User talk:David Shankbone/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TALK ARCHIVE 2 http://sportsreviewmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1194

Circus Amok

Hey, thanks. I really enjoyed the show, and the photographs you took simply brought back pleasant memories. I see you as an ally.

Chihuahua

I would not object to removing anything below the great dane /chihuahua picture (which seems useful as an amusing illustration of chihuahuas' small size). Perhaps the Puerto Rico universoty mascot could also stay, as this chihuahua itelf has at lease some claim to notability (as opposed to notability claimed only through association with a minor celebrity). Jaredlenowguy 01:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Those changes look great. I also think we can do without the photo of the Chihuahua "in a submissive state", but I don't have an extremely strong opinion either way...Jaredlenowguy 14:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Subway station photos

Thank you for uploading these photos and adding them to the articles. --NE2 02:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you put the wrong photo on Lexington Avenue-51st Street. --NE2 05:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Gay Talese

Still haven't quite figured out how to insert the reference tags, the wiki page for it was far too complicated to follow the first time I attempted it. The quotes are attributed directly to the source in the body and everything else comes from his bio at Random House (the link is at the bottom, which is how I found it). Not sure if there is a general, all incompassing way to refer to it. RoyBatty42 21:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Favor

Hey. I was wondering if you could do me a favor. As you know from the "beard" debate, several friends of a certain individual whose name you probably recall were being silly by posting his image on wikipedia. He is now concerned that the discussions mentioning his name are appearing in google searches. Jared really didn't ask for this, and he is pretty irritated with several of us for causing these discussions to show up on google. Would you reming replacing his name with something along the lines of [NAME DELETED] on your talk archive? I would also be willing to do this for you, with your permission of course. Thank you, and I apologize for any inconvenience. Pleasedomeafavor 18:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the third result for [name deleted] is a discussion of him from a user's talk page. Please help me with this -- I would really hate it if this were to interfere with Jared's career prospects (and he is really angry with us). Pleasedomeafavor 21:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill of Rights question answered

Hi. It's a little late—okay, a lot late—but if it's still of interest, I answered a question of yours here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Bridge people

Why did you remove the line about Bridge people from Mole people? (I don't know anything about this, it just seemed like an OK sentence, unless I'm missing something...) futurebird 22:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are culling it down to NYC mole people, but I don't agree with some of the items you removed. This article lacks sensitivity, but it ought to mention these other examples too, don't you think? futurebird 22:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Response at my talk page.futurebird 22:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your message

By a strange coincidence I was just looking at your problem, having seen it mentioned at WP:AN/I. So far it doesn't look to me as though you've done anything wrong. Give me some time to go through all the claims, though, and I'll post a comment at the discussion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Kim Bruning's suggestion was a good one, so:

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For the tireless improvement of Wikipedia articles through the subjugation of light. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Seconded KP Botany 18:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, where no good deed goes unpunished. I am kidding, we try to be fairly reasonable here, don't let this discourage you. You may want to check out my gallery of images taken for Wikipedia. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The user page matter

Atom uses the popups script, which gives previews of Wikipedia pages when one hovers the mouse cursor over a wikilink. To give you an idea of what that looks like with your user page, I’ve made a screenshot. I hope you can see how Atom gets the impression that you’re promoting your work. —xyzzy_n 16:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the lead section and ‘What other people say about Shankbone’ is that they’re written like ad copy. I advise you to replace the former entirely with something else and put the latter at least into some kind of context. (Also, remove the red links to things that shouldn’t have an article.)

The problem with the ‘STREET SLEEPERS’ stuff is that there is no obvious connection to Wikipedia. The images themselves should be on Commons, which is where we put stuff that is free and potentially useful. Regarding the text… I’m not sure. Maybe you can put it on a subpage in your user page, but it may make sense to create a blog or regular website for it, depending on your intent.

In general, avoid ALL-CAPS TEXT and bold text where they aren’t necessary. The former is perceived as shouting, the latter as distracting. See WP:BUNCH for hints on the layout of pages where there are many images. And don’t write ad copy; your contributions are appreciated and you don’t need to advertise. —xyzzy_n 17:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to consider storing the majority of your freely licensed images on the Commons. Not only does the commons have a wider scope of inclusion, but an image on the commons is accessible to Wikipedia transparently, you just use the same image name and if there is no image by that name here it will grab it from the commons. - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Be careful, though, Commons can be dangerously unuser friendly. I tried uploading images there and sorting them and have run into no end of troubles. KP Botany 18:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That is somewhat true, either of you can ask me on my talk page if you have any specific questions. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Quality vs Resolution

I saw your comment on WP:IfD regarding Image:Objectify by David Shankbone.jpg which led me here to comment, which led me off to the WP:ANI discussion. I appreciate your work on photographing NYC. I recently gave a photographer's barnstar to User:Nv8200p for his similar work around Austin.

I don't agree with how User:Atomaton went about criticizing your photographs, but I do agree with some of his criticism.

He mentions that Image:Objectify by David Shankbone.jpg is Low Quality in his WP:IfD nomination and you counter that it is 1280x960 which is a measure of Image resolution#Pixel resolution. The image is high resolution, but is low quality. It shows significant Pixelation and there is a large area of light blue on the right side - which looks more like background from scanning a photograph than a wall in an actual image.

With regards to the Sequin page, I don't think that either image does a good job of illustrating sequins. When I look at your picture the sequins are pixelated. I can why you think that your large picture of a dress is better than a small picture of a hip-cloth, but the argument is not quality, it is resolution and context.

I'm not a photographer, so I can't tell you how to fix the pixelation. I do appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia, but encourage you to seek constructive criticism of your photographs. ~ Bigr Tex 18:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actualy, I must admit that the Sequin case is the only one in which I'm uncertain of the replacement image; the older one of the hip cloth actually shows the sequins, whereas your photo shows a shiny dress. (which may or may not be sequinned). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I put the coin belt sequins back in the article, in addition to the sequined dress. Although I like the sequined dress, and prefer to see a sequined garment, the picture is overly artsy for illustrating the content. It looks like it was shot in NY's garment district, can we impose upon you to get another couple of images for this particular article, one of a model or woman in a sequined dress, in a less busy image, the other a similar close-up of a coin belt, preferably on a belly dancer, but possibly a busier image than the one included, plus clearer? Soft focus is not the best for illustrating concepts. Great image of Rockefeller Center, by the way. While I'm imposing, by the way, can you get a modern picture (adding to, not replacing the existing one) of runners in the Garment District, Manhattan with racks of clothing? I also want to eventually do an article on a garment rack. Also, if you have your camera around at night while windows are being dressed, that would be a nice image, too. Keep your cool, self-promotion is an irritating issue on Wikipedia. People create articles about themselves to post their resumes to hunt for jobs then fight tooth and nail to declare they are encyclopedia-worthy. However, it is your art, and I can't imagine that removing your name from your photographs is necessary. KP Botany 18:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't mind if the sequined dress is taken off - my support of that photo and the emotion that went into the support was more from the tidal wave of reverts that Atom was initiating. All of the photos I put up last night came from 2002, when I had a poorer digital camera. I was perusing my old photographs and wondering if some might help illustrate articles. That some can be taken down was assumed on my part. And I will get a new sequin photo - sequins can't be hard to come by in New York. I also really appreciate this constructive feedback, by the way. Where I seem to have run into some problems is I added old photographs with questionable quality. In the case of my photos from Cuba (same older camera, also 2002), that can't be helped and Cuba photos are hard to come by :) - Dave --DavidShankBone 18:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, please don't remove the sequined dress for now. It illustrates modern sequins, the coin belt the evolutionary concept on sequins--both images serve a pupose for this article. Sequins aren't hard to come by anywhere, but it is nice to have a photograph of someone wearing the dress. I will shoot one, or you can, of rows of sequins for sale on bolts in a dancer supply store or costume supply store. KP Botany 18:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I sheepishly admit to liking the artsy-fartsy aspect of the sequined dress photograph. --DavidShankBone 18:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the artsy-farsty aspect also. I printed the picture out on a real photo printer and real photo paper, just in case you do change it--and am looking for a mattboard. I shoot high speed film on my 35mm and blow it up to emphasize the grainy aspect, right now I'm working with soft focus. I do black and white, then hand paint. I think I'll hang it on my wall of black and white fashion photos. That doesn't mean it goes best with the article. KP Botany 19:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the excellent work. Please consider uploading your freely licensed work to Wikimedia Commons. There are lots of Wikimedia projects that could benefit from it. Jkelly 20:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Friendly chat

David, I'm sorry that I wasn't able to respond to the situation in time. I'm dealing with a death in the family and it's been a little hard for me. I'm glad that things seem to have worked out between you and the other editer. You know that I consider you my friend and I know of all the hard work and dedication that you have put into our project. If you ever need me again, please let me know. You know that I will always back you up if you're right and if I believed that you were wrong, I would be the first to tell you because that is what true friendship is about. Tony the Marine 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That IP on Sexual objectification

If that IP really is Atom, it should be reported to ANI. Jeffpw 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Dave, Sexual objectification of women is not a topic I can discuss in a civil manner, so I have to decline commenting, after this. You probably should consider that the image must be identified by someone else in research as sexual objectification or tied directly to research about the fashion industry and its sexual objectification of women--this should not be too difficult but will require a bit of research. I got a television commercial for a major product cancelled for a similar, although clothed campaign, based upon its sexual objectification of women, backed readily from the academic research--all handled in a very professional and civil manner, but not something I can do online with short notice. However, feel free to request same in future in other areas. You take good pictures that are an asset to Wikipedia. KP Botany 02:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR Violation

I am really sorry David but with 9 reverts in a single day I had to report you to WP:AN/3RR. To be fair I will also report the IP and ~~request a checkuser on User:Atomaton.~~ Since it seems you are settling the dispute with that user yourself, I then will not involve myself by requesting a checkuser.--Jersey Devil 00:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. Like I said up above, the only way that could be confirmed is through WP:RCU. However, from what I have seen on the talk page of that article the aforementioned user says that he is not the IP and from what I can see has no history of sockpuppetting.--Jersey Devil 03:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Objectification RfC

Please don't move my comments again. I'm not concerned about how you prefer to format the RfC, your interference is unwelcome. There is no standard format for RfC replies, I reply to many. Reording comments to fit your agendum is not appropriate. Thank you. Atom 04:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You can replace your comments in a section where they don't belong, but I followed the template provided by Wikipedia policy - so you are the one who will look bad for insisting your comments be put under a place reserved for other WP editors who aren't involved. It's not my layout, it's WIkipedia's. Your only hurting yourself; I'll leave them where you put them - have at it! --DavidShankBone 04:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've participated in many RFC's. There may be a suggestion, but there is no standard format. Moving my and other users comments is not appropriate. Also, the wording of the RfC is biased. A simpler version that sticks to the facts of the case would be much better for everyone. I offered a simple version that I hope you will like. Atom 05:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, do what you like. But I get to word my own RfC - not you. --DavidShankBone 05:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

David, no one OWNS the RfC. Your phrasing is biased towards your case. The issue is a group issue. The RfC should be phrased neutrally. I phrased it as simply and as neutrally as could possibly be done. Find a neutral party to word it if you don't like my wording. Atom 05:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How is my posing the issue not neutral? What about it has bias? --DavidShankBone 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Status of image

David, my comments regarding the legal status of the image are serious. I am not so concerned with your specific image, it is a specific case of a general issue that needs to be addressed more globally. There appears to be no Wikipedia policy, and I think there should be to give clear guidance in situations like this. Normally, I would put the image up for deletion, which would prompt serious debate from a variety of interested admins. Previously you suggested that you did not agree with that method of resolving the issue, which is why I have not pursued that on your new image.

Yes, I know you have poo-poo'd me several times suggesting that it was an image taken in a public place, with other photographers, and such. It probably seems quite silly to you. But, someone who takes you (or wikipedia) to court may not be aware of that environment, or care. As Wikipedia is a fairly new medium, some lawyer is bound to see something like this as an opportunity.

Clearly, my concerns are based (as I presented earlier) on the - Faloona v Hustler Magazine, Inc., 607 F Supp 1341, (1985, ND Tex). "Any person who knowingly uses another’s name, photograph, or likeness ... without such person's prior consent, or in the case of a minor, the consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof . . . ."

Regardless of what the right answer is (my concerns correct, or my concerns unfounded) what do you think the best way to approach the issue, get a correct legal answer, and write (or add to existing) Wikipedia policy? I run into a variety of images like this editing sexuality and sexology articles, and would like to have firm ground in future encounters.

Regards, Atom 06:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR again

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. (This warning has been issued to both you and 68.147.218.231) Iamcuriousblue 13:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Image work, fair use

David, first off I'd like to say you've done some fine work with your photography! I was especially impressed with some of the work on street sleepers. The image Image:StreetSleepers3a.jpg was especially powerful. The juxtaposition of the trash can saying "litter only", with the drooping head and hair cascading down onto a blank page with a pen in the hand...wow! I mean, WOW! Very powerful. I'm really impressed with some of this work.

There's an issue with three of the images you've taken though, with respect to how they may be used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia tends to be very conservative with regards to image use. We strive to have as little non-free content as possible, and use a very broad paint brush to define what is not free. The three images in particular are:

In all three cases, the images are of artistry created by a person other than you. In such cases, the original artist retains rights to the work. You can release your own rights to the photographic image, in that it took creative effort to make the image, but you do not have the ability to release the artist's rights to the artwork itself. Specifically, this is covered by U.S. copyright law as described at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106. As a result, I've retagged these images with licensing tags that limit their use to fair use on Wikipedia. As such, as described in our policy at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9, the images may not appear on your userpage. They can be linked, but may not visually appear. I am removing the images from your userpage. You may wish to list them in a separate area on your userpage via links. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, and please keep up the great work! --Durin 14:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on January 29, 2007 to Sexual objectification

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 19:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Fordhamlogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fordhamlogo.gif. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Funkshion

Hi David - I have added speedy tags to that article, too, and the editor(s) keep re-creating the article. It appears that the article was deleted at least once. Funkshion does generate quite a few Google hits, so maybe we should leave it alone for a bit and then go through normal AFD procedures later if necessary. SmartGuy 22:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mwahahahahahaha! it got deleted and proteced against re-creation SmartGuy 13:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

ALT photo in Wintour article

I took the picture of André Leon Talley out of the Anna Wintour article because not only is she behind him and difficult to see, I couldn't see what purpose it served the article to have it (other than, I admit, spicing up an image-dry section of text). Just letting you know. Daniel Case 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)