User talk:Dcs47

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Dcs47, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 01:34, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Personal info

I presume your post on the help desk was in reference to Judith Krug, is that correct? I have listed the matter at WP:ANI, and i am about to warn the person who mafe that edit. Is the info reveald info that seriously inpinged on your privicy, or was the connection between your wikipedia ID and your real name and occupation publicly available eve if not widely known? DES (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Personal Info help re:

You're correct - it's the article on Judith Krug. The association between my user name, my real name and workplace was not known at all until he posted it in the edit summary. It is not published elsewhere, and I have taken pains to keep it that way. I originated and/or maintain two Wikipedia pages about a Star Trek actor and his character, and would like the association between my user name and my actual identity/workplace to remain private.

I'd be very grateful for any help in removing the personal info. Thanks so much!

I have raised the matter on WP:ANI and I have warned the anon poster. Note that edit summeries are not normally included in google crawls or other search results. I will see what can be done -- unfortunately edit summeries are one of the hardest things to change anywhere in the wiki, sort of compeletely deleting the article. DES (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The edit with the personal info has now been deleted. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit Summery Vandalism on Judith Krug for more on this. DES (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editing suggestions

Please take a look at the recent comments on Talk:Judith Krug about the content and format of the article. DES (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You might also want to do something about the copyright violation that makes up the introductory paragraph. --Calton | Talk 05:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Query on edit deletions

(copied from my talk page DES (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)) Much thanks for your earlier help with the J. Krug page and having edits that revealed my personal info removed... but when I visit the history page, there's a link asking "do you want to see 2 deleted pages?" which, if followed, still show that info. Is there any way to make that go away, period?

thanks, DCS47

There is no easy way to remove the edit summeries from view that I know of -- i have asked on WP:ANI if this can be done. Fortunately, this special page should not be indexed by google or other search engines, at least. I'm sorry not to be able to offer a better response. DES (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Image:RDM2000BW.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RDM2000BW.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. 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}}
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

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 17:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi... why are you now claiming this is GFDL? Can you point me to something that verifies that? —Chowbok ☠ 04:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I see you've changed it to fair-use. I'm marking it replaceable, for the same reason it was replaceable last time around. Please let me know if you have any questions. —Chowbok ☠ 04:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your note. The issue is that, as much as possible, we want our content to be freely-redistributable. In some cases, we have to use fair-use images; for instance, an image illustrating a fictional character really couldn't be replaced with a free one. However, with an actor, we could get a free image, so by our policy, we can't use the fair-use one. Since you know him, maybe you could ask him if he'd release this image or another one under a license we could use, such as the GFDL or the Creative Commons Attribution or Attribution-ShareAlike licenses? —Chowbok ☠ 00:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your rationale is that actors and others want professional quality photos out there - not snapsnots, not paparazzi photos, especially for an item of record like Wikipedia. "Professional quality" means that the photographer will likely retain some rights to the photo, even as he/she realizes that it will be reproduced widely - much as studios retain rights to the publicity photos they distribute to the (even the paparazzi retain rights to their "snapshots") You cannot replace this professional quality photo with a snapshot; and any actor, indeed, any person who has a professional photo will find it nearly impossible to get the photographer to cede his or her full rights. No one's going to come after Wikipedia, no more than the New York Times or Rolling Stone if those publications ran the photo with an interview. Again, I ask, why do the Star Trek publicity photos get a pass while lots of useable images that have the same status get deleted? You'll have a real paucity of images on Wikipedia if you pursue this policy to its logical conclusion - under the current copyright regime, you'll find it very hard to run photos of actors that aren't publicity shots.

I wrote a response here, but I think it'd be easiest for everyone if we just continue the discussion at the image talk page. I'm moving it there; if you respond there I'll see it. —Chowbok ☠ 16:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Tomparis002.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tomparis002.jpg. I noticed that 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, then 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, then 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:Fair use, 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 21:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Violation

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Robert Duncan McNeill. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

Hi there: I can see that you've been reverting Andromeda for several days now. Even though this isn't technically a 3RR violation, it's still edit warring and is against the spirit of the rule. If it continues, it's likely you will be blocked by an administrator to stop the edit war. I recommend going to the talk page to make your case. If you can't agree with Andromeda, consider dispute resolution. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tomparis002.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Tomparis002.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Abu badali (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)