User talk:ESkog/Archive10

Hmm... From my edit histroy... what do you think the chances of sucessful nomination is? I'm not really actively seeking adminship... although the tools may be more helpful. --Y.Ichiro (会話) 02:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo 16:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am asking for some advice and assistance with a user that goes by the handle of dirtybirdy78 who has become rather agressive and has been making personal attacks on a number of individuals including myself. I have asked them to cease this behavior towards me, but they continue to taunt me and attempt to draw me into a war of words that I assume is expected to lead me to say something that I can be held accountable for. I have no intentions of getting into that kind of debate with someone. I am personally sick of being ridiculed simply because I make it my business to keep people from slandering and including unreliable information on the pages of two individuals from my local area. Any help you can give me with this person or advice on how to deal with them would be appreciated. And the truth shall set you free! 01:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just a little follow up. It would appear that my talk page is now under assault by multiple individuals who are making false accusations. I have been deleting their additions on multiple occasions over the past 24 hours. I do not wish to have direct confrontations with any of those individuals and would also like to ask for advice on how to handle this situation as well besides ignoring them. I have a feeling I will be deleting comments until the cows come home unless I make a little more of a stand. And the truth shall set you free! 00:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm maintaining many of the Kim possible pages but didn't upload most of the images so I wasn't notified that they were about to be deleted, could you please reinstate the images and provide me with a list of the ones that you have deleted so that I can give them the correct rational.

perfectblue 13:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Er, first of all, I'd kind of like to know what they were. You're user log is quite long, after all.

perfectblue 13:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

No offense, by you seem to just be working your way along a list without stopping to check if there is an obvious rational that simply hasn't been given because the user who uploaded them was either a novice or made an simple oversight.

Were the user's who posted these images notified by you or by bot?

perfectblue 20:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

You may or may not be aware of this, but there is a certain level of "bad feeling" about this, particularly among newer users who don't quite appreciate exactly how many images are uploaded daily. Users do sometimes become frustrated when something that is obviously a TV screen shot or a comic book frame (for example) is deleted, and feel that there should be some effort by those sorting through them to take a look at the image and it's context, and then select the rioght rational if it appears obvious.

Again, you might already be aware of this, and it might be much more time consuming, but as I said there is some bad feeling about it.

perfectblue 07:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, that's an edit war going on now. You might want to consider another route. --myselfalso 01:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

hey whats up dude? how ya doin'? ya i noticed you tagged an album cover as having no fair use rationale, wow man! have you ever visited this site before? well just a little advice, when someone uploads an album cover, get this (you'll find it fascinating), they do it to place in an article for a discography of the artist or directly on the page which discusses the album, neat huh? the fair use rationale is of course obvious, redundant to state and more than less implied for anyone with common sense. but just in case you want to go ahead with your tirade, say... just to be a rebel, here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Album_covers since the majority of album covers don't have rationales on them (since anyone with common sense knows that the album cover template implies fair use rationale directly. you've got quite a lot of work ahead of you! so if you can find someone to help you tag those 10,000+ images then i wish you the best! --AlexOvShaolin 18:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

hey no prob! thanks for the talk back. if you could just ask the thousands of people that uploaded other images i'd really like to hear what they say! sound good? raelly y not? --AlexOvShaolin 21:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing these images to my attention. I have since added a fair use rationale to every one. Thanks! ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's no problem about the multiple messages. Keep up the good work. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just trying to understand what's wrong here I followed everything as defined in the Template:Infobox_Album for submitting album covers. Unless you personally think that the resolution is too high, though that is nowhere defined they only ask that it be greater than 200px. Astadtler 22:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are we entering a world where the 'key' is much akin to Voldemort? 142.68.40.44 04:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was making a humorous reference to the world of Harry Potter. Voldemort's name was taboo - always referenced by 'he who must not be named', which is similar to what is happening to the key. It wasn't a slur against you. --142.68.40.44 04:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You mean someone's not on the phone currently with someone who is salaried at Wikipedia? Christ. --142.68.40.44 04:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Chazbeckett is the one who violated the 3rr rule, not me. annoynnmous 04:27, 2 MAy 2007 (UTC)

It's an album cover used for an album cover infobox - 1000s of album articles use album covers. I don't understand the nature of your issue. LuciferMorgan 15:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your talking absolute rubbish. The template says;

This image is of a cover of an audio recording, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the album or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers

solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information.

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

This "boilerplate template" clearly, 110% explains why the image is used, which is to solely illustrate the audio recording in question. It needs no further explanation. LuciferMorgan 16:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

And read this - the boilerplate template explains why it is used. Your pyschotic attitude won't help as you're saying that nearly every album cover on Wikipedia should be deleted. LuciferMorgan 16:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The image is an album cover - it's meant to be used to promote the album, is used on several websites which sell the album, and can be used within the article. Your attitude explains to me why certain users are generally imbeciles - if you were tagging stolen celebrity photographs I would understand, but album covers? Are you having a laugh?

By the way, add that tag to a load of other album covers without rationales - I dare you even. Good luck dealing with the fallout. LuciferMorgan 16:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could you point me to the official policy prohibiting mentioning the involvment of wiki in notable controversies? (covered by many independant media outlets) Or what was otherwise wrong with my edit to the article? Thanks, Monty845 17:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not sure why you weren't notified, but there is a thread about at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. --Iamunknown 14:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

When you are reviewing pages for a missing fair use rationale, please consider adding the appropriate fair use rationale yourself when it is clear from the context. That is, the fair use purpose of a company's logo is to illustrate the article about the company. The fair use purpose of a poster or album cover is to illustrate the relevant article. If you do it yourself, you know it will be done properly. --Eastmain 19:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Eskog,

You added a note to my talk page about "Image:Robert Rankin - Knees Up Mother Earth.jpg" about a missing fair use rationale. However, the existing license tag asserts fair use for the image in the context of an article discussing the book in question. That is the only page to make reference to the image, so I am not sure what additional rationale you are after. Could you elaborate? --James 08:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You wrote that the photo I used (stillss.jpg) was not covered under fair use because it lacked a rationale for use. However, the rational is that it's an album cover for Stephen Stills' "Stills" on a page about that album. I'm not sure what other rationale is needed for that, and that rationale was provided with the photo. --User:BoffoHijinx

You might have to delete it, I uploaded it with a TIME magazine tag, but I since see that that tag has been revoked and a bot added the fair use thing. A fair use rationale would probably be "there aren't any other available images of him that I can find" but I don't know if that will fly. I'll put it in for now but delete it if you feel it's not enough :) SGGH ^speak! 13:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

you have tagged two album covers that i have uploaded as well as the album covers of other individuals, this is completely ridiculous! over 10,000 album covers are uploaded on wikipedia without fair use rationales, since they are IMPLIED to anyone WITH COMMON SENSE! your work is extremely COUNTER PRODUCTIVE and has VANDALISTIC values. you understand an album cover exists to fairly represent the album in question since album covers are not GNU'ed, but you continue with harassment as well as article terrorism regardless. the only 'qualities' you have added to wikipedia is wrecking articles and degrading the quality of this organization. --AlexOvShaolin 19:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this image requires a fair use rationale, being a book cover. --Guinnog 19:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I entered a fair use rationale, but I wonder if there is a better way of doing this. Is there a central discussion about this? --Guinnog 20:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The policy says that the boilerplate text is not sufficient on its own to justify a fair-use rationale. Fair use rationales need to include an explanation of why that specific image needs to be in that specific article, and the image needs to be used for some sort of critical commentary - that is, the image needs to be discussed in the context of the article somewhere. I understand that this isn't the prevailing usage on Wikipedia right now, but that is pretty clearly what our policy states. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I appreciate that and I added a rationale to the one you queried. I just wonder if there might be a more effective way of getting people to follow policy on this issue. Obviously cover art used for critical commentary is one of the safer instances of fair use in Wikipedia, and so, as you observe, people have got into the habit of not following policy. I appreciate the value of what you are doing and I will do what I can to help. Best wishes, --Guinnog 20:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is Image:Keel - The Final Frontier.jpg being used unlawfully in your opinion? I understand that missing fair-use rationale is a speedy deletion criterion but I always thought that what the {{album cover}} tag says (It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers solely to illustrate the audio recording in question (...) qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law) is enough to use them in the article about album they illustrate. There are thousands album cover images without fair use rationale around and I'm not entirely convinced that deleting them all is the best way to solve the problem. Seems that there are quite a few people who are not happy with the approach you have taken so maybe we could discuss the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums and try to figure something out? Regards, Jogers (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

First of all, I applaud you for actually enforcing a guideline against prevailing opinion. Secondly, however, it seems that even specific fair use rationale for individual album covers is going to be identical for most such images anyway. I imagine what's most likely to happen is that some boilerplate text will be drafted in addition to the boilerplate template, and then some bot will add it to every album cover image. (The Albums project is nothing if not efficiently automated.) –Unint 22:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

So the net is getting tighter... Has, say, Jimbo said anything on the subject since this comment?

And this is an interesting quandry, really. It's proven quite hard to keep any given feature to only a select few articles in popular music. –Unint 23:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

If the discussion about episode screenshots comes to fruition, it might provide a definitive basis about some issues on our side with images in discographies. I don't know where it is, but I might have to keep tabs on that. –Unint 23:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The fair use policy states that non-free content must contribute significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article). Isn't it clear-cut in case of cover art? What makes you think that these images have to be specifically discussed in the context of the article? I'm not a lawyer so please excuse me if I got it all wrong. Jogers (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've had your talk page in my watchlist since I left a message a couple of days ago and I've since noticed a lot of people questioning your messages saying they need a fair use rationale. You're doing a good job informing people to put in a rationale so here's an award.

I added rationale for Image:Ecw logo.png. Thanks for the note. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

While this is a grand way to boost your edit count to very little purpose, might I suggest that rather than tagging the bloody obvious, you actually take the time to add the rationale yourself - it being made plain by the boilerplate - if it worries you so. StuartDouglas 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, ESkog. I regards to the fair use rationale for the image in question, I understand the need for such a thing, although it would appear that, in my haste, I've added the wrong licence description. I'll be replacing it with the correct tag soon (with a fair use rationale). Cheers. Gamer Junkie 04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

On my watchlist I have over 1100 pages to which I have contributed--from a single comma to full articles. During the past two years I have uploaded several hundred images, mostly popular culture images. Some of these are the result of several hours of searching in order to find the perfect and relevant image.

Over 250 images have been designated as needing fair use rationale. These images will vanish from Wikipedia in seven days simply because there's no way I can add rationales to that many pages in a week. What is needed is a team of people dedicated to saving this material from banishment by adding fair use rationales. Please help if you can. Thanks. Pepso 23:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply