User talk:Jenolen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No thanks...

Contents

[edit] Level 42 template

Hello, about the Template:Level 42, see the talk page.

Theleop June, 10th 2007

[edit] Re : Image:BoyGeorge.jpg

Done. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for ways to build consensus for REFU?

eom Daniel Case 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Discussion User:Angr Removed From His Talk Page as "Trolling"; Judge For Yourself

For me, a nonfree image is nonreplaceable if it's copyrighted 2- or 3-dimensional art, a still from a TV show or movie, or a photograph showing a unique historical event. A nonfree image is not easily replaceable (but still not completely nonreplaceable!) if it's of a no longer existing structure (bridge, building, etc.), an extinct or endangered animal or plant species, of a deceased person, or a living person who is in prison, under house arrest, or known to be reclusive. (The fact that we didn't have a free image of Anna Nicole Smith until after her death shows that a person's death does not automatically make all copyrighted images of them nonreplaceable.) A nonfree image is replaceable if it's of an existing structure, an animal or plant species that's not endangered in the part of the world where it's endemic, or a living person who regularly appears in public. The distinction you wanted to make between "A-list" stars and "B-list" stars where nonfree images of the "A-list" stars are considered "not generally replaceable" is not only too vague to be helpful (who decides which star is on which list?) but is totally belied by the fact that we have free images of a lot of the biggest names in show business (Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Britney Spears, Madonna, Cher, Barbra Streisand). And three Commons members have recently applied for press credentials from Wikinews, which will make it even easier for them to get access to stars so they can photograph them. —Angr 06:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What's intesting about your six primary celebrity examples? In the top photo in all of them, the photo I assume to be the best photo we have -- not a single one of them is actually looking at the camera. Classic amateurism... but very, very "libre." I'm not sure what point this proves, other than "copyright-free or GFDL photos of major celebrities are likely to be sucky." Jenolen speak it! 07:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crediting copyright-holder vs. sourcing website

First of all, don't worry about me assuming that you're "picking a fight". I am open to having thoughtful conversations about these issues, believe it or not, but it is easy to understand why you might not have that impression.

As for the Twiggy example, I'm not all that interested in that particular image. I'll try to explain my two larger concerns, which aren't at all specific. One is that we've gotten quite lazy about verifying copyright holder information, and we get email not infrequently about how we've gotten it wrong. I don't mean to overstate the case; I'm not talking about a deluge here by any means. But reguarly enough. In this case, while it seems a safe assumption that the photography they're publishing is owned by the subject (or, more likely, the subject's agents), we don't know that. They may have licensed it for republication and sale. One thing we need to ask ourselves, and I mean anybody who is doing any thinking about this, is where our comfort level lies in making these assumptions. The other concern is, in some ways, a little more esoteric. Let's say that we get mail saying "Hey! Why is my photograph on your website? Please take it down!" and I, or someone else, goes and looks at it and says, "Oh, this seems to fail WP:FUC", and it gets deleted. If the image gets uploaded again by some random user, that's signficantly easier to explain, and thereby head off a takedown notice, than if one of our admins undeletes it. In short, I'm uncomfortable with what seems to me an apparant blitheness about copyright concerns when tallying votes. Now, obviously, if I thought that there was any urgent concern about this image, I'd have done more about it than just tag it and chat about it. As I said above, I think the assumption that the copyright is owned by the subject's agents is probably right.

Incidentally, it seems that Library and Archives Canada has a lot of old Montreal Star material in its collection, which they allow unrestricted use of. Unfortunately, they don't have a digital image of this photograph available. I'm considering buying a print to scan anyway. Think it is worth it sight unseen? I'm not sure I want to make a habit of doing this; it could get expensive. Jkelly 01:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sarcasm reply

I'm sorry if it wasn't meant to be sarcastic but I'm sure you can see that it sounded a bit flippant. In future I'll think more deeply about rewording rather than deleting. Sorry again. Algebra man 18:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "I bid you adieu"

WP:IBYA or WP:ADIEU. C.m.jones 09:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for fighting!

Just wanted to post a note here letting you know that I, for one, appreciate your ongoing fight against the anti-free-use zealots who have been running rampant over Wikipedia. While its nice to have optimists out there who believe that all images can one day be set free from their captivity, common sense is a more appropriate approach and it should be the goal of this encyclopedia to place providing the highest quality and most relevant content above imaginary disputes over easily identifiable free use images. So, thank you, thank you, thank you for keeping up the fight! Jmdustin 21:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The fight is a loosing battle here, however. Because the edict has come from the top. 70.146.32.22 02:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick post to let you know I respect your stance against the crazy surge of labelling all album-covers as not of fair use. BetacommandBot is one of the main offenders, and the sheer weight of complaints against it should say something. Yet there are people who stick by it, abandoning all attempts at creating an encyclopedia to waste time argueing about whether an album image is correctly tagged... The Hurball Company 22:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright vs licensing

We're getting badly tangled up in terminology here. Something that is licensed under the GFDL is still copyrighted. You, for instance, enjoy copyright protection on all your pro-Wikipedia-use-of-promotional-media arguments, you just agree to license them under the GFDL when you publish them here. When I take a blurry, unflattering photograph of some celebrity, and upload it to Commons, I retain copyright on that blurry, unflattering photograph, but choose to dual-license it GFDL/CC-BY-SA. Some people do just donate their work into the public domain, meaning that they give up any copyright protection altogether, but there's nothing either encouraging or discouraging that. There is a little cartoon that encourages people to not license solely under the GFDL, but one can if one wants. This matters because it is important that we don't infringe on copyright regardless of the license; content creators who choose to license their work under something that is compatible with our mission still need to be properly credited as part of the GFDL or CC-BY, for example. Jkelly 21:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jenolen, I took the liberty to reply your message here. --Abu badali (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wheelchair image

The image is on Commons; please list it for deletion there. Also note that without a policy change that will allow the International Symbol of Access to be used, it will not be deleted. --NE2 21:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks!!

hey thanks for finding a solution for reverting the anastacia discography... i was the one who originally cleaned it up and made all the tables i was a little mad when that user changed it to how he wanted but i wasnt sure if he was right thanks for your help Rsf7589 00:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical photographs

In the case of both the Hindenburg disaster and with Elian Gonzales, along with the Tiananmen Square protest and some other topics, the photography is very much part of the public discourse; it is what Wikipedia calls "iconic". An encyclopedic treatment of these subjects could conceivably, and I might go so far as to say "ideally should", contain commentary on the imagery and reaction to it. There's nothing particularly iconic about Image:20061016 02.jpg that I am aware of; there's apparantly no more reason to use this image than some other image of the incident, we don't know of any third parties who have commented on this photograph; in short, we're using it without comment to illustrate an article about the event instead of as a cultural artifact, which is precisely the original role of photograph, and there is therefore nothing obviously transformative in our use. Jkelly 18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP POINT on WP:FAIR

I hardly think guideline pages are an appropriate place for WP:POINT joke edits.[1] --tjstrf talk 08:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Both it and your initial post in the thread where you "proposed" it are worded like satire, and I'm reasonably certain the reason it didn't gather any opposition is because everyone else who opposed it thought the same thing. See my comments on the talk page if you haven't seen them already. --tjstrf talk 16:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restore...

Done. utcursch | talk 10:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for commenting

Thank you for your comments at the village pump on the use of the international wheelchair symbol. I appreciate it. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current Wiki Rant

You are aware that George Washington (inventor) is absolutely a true article, right?--Pharos 01:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the write-up as it appeared on the main page: George Washington was an early inventor of instant coffee, and worked to ensure a full supply to soldiers fighting at the front. Early on, his campaign was based in Brooklyn, but later he crossed into New Jersey toward a more profitable position. In the countryside, he demonstrated a love of wild creatures, and was often seen with a bird or a monkey on his shoulder. Washington's choice beverage was taken up by the soldiers for its psychoactive properties, even though it tasted terrible. Some thought his brewed powder could even remedy the chemical weapons then in use. But, despite this, Washington failed in his first bid for the Presidency, as papers were filed too late, and the nominator forgot to tell him about it. - Not sure which parts of this are supported by the article, and which aren't. The presidency thing is clearly a joke; the article goes on to explain that as a foreign-born citizen, this "George Washington" wouldn't be eligible. So, if it's not an April Fool's joke, at the very least, it's super-stretched-trying-way-too-hard-to-be-funny... Jenolen speak it! 07:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
And the "Rush Limbaugh appointed ambassador to India"... of course, not refering to the most well known "Rush Limbaugh" ... Misleading ... always a good characteristic in an encyclopedia. Jenolen speak it! 07:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The negative facts

I have no interest in suppressing the facts of Essjay's behaviour or his fake persona. I figured it out almost a year ago, and it was no surprise to me that there was an eventual fall from grace. Having said that, I _am_ interested in ensuring that every single fact in the article about the controversy is irrefutably referenced to an unquestionably reliable source. Failure to do so opens up the article to justifiable attacks and the real possibility of deletion. It may not be the most interesting article in the encyclopedia to read, but that is not the point. It is unfortunate that you see the misidentification of one of the key parties in this situation as a minor issue. To me, it is symptomatic of a lack of care and attention to detail that is unacceptable with respect to biographic details about any person, whether or not associated with Wikipedia. There is a certain irony in people complaining about the need to rigorously source their information in an article that stems from the story of someone who failed to do so. Risker 19:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly draw a distinction between a factual error and a copy editing mistake; if the editor, working in his user space, had shown no inclination to correct obviously misstated material, I would have your level of concern. But the editor quickly and with gratitude changed that "factual error" when it was pointed out. (We could, of course, see that in the diffs, but the whole thing has been swept away...)
The problem, as I see it, is two-fold - First, no one was willing to point out the "errors," other than to rely on blanket "this can't be saved," or "it's so horrible, I don't know where to start" pronouncements. That was it? Nothing other than one blown reference, and the whole thing had to go? Worse, the whole process smacked of bullying from the Essjay apologist community; the sanctity, limited though it is, of one's personal user space should be protected, and absent anything flagrantly libellous, I think that sanctity should be vigorously defended. Jenolen speak it! 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration against Abu badali

Further to our conversations at and with respect to User:Jord/ArbCom-Abu badali, I will be posting the arbitration including a summary of all of our concerns shortly. Jord 17:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The great Signpost misfiling controversy of 2007

It's "controversial" because it belongs in the project namespace, not the article namespace. This fails so many criteria for inclusion as an encyclopedia article that it's not even funny. Deranged bulbasaur 06:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there a "sandbox" for potential signpost articles? I simply went one layer "down" from where Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions was.... Move it to wherever it needs to be, but let some people have a whack at it. As the discussion at WP:POST/TIPS shows, there's interest in working with this article to get it in to shape. Jenolen speak it! 06:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that you forgot the "Wikipedia:" prefix in the name, thus creating it as an article (like Sulfur) rather than a project page (like WP:POST). Move it at your own discretion, but if it stays here it deserves to get speedied. Deranged bulbasaur 06:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well of course that's fine... why would it stay there??? A simple move would have solved this "problem" before it started. Sorry for missing the "Wikipedia:Wikipedia" at the top. As I've moved it, I suggest removing the speedy tag. Jenolen speak it! 06:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Simply not screwing up in the first place also would have solved this problem. I don't like your patronizing tone. This clearly did not meet article criteria, so I tagged it. There was no misconduct on my part. Deranged bulbasaur 07:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Who said there was misconduct on your part? Not me, certainly... I'm sorry about the tone, and certainly about the screw-up, which was 100% totally my fault -- but I'm totally curious: When faced with either moving the obviously mis-filed article to the proper space, or putting a "proposed deletion" template on it, which, in turn, would begin a whole round of wiki-manuevering... why didn't you simply move it? It seems like you could have used your skills to solve this problem quite easily, and spent, maybe, one minute writing a "Hey, dunderhead, make sure you create your new articles in the proper project space" note on my talk page, instead of going through all this? Again, I'm very sorry for causing you problems, but in the future, if you can fix something simple instead of going through this whole thing, go for the solution! Jenolen speak it! 07:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

When I first tagged it, I didn't think non-admin users could move a page from one space to another (it's that way at another wiki I edit). You're the one who made a drama out of this. In any case, now that it's over can you also remove your rationale from the talk page? Since you removed my reasoning but not your own, it gives the impression that I acted unreasonably to anyone who stumbles across the page and doesn't carefully peruse the history. No hard feelings, I hope. Deranged bulbasaur 07:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
No hard feelings, whatsoever! This is such a non-thing... I'm so sorry it's even become a "thing!"  :) Jenolen speak it! 08:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale for Image:After The Fire in 1980.jpg

Hi. I just added some bits to try to explain how you could improve the rationale for Image:After The Fire in 1980.jpg. Basically, it's necessary to provide verifiable information for the claim that the image was released as promotional material, and it should be explained why is this image being used for, why is this use necessary and why a free replacement couldn't fulfill this task. Let me know if I can be of any help. --Abu badali (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note placed in the wrong place

Please see here. I commented before realising that it was an old article that no-one might be watchlisting any more. Carcharoth 08:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Brunokirby2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Brunokirby2.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) 14:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free content

I'm curious what you think of the rant on my user page. I'm trying to figure out who I want to vote for. — Omegatron 04:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment would be appreciated

Would you like to comment at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Am I doing this right? —Remember the dot (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Please do not make any further comments like this. Picaroon (Talk) 18:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you prefer something more like:
"Although your lengthy list of classical music credentials is indeed impressive, recent events in the Wikipedia community, not limited to but including the infamous Essjay controversy, make this sort of credential-claiming suspect, at best. However, I am in full agreement with the part of your sentence where you indicate that your credentials do not, in fact, matter. That is true, they don't, so perhaps listing them here was a mistake."
I find "Thanks for the classical music update, Essjay. You're right -- it doesn't matter." to be quicker, snappier, and it gets the point across in much fewer words. If people read it as incivil, they're looking for incivility where none exists. Jenolen speak it! 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Your comment looked like a suggestion of false credentials, which is incivil. Picaroon (Talk) 21:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You'll hate this, but...

Reading through your "evidence" section on the arbcom case led me to Image:Crazy8s.jpg, which I found of questionable fair use status and which I have tagged accordingly. Sorry about that.

About the issue above: I didn't intend to comment further on your little gratuitous act of nastiness, but since it's been brought up here: Your paraphrase above would in fact have been more acceptable. Addressing me as "Essjay" (rather than just mentioning Essjay) implies you were calling me a liar. I will appreciate an apology for that. I'm willing to mail a scan of my diploma to a trusted third party if you insist. Incidentally, the issue of my qualifications was of course totally irrelevant, I just couldn't resist responding to Badagnani's bizarre insinuation that my objections to his violotta image might be related to me being ignorant about the field, which struck me as somewhat ironic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean the image you deleted after 6 hours, not allowing for any discussion from other editors, then insinuating, very nastily, I might add, that I had tried to insert the photo into an article that was unrelated to the subject?[1] Why would you have stated that the article was unrelated if you did know something about the subject? It's utterly incomprehensible and, yes, bizarre. Badagnani 22:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Reading through your "evidence" section on the arbcom case led me to Image:Crazy8s.jpg, which I found of questionable fair use status and which I have tagged accordingly. Sorry about that. WP:SOFIXIT seems appropriate. Pointing out problems without offering solutions - or believing deletion to be the primary solution when it comes to creation is part of the problem. Tagging instead of fixing is only slightly more helpful than not helpful at all, and actually makes you look more vindictive than concerned about the encyclopedic content. So fix it!

As for references to Essjay, it's a pretty obviously a shorthanded way to refer to something that we all know - people online, and especially on Wikipedia, claiming glowing credentials should be trusted about as far as they can be thrown. You then seemed to acknowledge this, with your "Not that it matters" comment; I agree. It doesn't matter. But you still want to feel offended for bringing up something that doesn't matter? This is your choice, certainly; however, I'm not going to be a part of it. Jenolen speak it! 00:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ To refresh your memory, your quote was: "[User:Badagnani] deliberately tried to pass off a non-free cover art image to be used in an article not about the recording in question."

[edit] Not sure if you've been following...

... the full version of the ongoing fair use issues for the past year or so, but your statement on the Betacommand talk page that:

If your images are being tagged and deleted, then I propose that you are not, in fact, "following the fair use rules" correctly

... fails to take in to account a couple of things. One, enforcement and interpretation of the fair use rules have, obviously, changed significantly over the past six months. (For example, what was once "fair use" is now "Non-free content.") And what was once perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia policy is now not so much. It's entirely possible for a contributor to have followed every guideline as they existed a year ago, and now find their contributions being massively deleted. (This appears to be happening quite often, judging by the Betacommand talk page.) And two, there are at least two major instances of editors/admins deleting thousands of images out of process, thanks in part to the Betacommandbot. (Here's the most obvious one.)

Just remember that it's entirely possible for the Betacommandbot to be tagging and prepping for deletion thousands of images... AND for those images to have been uploaded and accepted entirely within process. The ever changing nature of Wikipedia makes it so! Jenolen speak it! 08:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, but if you take a moment to check out his (User:Steve_Eifert) image uploads, you'll see that his image uploading didn't even meet the previous, more 'lax' interpretations of fair use, much less the current. As such, his assertion that he's been doing it right really isn't accurate. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Here we go again regarding "fair use"

Its been a few months since I've been barraged with "fair use" messages, but I just got hit today by User:Quadell. I'm assuming that no definitive decision or concensus has been reached regarding the use of publicity and/or press kit photos? Is it still a debate between those who want to purge all promo photos from the website, and those who believe they still have a place here? And if the debate still rages on, what can one do to prevent a photo from being deleted? As I remember from the last time this happened, the deletions took place despite the fact that the issue was being discussed. Thanks in advance for bringing me up to speed. --OneCyclone 18:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I know you don't know me, but...

The Editor's Barnstar
As commendation for your efforts in the fair use debate, I present The Editor's Barnstar for your work to protect the editorial integrity of Wikipedia from political hysteria.

Mosquera 01:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Been meaning to give you this

I saw that you'd received a barnstar and remembered that I wanted to give you one too.

The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For speaking your mind and standing up for common sense. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Have you hugged your userbox today?

Somebody put your fair use box down the memory hole. You ought to investigate Best, --Mosquera

[edit] Restored

Hi,

Given the MfD on the thing, I assume that the deletion qualifies as clear error, and have restored the box. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. This will reveal how narrow (and nerdy) my world-view is, but I recognize "Jenolen" as a Star Trek reference. Is that what you had in mind, or is there some use more sophisticated that I've missed? :)

[edit] Question for you

Greetings, Jenolen. I left a question for you at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Abu_badali/Proposed_decision#The_balance_here. My question has to do with what parts of your frustration have to do with the deletion of replaceable images that were previously deemed acceptable, and what parts have to do with Abu badali's actions specifically, such as going through your logs. (Howcheng left a question for you too, but I don't find his question interesting.) As you probably know, I delete a lot of "replaceable fair use" images, and I'm a supporter of the current policy. On the other hand, I believe that "feelings matter", and I don't want to see good editors antagonized. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Clear MistakeNew Information Arrives

Hello. I would like to point your attention to:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1361/842254497_92905df431_b.jpg

... which is a screenshot about an image recently deleted in the anti-fair use hysteria.

As this clearly shows, the image - which was deleted because It could be part of a press kit or could be an exclusive image these media outlets pay to get rights to. Also, there is no claim the uploader got the image from a press kit, which means the image was possibly copied from another website with possible violation of that website's terms and conditions of use - was indeed made available by CBS to ALL media outlets. Also please note that the AP lists this image as an "Undated CBS promotional photo".

As user Abu Badali put it in the deletion review, All we're asking for is some proof of this detailed description of CBS's distribution methods and and this image was really distributed according to this description. So here it is. Will you assist in restoring this image?

Jenolen speak it! 03:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jenolen. I confess I don't fully understand what you want me to conclude from this image. The photo is credited "AP PHOTO/CBS via New York Dayly News", that's exactly what's said in one of the links you provided (the only one crediting the copyright holder). What is this AP site about? Is it a repository of promotional images, or they license their images for a fee?
A sincere (and almost rhetorical) question... what's your relation with that site? Do you have any connection with that image being in that site?
As a side notice, your tone was barely confrontational. Please calm down, and remember that although disagreeing with the "how", we're all here to improve the encyclopedia. Avoid calling our work hysteria. Feelings matter. --Abu badali (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I just read their terms and now I'm even more confused about what you're trying to argue. Haven't you just proved that this is an image that Associated Press licenses for a fee? What am I missing? --Abu badali (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It appears to me that the AP has written "No charge" on it, indicating that they do not sell it and did not have to pay for it. The site itself leases other images for a fee. – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Isn't AP claiming they currently own the rights on distributing the image? What's with the "AP PHOTO/CBS via New York Dayly News" tag? Why does the image appears watermarked in the screenshot? --Abu badali (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... from the disperse talk in Quadell's and Iamunknown's talk pages I now notice the "Special Instructions: (...) ** NO SALES" at left. It's good that we don't have to pay for that. But there are any restrictions on who and how can use it? How do I access that page? Do I need to open an account? From what I read, I need Associated Press approval for opening an account. And after that, would be automatically able to download a non-watermarked version of that image? And am I going to be allowed to upload it to some websites?
Sorry for the torrent of questions. --Abu badali (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What is this AP site about?"

The AP, in the case, is acting as a distributor of an image. The originator - and copyright holder - has always been CBS. But this promotional photo was made available to all media outlets, via a variety of methods, including the AP photo wire.

What's your relation to that site?

NON VERFIABLE CREDENTIAL SPEAK BEGINS HERE - BELIEVE OR DON'T BELIEVE AS YOU WISH -> I work at a TV station. We have access to a variety of such image sources. What was so frustrating about the whole "We don't believe this is a really a promotional photo made available to everyone" argument was that, well, it was, and that this image was one of the many sent to us by the AP after Mr. Kirby's death. But how do you "prove it"? And to what standard? I thought I made a reasonable circumstantial case - showing 4 different, non-connected places on the web where the photo was in use - but alas, that wasn't enough. Maybe this is; maybe it isn't. <- END OF NON VERIFIABLE CREDINTIAL SPEAK.

Your tone was confrontational...

I've read it, and re-read it, and I don't get it. You (and Quadell, whose "brain switched off" when I posted on his/her talk page) are reading something in to it that's not there. If you disagree with my use of the word "hysteria," then I am open to an alternative description (avoid using the words "rational change in image policy," or "widely supported turn away from coverage of copyrighted material"), but please, enough of the false hurt feelings. Confrontational, on Wikipedia, usually takes a much more severe form, something like, "Hey, you image Nazi, I bet you get your jollies deleting everything! Nyah! Nyah!!" THAT'S confrontation; you know it - because I've seen things twenty times worse posted about you over on your RFC and Arbcom cases. When someone presents new information, that's confrontational only to the mistaken assumptions made previously.

False hurt feelings matter, too. And they're really disingeniuous.

Also the reason for deletion was very weak:

It could be part of a press kit or could be an exclusive image these media outlets pay to get rights to. Also, there is no claim the uploader got the image from a press kit, which means the image was possibly copied from another website with possible violation of that website's terms and conditions of use

Look at all those "coulds" and "possibles" -- "could be part of a press kit," "could be an exclusive image", "possibly copied," "possible violation" -- Are any of these things true? It WAS part of a press kit, as had pretty clearly been established. All the other reasons for deletion were fears; nothing that was ever proven, just allegations about a class of images - verifiable press handout images - that now have people running around making - here comes that word again - hysterical deletion cases. When, of course, the reality is that I can think of exactly zero cases where legitimate promotional material has ever been asked by the copyright holder to be removed from Wikipedia. And with good reason; they don't have a legal case. Meanwhile, YES, I know we value free content more highly than encyclopedic content - but in cases where no new free content can be generated - as, sadly is the case in regards to the late Mr. Kirby - we really need to ease off on the delete button and figure out ways to keep existing material, and modify, if need be, its use to fit in with our mission goals.

Jenolen speak it! 18:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You attract many more flies with honey than vinegar, my dear. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away.

Photos like this give me faith in free content. 202.180.53.170 04:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali closed

This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the above link. Abu badali (talk · contribs) is counselled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who question his tagging of images and to work with them in a collaborative way. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 16:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Companion to one of your articles

Well, the article does need work, but you have already typed up the track listing which was the hard part. Wikipedia likes to put each song in quotes followed by the dash and then the artist. Then there are other things to change, which I might change later on. Thanks for letting me know the article was created. --blm07 18:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WLA

Wikiproject:WikiProject_Los_Angeles This user wants you to join WikiProject Los Angeles.

(♠Taifarious1♠) 02:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion that's bothering me

Jenolen,

You may be interested in this. This was the image in question, for which I'd written a rationale that explained that, as far as I could tell from her website, she hasn't made any public appearances in at least three years and it's not known at what point she might again. I challenged this with the original tagger. This was the response. Yup, you read that right ... it's replaceable simply because she's alive. Something we were supposedly reassured wouldn't happen when this was all discussed back in late 2006.

I'm seriously thinking of taking it to DRV to get at least a broader opinion on this. What do you think? Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Runninginthefamily.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Runninginthefamily.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)