User talk:Anetode/archive 10

/archives

/archive 1
/archive 2
/archive 3
/archive 4
/archive 5
/archive 6
/archive 7
/archive 8
/archive 9

I will respond on your talk page unless you specify otherwise.

My User Page

Alright, I want to know exactly why my user page was deleted by you? What gives you the right to go around deleting other users pages? So what if it was a gallery of images (as you called it); I'm entitled to have whatever I want on my page and so is everyone else. I want a response within 24 hours or I will hack onto your PC. You have been warned. -JJN195, 5:12 PM, 8/05/07

Image:Ladyday.jpg

Image:Ladyday.jpg appears to have been uploaded by you and tagged with PD-LOC (though you may not have tagged it that way). That image license tag is deprecated now because the fact that the image came from the Library of Congress does not actually imply that it is public domain. I've tagged the image with nld, could you please take a look and provide the correct license, if possible? Thanks! --Yamla 22:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:84.43.29.130

After posting on AN/I I realised I should have probably posted on AIV, but thanks for sorting it out anyway. Darrenhusted 02:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

geraldckane: feedback request

Please see the following page in relation to our discussion regarding my survey. user:geraldckane/feedbackrequest I'd appreciate your feedback before I continue my work. --geraldckane 16:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

George Carlin mugshot

I was kind of surprised to see you defending the use of this image so vigorously. Perhaps it's because of the free speech issues that Carlin's case represents, but perhaps if I take a different approach that might make this clearer as to why this should be an open-and-shut case of improper usage. Start with Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use #7. Magazine covers are routinely deleted daily because they only accompany text like, "Joe Bloggs appeared on the cover of TIME magazine." Valid uses of magazine covers are like Image:Vanity Fair August 1991.JPG in Demi Moore, Image:OJ Simpson Newsweek TIME.png in photo editing, or the movie poster and magazine cover in Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. So replace "magazine cover" in the text of this example of unacceptable use with "mugshot" -- why should this be any different? In response to your detailed DRV post, the NFCC do not explicitly require sourced discussion of an image because it's already covered in Wikipedia:No original research. NFCC #8 is intended to set the bar high so that we don't use non-free media unless it's required to make a point. You may call Abu's (and my) interpretation of policy "myopic" but it has strong consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content where such policy is being written. As far as I'm concerned, this is the first step on a slippery slope. Given this ruling, now there's precedent for other editors to add random non-free mug shots of people who have been arrested for whatever reason (I just recently deleted Bill Gates' young mug shot, for example). I know you think that Carlin's arrest is more significant than Gates', but that is a judgment call. It's better for the encyclopedia (IMHO) to have a more objective line in the sand: Is the image itself being commented on, and does that commentary reflect published opinion? That's the point Abu and I have been trying to make, and I suppose it took me too long to actually make it clear (at least I hope my reasoning is clear to you). (As a side note, let's just keep the discussion here on this page if you so choose to respond. Thanks.) howcheng {chat} 17:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and expanding on your reasoning. One point I brought up in the course of the DRV was the copyright status. I think that using a mugshot to illustrate an arrest has a wholly different basis than using, say, a news agency photograph of the person being arrested. While the latter is a commercial work with tangible commercial value, the former is the public record of an event. If the arrest is for mundane reasons, as was the case with Bill Gates' traffic violation, the mugshot contributes nothing to the article. If the arrest is notable, was widely discussed and had a profound influence (not only on Carlin, in this case), then I think it deserves to be documented to the best of our ability. I don't think that this is a judgment call or a matter of original research being used to establish notability, as the Carlin's arrest has been discussed in many sources (including Intellectual Freedom: a reference handbook by John Harer, The Politics of Law Enforcement: Conflict and Power in Urban Communities by Alan Edward Bent, The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies, 1789-1993, I am awaiting the delivery of the latter to expand the article). Using a public record to accompany a critical discussion of a First Amendment case does not violate NFCC#8. It is, in my opinion, required to make a point.

I want to assure you, however, that it was not my intent to provide a first step to a slippery slope. The reason I vigorously defended (perhaps rudely at times, I'm sorry about that) use of this image was not because I think the NFCC don't have a reasonable basis or should be circumvented. I believe that the fair use claim of each image should be well justified. Nevertheless, I don't agree with Abu's careless manner in dismissing the editorial value of Carlin's mugshot ("Unnecessary, non-notable, non-free mugshot of an actor"). I think that if he had closely examined the context for usage and the history of events relating to Carlin's arrest, he would have strong reason not to use terms like unnnecessary or non-notable. It is sad when image patrollers use preconceptions in judging images categorically, and I have learned the consequences of this fallacy after having some very enlightening conversations with uploaders regarding prior image deletions. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Replaceable fair use Image:Djbabswalgreen.gif

I'd like to thank you for the notice on Image:Djbabswalgreen.gif. I felt that it was alright to post it for a more experienced user happened to always use this and got away with it, but I guess this proves why you shouldnt always follow in every situation. I actually was hoping for a notice on this just because i felt that it was going to be against policy. Once again, thank you. --Apologies2all 12:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jagzthebest

Please explain on this user's talk page why you indef-blocked his account. He has requested to be unblocked, but he is unable to explain why his request is justified when you provided no justification at all. Rklawton 23:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Rationales

You will note the collapased message list format, throttling that back to 20 per uploader per day should be reasonable, and allowing an extended grace period would also be a good recomendation. I would also STRONGLY suggest that the templates be extended to allow for an additonal grace period.. say 1 month on initial notification, and only move to the 7 Day pre-nuke phase after that..

Another alternative strategy is to have image related messages on a sub page?

Any other thoughts? Sfan00 IMG 12:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Amyphoto deletion discussion

Per the Amyphoto.jpb image discussion, at which point is it necessary to remove the deletion tag. I'm willing to write her parents, or ask James Renner to ask her parents - if it is "free use", but that isn't the point of free use. There are plenty of justifications that the image is in the public domain. Asking the parents to release the picture into GFDL isn't appropriate, as she might (theoretically) wind up on an article about teenagers (or whatever). The parents shouldn't have to give up their rights to GFDL just to satisfy VO, who is being overly critical about the image copyrights. What do you propose should be done here? Can the deletion tag be removed?

For the record, VO had 2 open ANIs on him last week for having targeted JR, and a few other people. I think you can still see them up there. Thanks, BlueSapphires 15:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I totally agree that it has been satisfied. I'll pop Mr. Renner an email (found it on his blog) and ask him to confirm the copyright holder (probably the parents). That really shouldn't be necessary. But whatever. 'Some people' seem to be focused on racking up the number of GFDLs licences, and GFDL isn't appropriate for a murdered little girl - nor should the parents be forced to remit ownership of her image to Wp for that. She could wind up on an article about 'whatever' and that's not ok. How can this be closed? Will you please watch out for the outcome?BlueSapphires 15:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. Does Wikipedia make money off of the images? Are they going for being another Corbis? I didn't know that GFDL accrual was such a big deal. It explains much - any why certain people are being a certain way. BlueSapphires 15:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

William Doe

I see that the article on Prof William Doe has been removed and I wondered if you could tell me why. He is a former Professor of Medicine at ANU, University of Sydney and Dean of Medicine at the University of Birmingham and would as such seem notable. I would appreciate your advice as I would like to see this article returned.Tallum 01:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

record labels

Hi, You're probably best off deleting the link to the label altogether, rather than just removing the brackets from around the label's name. Lugnuts 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:FELIXARD images

I had a chance to look at the OTRS email; his permissions claim was rejected by OTRS staff, yet he still uploaded the images. I have taken the liberty to delete the images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anetode. Thanks for the welcome. I'm really just feeling my way around as yet. Thanks for the links. I was beginning to ask myself if there was a Wiki style guide and other such things. Kazzandra 10:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive help!

Howdy, if you're not too busy or this is a too trivial a matter I do apologise in advance. I have requested that a bot archive my talk page. And this has been done, but, I do not know where my talk page has been archived to... the bot indicates a red link (empty)! This is most perplexing... Could you help me in figuring out what I should do? Thankyou in advance. Scarian^Talk 10:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks anetode! I just decided to do it manually from now on. Took me a while to figure that out though, hehe. Oh btw, is it possible to archive smiles and barnstars etc. on a seperate page? Or is that not allowed? Scarian^Talk 11:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Anetode! I seperated all my things into different categories, it looks much neater but not very exciting. But anyways, cheers again, friend! Scarian^Talk 02:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Bsw2645

Nice move on that Bsw2645 fella, didn't know u was an admin. Ryan4314 05:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

IrishGuy Update

Hi anetode, I just wanted to make a point. I think I have.

I do not have the time to keep up with IrishGuy.

Its just not fair that he delets everyones articles then shuts them out.

I was acting as the vioce of all the people he has deleted.

From this point on the discusions will be more civil.

Feel free to unprotect the articles at anytime.

Feel free to pass this on to IrishGuy as I do not have a way to communicate with him

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Thomas

Although articles which have been deleted through a XfD process are eligible for speedy deletion, this article was not because the most recent version was a different article than the one deleted in 2005, they just happen to have the same name, not an uncommon occurance with common names. Dsmdgold 20:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, articles like this use to make it to VfD all the time. When AfD became clogged with them, what is now CSD A7, "no claim to notability made", was created. In this case, this seems to have been hoax, so I see no need to restore it. Dsmdgold 22:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template the regulars

I ask you to reconsider your comments at the deletion review of this essay, in light of my later comments. i had made an edit (this one) I considered quite significant to the essay, after it was previously deleted and restored, and the recent deletion also deletes that edit. DES ^(talk) 15:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that at he time of the deletion, the majority of the content was by Giggy. Specifically, out of 1062 words (6,120 characters), I had contributed 439 words (2527 characters) -- as counted by MS word. I don't agree that this is "the vast majority". But even if it were, WP:CSD#G7 says "...provided the page's only substantial content was added by that author." I take that to mean that essentially 100% of the content must be by a single author. I don't think that the page as it was when deleted fits this criterion, although it probably did when I earlier restored it. DES ^(talk) 16:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

A proposal has been made to merge Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge into I-35W Mississippi River bridge. The matter is being discussed at Talk:Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge. Please feel free to comment. Thank you. Kablammo 18:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Hello,

I'm sorry to do this, but as I said, an editor who disagreed with me clearly said that any other poll would be shut down sooner.

Do you have any advice on how I can handle this?

Thanks, Horlo 04:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

From what I gleaned from the request for a third opinion, it was an option for a dispute between two editors.

I also looked at other requests, such as request for mediation or request for arbitration, but it seems that for those steps to proceed, a clear "trail" must be shown - how other attempts have been made, but have failed. That's why I was trying to start another poll.

What is the procedure for a request for a third opinion?

Thanks, Horlo 04:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Acorahrama

Er, question, why did you delete the talk page of user:Acorahrama? The account is a vandal only account.Balloonman 04:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Please see Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He was blocked before for harrasment. I post a note on WP:ANI about him. He was blocked in the last 2 weeks for one week for harrasment. Now, he edit wars again. Severe block this time please. --BOT2008BOT 15:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)