User talk:Mikestilly

File copyright problem with File:CARino911.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:CARino911.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^(talk) 20:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Levin

Don't let BobMifune intimidate you on the the Mark Levin page. He doesn't intimidate me. His latest personal attack on me was just a few minutes ago when he called a legitimate comment I added vandalism ("rvv" in the history comment). He bulldozes over WP:AGF. Just do the right thing by Wikipedia, don't get overly concerned with his actions, and continue to edit the page in accordance with Wiki guidelines. Like your removal of the old caption from the old picture was proper. His restoring the caption, twice now so far, is unjustified. But that's his style of editing. He's reversed even some of my plain grammatical edits.

If I have a suggestion, it is to continue to edit properly, but try not to get drawn in when BobMifune starts to personally attack you, if he has not already. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could use some help. He's completely revising the entire page to suit his needs. Let me guess next he's going to insert 10 Media Matters and Solon sitations. Mikestilly (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what he does. Looking at his stats, he's only made 122 edits total and most of them by far relate to Mark Levin. I have been unable to keep up with his fast pace of personal attacks and biased edits, so I cannot help you. But if you, me, and others interested in making the page Wiki complaint work together, that might make a difference.

Now Mark Levin suggested that, but his method of doing so is seen as "vandalism" here on Wikipedia. In reality, if people would simply stick to Wiki policy, his page can be improved and made Wiki compliant, unlike the way it is now due in large part to BobMifune.

I see you just got blocked. Don't get excited or discouraged, you are new here. Heck I was recently blocked and I'm old! Take your time to learn the ways of Wikipedia on lots of Wiki pages, then you will be a much more effective editor. Compliance with Wiki policy and especially WP:AGF will be the way to go. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely be trying again later. There is not much I can do if they allow these vandals to revise things without any regard to the standards of the article. I find it frustrating. Mikestilly (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take this time to read Wiki policies. Basically, you can make any changes you wish, as long as they are not your POV and are backed up by WP:RS. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, do not keep reverting someone more that twice, even people like BobMifune. There's no rush -- any problems, take it to the Talk page and discuss and obtain consensus. That's how to avoid "edit warring." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you blocked for 24 hr for 7 reverts on Mark Levin

Our policy on edit warring - WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR explicitly prohibit this type of behavior.

This was not acceptable on either of your parts. Both your accounts are blocked for 24 hrs.

Please discuss on talk pages and avoid fighting content back and forth on article pages in the future, when the block expires.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like his vandalism was kept as the final result. Why not revert it back to it's original state. Mikestilly (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you and he can talk it out after 24 hrs, on the article talk page. You two will need to get along going forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Levin large-square.jpg

You uploaded File:Levin large-square.jpg, then you replaced a user-created file, File:MarkLevingBookends.jpg, with that same file. That isn't helpful. First, it isn't clear that File:Levin large-square.jpg is a "free-use" image. It appears to be a commercial image and if you are the owner of it then you need to make that claim. Second, even if you own the image there's no reason for over-writing the other image, which is clearly free. If you want to change the image in the article, then the way to do that is by changing the file name in the article, not over-writing a legitimate image. Does that make sense? Will Beback talk 03:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I have no idea what you're talking about "overwriting." I clearly saw both images existing in the history. Mikestilly (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's right. Copyright is very important here. Follow the directions and you can get the picture added properly. I got a picture added for Felice Picano added by following directions. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will go back tomorrow and take a look at the directions. Thanks for the advise.Mikestilly (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're uploading a different image, you name it a different name. If you're editing the same image, you can use the same name and replace it. But replacing one image with another one, with different copyright, with the same name, is not proper here.

That's what Will meant by overwriting.

Regarding licensing - we need the verification that the new image is released under an appropriate license for Wikipedia. As there exists a generally acceptable quality freely licensed image now, we cannot put a fair use image in its place - it has to be another freely licensed (GFDL, Creative Commons license, etc) image. We have a policy that allows fair use images in some circumstances - such as where no free image exists - but not to replace acceptable free images.

If you are the copyright holder on the bookend image and can legally release it, that's fine. If not, we can't accept it under the current circumstances. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Bookend" image was uploaded a couple of months ago by user:Howardform, who apparently attends many book signings. There's no question about that image's license. The only complaint there is that it sin't an attractive photo. The file uploaded by user:Mikestilly is File:Levin large-square.jpg. It's much more attractive, so attractive that it appears to have been professionaly made, presumably under contract to Levin. If so, then Levin, or perhaps some company, probably owns the copyright. There is a mechanism that allows for him to grant a license to allow the Wikimedia Commons to host the image. See WP:PERMISSION for details. Will Beback talk 07:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Levin large-square.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Levin large-square.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]