User talk:ESkog/Archive11

Index of Talk Page archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F May 19-December 22, 2010 - December 23, 2010 - November 10, 2011 - December 8, 2011 - October 8, 2012 - October 18, 2012 - May 27, 2013 - May 30, 2013 - March 26, 2014 - January 29, 2015 - March 15, 2017

Removing fair use images from lists

Hi ESkog. Thanks for taking the initiative to remove decorative non-free images from the various lists we have. ~MDD 46 96 02:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Days of Thunder

I've changed fair use rationale. [1]

Films addicted 04:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Filmes_addicted[reply]

[2]

What is wrong with this fair use rationale? It was posted in September, no one disputed it. Seems the same of all movie posters placed in the movie articles. Machocarioca

There's nothing wrong with it - this user is simply inflating their edit count by taking a very, very literal, very, very unhelpful and potnetially very, very damaging approach to the wording of one policy. Each template clearly states why the uimage is thought to be fair use. If Eskog was not just edit count packing he or she shoud just add the very obvious raitonale themselves for each image (as stated in the template) rather than tagging for deletion? It's editors like that stop people contributing to Wikipedia. StuartDouglas 15:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StuartDouglas got it. Our rules for use of non-free content are clear, really ,and the use of movie posters are under the rules. And the rules doesn't support POVs like yours, forgive me. Are you going to delect ALL movie posters in Wikipedia? All of it have the same rationale. Most of them, placed before 2006, have none. Movie posters are a tradition in our articles. The fair use rationale on the image is perfect. This is silliness, ESkog, stop it. Be real, please.Machocarioca 18:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca[reply]

Movie posters are critical information by itselves. If the policy is 'unclear' for you, you don't have the right to "clear" it by your own will . Movie poster are here for a long time, placed by hundreds of administrators too. This is your personal approach, pall, be real. You'll have to delete ALL movie posters here, maybe 100.000 movie posters with the same rationale. Or none. The use of movie posters, just because they happen to be movie posters, is not allowed under this policy. Sorry, but you´re wrong, it is allowed since 2001 in all movie articles. A tradition. This is a very personal and not serious approach to to the wording of one policy. Stop it, please. Machocarioca

Braveheart

Done. [3] Machocarioca

Stupid Question To Which I'm Having Trouble Finding An Answer...

Good morning!

I have a question regarding your message re: fair use rationale. All the information that I can find is somewhat vague, and the examples that I've found for comic book images (which are and will probably continue to be my main contribution) vary wildly in content and style.

Do you have an example of an acceptable fair use rationale that is a little more informational than just the template? Any assistance will be wholly appreciated...

KingCobra53 14:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use Tagging as Edit Count Packing?

I am perfectly cool, thank you and have made no personal attack on you. I ask again though - if you are so concerned about fair use rationales and are not simply taking a ludicrously anal and overly literal reading of the fair use page why not simply quickly cut and paste the rationale - as stated clearly on each template - rather than just tagging useful images for deletion?

The only other thing I said was that it is editors like you who make people less likely to contribute to Wikipedia - which given the amount of people on your talk pages complaining about your petty activities, seems a reasonable and fairt point. Certainly it make sme less likely to contribute in future. StuartDouglas 16:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions damaged Wikipedia by removing images which are covered by fair use for no good reason (apart from anythign else if I add a nonsense phrase like 'used as part of critical commentary to every image that would, I suspect, satisfy your criteria, yet mean nothing). As this appears from your history to be almost your only contribution to Wikipedia of any size, well good luck to you - I'm sure it gives you a wonderful feeling of importance and empowerment but it contributes nothign whatsoever to Wikipedia. StuartDouglas 16:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for help from interested parties

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 hundreds of popular culture images, making daily uploads at times. Some of these pictures are the result of hours of searching in order to find the perfect and relevant image.

Over 700 of these images have been designated as needing fair use rationale and will vanish from Wikipedia in a few days simply because there's no way I can add rationales to that many pages in a week's time. 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. Here is a link that shows what is about to vanish from Wikipedia. Pepso 05:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Grinderman Set Me Free.jpg

Hi ESkog,

Sorry, I have no idea why this message was sent to me. I have had nothing to do with that image. Please explain?

Thanks!

--Lmcelhiney 17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I have tagged a bunch of images requesting FU Rationale myself. Prolly see you again... --Lmcelhiney 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blur(NewUniverseComics).jpg Fair Use Question...

I've added the information as requested. Let me know if that's not up to snuff. Thanks for your help!

KingCobra53 17:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Signal dvdcover.jpg)

The image you were talking about was a part of an article that was deleted so, that's why it was orphaned. I hope to improve the article and post it again. The image is however my own original art work, I accidentally wrote the description for it incorrectly. I would have done it again but, anytime I make a mistake and try to fix it, someone comes along and says I'm trying to cover up something so, I just left it alone. JoeyC5 15:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get my "Daniel Ross (American Actor)" article un-deleted?

Hello,

You deleted my article because the person who it was about did not have any notable roles. (I think that was the reason, at least.) Here's the discussion about it, in case you do not remember:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Ross_%28American_actor%29

It was just announced on several websites that he will voice one of the main characters in the new Transformers video games. For example:

http://tformers.com/Transfan-Daniel-Ross-To-Voice-Starscream-In-Game/7604/news.html http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/showthread.php?t=133046 http://www.seibertron.com/news/view.php?id=10269

I believe this cures the problem, does it not? What's the best way going about getting this article un-deleted? I don't have much experience with this sort of thing, so any help you can offer would be appreciated.

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MightGaine (talk • contribs) 12:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC). MightGaine 12:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)MightGaine[reply]

Fair use justification for Image:Scary go round - shelley winters.png

Earlier this week you marked an image I uploaded, Image:Scary go round - shelley winters.png, as lacking fair use justification. I think I might have now satisfied that, but, honestly I don't know. What I've written there seems comparable to the "good" examples on your ESkog/Rationales sub-page. Could you let me know if I have made an obvious error? If you think the justification is sufficient, I will reproduce it for the other character images I added to that article. --Steve-o Stonebraker 22:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help or Advice Requested

I am a little confused. Someone left a message on my User Talk page using the Username 'Grand Mofo Wizard'. They seem to have a userpage by the post, but when I look at the history they show up as an IP address. Is this a glitch? I have left a warning to them on what looks like the User Talk page to please cease the personal attacks on me. I am getting rather tired be being referred to as a political hack by both Mofo and Dirtybirdy. I have been nothing but polite in asking them to stop and referring them to the proper information regarding personal attacks. Once again any help or advice would be appreciated. And the truth shall set you free! 00:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can the signature in question on my talk page eb edited to go to the proper talk/user page. I did not want to be the one to change it lest I end up taking more abuse for doing so. Plus I was not sure if it was alright for me to do so. And the truth shall set you free! 00:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use of Caught By the Fuzz artwork

Like a lot of people you marked an image I uploaded over the fair use rationale, I think i've got it up to scratch. Caught By The Fuzz -- User:Phantompie

Fair use rationale

You've removed the fair use rationale example I gave at Template:Infobox Album/doc. [4] Could you provide a better one? It was similar to what I recently added to all covers I uploaded so I hope that I won't have to update few hundreds image description pages again. Jogers (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use rationale is basically the same for most album covers in the articles about albums they illustrate so I thought that it may be a good idea to give editors a clue how the rationale should look like. How do you expect rationales on ten thousands pages to be unique? Anyway, I'll add the link to Image:As Nasty As They Wanna Be cover.jpg at Template:Infobox Album/doc. Jogers (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing TV logos

Could you please not delete TV logos (such as Image:ION logo.jpg) and remove them from articles without giving the good people at WikiProject Television Stations a reasonable chance to fix whatever might be wrong with the fair use rationale? There is a long-standing consensus that using a network logo in a station article, when there is no other station logo available, is proper fair use. DHowell 00:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 15 Edits

I understand the 3-revert policy, and have currently put in for an article protection. However, it would be more wise to protect the article without the "orphan" tag as it will be deleted. D-Hell-pers 02:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for admin approval, user Kuru had previously overseen this debate back in feb/mar. The article went quiet for a while, with periodic disturbances here and there. The issue seems to revolve around the someone's thought that images can not be used as references, however, Kuru did not question its initial use when it was used to end an argument months ago on the Washington College article. D-Hell-pers 03:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yakoumakis SleepingStradioti.jpg

Why did you think the tag is improper? Renata 02:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, agree. But it is not released under "non-commercial" only tag, it is used under fair use as if it was a regular copyrighted image. See, all these speedy "education-only" & "non-commercial-only" images could be saved if somebody took time to apply correct fair use tags. Graph goes something like this: free images (GFDL, Creative Commons, PD) - semi-free (education-only, cc-no derivs, etc.) - unfree images (fair use). Wikipedia does not allow the middle and force you to choose an extreme (free or not and no "but"). So if it's not free - it's fair use automatically. But there is nothing wrong in noting that in other circumstances it's also "semi-free." So the guy actually did the right thing, just now somebody shold check if the image meets all the criteria. Renata 03:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GTA SA Victim shop2.jpg

Hi!

There are lots of 'em at Category:Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas screenshots. All wrong, or just you were? :) By my knowledge, I'm sure, this is definietly fair use. (I found at least three types of licenses for screenshots from videogames, maybe you want another license?) --Ezsaias 11:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's my fault probably, but there are too much ifs, and I do not understand your point. What is the concrete problem? What's missing? --Ezsaias 11:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arguingof.jpg

Also should be a fair use licensed image? --Ezsaias 12:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Mormon portal

I found no fair use policy which prohibits the images in portals! You have to cite the exact sentence in this policy text, which states that it is not allowed to use fair use images in portals.Daniel3 22:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question

If you get an article deleted and you recreate it to meet wiki standards, and it does, can it be deleted again? Or will an administrator say "hey, this article was deleted and now it's reposted.", then delete the article. This just happened to me and I don't know what I did wrong. Can you help me?

The article is called "Andre Boyer". It was redeleted after I had made changes to it. Thanks a lot for taking a look, much appreciated. JoeyC5 02:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Are there any tips I can use to avoid this happening again? I still want to add to and improve this article but, I'm constantly afraid I'm going to keep going through this. JoeyC5 02:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. I did make a little not in the talk page for the article. Thank you very much. You've been a big help. Cheers!JoeyC5 03:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging spree

Might I inquire as to what method you are using to obtain the image lists you are currently tagging as lacking rationales?

I'm not complaining about the tagging itself, which I recognize as within policy even if it is going to be an absolute pain for me, who has to go and write rationales for all of the images. I would, however, like to know exactly what list you're going through, so that I know which pages I need to check. --tjstrf talk 03:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can, though that probably won't stretch beyond the bounds of Category:Bleach images, whose ranks I've been gradually cleaning up over the last several months. --tjstrf talk 03:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Boyer

Hello: I saw that you had considered deleting the article on Andre Boyer. I have looked at the article and although the contribuotr has done a lot of work to polish it and make it look nice, I am not that impressed with the notability of the topic. I have been involved fairly heavily on an AfD regarding a different article by the same contributor: CJ Johnson. I am not sure how I feel about nominating another of his articles for deletion, so thought I would ask your take on things first. Any comments?—Gaff ^ταλκ 23:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Hoffman deletions

Quick Question, why did you delete my article on William Hoffman? I cited everything that needed to be cited and it was still deleted due to possible copyright infringements. My point of view is that a page with multiple paragraphs (like my article had), is much more helpful to someone than the original article that you put back that had only a couple of sentences. So, once again, why the deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomasbp30 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First I wasn't trying to make anyone think it was my own work due to the fact that no one knows who I am. Secondly, everyone would know that it is not my work since the link goes back to the library. However, I understand the legal part. However, why didn't you answer my question above? Why would you want a small, crappy page like the one you put back? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomasbp30 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is really sad then. I would think Wikipedia would want as much information on someone as possible. So, I am going to work on a better article. I think Mr. Hoffman deserves that. And just so you know, most of the stuff in the article you replaced with mine is wrong or out-dated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomasbp30 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please slow down

Please slow down your tagging of images for fair use rationales. You are going too fast for others to keep up with you. --Eastmain 17:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please slow down II

I echo the above, further up and further up again. Your work appears to be indiscriminate, and I believe that it adds little or no value to wikipedia. Maybe you're using a bot, but that's neither here nor there. In order to increase the utility to wikipedia and the community, I would strongly suggest that you targeted your effort better. I find that tracing each user who inserted an image and posting a message on our talk pages can be a pain: Where you see that an image is clearly a logo, being used on an article belonging to a company, copy and paste the following text in the licensing section of the image in question:

===Fair-use rationale===

low resolution image
no non-copyright version available, by definition
the logo is only being used for informational purposes;
its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it is the primary means of identifying the subject of this article.

ditto for album covers or movie posters used in subject articles:

===Fair-use rationale===

illustrates the subject of the article.
no free alternative.
the size and resolution make reproduction for bootleg copies difficult.
reproduction does not detract from the commercial value.

It's a damn site easier to tag the images directly as suggested, you already tag with {{subst:nld}}. You save posting a warning to the OP, and makes less work for everyone. I've done about a hundred company logos already in the last hour. Thanks for your attention. Happy editing. Ohconfucius 03:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC) PS. please reply to me here, if you feel like replying. Ohconfucius 04:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the case that your copy-paste rationale makes some sense for logos, but there is no fair-use rationale which applies to every album cover or movie poster. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images, which outlines exactly what is required. If an album cover or movie poster is not itself the subject of critical commentary in the article, then its role is considered decorative and its use is not appropriate for the article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have a point about the critical commentary, but kindly note that I did say "album covers or movie posters used in subject articles", and was not asking for a blanket rationale for all uses of movie posters, album covers etc, wherever any user wants to put them. So would you kindly slow down on tagging logos, then, please? Thanks. Ohconfucius 01:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]