Jump to content

Talk:Ken Foree

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image licensing dispute

[edit]

Here are all the relevant postings with regards to the image dispute. Since it only exists between me and User:DeadCentral, it was all carried out in the User_talk namespace. I have copied it all here in order to get a third opinion. --84.68.126.146 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Posted on User_talk:84.68.162.114:

I am using an image that MR FOREE himself asked to be used , the license is fine and the image was OK'd by Wikipedia Commons. I uploaded the source of the image to wikipedia and proved it as being my own and THEY granted the proper license.

The facts are THE facts , there is no more reason for my changes than that. There was very little interest in mr Foree's wiki until I started undertaking the project to coincide with the amendments on his IMDB page to fit the biography and film listings he provided as actual fact.

I have requested Vandal protection from wikipedia and am following the guidlelines provided, by asking you to stop taking it upon yourself to undermine the intent and factual reporting on Mr Foree's wiki simply because you disagree with my phrasings or choice in images. The Image is a promotional image provided by me for use here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DeadCentral (talk • contribs) 21:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Posted on User_talk:ReyBrujo:

ReyBrujo I'm requesting another time, for protection, after all the time discussing the image properties and requirements with you and following your suggestions, other users have gone on to Kens Wiki and changed the image 3 seperate times, one by a registered user and the second by an anonymous user who has repeatedly disputed everything I've done on the page, starting with the correct birthdate that I listed through then entire Biography which I edited in accordance to what Admin Glen had specified, and now has moved on to the image that I uploaded to the commons and showed where it came from and that it's use is perfectly legitimate. Pleas help me to maintain some sembelence of legitimacy instead of me having to go into the wiki everyday and remove false information or edit the photo that Mr Foree himself, ask that be used on his own wiki.

I'm trying to be patient and discreet, but I run a link from Mr Foree's site to the wiki and daily I get emails from users of his site stating that the facts and BIO have been changed or the image isn't there any longer.Being his webmaster I have his facts and a disclaimer on his site to state that all information and promotional images can be used on wikipedia. The facts are accurate and from the source itself, Ken Foree. I also handle his IMDB page most of the time and since then the facts regarding his career have been updated and any inaccuracies have been fixed.Please reconsider my request and protect his site from the passerby who feels that they may have more accurate facts than the man himself and/or change the promotional image that he himself would prefer to be in place on a titel that summarizes his career and biography. It seems that my other client Sid Haig's wiki is protected for very much the same reasons and it would be greatly appreciated if you could reconsider based on my points.

Sorry to step in here ReyBrujo (whoever you are), but I would like to point out that the reason I changed the image to a different one is that 1) it is listed under a Creative Commons licence as well as the GDFL, and so more usable and persuant to the image use policy and 2) the original image is a promotional picture and so may be risky when using it due to commercial concerns. DC seems to be under the impression that being the soulmate of Ken Foree allows him to hold court over his article, where is evidenced by the practically unanimous reverts that he has carried out to everyone else's edits to it on the history. Perhaps you could explain to him (as he won't listen to me) that there may be a conflict of interest here, and he should either chill out or take a break? --84.68.162.114 21:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, DC has just given me a similar telling-off on my talk page, where he claims the image he prefers is "an image that MR FOREE himself asked to be used". Doesn't this make his editing all the more serious because he is, technically, acting as a meatpuppet for Foree in violation of the autobiography guideline? --84.68.162.114 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked for an image to be used from one of his photoshoots that would be fitting of a biography page Anon. Since I have many of his images I chose the one I felt looked best, the same promotional image that is used across the web for appearances, acting biographies, etc etc ... And I followed the guidelines set forth by Reybrujo in accordance to wikipedia rules.DC

Posted on User_talk:DeadCentral:

Please calm down and be reasonable. I don't disagree with the picture; in fact I think it's a better picture of Foree. But I do disagree with its licensing and purpose; it may be freely licensed but it is still a promotional picture, and it also lacks a Creative Commons licence, and that just brings up some concerns for me. I personally feel that the picture cannot be used over the other purely on its asthetic merit. If you want we could ask a third-party and establish a consensus. --84.68.162.114 15:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already has a Commons License, or didn't you read my reply. I emailed the image to the Commons, and uploaded it to wikipedia and provided them with the source file, so there is no descrepency. See: {{GFDL}}


You're either not listening to me, or you have a limited understanding of how copyright licensing works here. A Creative Commons licence template looks like this: {{cc-by-2.5}}
And even if it did have one of those it is still a promotional picture, rather than one taken without any commercial ties involved like the one I would prefer to switch it to. I'm going to go and find someone to act as a third-party in this as I think you're not taking in what I'm saying and also unfairly holding court over this article. --84.68.126.146 01:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]

I came here via WP:Third opinion. I'm only commenting on the image use question raised here. I know nothing about Mr. Foree. Both GFDL and CC are fully acceptable free licenses for Wikipedia images. It seems to me that if two images are available with acceptable free licenses, and only one is to be included, then the one that best serves the reader should used. Also I think having artists release publicity images under a free license is something we want to encourage. There are numerous articles begging for such images. --agr 17:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your opinion, having fully grasped that it is a publicity photo and also does not carry a CC licence, then very well. --84.68.126.146 19:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the LINK to the "nonexistant" license... As said by the other poster, both GFDL and CC are acceptable licenses. 75.82.3.135 05:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Third party seems to have a similar notion as myself , now can we call it a truce? I've had enough with all this. Kens wiki sat unused and bland for so many months until I made edits in it,and it's now a thorn in my side. I've seen the edits that you made "wiki-fied" and the assistance is very much appreciated since you do have far more knowledge than I in that regard. Please understand, the image chosen keeps the page looking professional as any article about an actor should. They are professional in their fields and like be represented as such, some shot of this person & a fan at a convention is something best used on that persons personal website, not an article thats supposed to be a factual representation of that actors career & life story, unless of course we add a section to it that shows how dedicated to the fans the actor is, and use this type of image to display the fact.DC 23:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Very much agreed with the first two posters. The image is clearly licensed and that licensing is just as clearly documented. I had this same problem with another user who couldn't read what was right in front of them, and it actually took 2 admins to tell them to sod off before they quit. It's pretty clear that for some unknown reason this user has chosen to ignore the repeated statements of licensing, and simply needs a new hobby.75.82.3.135 05:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate this idea you're perpetuating that I have some kind of vendetta against Ken Foree; neither is it a discussion permitted by the no personal attacks policy. I think you'll find that I have acted courteously and sensibly throughout this disagreement about the image while being bombarded with ridiculous warnings and accusations of vandalism by the pair of you. Why can't you assume good faith? I don't even care about Foree that much. --84.68.126.146 20:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreements on Wikipedia can get a little intense, and emotions can run high. One of the reasons Wikipedia is successful is that editors generally try to keep civil even when they disagree. I know it's not always easy. If my Third Opinion was helpful here, everybody please do me a favor and chill. Have a good weekend.--agr 21:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I agree you have been courteous, but you still persisted even when authorization was apparent on this issue. You asked for a third party and have the resulting opinion, your original response was fine, as I stated.(maybe you neglected to read it in my last reply perhaps?) I'm finished arguing my point. It was proven by a third & a Fourth opinion. I'm satisfied that I conducted my edits appropriately with all the right information, and though you may disagree, the folks involved with wikipedia have made it clear that I'm within the guidelines with the edits I have made and the choice of licensing I used as well. I asked for guidance and found that everyone involved with wikipedia is very helpful in guiding newcomers such as myself through the proper procedure to keep the article up to an acceptable standard. If you are true to your word,then this issue is finished and I wish you a nice weekend,and the same for you Arnold. DC 23:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persisted with what? Seriously, persisted with what? This is the kind of baseless accusation I am talking about, and I will not tolerate it. That is exactly why I wanted someone else to step in (although it looks like he couldn't care less about this issue). --84.68.126.146 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right there with you, DC. I'm done with the nonsense. If someone else wants to keep it going, then they'll be doing it alone. 75.82.3.135 05:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My removing all your edits does not make you lily white here Mr. Anon. Any Admin can see the history and view your "reasons" for the changes. You made many changes and insisted YOUR way was better or the right way, regardless of the fact that I provided sources and the licensing, and sources for the images as well. Even further, you went ahead and asked for a third party opinion, so when it didn't go in your favor you went ahead and filed a complaint against me and the other anon user who backed the third party decision. Thats persistance in my opinion. All any admin has to do is read through my talk page,the Ken Foree talk page, and YOUR talk page (even though you've also deleted all of that as well), or your other talk page to see who has persisted in this disagreement, to see what in fact is happening. I'm all for that.DC 00:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ken Foree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ken Foree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ken Foree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ken Foree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ken_Foree&oldid=1259499606"