User talk:Videmus Omnia/Archive/Nov 2007
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Images by Beta
Videmus I'm having trouble with the bot again. Can anybody really complain about the rationale for image Image:Sabse Bada Rupaiya1976.jpg? Could you help sort out the images on my page. I'm tired of getting message by a robot ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Commons:Questionable Flickr images essay and list
Hi. I wrote Commons:Commons:Questionable Flickr images - an essay and list about how to tell Flickr images that might have been released by someone who didn't really have the right to release them. You may well know more about it than I do, so if you have any advice to add, please do! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, that looks good to me, and is something that is probably necessary. I've run into this problem numerous times. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NFCC#1?
Could I get your input on this situation?
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wu_Bai&curid=3657202&diff=167042100&oldid=165984506
- Image talk:WuBai&ChinaBlue - WhiteDoveCDCover.jpg#rfu
- You seemed gone for a while, welcome back; drink the Kool-Aid. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Films October 2007 Newsletter
The October 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 21:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Preity Zinta FA
Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks buddy for helping with the images. I've given the article a good copy edit today and it looks like an FA to me. I'm quite proud of our achievement with it over the last few weeks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 20:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Free images
This site came up on FPC today: http://jccc.afis.osd.mil . Some of the images may not be for public consumption (yet). MER-C 08:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Michelle Merkin POTD
In case you were not aware, there is a discussion on Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg at the admin noticeboard. -- Jreferee t/c 21:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Socky?
Is this another sock of our friend, or just a coincidence? -- But|seriously|folks
[edit] Morozov T-62 tank
Hi, Videmus.
You tagged Special:Undelete/Image:Morozov_001.jpg as being easily replaced by a free image. Are you sure? As far as I know, the subject is a specific prototype model being marketed by the Morozov bureau, which is not in current service as far as I can determine. It may or may not be viewable at the occasional international arms fair, which cost a great deal to attend, but judging by the company's news page it has not been shown since at least June 2006, if at all. If it were in service, then it might be subject to official secrecy laws, or simply not available to the public at all.
It appears that the only existing pictures are promotional shots by the company, and this tank model is not visible by the public anywhere.
Not to dispute the appraisal—but this kind of thing is likely to come up again, and I want to get a clear idea of what qualifies as fair use and what doesn't. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2007-10-22 22:06 Z
[edit] Rangeblocks, etc.
I know you mean well, but it is getting bothersome whenever you think I'm doing things that are not explicitly stated in any sort of policy. Leave me be, and go back to working with fair use images that lack rationales or fair use images with improper fair use rationales. If you persist in assuming bad faith in my activities, I will simply remove any comments you place on my user talk page and ignore you as I had intended after the last block/unblock situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't speak well for your intentions to communicate with other editors to explain your actions as an admin...that's what resulted in Betacommand's desysopping (and seems likely for Alkivar, as well). It's not as if I've been stalking you; I've asked a handful of questions over a period of several months. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- And you in particular would have something to "gain" if I were desysopped. I've explained everything to you, but it just seems whenever someone brings up a block on my talk page, you somehow discover me again and begin saying "RFAR RFAR RFAR." I've answered all your questions in this situation, and I've resolved any probable issues that have come up from the current block stuff on my talk page. Please, let's just go our separate ways.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly what do I have to gain? Did you forget that I recommended you keep your admin tools during your RfC? Videmus Omnia Talk 20:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- And you in particular would have something to "gain" if I were desysopped. I've explained everything to you, but it just seems whenever someone brings up a block on my talk page, you somehow discover me again and begin saying "RFAR RFAR RFAR." I've answered all your questions in this situation, and I've resolved any probable issues that have come up from the current block stuff on my talk page. Please, let's just go our separate ways.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Another Bollywoodblog posting again
Images are being questioned here again . I must admit I am getting extremely frustrated with people on this site and that my previous comments are mecoming more and more apparaent. Not only did the Preity Zinta receive 25 supports for FA, a group of people not only ensured it didn't pass but are not now not only attempting to demote back to a B class article but are attempting to remove images I have worked so damn hard to get. If thi s all happens I would hav e wasted weeks of my time. PLease respond to this it is important thanks 12:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alternate to {{non-free media rationale}}
I thought you might find these alternates useful: the {{Non-free image data}} and {{Non-free image rationale}} templates (used in conjunction with each other) allow for mutliple uses/rationales without duplicating the image description/source info. They are basically an adaptation of {{non-free media rationale}} using the genius two-template idea from here. Check out Image:Super Friends.jpg to see them in action. — TAnthonyTalk 16:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Medea Benjamin article
Great work on the Medea Benjamin article! SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hattie Hayridge image
I note you were the one who uploaded the image to Hattie Hayridge back in August. Surely there must be a better photo available. I am considering removing the image as it is unflattering to its subject to the extent that I believe it could be seen as a violation of WP:BLP. I thought I'd give you fair warning so that you are able to replace the image if you have others from the same source. Otherwise this is one occasion in which no image is preferable to a poor image. If you wish to reponse, please do so on my talk page as my policy is to not bookmark other users talk pages. Thanks. 23skidoo 22:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I guess my first concern would be I wouldn't bothered to use such a poor image to begin with. Just because a "free use" image exists doesn't necessarily mean it should be used. I didn't explain myself very well regarding my BLP concerns. Where I see a potential problem is that BLP is basically Wikipedia's equivalent of libel law. And in libel you can get in trouble for publishing anything that disparages the subject; that can include not only unsupported statements, but also images that could concievably demean the subject. Obviously the paparazzi get away with it all the time, but it could be argued (however silly it may sound) that publishing an image of an out-of-shape actress in an ugly swimsuit constitutes a news photo because in the context in which it was taken it was intended to preserve an event. But if we were to illustrate the Wikipedia article on Cindy Crawford with a photograph of the supermodel with a pot belly and cellulite, when there are other photographs that could have been used to illustrate the person, then I contend that violates BLP. All that said, you have in fact brought up a very good point in questioning me on this and I think I might raise the issue at WP:BLP. The Hattie Hayridge image is far from the only one to which I take exception to. 23skidoo 20:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 11:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Kurt Russel was born in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kultur (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Kurt Russell was born in Australia Kultur 18:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Images
Where are you? User talk:Riana/BollywoodBlog ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 12:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Agian I'm having to justify it. If they were lying to us it would be very interesting to know how they manage to get multiple images of an event onto their website often before anybody else within hours of an event often with twenty or so images multiple angles and all if they didn't own most of the images. Is it so impossible that they do employ a team and just use a few screenshots and promo photos to support it? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just came over to make sure you were aware of this thread, because we could use the benefit of your thoughts and judgment in this regard. Glad Blofeld beat me to it. Best. -- But|seriously|folks 21:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hey guys - yeah, I'm trying to read up on what's going on, since I was involved with the original OTRS ticket. I asked BSF to forward me the latest e-mail; the IP investigative work regarding the blog has got me concerned. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Vodcast-screenshot
Hi, I noticed both you and I have been tagging some vodcast screenshot as "non-permitted fair use" (thanks, you saved me the effort on a couple I was going to get round to later!) - it strikes me that virtually all vodcast images are going to be of people for whom free replacement images are either available or possible to create. This template text explains that it is for non-free media only (so I think its name should strictly be change to "Non-free vodcast screenshot" for consistency with other similar entries in Category:Non-free image copyright tags) but it seems likely that most images it's used on will be non-permitted. I'm a bit wary of suggesting the template for deletion (since I guess it's conceivable that some non-free media of this type might be permitted on Wikipedia, so should have an appropriate tag - on the other hand, its mere existence may well encourage inappropriate uploads), not quite sure how or where to propose a renaming for consistency (I am sure there was a debate somewhere about appending "Non-free" in front of non-free media templates but not sure where or when) and I do think that most instances listed in "Whatlinkshere" will tend to replaceable so it'd be a good idea for people to keep an eye on its use. Since you seem to be at least mildly interested, I wonder if you've got any brighter ideas than me or could just give me some advice? I'll cross-post this to the template talk page where it's probably best to reply, but I suspect if I didn't contact a couple of people directly I wouldn't get any replies! Purgatorio 00:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ilanijanovic.wg.am spam
Hi - spotted the Meta req. I still think this might be sorted at a local level. You've done a final warning for the user - if they place again feel free to nudge me and we'll try a block first maybe? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright problems
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:Joe Trippi 1.jpg, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. As a copyright violation, Image:Joe Trippi 1.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:Joe Trippi 1.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
-
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Image:Joe Trippi 1.jpg and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Image:Joe Trippi 1.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
- If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Image:Joe Trippi 1.jpg.
However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Trapper (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 24.19.33.82
Please don't do this. I am trying very hard to broker a deal here. It isn't easy and every side has been having a go at me. Your involvement is highly counterproductive. Step away and let the IP speak for itself. This isn't the sort of block that can just be overturned by another admin - consensus is needed. WjBscribe 23:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Are you saying the block was righteous? Videmus Omnia Talk 23:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the account was Mywikibiz - the "meatpuppet" claim is more complex. However the account has done things since that block that I would support a block for. The problem from the fact that it was a response to perceived unfair treatment. As with all these scenarios the ideal scenario is for these parties to avoid each other. That won't be possible unless either Durova/Jehochman know what the user's account is or then 3 of them are able to agree a number of people who will know the name of the account and agree to enforce the deal. The situation is far from ideal for either side but seems better than the alternative. Lets wait for a response from 24.19.33.82 - find out what is and isn't acceptable to that person. WjBscribe 23:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- What exactly are Durova and Jehochman worried is going to happen? This seems to me to be a disingenuous attempt to force the person to reveal information they already stated that they don't want to. If Durova/Jehochman don't know who it is, then it's pretty unlikely they're not going to run into some random user among thousands. And if they happen to by accident, it's not like the anon can complain about it anyway. Let the person have their privacy, they've been hassled enough. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- That is certainly a point they can make - I have laid out a possible proposals. I want them to respond to it and say what is or isn't acceptable to them. If they or one of the others reject the agreement we are back at square one, which is ArbCom investigating the matter. I very much doubt any admin will unblock in the midst of an ArbCom case without the consent of everyone. May way really is best - the proposal laid out isn't final, its just something to get the ball rolling. WjBscribe 23:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Since nobody is blameless here, but the whole situation was precipitated by an admin screwup, I think the best solution would simply be to go back to status quo ante, with the IP unblocked and the other involved parties just going their separate ways without sanction. But it's wrong to punish the IP for editing with open proxies (after being provoked), and for the blocking admins not to be held accountable also. There's no reason that ArbCom can't continue their investigation with the IP unblocked, and if the IP screws up and is blocked for something else, that simplifies the investigation, doesn't it? Videmus Omnia Talk 23:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- We cannot say "its OK to edit with open proxies" if provoked. And sending a series of harassing emails to the blocking admin is also not acceptable. If the IP were unblocked for not being a Mywikibiz sock it would undoubtedly be blocked for the latter offences. Better to come to a position where everyone agrees to the unblock. Please I'm trying to coordinate this with a number of involved parties and to keep ArbCom up to date. Having to juggle your questions isn't helping. If at the end of it you are disatisfied with the conclusion, make your protests then. WjBscribe 23:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- What exactly are Durova and Jehochman worried is going to happen? This seems to me to be a disingenuous attempt to force the person to reveal information they already stated that they don't want to. If Durova/Jehochman don't know who it is, then it's pretty unlikely they're not going to run into some random user among thousands. And if they happen to by accident, it's not like the anon can complain about it anyway. Let the person have their privacy, they've been hassled enough. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the account was Mywikibiz - the "meatpuppet" claim is more complex. However the account has done things since that block that I would support a block for. The problem from the fact that it was a response to perceived unfair treatment. As with all these scenarios the ideal scenario is for these parties to avoid each other. That won't be possible unless either Durova/Jehochman know what the user's account is or then 3 of them are able to agree a number of people who will know the name of the account and agree to enforce the deal. The situation is far from ideal for either side but seems better than the alternative. Lets wait for a response from 24.19.33.82 - find out what is and isn't acceptable to that person. WjBscribe 23:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your Recent Comments on AN/I
Hi! Apologies in advance, I hope this isn't inappropriate, but I found the following comment most illuminating:
- You know as well as I do that referring an anon editor to the ArbCom for a block review is just a roundabout way of telling them to 'get bent' if the block was done by a longtime editor like Durova.
Would you be willing to reiterate this point at the incident subpage? I think it's important, because this seems to be the thrust of developing "consensus", and what you've said seems plausible, though I'm too ignorant to be sure. If you'd rather not, or have changed your assessment, I completely understand, and thank you for your time. sNkrSnee | t.p. 23:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I can't really back it up with any evidence, it's just common wisdom I've picked up by observation here. Also, I've been the victim of idiotic and wrong blocks myself, and the first time especially I had a hell of a time getting unblocked just because I was new. I got treated like shit, but I was persistent enough that I finally got unblocked. That's why I have a pretty low tolerance for high-handed admins. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for answering (and so quickly, too!). Lack of evidence seems to be the latest meme (ie the underlying issue, no disrespect). Sadly, I understand your quandary, which (IMO) doesn't bode well for a meaningful resolution. I wish I was surprised. Thanks again, and while I generally frown on intolerance (a necessary irony), in your case I approve. sNkrSnee | t.p. 00:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
