User talk:ESkog/Archive12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Index of Talk Page archives

May-November 2005 - December 8-24, 2005 - Dec 28, 2005 - Jan 22, 2006 - January 23-February 11, 2006 - February 11-27, 2006 - February 28-March 10, 2006 - March 11-30, 2006 - March 31-April 16, 2006 - April 17-May 22, 2006 - May 23-June 12, 2006 - June 13-July 15, 2006 - July 16-August 18, 2006 - August 21-November 16, 2006 - November 17, 2006 - March 3, 2007 - March 4-April 20, 2007 - April 23-May 8, 2007 - May 9-23, 2007 - May 24-June 22, 2007 - June 29-July 17, 2007 - July 18-August 27, 2007 - August 30, 2007 - February 29, 2008

[edit] The Beatles discography

The album covers are a critical part of this article as it IS a discography article. Steelbeard1 14:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, good work on the removal. Nice to see it isn't just me who is removing them. J Milburn 15:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This place is slowly, but surely turning into a loony bin, and makes me ask myself why I even bother in the first place. Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Our most fundamental policies predate you joining. If you are interested in the subject of discography pages and album covers, read the short essay I wrote on the subject. J Milburn 15:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

From the essay in question:

{{essay}} Guidelines are NOT policy and I've asked a Beatle WikiProject administrator for his opinion. Steelbeard1 16:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If you had actually read what I had written, you would see that I reference policies and much longer discussions. Obviously, I can't just write something and call it policy. What the head of the WikiProject thinks is pretty irrelevent, galleries of fair use images are against our foundation principles. J Milburn 16:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFM request

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Frank Rossitano, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jingra11 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that the bringer of this request is blocked, so what exactly is there to mediate? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale cont'd (aka Please slow down II)

Please refer to my reply to you here, Thanks. Ohconfucius 01:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagged images

Oh my god! You tagged every single image I uploaded!
Of course I will NOT give reasons of fair use to all of them, even every single one being "To identify --- character" (according to wikipedia, a reasonable reason to fair use), 'cause they are not 5 or 10... are dozens! You tagged images I uploaded a year ago!
So, I will not move a finger wasting my time in such a boring work... I have a life XP I'll just let the wikipedia have 300 broken links, I am not the kind who would die from this - Access Timeco 02:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chic discography

Covers are vital to a discography. An artists recording career isn't just album titles, track titles etc, it's just as important to show the album covers, as these (not always) often show a development of an artists iconography, and artistic development. Please refrain from removing them from the discography. Covers are also allowed under wikipedia fair use rules. --Pocat-chictribute.com 12:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto for Daft Punk discography. Just64helpin 16:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discography articles

Now that we have at least three discography articles of which there are challenges to the deletion of album covers in the articles, there should be an evaluation of guidelines. It was mentioned in the discussion of Talk: The Beatles discography that showing the album covers is critical as some readers may not recognize the title of an album but can recognize the design of the album cover to learn more about the album in question. Steelbeard1 16:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly! --Pocat-chictribute.com 17:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As there are now a few people commenting here, I will make a general reply here. Yes, I think it would be neat if we had a world in which we could just go around using all sorts of images for decoration. Wikipedia would look better. But we don't live in that world. People own the rights to those images, and we have had to set up policies to determine when we believe images to be fair use for a work such as Wikipedia. Specifically, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8 speaks to the discographies and episode lists, since it says explicitly that non-free images may not be used in galleries or lists. Further, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images states that album covers, like screenshots, require critical commentary in order to be included. TV episode lists have been conclusively shown to not contain enough critical commentary to justify fair use on Wikipedia, and album lists have even less of that commentary. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I haven't received a reply to my inquiry on two pages, I figure I'll ask here whether you can link to an article or page showing consensus to your opinion that discographies cannot have photos of albums. The only debate I've found, located here, show that proposals to blanket remove images from discographies as you are doing have failed. Other debates are going on here. You have given me your opinion on this issue (initially discussed here on an unrelated page about illegal screen captures of television shows on lists of episodes), but I fail to see why your reading of the rules is more right than mine, has more priority over the current and former debates, and more right than the other people posting here about discographies, unless you can point me to consensus on the issue of this debate and not just your opinion. Considering that discographies are, by definition, a comprehensive listing of music, including detailed chart statistics, sales, singles information, etc, the removal of images is essentially saying to make the discography articles comprehensive, but not too comprehensive.

You might very well be right on this issue, but I just want to see that consensus has been reached before one person's opinion takes over an entire section of Wikipedia, especially since I disagree will your reading of the fair use rules. If the discographies were filled with pictures of the performers recording the songs in the studios, or live on television, etc., then that's copyright infringement. But album covers not being appropriate and fair-use on a page about albums? I can find examples of debates which state to keep the pictures. I'm just wandering if I've overlooked the debates to remove the photos. What you see as "decoration", I see as informative.

Thank you, --Ataricodfish 21:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but after reading your comment above telling other editors how it'd be "neat if we had a world in which we could just go around using all sorts of images for decoration", talking to other editors as if they're third graders making a free Geocities fan site instead of serious contributors to WP, I question if you really want to discuss this issue. You've already created a page for us troublemakers at User:ESkog/Discogs to note who's disagreeing with your opinion, so numerous editors have already been downgraded to vandals in the matter of 24 hours. I have no problem with images being removed if consensus has been reached, but having a handful of editors on an unrelated talk page make a decision which effects many other articles, that's my issue. I feel that everything should be discussed before wide ranging blanket changes are done, but I guess I'm in a minority on this issue.

As a contributor to music related articles on WP, I just want to ensure that all music articles, including discographies, are at their highest quality. When I see moves which degrade the quality of WP articles, well, I'd be ignorant to just idly watch.

All the best, --Ataricodfish 00:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicely put Ataricodfish. Anyway, this "Article 8 on fair use" that's being touted about only says lists normally shouldn't contain images. In my mind I interpret that as a list that contains critical comment, such as release dates, chart positions and other useful information i.e. discographies should be exempt. Or at least fixable to become exempt. Now can we stop butchering articles like the Beatles discography which is now pretty much unusable thanks to the efforts of Betacommand's acolytes/sockpuppets and approach the subject in a rational manner? It is Wikipedias worst feature that some wikipedians spend way too much time circle-jerking in the policy pages when they should be doing something positive and creating content or improving articles. Content creators, like Arther Dent do not pop by the planning office on the offchance that some raging bureaucrat is going to delete all of their images ;) Regular users should be encouraged to get involved in these debates and not treated in such a condescending manner. Megamanic 09:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent for readability) I'm sorry if you felt I was condescending, but I am running out of ways to explain our fair-use policies and I'm hoping that somewhere along the line, something makes sense to folks. I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were stupid or a vandal, and I apologize for anything I've said that might be construed to mean that. User:ESkog/Discogs is simply a page for organizing cleanup tasks, it's not tagging anyone as vandals. Just assume a bit of good faith and chill for a bit.

As for the actual substance of both of your concerns, I fear you're just wrong on this one. Our articles are at their highest level of quality when they use a minimal amount of non-free content. That content is only permitted when it is the subject of critical commentary. We don't do this for a bureaucratic shuffle (but if you want some pretzels and beer, Arthur, go right ahead) - we do it to make Wikipedia freer and better. If you really believe that an article is unusable without a gallery of fair-use images, then Wikipedia isn't going to accommodate you. A table of related information is not critical commentary about the album cover - it's just a bunch of numbers. Many discographies contain only one line of prose: "This is a discography for Band X." That's not critical commentary in the least, and certainly not enough commentary to adequately discuss 100+ images. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example of "critical commentary", which implies criticism to me, that is also NPOV? Sounds like a Catch 22 to me. Now, I've read around & I can see how wikipedia has a desire to be completely free and has increased standards with respect to fair use - which I respect but also happen to think is rather pointless. If the Linux developers worried about infringing software copyrights they'd never write a line of code. Instead they rely on a large number of volunteers to fix any problems when they are revealed - an option open to wikipedia which I would also imagine would also have a pretty cast-iron safe harbor defense but IANAL. Now my take on fair use & discographies is this:- Fair use is apparently measured on the following points...

“

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

”

My take...

1. Non-profit, educational or at least informative answering questions like "what was the album with the red cover?" which is unanswerable without providing thumbnails.

2. The copyrighted work is an album of music including the sleeve hence:-

3. The portion related to a thumbnail of the album cover is vanishingly small and also less important than the music itself

4. I would imagine it only increases the value of the copyrighted work allowing people to find albums they don't yet own. The thumbnails wouldn't help a hypothetical bootlegger reproduce the packaging. Nobody's actually told me how many record companies or bands have sent cease & desist letters to wikipedia regarding thumbnail images in discographies... I can guess the answer I just want you to tell me...

RE: Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria section 8. Well I suggest you read it most carefully.

“

8. Significance. Non-free content contributes significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text); it does not serve a purely decorative purpose. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements is normally regarded as decorative.

”

normally regarded as decorative - i.e. not always. In other words there are exceptions and discographies are a very good example IMHO of an exceptional case. A situation where the images increase the usability of the article immesurably. How about a discography section of a band page for a band that doesn't have individual album pages? Do we have to create pages for non-notable (or at least less-notable) albums? I do work on one of New Zealand's best bands (notable but hardly a world straddling colossus in sales terms) & have added 3 albums with a total combined pressing run of less than 5000 (I believe there were around 1000 copies of each - good luck finding one & I'm not selling mine ;) - do they need individual pages to allow fair use of cover images or can we just put them in the discography? Megamanic 02:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If the discography actually contains a discussion of the album, then that might be acceptable. The problem is that 99% of discographies are just long list articles. A table of data, I'm sure you will agree, doesn't meet any standard of "critical commentary." If a band's albums are not themselves notable enough for articles, then one of two scenarios is afoot: (1) if we don't need articles on the albums, we may not need their images either, or (2) the images may be able to find a home wherever there is actual, substantive discussion of the albums - not a list of dates and sales numbers.

Incidentally, if you really believe this - "I can see how wikipedia has a desire to be completely free and has increased standards with respect to fair use - which I respect but also happen to think is rather pointless" - then I think you may find yourself continually frustrated here. I don't mean at all to suggest that you should leave, but Wikipedia's core principles, which include a commitment to free content, aren't likely to change. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I know I did a bit of an information overload with my last post (rant ;) but can you please address all of the points not just the ones that you feel don't undermine your position. In particular:-

1. What is an example of acceptable "Critical Commentary"? How can we generate this "Critical commentary" of which you speak without violating NPOV? - we're trying to work with you here and assume "good faith" but you're making it very hard. You fire out these phrases without explaination. If a discography were produced with significant acceptable "critical commentary" it would presumably be acceptable to include the covers. Right?

2. What hole(s) is/are there in my fair use rationale for record sleeves? People NEED to see the covers. That's what a music shop is. It's a way for people to examine the sleeve & see if the album is one they want to purchase. Similarly in a discography, the whole point is to provide a way for people to see all of the album sleeves so they can select the album of interest in a more convenient way. People are either primarily visual, verbal or tactile. We should make the pages as useful as possible to all types of user.

3. What exact phrasing is it in Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria section 8. That specifies no images in discographies? I've read it several times and I fail to see such an inflexible clause. Firstly, let's agree that a discography is not simply a gallery. We'll agree it's a list. Ok? Now, accepting it's a list, how much beyond a list do we need to go to reach the tipping point? It says "normally" and that would seem to imply that the compromise I'm trying to broker should be possible.

4. How many record companies or bands have sent cease & desist letters to wikipedia regarding thumbnail images in discographies or album articles? I'm not going to stop asking that question until I get an answer.

RE your last point, "Fit in or f**k off." - how sweet. You're asking a Hawkwind fan to "fit in or eff off". Son, we were manning the barricades when you were in diapers :) I'll accept it's an option & it's becoming far more attractive with every passing iteration of this particular saga. But instead, try looking in the mirror. Look at your recent edit history (as I have) & ask yourself frankly "How much content have I added to wikipedia this week" and "How much content have I deleted instead of spending two minutes more making it acceptable" - Answer those two questions honestly to yourself and it might just change your life Megamanic 06:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

1. "Critical commentary" doesn't mean criticism. It means a discussion, using reliable sources, about the image in question. In practice, this tends to include a discussion of the album itself in the depth provided by a good article about the album.

2. Wikipedia's not a music shop. We aren't selling albums. "People need to see the images" doesn't trump our respect for free content.

3. A discography is a listing of the articles we have covering the albums of a band. In many cases, they *are* simply galleries - see Category:Discographies for some which haven't been cleaned up yet. The Catch-22 here is that if the article contains a lot of discussion, it's probably moved beyond a discography into another article about the band. If some of the albums are particularly iconic, the proper places for the images would be in either the main article about the band or in the articles about the album.

4. That point is totally irrelevant, which is why no one's answered you. I will say that I am not aware of any such conflicts, but do you really believe that the only reason people respect copyrights is because they don't want to get sued? We are committed to free content for a wide variety of reasons, and "not getting sued" is only one insignificant one.

The next thing on Wikipedia which "change[s] my life" would be the first. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pac-man.png

I uploaded that image with the intent of including it in the page Pac-Man, and that article only, to illustrate the game. Under that rationale, I believe it qualifies as fair-use only in Pac-Man. All other article placements, however, were added by others, and may not qualify. Gus 00:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:NWN showdown.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NWN showdown.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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually uploaded that image specifically for use with the Neverwinter Nights game description. It is unclear why the image was removed from that page and placed elsewhere. But I have restored it to the original page and removed the other instances. Is there a way I can automatically "watch" any changes to where it is being displayed? — RJH (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know how to watchlist an image for links to other pages; I'm not sure that can be done. I've withdrawn the disputed tag. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I guess I'll just try to check it from time to time. — RJH (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More help needed!

If you could please check out the history on my User Page, and warn the individual responsible for the negative remarks and accusations. And the truth shall set you free! 17:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And again today. These people are a little nuts. Can they be blocked I am quite frankly tired fo the abuse. I am not a politician, so there is little they can do and they obviously have no idea who I am. And the truth shall set you free! 17:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is now a daily thing. These individuals or this individual claim to "have me on the run", though I am not sure what that means exactly. Anyway, hope you are enjoying your vacation, I look forward to any help you can provide me with when you return. And the truth shall set you free! 15:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing album images/galleries

It's great that youre doing this, but is there any way you can adjust your script (or whatever you're using) to format the album titles correctly after the images are gone? Per WP:MUSIC and WP:ALBUMS, album titles need to be italicised. It would prevent a lot of future cleanup if you can change this now before doing many more pages. Please and thank you! - eo 19:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, by hand? You've got quite a project ahead of you then. I've removed images from some discographies, although many times they get put back in by disgruntled fans who want the pretty pictures. Ah well, thanks for all your future italicising! - eo 20:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Yasserarafat2.jpg

User:Thundertimes has been uploading images and attributing them to ebay. I called him on it for the second time yesterday and it has opened a dialog (User talk:Thundertimes#Response) about the images. We have been focusing on Image:Yasserarafat2.jpg today. We have located the source and the copyright holder (CTK, The Czechoslovak Press Agency). Now we are at the limits of my knowledge. I think that the image might qualify for fair use and have told him so, but I'm not sure, don't know which license tag to use, nor how to approach a rationale for this case. Could you take 5 minutes and review this image and provide some instruction to him? Thanks. ~ Bigr Tex 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lighthouse Family discography

I was shocked to see the images being removed from the Lighthouse Family discography page. Can I ask whether images in discographies are allowed in any way? Manm hk 14:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Maze war.jpg

A while ago, you flagged Image:Maze war.jpg with {{dfu}}. I've since expanded upon the rationale provided, and wondered if you would care to take another look. Thank you. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Eskog, why did you delete this? [1] It was sourced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Anubhavklal

Anubhavklal was previously blocked for being a sock of User:75.73.188.53 [2]. Wouldn't that mean that he is now violating a block? Thanks. --Knverma 05:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please guide me? 12.40.180.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked at 20:55, 12 June 2007 for 24 hours [3] and 12.40.180.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) started editing similar pages (Quixtar and User talk:Knverma) at 17:42, 13 June 2007. They are most likely the same users, hence it would be an evasion of block.

More importantly, there is a continuous edit-war on Quixtar because of anonymous IPs, and they have refused to come to talk page (see e.g. edit summary: [4]). What option do I have in such a case? --Knverma 19:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I see that you've used my fair use rationale for Image:Action_Comics_-1_June_1938.jpg as an example of how it is done. Thank you for the compliment! Hopefully, you haven't felt picked on in the TfD discussion regarding {{dated dfu}}. I assure you, that was not my intent. Anyhow, thanks again! --GentlemanGhost 07:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, what about using Image:Starbucks_Coffee_Logo.svg as a example of a fair use rationale for a logo? --GentlemanGhost 08:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Procol Harum discography

Could you please explain why you've removed all the images from the Procol Harum discography? I see that you've quoted the Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, but I don't see what the problem is. The actual images them selves are covered by fair use as the image is used "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question" and is of low (200 × 200 pixel) quality.

What else is wrong? StormCloud 12:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disturbed

Could you please check the images of cd's on the Disturbed website? There is not consensus on whether they are okay or not.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frog47 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quixtar

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Quixtar, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.40.180.17 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed your spam again. Please just go bug someone else. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Quixtar. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.40.180.17 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Quixtar, you will be blocked from editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.40.180.17 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I start vandalizing Wikipedia, I'll get right on blocking myself. Spammers ain't welcome here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits made during June 13, 2007

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning if you did not make any unconstructive edits. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no advertising link added by me. What is the use of Wiki if the websites created by corporation about which the page is, are also not allowed to be on the page.

At the same time, I see a lot of blogs and other irrelevant sites listed on the page.

e.g. www.thisbiznow.com and www.ibofacts.com are valid websites. Moreover I see a lot of links related to Dateline and other blogs still listed on this page even though Wiki guidelines suggest not to put blogs.

Thisbiznow is a corporate spam site with no reason to be linked. Dateline's not a blog. Please stop adding links if you don't understand our policies about external links. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the definition of spam site?

And what about following site?

Are they not voilating Wiki policies?

And if they are, will you mind removing them from the page.

[edit] Rosalie Sorrels Discography

Why on earth did you remove every image in this article? Each met the fair use criteria in Wikipedia for album covers. I find it astounding you did this without the courtesy of even discussing it beforehand. I believe your actions are very precipitous and are not in the best interests of Wikipedia. I would appreciate a dialog on this, not just snappy answers; such as "Because I can.". You have damaged this article greatly and I do not appreciate your actions. For your consideration:

Reviewers are urged to consider that some discretion and personal judgement is required in assessing whether certain of these requirements are met, and in these cases may choose to assume good faith, unless there is reason to doubt. Other users may be invited to review or comment if a clear determination can not be made. If the image is used in more than one article, it is preferable that individual articles are assessed individually with a separate template box used for each article reviewed, as future edits to a particular article may render "fair use" claims as void. As the aim of this process is to improve Wikipedia, reviewers should, where possible, attempt to elevate the standard of the "fair use" of the image, by making any edits they consider appropriate, where possible. For example rewording an inadequately written Fair Use rationale, or deleting unnecessary information, is a far more constructive action than simply deeming that a criterion has not been met.

I believe you have not assessed this issue correctly and ask you to reconsider. I look forward to discussing this with you. Robbie Giles 00:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines give you the latitude to label the article prior to simply changing it. You did not do me the courtesy of allowing me to address something I was unaware was a problem. I am not a newbie and am not easily intimidated. This type of elitist behavior scares off potential editors. You need to look at the project in an holistic manner. As an 'expert' editor, play by all the rules. I ask you to revert to the previous edit; mark the article as needing to be in compliance; then give me a chance to do so. Will you do this? --Robbie Giles 05:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I will type veeerrryyyy slowly so you can follow my point. Do not delete any images without first tagging them. Of course I understand I am not in trouble, rather you may be for not following the guidelines by tagging and warning first. Let me repeat - if you notify someone of a problem, they then have an opportunity to address that problem. You are not all knowing. I may alter the licensing on the images or make a valid point for an exception based truly on fair use. Your tactics, intended or not, are rude and intimidating to other editors. (Oh yes, that would be assuming good faith.) So re-read the guidelines, the part about tagging images first. Again I ask, will you revert your changes? --Robbie Giles 05:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, you did not delete the images, you deleted the links to the images in the article without any warning on the article. Will you revert your change to the article, tag it, and give me time to address the problems with the Fair Use Rationale ? --Robbie Giles 06:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Will you revert to the previous edit; place the suggested warning, and give me time to address your concerns?

PLEASE DO ME THE COURTESY OF DISCUSSING YOUR REMOVAL OF IMAGES FROM THIS ARTICLE. Is that clear enough for you? I have edited the photos included to give the rationale for fair use. How can I finish my work if you revert while I am actively editing the article. Why will you not discuss this? I am so frustrated with you right now I could spit. Leave this article alone until I can finish it today. I will be requesting formal mediation on this. Why are you as an administrator acting in such an autocratic manner? Will you allow me to finish this article before you eviscerate it? Robbie Giles 14:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the policy you reference.

An image that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted.

I received no notification that there was a problem with any of the images included until you simply edited the table included in the article to delete links to all images. I have requested comment on the article to see if other editors experienced on this topic uphold your view. I have stated rationale for fair use in each of the images I intend to keep. Did you look at them before reverting? Did you assume good faith in my edits, or assume I was simply reverting without addressing your concerns? I will not get into a reversion war over this, as everyone loses. I ask you to discuss this on the Talk:Rosalie Sorrels discography where others may help in settling this issue. Robbie Giles 15:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block of 75.73.188.53

A user you blocked several times has requested some help here regarding the most recent block. 75.73.188.53 stated that s/he was new, but you blocked 75.73.188.53 in February 2007. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this related thread above. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The real question is not about blocking but about why are you distorting article and why are you blocking people who are trying to correct it. I trust you are not biased by intention. Some of your remarks were really confusing e.g. the corporate spam site, or whitewashing site. I don't know if any encyclopedia will use these words to present neutral information.

Are you owner of one of the blogs I mentioned above?

I have no stake in Quixtar, for or against. Occasionally users come through trying to "correct" one or more of our articles to remove criticism of a company, and often to add links to sites which provide biased or inaccurate information in favor of that company. We've been over the issue several times on the article's talk page, and continuing to "correct" the article to favor your point of view is neither helpful nor welcome. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now I see you fit the description.i.e. trying to favor your point of view. And how is it that reference to statistics page of a website ( http://www.thisbiznow.com/quixtar/statistics.html is ok ( ref # 3 ) but mentioning the website itself is spam?

And when someone tells you not to remove information, you block the user. I am sure you are an intelligent person and you should respect the purpose of Wikipedia. If you want to prove your point of view, there are so many blogs and discussion forums. And if you really have some bad experience with the company, you can call customer service of quixtar and discuss that.

So I will request you to please cooperate with other editors on that article and let us all cleanup the page and remove anything which should not be there in encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.188.53 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example of any inaccurate site in favor of company which as added last month or last quarter? I have added http://www.thisbiznow.com/quixtar/statistics.html which ( even you accuse of bias ) can not be proved inaccurate. Just if you do not like a fact does not make it inaccurate. and you should not delete a fact if you dont like or agree with it. 75.73.188.53 07:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My userpage

Thanks for reverting the vandalism off my userpage. Momusufan 15:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Automatic Discography

Please do not remove the images again, they are all fare use, the article is fine, its all dandy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacksack (talk • contribs) 20:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

again can you not take the images off, perhaps instead of deleting things you could maybe make some contributions towards wiki articles? Or are you here purely to go around ruining articles that people work on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacksack (talk • contribs) 10:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok well why do you keep removing the rest of the article, there are other sections, the 'other appearances' section of the automatic discography keeps being removed by you, and there is no reason for this, its vandalism? And the album arts are all available on there official website? Jacksack

[edit] This World Fair discography page

Hey, sorry for thinking that you were a bot. I worked very hard on the Wikipedia pages for This World Fair. I created all their album art over the years and I thought putting the album art in a gallery on Wikipedia was a standard. Why did you remove it again? Is there really some requirement that album art can't be displayed that way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ManbirS (talk • contribs) 23:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Automatic

Stop removing the images in The Automatic discography you fag, wtf is the matter with you, its fucking sad how serious you take all this, the images are fare use so why the hell can they not be used? Ive done alot of work on making the automatics article good, so stop ruining articles, which is all you seem to do by looking at your contributions, and perhaps work on making articles better instead of ruining them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.147.23.253 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure calling Eskog a fag will motivate him to stop removing fair use galleries from discographies. --Durin 20:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

I saw that you had many images with examples of good fair use guidelines. Could you maybe make a guideline for Image:Chacha search.gif If you could, I would really appreciate it. Thanks — Jac _roe^Blank 04:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)