Talk:James De La Vega

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Importance?? 2 initial discussion 3 images 4 taking a chainsaw to the article 5 Image copyright problem with Image:DeLaVegaArt.JPG

[edit] Importance??

Questionable whether this person meets the notoriety requirements for lengthy article. Please understand that general noteworthiness and importance should be standard for a significant wiki article. Wikipedia should not be used for self-promotion, or article length should not be in proportion to intensity of self-promotion efforts.

Suggest deletion or significant down-sizing of article.--Spacestationnerva (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] initial discussion

Person A: I met De la Vega in Spanish harlem and he was NOT nice or professional. I kindly introduced myself and not only did he act as though I was not even human, he was rude and unprofessional. Since I am African-American I can only suppose that he acted this way either because he is racist, or he's just a snob. Either way, he's rude and not professional or even a polite human being.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.30.143 (talk • contribs)

Person B: For some one who doesn't know mr. De La Vega, your assumption is grand and offensive to those who do know him. De La Vega works 7 days a week and every day of the year, perhaps your energy was negative, his presentation is a reflection of your respect to his studio.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.227.220 (talk • contribs)

A reminder to all: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines states that talk pages are for discussion on "how to improve the associated article" and "not for general chatter". Please use this space as it was meant to be used. And don't forget to sign your statements with ~~~~ -- Scientizzle 18:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] images

User:DavidShankBone has removed the images I took of some of De La Vega's graffiti and nominated them for deletion, apparently in the belief that graffiti is covered by copyright laws. I am disputing this, and believe that the wiki is quite clear on this (see hundreds of images at commons:Category:Graffiti), and am reverting. Let the discussion stay at Commons. - BanyanTree 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You have removed my photo, which is properly licensed, to replace it with your own. The proper way to add photographs is to remove low-quality photos and replace them with high-quality photos. If high-quality photographs already exist, create a gallery or move the photographs around, but don't remove images wantonly. Graffiti is your interpretation, but it could be legitimately classified as a mural, and a signed mural, at that. I've taken photos of murals for Joe Strummer, Aventura and homage - all are properly licensed. Regardless, you should edit with respect for those who have made efforts to improve the page before you. My photograph evidences his current work, which is painting on used doors, and is in front of his St. Mark's Place store. That makes it more relevant to the article than random graffiti shots. --DavidShankBone 19:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I apologize if you felt slighted. I had not realized that you were nominating articles for deletion because you had your feelings hurt. The article states he is "known primarily for his murals and the chalk drawings". I therefore felt that a photo of murals/graffiti/"whatever you want to call it" would be more appropriate than that of paintings.

Second, I'm using "graffiti" as a legal term. I do not believe that De La Vega has copyright over the street drawings he made. There are probably hundreds of murals, street drawings, etc on the wiki for which copyright is claimed by the photographer, e.g. Image:2003-09 - Łódź hausmalerei.png amid many many more. I feel that your approach of changing the license tag of my image to ask for speedy deletion, without either notifying me or starting a deletion discussion, was the most disrespectful possible. - BanyanTree 19:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with feelings, and I never nominated an "article" for deletion, but an image. As a person who has obviously spends time taking images and placing them on Wikipedia, it's surprising you respond with snarky, snide remarks when you removed a high-quality, relevant photograph to replace them with your own. Do you do that on all pages? You should reconsider your course of action. And one has to wonder how you know whether de la Vega did or did not receive the permission of the building owners? Did you track them down and ask? --DavidShankBone 19:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

(reindent)Are you seriously making the argument that all images of murals and graffiti on Wikipedia need to be removed until the owners of those buildings are asked if they wanted it there? Because that is precisely the argument you are making. And let me state this again, Wikipedia allows photographs of street art to be claimed by the photographer.

As for my attitude, (1) I uploaded an image I had taken, (2) replaced an interior image for a street image for an artist known as a street artist, (2) had the image license changed by you, (3) came back here to find my edits reverted without comment (as is the convention when dealing with a vandal or a hopeless newbie), (4) explained myself, and not until the response realized that this stemmed from me replacing the photo you had taken, and (5) am now encountering an "I don't understand your problem" stance. An outside observer might be willing to grant that this would be provocative. - BanyanTree 20:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your inattentive editing is showing. The caption on the photograph clearly states the photograph is taken on the sidewalk in front of his store on the sidewalk, not the interior. Did you contact me when you deleted my photograph? Now you want the same courtesy extended to yourself? Please. Did it ever occur to you that the article is big enough for all the images, without deleting the existing one that makes it more well-rounded? Did that idea really never occur to you? The question is rhetorical. --DavidShankBone 20:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

One of us delinked the other's image from this article, while it was still being used in other articles, allowing its further use as well as allowing easy re-use, and one of us asked for the other's image to be deleted from the visible database of the servers. One action is permanent and thus much more drastic than the other action. I'll let you figure it out which.

If you don't see why photos of paintings are not more relevant to a biography of someone known as a street artist as photos of street art, I don't think anything I can say will enlighten you. I'm normally anti-gallery but I'll be sure to leave your lovely photo in once the mess on Commons is sorted out. I'm a bit confused about why you simply didn't readd your image in the first place, instead choosing to request deletion and reverting, but I'm not interested enough to seek an explanation. - BanyanTree 20:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was a case of a simple revert. This article is a mess itself, with no sources. Who says he is known mainly as a graffiti artist? The article? Based on what source? Perhaps when you can answer why you didn't add your photos instead of deleting mine, I'll contemplate answering some of yours. But you began this by deleting relevant images to an article to put your own on there. Hopefully you won't do so without better reasoning in the future. I think we've talked this to death. Ciao. --DavidShankBone 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] taking a chainsaw to the article

After restoring the article and adding references, I have removed many of the uncited assertions that remain. (diff) Some appear to be OR and some appear to be problems of tone, but they've been challenged with {{fact}} tags long enough that removal has become an acceptable option. - BanyanTree 21:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DeLaVegaArt.JPG

The image Image:DeLaVegaArt.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)