User talk:Fasach Nua

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sin é!

Contents

[edit] Straw poll on mass footy tagging

See here. MickMacNee (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Manchester United Badge 1973-1998.png

The image now has an appropriate Fair Use rationale for use on Manchester United F.C. Please do not delete it again, or I will be forced to give you a formal warning. – PeeJay 07:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The image fails wp:nfc#1, it can easily be described with text, and reference to the image Image:Man_Utd_FC_.svg Fasach Nua (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
As could any image be described through text. However, as they say, a picture paints a thousand words, so please feel free to write a thousand words about this image, and we shall see whether it adequately conveys the subject. – PeeJay 07:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
If it is replaceable, then it fails wp:nfc#1, I shall remove it. If someone wants to write that up then that would be helpful Fasach Nua (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
My point is that it's not feasibly replaceable. To adequately describe the image would take far more prose than would be appropriate for that article, making the use of the image Fair. – PeeJay 07:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That is unsupported by policy, and is contrarty to the aims of wikipedia. The only reason to include the image is because the text is different from the current version, and the text change is explained adequitly in the main text, rendering a failure of wp:nfc#3 too Fasach Nua (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how it is contrary to the aims of Wikipedia. The content is still free, and due to the Fair Use policy, we have a legal claim to that one use of the logo. Its use there is not excessive or defamatory, and nor does it infringe on Manchester United's legal ability to use the logo. There is certainly no ambiguity over the ownership of the logo, and no one on Wikipedia is intending to make a profit from its use here, so I don't see the problem. – PeeJay 08:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The aim of wp is to create a free encylopedia, the more non-free material included the further away the goal becomes. Fair use is not the same as free, and FU is not valid in many coutries outside the US, the obvious one being England where this article is going to be of most use. The goal of WP is to liberate knowledge, in therory someone should be able to take all wp:footy articles put them in a book and sell it if they choose, this website is NOT the end point of the wikimedia foundation Fasach Nua (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wiggy!

This is rididulous. Its exactly the same sort of nonsense we just finished going through on the football logos you tried to have deleted earlier. If you're going to delete something like this you have to go through the process and respect required timelines. With respect to football logos - logos in general - its clear as a bell that they are permitted. Given what we've just been through, what you are doing is disruptive and uncalled for. Lay off of it. Wiggy! (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't revert without comment

Please address the points raised at Talk:Ulster Bank#Fair use rationale for Image:GBfiver.jpg, and tell us *why* you think that fair use criterion does not apply in this case. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Euro gold and silver commemorative coins

Hi there,

Just wondering why you placed the {{NFimageoveruse}} in the article. All the coins shown in the article are under the fair use rationale...

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ive only looked at a couple of the rationales, but the ones I have seen are invalid. The images are not used for criticla commenttary, and fail WP:NFC#8, #3 and possibly #1. The images seem to be there for decoraive purposes only Fasach Nua (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Dude, read again the fair use rationale for currency images, it can be used as long as they are either described or critized. The coins, in each of the articles, are described in details, not only the image of the obverse and reverse of the coins, but also the tecnical details of the coins (diameter, weight, alloy, ... etc.) If you are correct, then no one single article of numismatics can be written in Wikipedia. By the way, we checked the copyrights with the ECB before starting to put those articles together, and it is clear. Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Silence in the Library

Please do explain how this image is any different to the others in the DW series on Wikipedia... Mangwanani (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why it is different is irrelevent, the point is it fails the criteria for inclusion in WP, it is not needed to understand the episode wp:nfc#8, and it can easily be described with text wp:nfc#1 Fasach Nua (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I think why it is different is entirely relevant. I would like a full explanation, without linking me off to some policy page (I'd like to read it here) why this image is different to this Image:The Unicorn and the Wasp.jpg, or Image:Doctor Who The Doctor's Daughter.jpg, or Image:The Poison Sky.jpg etc. They don't seem to have been removed... Mangwanani (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
By, the way, they're all NFC#1 if you will. Mangwanani (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Other images don't matter. This is a wiki, anyone can add anything to it, this is discussed in WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, the image clearly fails the criteria for inclusion and has been removed. A lot of images do fail #1, and they should also be removed also Fasach Nua (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Better get removing then hadn't you... Mangwanani (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Surely an FA article wouldn't allow such an image? It would fail the FA criteria surely. But no.... may be not... Mangwanani (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The image is the subject of critical commmentary #8, and is not easily describe with text #1. It may pass the criteria for inclusion, but I would consider this as a borderline image Fasach Nua (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
In other words its fine. Mangwanani (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. Interestingly Invasion of the Bane passed GA review with a "transparently a replaceable non-free image" which was later removed Fasach Nua (talk)
You can't get free screen shots. Have a look through all the Simpsons episodes, they all have their own screenshot. As a matter of interest, did you watch the aforementioned episode? Mangwanani (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed you can't. Yes, I quite enjoyed it, in my opinion the best episode since blink! Fasach Nua (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I dunno, I quite enjoyed the Christie episode but then I quite like a good murder mystery... Mangwanani (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to say, I agree that there should be the image, and I would suggest that further discussion is done on the article talkpage or at WP:FUR, per policy. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wernham hogg.png

It might be better for you to list this at WP:IFD. Since it isn't a real logo, all the creator has done is traced some shapes (those that make up the "W") and a public domain font (the Times in the rest of the letters). It's not really that good an image anyway. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It will get picked up more quickly with imagevio, it's probably the better place for it, as that is where the copyright expertise is. You are right it may be suitable for an IFD due to the quality, but copyright is the more important of the two issues that need dealt with Fasach Nua (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Interestinly all other Category:Images_of_fictional_logos are copyrighted Fasach Nua (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Posters

Before you go start trying to remove a bunch of posters from the infoboxes of articles, you may want to start a new thread on the Non-Free page. This has been discussed before, this is just one instance over a year ag0 (and you can see that they mention that it was discussed before). Notice in that link that nothing has changed since that discussion. You may want to institute a new discussion before you attempt to remove them in mass, or I'm afraid that the backlash from so many editors will turn you into User:TTN (if you're aware of that situation, if not check all the television related project pages for all the RfCs that began in his name).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I say this because the general argument that has prevailed over the years (i.e. the reason that it hasn't been changed since it began) is that the entire article constitutes "critical commentary" on the whole work and if the image in the infobox is supposed to represent the whole work then the image is fair to use. You can dissect that logic aall you want (on the fair use page), but I'm just throwing that out there as why it has been the way it has. Trust me, the "Fair-use gurus" have grumbled about posters and DVD covers in the infobox for a long time and every so often we have a huge discussion about it that ends in nothing changing. I'm not going to be the one to institute an MOS (not even a policy) that changes that very nature which all those editors have preserved for years already. If the fair use page wants to specifically address the fact that the "entire work" isn't "critical commentary", that's great, but you'd have to argue a million times over, with far more editors as time went on, that their DVD cover art (which represents the "whole" season) or their intitle isn't justifiable even when they have all that OOU info in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
(Coming in as an outsider to this commentary but it seems I've been down this road myself...) Posters and DVD covers give a feel to the film/episode and though copyrighted have fair use because they do aid in illustrating the mood and effect of the film. Moreover they can only aid as publicity and no film company is going to say "remove it as its publicising my movie". Quite the contrary in fact as it allows people to see what it is they are looking for in shops and go out and buy it and make the company money. Just my two pence as to why DVD covers and posters are in fact fair use. :D Mangwanani (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I can see where you are coming from, maybe if they are such an effective marketing tool, the providers could licence then in a manor more suitable to achieving the aims of the wikimedia foundation! Fasach Nua (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland

I will put comments on the talk page at some point today. I meant to leave comments at the peer review, but never got around to it. Perhaps the best approach might be to leave comments in the same manner I would for a peer review; I've never been a fan of mass {{fact}} tagging. Coincidentally, while browsing a second-hand bookshop yesterday I encountered a 1940s volume about Peter Doherty, which I though about buying, until I saw the price tag... Oldelpaso (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks its a bit of an odd article, but then the Ireland situation is exceptionally odd, we've really had throw out the MoS out the window for the most part. The peer review and GA comments really did help it to improve a lot. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments now on the talk page. I've focussed on referencing seeing as that was what you mentioned in your original message. I'll try to find some time in the next week to give the article a copyedit, work schedule and Euro 2008 permitting. In the meantime, you might find User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a useful in this regard. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lennon

I have also put this message on the dead man's page:

You, Fasach Nua, misunderstand the concept of how people like to read an article, as do many others. Yes, you may feel happy when an article looks a DVD/video recorder manual - which nobody bothers to read, even less understand - but that is what you think is correct. Cut it, and let people see everything in black & white, because the true information is there, in your opinion. Telephone books are interesting to read, if that is what you like.

I ask you to do one thing: Burn every single photo of you when you were young, and only keep the ones of you now. Why not? Lennon is dead, and you are not. Do you want to erase everything?--andreasegde (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)