User talk:Elissa Rubria Honoria
Welcome to Wikipedia!
[edit]
|
Elissa Rubria Honoria, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi Elissa Rubria Honoria! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
"Anti-gay law"
[edit]There is no such law in Russia. However, there is one which protects children from homosexual propaganda. --Tomcat (7) 15:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am restoring your reversion per WP:SOAP. The events involved were multiply documented and notable. Please don't trouble me like this again. You've been around long enough to know the score. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 20
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emma Green Tregaro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thanks. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
August 2013
[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to LGBT rights in Russia may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- ГД приняла закон об усилении наказания за пропаганду гомосексуализма среди подростков|publisher=[[РБК (медиахолдинг)|[[RBC Information Systems|РБК]]|date=2013-06-11|accessdate=2013-06-11|archiveurl=
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thanks. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Reeva Steenkamp in Johannesburg, South Africa.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LGA talkedits 09:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have responded thus:
- This file should not be speedy deleted as having an invalid fair-use claim, because the image, being a thumbnail, is transformative as determined in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation. Moreover Getty Images is not normally considered to be a press agency but rather a stock-photo agency. To ban all images from it makes a mockery of Wikipedia's committment to fair use. The elevation of Getty Images to a press agency was the result of an inexpert edit here and was challenged at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_55#Photo_agency_images_and_NFC.23UUI7 where no consensus was reached. That the image is the property of a news agency is in any case irrelevant to fair use rationale as the relevant ruling specifically allows news reporting as a fair use. Wikipedia's problem with news images arises because in fact, whatever it attempts to decaim otherwise, the encyclopaedia can be used as a news source. Thus its home page has in in its top right corner a news section. It follows that copyright issues could indeed arise if Wikipedia were to gain a reputation as being, for example, a repository of the latest sleb tat. However in the case of Reeva Steenkamp she is deceased and we are talking about about a historical figure and not a news story.
- WP:GID guidance for images that may not meet non-free content criteria, as you appear to think, is to list at Wikipedia:Non-free content review and I ask you to do me the courtesy of doing that.
- I am copying to my Talk page. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
File:Emma Green Tregaro competing with rainbow coloured nail varnish at the 2013 Moscow Championships.jpg listed for deletion
[edit]A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Emma Green Tregaro competing with rainbow coloured nail varnish at the 2013 Moscow Championships.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. LGA talkedits 09:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- I havew responded thus:
- It's precisely because the nails are tiny that a relatively large file (some 126,000 bytes) was uploaded, as is allowed in fair use. Of course an interested viewer would click to the full size image where the nails can clearly be seen. It is important to have an image because a poet, for example, wishing to write verse on the gesture would need to see an image, thus fulfilling the basic requirement of fair use that it advances creativity and understanding.
- Do you have any other concerns other than this rather technical and minor issue? Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:Nafissatou Diallo with Kenneth Thompson at the Bronx Supreme Court on 10 December 2012.jpg
[edit]A tag has been placed on File:Nafissatou Diallo with Kenneth Thompson at the Bronx Supreme Court on 10 December 2012.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. January (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Innocent until proved
the old man foamed usual suspect
a tired bead just about a glitter you might call it
escaping his prepuce unobserved.
Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding those speedy deletions
[edit]My first reaction to the speedy deletions above was to retire my account and seek discussion at the website Wikipediocracy, supposedly a forum for the discussion and criticism of Wikipedia. I was somewhat taken aback however to discover the standard of debate there is for the most part quite infantile. There's certainly no chance at all of getting an intelligent, let alone informed, debate there on the way Wikipedia interprets "fair use" because that forum considers fair use in any form to be property theft and Wikipedia in general as an existential threat to civilisation as-we-know-it-today. So FTFAGOS and good luck with the book losers, love Brian ...
However back here I don't really have time to take on the cavalry. What it amounts to is that Wikipedia currently is not prepared to allow images from commercial agencies using any form of fair use except in the relatively rare circumstance of the image itself being the subject of commentary. All others are speedily deleted whatever the Wikimdedia foundation has actually resolved. Here's the operative edit and this is the 'consensus' referred to in that edit. Go figure.
I might challenge it yet all the same (just give me a few weeks to work through all that consensus ...). Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- No chance of my ever ploughing through all that 'consensus'. I have no observations to make. I think it would be a good idea if Wikipedia was more honest about its policy. The fact is that it won't allow the fair use of historical images unless they are iconic and/or the object of discussion.
- What we do know about settled case law in the US regarding 'fair use' of images is that the indexing of images by search engines is established as fair use. Presently Wikipedia has mark-up for image galleries which link to images that Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons hold. I suggest they develop markup for web galleries (thumbnail images no larger than those used by search engines) which link directly to the web image involved, the contents of these galleries to be contributed by users. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
[edit]
|
Hey, I've enjoyed working with you; enjoy your break. Please consider rephrasing your last post at Talk:2013 Ghouta attacks after you get back; I understand that you felt words were being put in your mouth (on your keyboard?) but escalation is not going to help. Thanks for your consideration; see you around! VQuakr (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
- Cheers, VQuakr. I'll strike out the cuss word :). I will be looking in. I do like the article. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely
[edit] |
CheckUser evidence has determined that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked permanently to prevent abuse. Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, and therefore must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement). -- Ruhrfisch (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Comments: If you would like to explain or possibly be unblocked, you will need to email functionaries-en |
