Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. Thank you.
Please sign your posts, and use headings. Thanks. I've tagged, removed from articles, and deleted thousands of images, so I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about — especially since you give me no context. Your use of quotation marks suggests that I used the word "silly". I don't recollect that. Sorry I can't be of more help. ElinorD(talk)17:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ArrowRocketMan, I assume you're referring to this edit. We can't use non-free images in galleries. I'm sure Elinor wasn't saying the pictures look silly, but that it would look silly to have some of these pictures on their own in an article on Canadian Arrow. – Quadell(talk) (random)22:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sorting that out, Quadell. Indeed, ArrowRocketMan, my words were not meant to refer to the images themselves. It was necessary to remove several images from the gallery, because they were unfree images, and therefore could not be used in a gallery. However, I removed the whole gallery, because I felt that a gallery with a very small number of images would look a bit silly, though there's no reason why the images shouldn't be incorporated into the body of the article, if they're relevant. Sorry if I phrased it badly. As a matter of fact, I didn't leave the article on my watchlist after I had removed the gallery, and if editors disagree with me and want a gallery with only a very small number of pictures, I won't mind — as long as they're all freely-licensed images. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)00:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you tag this image as having no fair use rationale? It does in fact have that (though not in any standard format), and I don't really see what's wrong with it. --Pekaje19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. You're right. I do a quite a lot of image tagging, and occasionally it happens when I'm working quickly that I fail to see something that's there. The rationale, incidentally, could be improved. The format doesn't matter, but there should really be something to show how it fulfils Criterion no. 8 (if it does). I'll leave a note on the uploader's page. Thanks for pointing it out to me. ElinorD(talk)19:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I also saw one in your recent contributions that was tagged with missing rationale, which should have been orphaned fair use image (can't remember which one, exactly). Please note that the uploader is actually only the person who rescaled it. Check the logs for a possibly more appropriate place to put the messages. I'll see if I can do something about improving the rationale. Not entirely sure what to write, but when I read those two articles I do feel that they benefit from an example to illustrate what is being discussed. Any hints on how to put that into words? --Pekaje19:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay. I'm afraid I'm not experienced in writing FU rationales. If you're quite sure that the images fulfil the criteria in WP:NFCC, then I suppose the main one to focus on in writing the rationale is number 8. ElinorD(talk)22:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, everyone. The really nasty part is now over, and I'm just feeling weak and tired, but should be back to normal in the next week. Unfortunately, it has set me back a bit with real life commitments, which I'll now have to catch up on, but I should be editing normally by the beginning of September. :-) ElinorD(talk)00:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it really odd that you admit you didnt examine any of the content but yet have the audacity for a huge revert. KarenAER23:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wouldn't have seen your edit in the first place if you hadn't used a vandalism template on the talk page of an administrator.[1] As far as I know, I had never looked at that article before. It's inappropriate to throw round accusations of vandalism in a content dispute (I see that you were also doing it in your edit summaries). And it's also inappropriate to put a warning template on the talk page of an experienced editor — especially one that says, "Welcome to Wikipedia" and "take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia." See Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars.
Even more seriously, your edit warring included replacing non-free images in a gallery, which is forbidden under our image policy. See WP:NFC and Resolution:Licensing policy. Please do not restore that gallery until you have worked out which ones are free and which ones are fair use, and have removed all the fair use ones. If you have a problem working it out, I'll be happy to help you, except that I'm ill at the moment and am editing much less than usual. I suggest you use the article talk page to work out your disputes.
If I had just seen the gallery of non-free images, I would almost certainly not have gone further than to remove them. But that particular policy violation combined with your bandying of the word vandalism, and your slightly childish use of a vandalism warning on an administrator's talk page made me feel ill inclined to waste time checking to see if indeed I might agree with some of your edit. ElinorD(talk)23:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know the funny thing? I was reverting the wrong version. I guess I shouldnt edit Wikipedia during my periods. As for vandalism, I explained why I considered his edits as vandalism in the talk page of White people....KarenAER02:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elinor. You said here that the image was a "[c]lear violation of Criterion No. 8". Unfortunately, it isn't "clear" to me (or to a lot of other people, apparently)...could you please explain how it is that this "clearly" has no significant impact on the understanding of readers? I'm sorry, but no, it isn't "clear" that this has no impact on a reader's understanding, especially for a very visual person. Guettarda12:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also at the ID Fair Use review you say "[t]o me, it's obvious that aren't and they don't." It would be very helpful it you explained this - what's "obvious" to one person isn't in the least obvious to many other intelligent people. Guettarda12:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to expand on my comments tomorrow, Guettarda. I've been ill, and get tired when I try to type long posts. The discussion seems to be taking place at Wikipedia:Fair use review, Talk:Intelligent design, and atleastthree IfD discussions, not to mention the edit wars going on over tagging of the images, and the comments at the image talk pages.
I think the best explanation I've seen so far comes from Quadell here. He says, "But in the ID article, we could only use this magazine cover if a reasonable person might read the text of the section and think 'I sort-of understand, but I just can't really understand the controversy without seeing the actual magazine cover. I read that the issue was discussed in Time, but without seeing the cover itself, complete with God reaching out to a monkey, I can't really grasp the importance or the details of the controversy.' And that would be ridiculous."
its nice that all the images on wikipedia are being removed..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PseudoKirby (talk • contribs) 08:08, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
Wow, you made my day! Some people think us old-timers are beyond notes of encouragement, but it ain't so. Thanks, and have a beautiful rest of the day. – Quadell(talk) (random)23:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have an essay here that explains why linking to harassment is BAD...please don't read it unless you have a lot of free time available...I also need your approval to spam my new essay all over Wikipedia...that is, after you approve it, of course.--MONGO05:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crikey, MONGO. You know I've been ill. How on earth do you expect me to have the energy to read something that long? Anyway, it's great that you've written it, because now you'll be able to track my contributions and follow me around and show up at various pages where I'm trying to protect someone from further abuse and distress, and end all your posts with:
See [[User:MONGO/Why linking to harassment is BAD|my essay]] for some reasons why this is a bad idea.
See [[User:MONGO/Why linking to harassment is BAD|my essay]] for some reasons why this is a bad idea.
See [[User:MONGO/Why linking to harassment is BAD|my essay]] for some reasons why this is a bad idea.
See [[User:MONGO/Why linking to harassment is BAD|my essay]] for some reasons why this is a bad idea.
See [[User:MONGO/Why linking to harassment is BAD|my essay]] for some reasons why this is a bad idea.
See [[User:MONGO/Why linking to harassment is BAD|my essay]] for some reasons why this is a bad idea.
Why don't you make a template so that you can subst it? (I don't mean the essay: I mean your promotion of it. Much easier for spamming purposes.) ElinorD(talk)09:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had no idea at all that there were editors here who seem to be more worried about what other editors are doing than they are about writing and maintaining an encyclopedia...shocking!--MONGO16:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to bring a complaint against User:Cyde, who has expressly announced that he is going to continue to violate the express terms of WP:HARASS#Posting of personal information. How can I go about doing that? I was threatened with an indefinite block when I inadvertently violated this policy in February, and I find it appalling that an admin is continuing to violate it intentionally. THF19:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said elsewhere, I do think it's incredibly rude to continue to use someone's real name or to keep posting links to a user rename log after someone has indicated he wishes to be referred to by his user name. Unfortunately, although I'm sympathetic, it's not in my power to do very much about it. ElinorD(talk)22:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know we disagree on some points, but it is nice to see an editor (like you!) who is willing to admit oversight and change opinions. I'll try to be like that too. :-) --Iamunknown00:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Iamunknown. I'm very sorry about our recent disagreements. And to avoid misunderstanding, I'll add that that's a statement of sadness, not of contrition! I place a very high value on anyeditors who combine an appreciation for copyright policy with an appreciation for kindness, so whenever I come across another such editor, I definitely don't want to fall out with him! Regarding our recent disagreements, I'll email you sometime, when I get round to it. In the meantime, I'll make three fairly brief points.
Disagreement one (Maths Wikiproject): It is my firm belief that when someone is stalked and harassed by trolls and banned users who viciously and creepily try to find out everything they can about her real life identity, even contacting whom they believe to be ex-boyfriends, and when their publicising of these details (whether true or not) leads to a coverage on blogs or news-sites, we absolutely need to create on Wikipedia an environment where she can feel supported. That means that when someone who has opposed the block of an obvious troll (who deliberately taunted her on her talk page by posting questions with what he thought was her real name and location, ending his message with kisses, and posting on another site that he's consoled by the thought that his message will remain in the page history, and that he hopes she gets raped in her sleep by a Frenchman) starts opening up "discussions" about the story (with links) at different pages where he hopes no administrator will see it and remove them, we should not give him any support or encouragement.
Disagreement two (I forget where but probably AN/I): Removing links to sites that engage in harassment does not have to mean warning and blocking bewildered newbies. I have on occasion sent a very amicable private email to someone explaining why I had removed a good faith question or a particular link. If the person really is acting in good faith, he will be very understanding when someone explains gently that the link or the question was removed because it might compromise the privacy of someone, and I have received amicable replies from users who were not at all offended.
Disagreement three (AN/I): When an editor repeatedly asks people not to refer to him by his real name, after he has removed personal information from his user page and has been granted a name change, it is incredibly rude and boorish to respond to such requests by linking gratuitously to the user rename log, not matter how ridiculous one may find the editor's requests for privacy. That applies whether the culprit is an anon or an administrator. I feel it is entirely appropriate to remove such trolling. I suspect from this and from your appreciation of my efforts to get Orbicle unblocked that you place considerable value on kindness, which makes your restoring of that trolling anon post with the user rename log all the more surprising.
Elinor, I don't know whether WP:HARASS applies to this case or not, but it's quite clear that THF does not wish to be associated with his real identity. But Cyde continues to revert edits which remove references to THF's real name. I don't want to get into an edit war, but, even WP:HARASS issues aside, it seems to me that it's somewhat uncivil to continue to insist that his name be used when he quite clearly doesn't want it used anymore. Can you please advise? Thanks. ATren00:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Please Stop" No Do something about it or i will! Cyde and his lackies went on there clearly violating policy and NOTHING was done to stop him. What did happen is his mates and you accuse me of trolling, and abuse admin powers by threatning blocks. Clearly one rule for one, one for another.You having pointed out this sort of has happened before to another user and nothing was done to protect them only strnghtens my position.(Hypnosadist)16:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't accuse you of trolling, and I have no intention of blocking you. I think it's quite likely that someone else will block you if you continue, though, and I did say that I don't think you're helping. Regarding Cyde, I agree that it's abominably rude to keep unnecessarily and gratuitously slipping in references to someone's full name when that person has already made it clear that he does not wish his real name to be used on Wikipedia any more. I do not think I have the power to do anything about it, other than what I have already done. And I don't think that your getting blocked is going to help to keep references to THF's name off Wikipedia, unfortunately. ElinorD(talk)16:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not impressed with anyone's behaviour in this business. And I have no intention of continuing the job you're doing (whether in good faith or not) of weakening the already very weak protection enjoyed by harassment victims by overreacting and carrying out blocks that will be undone by someone else within minutes. ElinorD(talk)19:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"that will be undone by someone else within minutes" SO WHAT? you know that blocking them is right and now they are useing the fact they have not been blocked as proof they are right so block them to show them they are not (at least in your opinion). (Hypnosadist)19:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has just made a post signing with his real name. I'm more than happy to fight for people whose privacy is being stolen from them, even if it makes me unpopular. I am disgusted by people (including administrators) provocatively linking to the user rename logs when someone has requested that his real name should not be used. I do not wish to see the protection of harassment victims lessened because your edit warring annoys people who would otherwise support them. I think that people on both sides are behaving poorly. I have just received an email from an administrator I respect very much, who comments, "They all need spanking." I never thought I'd say this, but she has a point. ElinorD(talk)20:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"He has just made a post signing with his real name" Yes because hes given up thanks to the complete lack of enforcement of the rules, GOOD JOB! Hope your defended as strongly when you need it as you defended THF. Just understand all you have done is let the bullies win yet again.(Hypnosadist)20:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you saw WP:VPP#THF, explaining my reasoning. Seeking to protect my privacy was only causing it to be invaded further, and giving ammunition to people seeking to have me banned for their own POV-pushing reasons. THF20:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I do thank you for your help and support and appreciate it, as well as your voice of sound reason in the ANI discussions, and hope you don't feel betrayed by my retreat. THF21:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Every administrator can and should override consensus in order to comply with our image policy" -- assuming the person understands copyright law which was clearly not the case with the Oneill image. Nice to see that you defend him with a specious argument and then descend into hagiographical praise. •Jim62sch•20:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The contemptuous and provocative way with which you treat people interested in upholding our image policy doesn't indicate that you have a firm understanding and strong commitment to it. I have no idea if Quadell was right or wrong in the case you refer to, as I didn't follow it, and am in any case far more familiar with Wikipedia image policy than with American or international copyright law. In other words, I would be more in a position to state whether this non-free image could be used in a particular article than to state whether or not an image published in some country on some date is now PD. In such cases, I would defer to the judgment of those who show themselves to care about our image policy. If Quadell was wrong in the instance you refer to (and I have no idea whether or not that is the case), so what? Knowledgeable admins active in image work will make an occasional mistake. There is simply an enormous backlog of improperly tagged, unsourced, copyvio images. I've tagged images as missing a rationale when they did have one. I'm afraid that some of the editors pushing for non-free images in the articles that led to the disagreement between you and Quadell have shown that they have little knowledge of or commitment to our image copyright policies, by adding non-free images to talk pages, saying they didn't agree with the rules but that someone else could change them to links when it was pointed out, putting non-free images in their own users space and leaving them there for several weeks, and adding a non-free image of a living person to the article, or by condoning some of the above. It's possible to have excellent editors who do great work in article writing, but who don't know the image policy or don't care about it. If you're interested in discussing rather than insulting, please try to be less hostile. Thanks. ElinorD(talk)09:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've to question the validity of tagging and deleting images without the 'proper fair use' text you're performing in bulk orders with 7 days of warning. Users like me spend a lot of free time feeding good material to Wikipedia and it's really annoying to see fair work being wasted automatically and in bulk like you've been doing.
Yes, some images are lacking the proper fair use text, but some of them (in this case games screenshots) are clearly valid, so I would suggest that instead of simply deleting them you could, possibly, add the proper text yourself if your drive is to collaborate to the effort instead of just performing an apparently bureaucratic and automatic (thus prone to mistakes) job.
My two cents... I don't see value being added by this practice at all.
(Butting in here.) You may disagree with our policy, 212., but it really is our policy, arrived at by consensus. We all appreciate your being willing to spend your time uploading material to Wikipedia, but we also appreciate Elinor volunteering to help tag images, so that the uploaders have a chance to fix them. If you can add the proper source and license information to the images you upload, and refrain from uploading images that don't comply with our policy, then you will save yourself the time of having to go back and fix things, and you will also save volunteers like Elinor from having to clean up after you. All the best, – Quadell(talk) (random)12:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and see how valid this policy is. My point is that the images deleted are older than the policy itself. I rather see people adding the proper disclaimer to such images than simply deleting them after 7 days. My point is: why delete images that are not infringing any rule, just missing the proper copyright notice because they are older than this requirement? Since the image is clearly not infringing copyright (a game screenshot) wouldn't it be more productive to simply add the tags? I think this is far more collaborative and constructing than otherwise. Simply deleting stuff... Well, you're the guys ruling it, but I think this is rather shallow and against the whole point of a collaborative effort. The articles now missing the images are not better than before until I upload all the images again -- Wikipedia and its readers didn't benefit from this 'clean up'.
Thanks for clarifying that, Quadell. 212, I understand that it's frustrating to have your images deleted. You don't say which images they are, so I can't comment specifically. However, it is essential that each non-free image have a valid FU rationale mentioning every article it is used in, and explaining why it is necessary in that particular article. Some people get the impression that if an image is on Wikipedia, being used in one article, it can be put in other articles. That's not always the case. I recently saw an image of Saddam, which said in the FU rationale that it showed how easily Saddam sat in his throne. That would mean that the image could perhaps (though not necessarily) be used in a section discussing how easily he sat in his throne, assuming that that was something important enough to focus on in the article. However, I removed it from the article about the year 2006! You see, something that can significantly increase your understanding of one topic, can be decorative in another article.
I don't know if the images you refer to were valid fair use, as I don't know which ones they are. Sometimes one or two images might be appropriate in an article about cartoon characters, but not a gallery where every single character is illustrated. We're not supposed to over-use them. Normally, an image without a rationale would be tagged and the uploader notified by the person who tagged it. It would then be placed in a category of images tagged on that date as missing FU rationale. (There are also categories for images missing source information, etc.) After seven days, an admin would delete them. I sometimes find I'm dealing with an enormous backlog of images to be deleted. The uploader, who presumably has a special interest in the image, and has some knowledge of the subject matter, should really be the one to add the rationale. Of course, if somebody came to me and said they had been on holidays when the image was tagged for deletion, and they think it really is valid fair use in some article, I'd be quite happy to undelete the image so that they could write their rationale. I've sometimes even offered to give people more than the standard seven days, if they started making an effort to tag their many untagged images. Regards. ElinorD(talk)09:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user in question is edit-warring to reinsert material that violates BLP, and did so by deleting a comment in the text explicitly referring to the policy, so the edit was in deliberate contravention of the policy, and frankly merits a block without the warning. It's not even a remotely close question: it's a blog cite to an unnamed source that publishes controversial information about a living person. You're warning the wrong person. Please intervene. THF14:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't warn anyone. I don't really like issuing warnings, except in the case of privacy violations, as warnings are akin to threats, and take people's dignity away. I did gently suggest that it's not a good idea to leave template warnings for experienced users. I'm sorry I don't have time to look into this, but I repeat that there is no way that Guettarda would be guilty of vandalism, and calling his edit such weakens your case. If you have a valid BLP concern, please take it to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Thanks. ElinorD(talk)14:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I reverted the last edit by User:Nleobold to the Deborah Glick article, I gave him a very quick warning in the ES. I thought that trying yet again to explain matters to him would be a waste of time, in light of his past conduct.
I consider myself more patient than most people, but you've far surpassed me in your willingness to take the time to try to help him remain as a contributor. Your detailed explanation on his talk page is quite admirable. At this point, I think the case is hopeless and he will end up getting an indefinite block. Nevertheless, I agree with you that such a block is a serious step. Admins sometimes block too quickly. By contrast, you've gone out of your way to give Nleobold every chance to reform. Thanks for staying on top of the situation. JamesMLanetc12:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And for the nastygram he left on your page following your very kind note, I've blocked for 72 hours. Feel free to review this, as always. ~ Riana ⁂15:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hey, thanks for that, Riana. Nice to see there's someone looking after me. I suspected this was indefblock material quite some time ago, but wanted to give him a chance. ElinorD(talk)09:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - the article is protected specifically so we can discuss and come to consensus, but you haven't made a comment in 2 days. That is, of course, your right, but note what Wikipedia:Consensus says about silence. This is your chance to make an argument rather than a revert. --AnonEMouse(squeak)19:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please tell me what this
message refers to? In future, would you please try to make it clear what you are saying when you leave me a message, by using full sentences? Thanks for your help. User:Pedant10:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did use a full sentence, starting with a capital letter, and ending with a full stop. I said, "Please spend some time reading this, this, and this." In other words, I was telling you that you when an editor is trying to remain anonymous, you should not post on Wikipedia any speculation about that editor's real name or any links to sites that discuss that editor's identity, and that if you persist in doing so, you risk being blocked. I hope it's clearer now. ElinorD(talk)02:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you're welcome, but it's probably programmed to put that notice on your page if it's not there, and doesn't know that it has already put it there four times. Perhaps, if it happens again, it might be better to leave the notification until the article has actually been deleted? ElinorD(talk)20:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it's zero to quasi-Godwin in one move! (Elinor, you have now been warned -- cease subsuming corporations and other engines of capital into state structures, encouraging "nationality" to be the valid identifier for group loyalty, and ruthlessly stomping out Communism.) – Quadell(talk) (random)20:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh - you're right about the uploads, many of those look like copyvios. I'll start researching and tagging, I wish that Howcheng's script wasn't still broken. Videmus OmniaTalk00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Videmus; you're always very helpful. Yes, I've found it annoying that Howcheng's tool is broken. I didn't realise quite how wonderful it was until I tried to manage without it. ElinorD(talk)02:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What???? So even admins can engage in battles that are reprehensible? Whatever. BTW, yeah I tag regulars whenever I deem it appropriate. Several other more respectable individuals (admins too) were reverting his one-man deletion war. And I'm going to trust Guettarda over someone I've never seen before. And calling me troll??? Whatever. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions01:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's only trollling when the point you happen to be making is correct, and the offending party (i.e., the one you are notifying) refuses to see the correctness of your comment. Admittedly, one really should not tag the regulars, but the rest of Elinor's arguments are like so much effluvium wending its way to the cloacae. •Jim62sch•22:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orangemarlin, admins can remove non-free images from pages to make them conform to Foundation policy. There's nothing "reprehensible" about that. I didn't call you a troll; I said that I was removing trolling. Trolling is being deliberately inflammatory on the internet. This strongly suggests that you were being deliberately inflammatory. As for trusting Guettarda, I'm not quite sure why you'd trust someone who isn't involved with image work over someone who is, when it relates to a question over image policy, regardless of how you may trust him as a friend or as an Intelligent design expert. There are some areas of Wikipedia that I don't interest myself in. Closing AfDs is one of them. You'd be much better off trusting someone who does that regularly, if you want to know about the correct policy in that area, rather than trusting me, regardless of my level of personal integrity. If the regular editors of Intelligent design were people who really knew and respected and promoted image policy, there is no way that FU images could have been added to the talk page, that they could have been added to user space, and that a non-free image of a living person could have been in the article for a few weeks. I don't hold it against people that they don't have any particular interest in image work. I just think it's a bit illogical to consider them to be experts who are in a position to explain to the regular image workers that their understanding of policy is all wrong. Why not ask Jimbo or Mindspillage? They both have some level of authority in the Foundation, and they're both known to be interested in image policy.
By the way, Jim, it's interesting to see you say that one should not template the regulars. It was actually your templating of Abu badali that made me aware of this dispute and consequently brought me into it. I didn't have Intelligent design on my watchlist, but I did have his talk page. ElinorD(talk)02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to know I'm "educated", and sorry for the big delay in replying. Unfortunately, I'm actually not particularly educated in that area. Sorry. Nice idea for a category, though, and I hope you manage to find more pages for it. ElinorD(talk)02:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for your support on the Darwin book covers I removed from various articles. I made several tactical errors in handling the issues and I believe the decision is now beyond the IFD forum. I am going to remove the August 21 entry from WP:IFD#Old_discussions. If you feel it is still necessary for this listing to be there, feel free to revert my edit and I will leave it alone. -Kindest Regards Nv8200ptalk02:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A request for arbitration involving you has been filed here. Please view the request, and add any statements you feel are necessary for the ArbCom to consider in deciding whether to hear the dispute. Videmus OmniaTalk03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Rm image with no fair use rationale, about to be deleted)
This seems a bit odd, since that very edit deleted the text:
"<!-- Fair use rationale: We are specifically discussing the module itself, here, and its contents. The image is used to illustrate this reference.-->
And I'm certain that the image page included similar text. Also, no notice was given on my talk page that this action was being taken (in which case, I would have been happy to address whatever concern it was). This image was uploaded in good faith, and in compliance with all applicable policies at the time that it was uploaded. If policies have become stricter over time in some way, it would make sense to contact the uploader and explain the situation rather than opening up with guns blazing. -Harmil05:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in replying. First of all, the rationale has to be on the image page, not on the page of the article it appears in. Of course, if an admin saw an extremely convincing, carefully-written rationale on the article page, it would be appropriate to move it to the image page. But on the other hand, I think an admin could be forgiven for missing it, as there is often a huge backlog of images waiting to be deleted. (On the day that I deleted that image, the images for deletion because of no Fair Use rationales had a five-day backlog, and there are often hundreds of images for each date.) Also, many admins use a special tool to remove images from pages, so might not even see that there was an invisible rationale on the article page. (On the date when I removed that image, I was not using a tool.) And the rationale that you quote from the article page was certainly not sufficient as a rationale. See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.
Next, the uploader was contacted; according to the deleted history, you are not the uploader. Nor had you ever edited that image page. The uploader, according to the deleted history, was User:Frecklefoot, and he was notified on 9 July, just when the image was being tagged as missing a rationale, and twelve days before it was actually deleted. See here. The deleted page history shows that the image had the following information: "Cover of D & D module, covered under "fair use," original from "The Acaeum" (http://www.acaeum.com/), used with permission", as well as the {{Non-free book cover}}. Now, I'm sure you'll appreciate that a FU rationale has to state exactly why something is covered under fair use, not just state that it is covered! Additionally "used with permission" is not recognised by Wikipedia. If people are not prepared to license their images in such a way as to allow people to redistribute, modify, and sell them, then the fact that they've given permission to us, or that they've given permission to anyone as long as there's no commercial use involved, etc. is irrelevant. We can't use such images. See WP:CSD#I3. I hope that explains the deletion. ElinorD(talk)01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering why Image:KDKAcoverage.gif was deleted. I kinda figured it would be, but I thought it was a neat idea to have the coverage for the TV station like we have coverage links for radio stations. Take Care and Enjoy Your Weekend...NeutralHomerT:C00:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in answering, Neutralhomer. The deletion log states that it was deleted because it didn't fulfil WP:CSD#I4. That means either that there was no source information to show where it had come from, so that other Wikipedians could verify the licence or that there was no copyright tag to show what kind of licence it had. OrphanBot tagged it with {{untagged}} and would then have left a message for the uploader, who would have had seven days to fix the problem. He'd also have been told that he could go to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for advice if he was unsure of which tag to use. When the bot tagged the image as lacking copyright information, the image would have been automatically placed in a category of images tagged on that date as lacking copyright information. When seven days had passed, administrators would delete the images, if the problems hadn't been fixed. At this stage, I can't remember which article it was in. If it was in an article where it could be validly seen as fair use, I wouldn't have any objection to undeleting it, so that the correct licensing information could be added. Hope that helps, and sorry again about the delay. ElinorD(talk)02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elinor, you deleted Image:Davewong.jpg with the justification Speedy deleted per (CSD i7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago. I had expanded the rationale, added {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template (as instructed), and added an explanation at the talk page Image talk:Davewong.jpg. This was after I spent the best part of an hour a fruitlessly searching for a free image. Please explain what was invalid about the expanded rationale. - Fayenatic(talk)15:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Elinor, I accept that you are busy, but see that you are actively editing daily, so I hope you will find the time to explain why you deleted an image which had the following fair use justification. The template was transcluded in full, not tlx'd as shown here.
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed|There are no images of this singer in Chinese Wikipedia, nor on Flickr. I have spent more than 30 minutes searching the web and have only found images that appear to be copyright. I will try fan forums but until anything comes up there is no free replacement for this image.}}
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
It is a low resolution copy of part of a CD album cover.
The image is a photo of Dave Wong who is the subject of the article.
No free or public domain images have been located for this singer.
For an article about a person, a picture showing their face is very important and adds significantly to the article.
It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the CD album in any way.
Copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the album artwork on another CD, as it is only part of the cover.
More complete versions of this image are used on various websites, so its use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible than it already is. The cover is being used for informational purposes only.
Having stuff deleted after I thought I'd met all the requirements is frustrating. I'm still learning the ropes here after 6000 edits, so looking forward to your explanation, Fayenatic(talk)21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Butting in here) Greetings. I'm an uninvolved admin with Elinor's talkpage on my watchlist, and I think I might be able to help you understand. Our first non-free content criterion forbids us from using an image if a free image could be found or created to replace it. It's quite possible that no free images of this subject currently exist, but since the person is still alive, a new image could be created. That's why the Wikimedia licensing resolution says we "may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." I hope this helps! – Quadell(talk) (random)22:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Quadell; that helps a bit. The resolution strikes me as idealistic and unrealistic, and if I had been involved I would have argued for an exemption for very low-resolution images. If the powers that be resolve to wipe thousands of images off articles next March, to the disappointment of countless editors and readers, so be it. Meanwhile, I will try to defend English Wikipedia's use of Fair Use photos of people fron non-anglophone countries, as we cannot nip out to snap them before breakfast. I still think this deletion was unwarranted pre-March 2008 as I had added the above "replaceable disputed" template and rationale. Fayenatic(talk)08:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Quadell, for butting in. I hope you'll always feel free to do so. Fayenatic, I can't apologise for deleting the image, as I was perfectly within policy, but I should have made an effort to answer you sooner, and I do apologise for that. I sometimes postpone some of the longer replies. I have little to add to Quadell's explanation. Some of my thoughts on the issue can be found in an answer I made to someone with a similar complaint here. Spending more than thirty minutes searching the web for a free image is not a sufficient justification for using a non-free one. Jimbo's view is that we are "much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even 'wikipedia only' photo." That's in the context of an ordinary photo of a random celebrity. He does make an exception for historically significant photos such as that of Elian Gonzales.[4] Hope that helps. ElinorD(talk)02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know about it. Thank you. Any idea how long it should take between deletion and removal? I hate leaving a page looking messy? And I've found that TWINKLE doesn't work in removing images when the images are in an infobox; and it never works when they're in a gallery. ElinorD(talk)02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for deleting the illustration of Situationist Times No. 5. It mademe so happy to find my work competely trashed and read anincorrect staement as to why this had beendone. It makes me feel so mch a part of the wikipedia project when I am asked to fill in licenese information, in a fashionwhich gives no room for the particular form of permission for reproduction which was placed on Situationist Times, which i quoted infull in the information attached to the upload. I even went and asked the best way to deal with this on the question page, only to be given a response which was not on the limited range of selected and was at acomplete loss of what to do. Fortunastely I am bound by the wikipedia injunction to assume good faith and to remain civil, otherwise I would probably succumb to the temptation to share withyou the negative emotions I am experiencing as regards your behaviour. So rather let me congratulate you on being a complete cunctator, and rest assured that despite your "help", all these delays will be overcome. People like you make the wikipedia experience so unique.Harrypotter17:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Harrypotter. I'm sorry it's been a frustrating experience for you. I've had a look into the situation, and I see that you asked about it here. It does seem to be complicated to choose which tag to use. Geni suggested on 2 September that you could use {{PD-release}}. You could probably have avoided the deletion by doing that. I'm not quite sure that it would be the correct tag, but I recognise that Geni would know more about copyright policy than I would.
Please understand that there is absolutely nothing personal in an administrator's deletion of an image you uploaded. It was uploaded without a copyright tag — not your fault, as it was difficult to know which one to choose. A bot tagged it as missing some necessary information, and left a notification at your page. When the bot tagged it on 1 September, it automatically added that image to a category of images with no copyright information on 1 September. You then had seven days to fix the problem. Once midnight had passed and it was 9 September, the category of images missing information on 1 September turned into a category of images to be speedily deleted. There are always several hundred images to get through each day. Sometimes there are backlogs for several days. I deleted over two hundred images today.
Regarding the "incorrect" statement as to why the image had been deleted, the deletion log says that it "was an image lacking sources or licensing information for more than seven days." That's perfectly correct. It was lacking some licensing information for more than seven days. Nobody's blaming you for it, but it was lacking the information about which licence exactly it had been released under. Except for obvious copyright violations or frivolous fair use claims, I'm always happy to consider undeleting an image if I think there's a reasonable chance that whatever was wrong originally can be fixed. ElinorD(talk)02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Help to provide correct license and use information
Hi. I was just going to reply that a non-free image of a logo is normally considered acceptable in an article about the particular organisation it represents, and was going to offer to undelete the image, but I see you've re-uploaded it. I had deleted it because we don't accept permission for Wikipedia. See WP:CSD#I3. The tagging and rationale seem fine to me, and Pekaje's advice looks sound. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)20:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like "convicted criminal" in the first line either, but that seems to be the most sensible thing to refer to her as. "Maxine Ann Carr... is an English woman" is very vague, it's bit ike saying "Ian Huntley is an English man", (and the link to woman looks odd). I don't mind if "convicted criminal" isn't there, as long it explains why she's notable in the first line. Masaruemoto20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point about "English woman", but I remain very uncomfortable with the "convicted criminal" language in the opening. I've tried this solution. I hope that's okay. ElinorD(talk)02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
