Users who want to see videos generally are aware of youtube and ultimately can search that site themselves for TPIR videos. If CBS posted videos themselves, there'd be an issue to debate, but the copyright pretty much negates any argument.
Re: point number two, Wikipedia is a site of community editors who make edits they believe are appropriate. I am not the "keeper" of all things relevant. I made an edit I felt was appropriate, and it is is within the rights of any wikipedia user to debate that point. Something was added, and I felt that the one element of her asking if she could cheat (which was not in fact what she asked) was not overly relevant to describing the underlying issue, which was that someone ended up pulling part of a disc and returning it and then switching discs. If you or anyone else feels this is not an appropriate revert, that's what the talk page is for, and I'm fully open to discussion on the issue. I personally think that one-time occurances over 35 years of gameplay tend to get way too much coverage in TPIR articles, and I personally try to keep descriptions of those incidents as brief as necessary to explain what happened. My reading on 3 Strikes is that the point of mentioning the cheater is to explain why the color of the chips were changed. To that end, the only really relevant fact is what happened in that last pull. To be completely honest, technically saying there was an "apparent cheater", without any cited source really shouldn't be on wikpiedia at all. It's original research of someone watching that video and personally thinking it was cheating. The only reason I wouldn't delete it outright is that it's at least good enough to make clear that she was never accused by the show itself. It's also somewhat original research to suggest that this cheater who was never accused was the cause of the show changing the "X" chips. I know the youtube video linked to was not a particularly good quality copy of the game, but I personally can't tell what happened. It looks suspicious, but I don't see red in her hand that proves the chip was exposed, and that she saw it. She probably did, but probably is not particularly encyclopedic. The problem with these pricing game articles is that there isn't a lot of good source material to cite about stuff like this. TheHYPO (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
