Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:16, 16 March 2007

Quadell's talk archives

The full archive

Just the most recent

Question: AB

It means "ABsentee uploader" or it looks like it used to mean that. I guess somewhere along the line somebody changed the list of abbreviations and took that one off and I wasn't paying attention. What is the standard now? I see some AU. Is that the convention now - Absentee Uploader? I don't see those initials listed either in the "common reasons for deletion" Let me know and I will try to conform, but forgive me if you see more AB - old habits are hard to break sometime -Regards Nv8200p talk 14:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Subglacial map of Greenland

I came here to ask why you'd removed the subglacial map of Greenland and saw that you've already dealt with a question on why you remove images. That's fine, but if you would leave an Edit Summary explaining why, people like me would know that you're deleting the images for a reason and not as an act of vandalism. It would save us the effort of coming here to question you—or to leave a user warning. Thanks. —Largo Plazo 20:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I left an edit summary, which was a link to the page in question containing the debate. – Quadell 21:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you intended to, but your edit summary reads "(-deleted image)"! —Largo Plazo 21:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Aha! You meant for editing the article. Yes, I see your point. I was referring to the summary upon the image's deletion. – Quadell 21:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

On Accuracy and Objectivity

Quadell - I am not completely dissatisfied with the deletion of the "spoof of Time cover" in the Michael Netzer biography for the reason you cited. At least, it appears to dismiss the claim that the image was superfluous and merely decorative. This said, I did not have an opportunity to defend its deletion on the grounds that though the image is a satire of a Time cover as an issue of fair use, it remains a serious, accurate, unbiased, and publicly known representation of the subject, perhaps the best representation of the artist's work and how he is perceived in the comics and entertainment industries today - moreso than any of the other images there presently - thus its presence on the page bears no satirical ramifications.

I've walked a fine line in my involvement with that article and don't wish to make an issue of it. I simply feel the article itself and the Misplaced Pages project are enhanced by its presence, in light of the accurate and objective representation it holds. If this defense of maintaining it sheds a new light which might reverse your decision, accuracy and objectivity may become better served. If not, for reasons you're likely to explain, I will accept it with pleasure, having become more knowlegeable in the ways of Misplaced Pages. Best regards, MichaelNetzer 03:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Schilde.jpg

Hello, I have a question since your are more knowledgeable of image policy than I. I am not sure where else to take this. This Image:Schilde.jpg is in nine different articles by the same author about a family, yet the image caption states it's the city shield of Schilde . It seems to not have rationale for being in those articles. I don't know Dutch so using systran translation from the links provided didn't help much except reinforce that permission must be gotten and I don't see that indicated on the image page. The question is should this image of a city shield be in bios? Thank you. --Dakota 20:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've looked into this, but I'm afraid I don't know whether that's appropriate or not. Sorry I can't be more help. – Quadell 11:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :)--– Dakota 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dropkick.jpg

I would like to ask you to reconsider your deletion of the above image as "replaceable fair use." the above image depicts an important moment in the career of Doug Flutie and a notable event from the perspective of NFL lore. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't know that particular kick was notable. I re-added it. – Quadell 11:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If you get a chance, would you mind closing up the two outstanding IfDs on the image? I would, but I try to avoid conflicts of interest in my use of admin duties and whatnot. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Question on TV highlights from Internet on image

Hello. I was referred to you both by User:After Midnight and User:PageantUpdater on image issues. I have a question regarding images from video highlights the Internet on information about sports competition. This is in regards to the recently completed 2007 FIS Nordic World Ski Championships in Sapporo. Can a paused video highlight from Eurosport.com that is saved and then uploaded be considered a copyright for a TV screenshot under Fair-Use? Please advise. Thank you. Chris 14:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is tricky. In order for us to use a "fair use" image, we have to fulfill all our fair use criteria. Since the Championship is a non-repeatable event, any photo of the events that day would probably pass criterion #1. But there are exceptions. If the photo is only being used to show what a given athlete looks like, then it could be replaced by a new photo, and thus we can't use the photo.

Also criterion #1 isn't the only thing to look for. For criterion #2, if Eurosport.com is selling the photographs or using them to make a profit, and if our use could decrease the worth of their copyright, then we can't use the photos. According to criterion #3, the photos should be low-resolution, and we shouldn't use too many photos on a single page. Etc. You should carefully read over the fair use criteria. Then, if you think a photo passes, go ahead and upload it. If you have a question about a specific photo, let me know. – Quadell 14:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Dental_x-ray.jpg

03:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Womans_legs.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Womans_legs.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Selket 16:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: jayjg

What a timely event that you left me a message, as I was about to make a notice on the admin noticeboard/incidents.

Yes, I would very much like your opinion on the matter.

A user informed me on my talk page that jayjg may have violated WP:NPA, and cited these two examples:

I did find those comments offensive (and false as well), and I notified jayjg on his talk page regarding the issue. Jayjg then proceeded to remove the warning, citing his "big yellow box". It was at this point that I asked some other users for help as well. . All three of these users were related to the issue (on the Talk:Israeli apartheid page). They also had concerns that Jayjg may have violated WP:NPA. I then put another message on jayjg's talk page to tell him that removing warning templates is bad form, and he proceeded to remove that as well, and accused me of stalking . I reverted his edit, but then I reread WP:TALK and realized that was a bad idea, so I removed the warning. I would like to know your opinion on the matter. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 16:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In case you need more context, please note these two edits. In the first, Kirbytime states that the Holocaust is alleged to have happened and in the second he states that "The Holocaust" is a political epithet. Those are his words. Jayjg 16:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirby, you were correct in removing the warning after Jayjg indicated it wasn't useful to him.

Jayjg's comments do not appear to me to be personal attacks. He merely seems to be quoting you. I have no opinion about whether these quotes are a fair representation of your beliefs -- by saying that his comments are offensive to you, you seem to imply that they are not. Perhaps you could state unequivocally on your talk page that you believe the Holocaust is a solid historical fact, and that the term is a description of events and not a political epithet. This would at least end the controversy. If you can't state this truthfully, then that's fine; you are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. But you can't very well call it a personal attack for someone to accurately quote you, especially if those quotes do represent your real views on the matter. – Quadell 16:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

But they don't! Anyone reading the context of those quotes can see that I said those things merely for effect. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have said this. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it a little disturbing that in response to a editor's request that you investigate a personal attack made against him (and by implication others, myself included), you actually ask him to instead prove himself innocent of the slur that was made against him, by posting a message on his user page no less. Doesn't this show how serious making such kinds of intimations are? I certainly didn't appreciate the slur against G-Dett, Kirbytime or myself and by implication everyone arguing for Israeli apartheid to be so named. Did you miss it?: And now I note that he has described The Holocaust as a "political epithet". These are your allies, G-Dett. Jayjg (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, what a sleazy and stupid smear, Jay.
It was hardly that. But it's good to be aware of the people who support your position. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
(....)
It's not a strawman, Jay. Tiamut is talking about guilt by association, which is indeed the logical fallacy underlying your cheap smear.--G-Dett 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it's pointing out that when people with rather offensive views argue in favor of your political positions, then it's wise to review those positions to understand why they appeal so much to people with such offensive views. By the way, saying the earth is round isn't a political position (in case you were wondering). Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask Kirby to prove he isn't guilty of anything; I asked him whether he meant the things he said about the Holocaust. What you're calling a "personal attack" and a "smear" was just Jayjg quoting Kirby and linking to a statement he made. I don't see how quoting someone can be a personal attack, sorry. If Jayjg had said "Kirby said X, and that proves he's an ignorant anti-Semite", then that would be a personal attack. But Jayjg merely linked to Kirby's comments and said, basically, "Draw your own conclusions". That isn't even close to a true personal attack. Many people might conclude from the linked comments that Kirby is an anti-Semite (despite Kirby's claim that "anyone reading the context of those quotes can see that I said those things merely for effect"), and I told Kirby he could clear this up by stating his views clearly. Which he has chosen not to do.

So I understand Kirby's complaint to be essentially this: "Jayjg quoted me saying that I think the Holocaust might not have happened, and I call that a personal attack because people will infer that I'm an anti-Semite. (I also won't say whether I think the Holocaust is a historical fact or not.) So on the one hand, it's obvious to anyone reading the context that my quotes don't make me an anti-Semite; but on the other hand, Jayjg's linking to my quotes is a personal attack because it isn't at all obvious to someone reading the context of my quotes that I'm not an anti-Semite." This just doesn't add up to me. Either Jayjg is quoting Kirby's own personal attack against himself (by making himself look anti-Semitic), or Jayjg is linking to a quote that anyone can see is innocuous. Either way, I don't see why Jayjg should be censured for this. – Quadell 18:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)