Talk:Dulé Hill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

Contents 1 Not to be rude but...buggy eyes - a disease? 2 Birthyear 3 Image:Dule Hill.jpg 4 RfC on image:Dule_Hill.jpg 5 Er... now we have no photo 6 Restoring Old Image

[edit] Not to be rude but...buggy eyes - a disease?

I seem to recall there is a disease that makes its sufferer's eyes bug out slightly. I vaguely remember that Barbara Bush suffered from this also. If this question is not too indelicate, I hope Dule Hill does not suffer from this disease as well?

I think you're refering to a Thryoid condition such as Graves-Basedow disease but I don't know what evidence you're basing your opinion on and therefore what place such unsubstantiated musings have in an encylopedia. Al001 21:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birthyear

Was Dulé born in 1974 or 1975? Hotwine8 03:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

He was born in May 1975. Check his IMDb website before posting insipid questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.135.94 (talk) 01:01, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dule Hill.jpg

Below, part of discussion between user User:Quentin X and User:Anubis3 concerning this image.

Secondly, the fact that photos have been used for a long time does not make it right to use them. Jimbo Wales has gone on record as saying that Wikipedia should be as free as possible and that this has not necessarily been the case in the past. Also, this is not a 'single person's' view. Just because you have not come across it in the six months that you have been a registered user under this name does not mean that this process has not been ongoing. I tried, albeit forlornly, to keep an image that I had used for a good three months until I accepted the argument that had been used which is basically, "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above and should not be used.". As far as this image is concerned, it can.

[edit] RfC on image:Dule_Hill.jpg

I have added an RfC page for this issue HERE. Thank you for your comments. Anubis3 17:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Er... now we have no photo

I see we have 'resolved' the problem of the possibility of Dulé Hill's photo not under fair use guidelines... but now we have no photo. MrMacMan 09:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring Old Image

I’d hate to open an old wound concerning Image:Dule_Hill.jpg but since User:Quentin X has stated on his user page I was finally persuaded about the legitimacy, or otherwise, of a lot of images on Wikipedia that are thought to be free use but are actually not. I have nothing against images, just believe that Wikipedia should be as free as possible and copyrighted images from other sources are not free enough and since the issue was never really resolved, it is perhaps finally appropriate to restore Image:Dule_Hill.jpg to this article. The exception, however, would be if anyone still had an objection to this. The original fair use rationale that was given for this image was This image contributes significantly to the article and was released by NBC to be widely distributed in order to promote the television show The West Wing. If anyone still has objections please let me know. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 04:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I was never a part of the great debate that happened but I've always wanted to see an image here. I changed the formatting. The Image was pushed too far down the page because of the right justified actor box so I changed sides... the picture is still too big for the article, on my screen it stretches down into the reference area but thats the only way I can actually see him in his role... so I'm not sure how I'm suppose to have worked that. Anyway hope the changes are useful. MrMacMan ^Talk 05:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but as far as I'm concerned the decision of the mediation was that the image could not be used in the article in the way that it is being used at the moment. I am also not one for opening old wounds but I do not think that is was appropriate to reinstate the image nor do I think it appropriate to not involve either myself or the mediator in the decision to reinstate it. Anubis3 did not agree to the closing of the mediation but that is not a reason to put the picture back in. I am, therefore, removing it again. (Quentin X 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

[back-and-forth regarding edit war, complete with personal attacks, removed by User:Quadell.]

Look, guys, chill. I've taken this to Wikipedia:Fair use review. There are lots of image-use gurus there who have dealt with many cases just like this one. You're all welcome and invited to comment there, but please keep your arguments short and refrain from personal attacks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)