Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:16, 21 August 2007

This user is a member of the United States Armed Forces and may be away from Misplaced Pages for long periods of time, but will most likely return. Emails sent to this user and messages left on this user's talk page may not be replied to for a while.

User:Videmus Omnia/status/template

Archives
Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Aug 2007

user page

Thanks for removing the non-free images on my page, I didn't know that this was discouraged. I've read WP:NFCC#9, so this surely won't happen again^^. Thanks, 1stLtLombardi 07:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Connie Britton

I've been looking for the discussion on photo credits, to no avail. I know it exists, because I commented in the thread. From what I recall, the policy is more relaxed than it used to be: now credits can be included in the image caption if the image is by a well-known person. I'll keep looking for the guideline or policy. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate it...like I said, my goal is not to promote any particular person, just to encourage the contribution of free content. Videmus Omnia 18:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Found it, naturally when I wasn't actively looking for it. See here. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Videmus Omnia 16:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Pics from Anime Nut

Just curious about something... I see from your note on AnonEMouse's page that you got a release from Anime Nut for some of his porn star pics. Did you only get the porn star pics or were you able to get a general release from his site? Reason for my asking is that looking through some of his other pics I can see a nice one of Tricia Helfer , Liana K (though the caption would have to make clear she was in a costume... maybe as a secondary pic?), and Tom Hodges for starts. Tabercil 22:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He gave me a GFDL license for specific pictures (a fairly lengthy list). I'm pretty sure he gave permission for the ones you mentioned above - I'll double-check when I do the uploads tonight and tomorrow. If he didn't release those specific pics, I'll go back and request them as well. Videmus Omnia 23:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you try asking if he would be so kind as to change the license on all his pics to Creative Commons? I've gotten a couple of users on Flickr to do just that... Tabercil 23:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he prefers to release individual pics under GFDL, as opposed to CC. I work with a couple of other Flickr photographers who have the same policy. Videmus Omnia 23:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, those photos were uploaded since I made my original request...I sent him another request for those three pics. Hopefully I'm not being a pain in his ass. :) Videmus Omnia 02:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Those images are now on Commons. Videmus Omnia 14:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

PETA

Hi Videmus Omnia. I got your message. I can contact PETA to talk about this if you would like me to. You seem more experienced at dealing with it than me though, but feel free to contact me if you need help. --Deskana (banana) 20:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Deskana. I'm waiting to hear back from their attorney, but sounds like they're contacting their photographer to discuss releasing the posters under a free license. They said it should be a week or so until they get back with me. Videmus Omnia 20:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Pump organ

You know, with your previous successful requests for permission, I was sort of afraid to click on Image:Pump organ.jpg. :-) – Quadell 03:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good one. :) Videmus Omnia 03:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, if you look at my latest uploads, it's back to porn stars again. Videmus Omnia 17:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Please leave future messages to User_talk:Wormsie, not User_talk:Deadworm222. User_talk:Deadworm222 is a redirect page.--Wormsie 08:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Nicole from Spike TV"

... is apparently Nicole Malgarini. However we don't have an article on her, and I am not at all sure she is a Spike TV regular, and doesn't have a whole lot of credits anywhere (see Nicole Malgarini at IMDb). You may have acquired an image of someone who doesn't qualify for an article. :-( --AnonEMouse 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, still a pretty image and maybe she'll be notable someday. Videmus Omnia 15:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Image spamming

I must say - a little surprised a military guy like you has so much time on his hands!! Wow! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 08:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. :) I don't watch much TV, this is my main time-waster. Videmus Omnia 14:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am impressed though by your efforts but I was a little daunted seeing so many images on my page!!. Quite rightly images needed rationales and wikipedia is a better place for having the correct licenses and details for fair usage. Its not a task I personally would be motivated to do but I know there are many who take under their wing to accomplish. Good work. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 08:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry there were so many - I was looking at some of the articles in the James Bond categories. If you don't want to receive these notices, I would recommend going back through your upload log to make sure that the non-free images are in compliance with the non-free content criteria. Any that are not, or that you don't want to fix, you can nominate for deletion yourself. That should prevent any future "spamming". Cheers - Videmus Omnia 14:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image tagging

Hi. I've posted a reply on my own talk page about the image you tagged. Please take a look. But in a nutshell: the page had been vandalized by an anon, which is why it was blank. And the point would be: it is always necessary to check a page's history before tagging it, for deletion or anything else. You never know when the current state of affaris might just be the result of vandalism, as it appears to have been the case with this image. Thanks, Redux 13:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Normally I look but I must have spaced out on that one. I removed the image from the Ewan MacGregor article because it didn't have a rationale for use there. Cheers - Videmus Omnia 14:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:DK as Agent Mimi.jpg

Please note :

1) The heading is "Rationale for use in the articles : Casino Royale (1967 film) and List of James Bond characters in Casino Royale"

2) Rationale Point 1 says :

"|Description= Deborah Kerr screen shot from Casino Royale DVD. The rationale for this image is for use in the articles : Casino Royale (1967 film) and List of James Bond characters in Casino Royale."

The names of the articles are thus prominently displayed twice.

Tovojolo 18:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Casinobouchet.jpg

Please note :

1) `The heading is "Rationale for use in the articles : Casino Royale (1967 film) and Miss Moneypenny"

2) Rationale Point 1 says :

|Description= Barbara Bouchet screen shot from Casino Royale DVD. This rationale is for the articles : Casino Royale (1967 film) and Miss Moneypenny.

The names of the articles are thus prominently displayed twice.

Tovojolo 18:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Evelyn Tremble.jpg

Please note :

1) The heading is : "Rationale for use in the articles : Casino Royale (1967 film) and List of James Bond characters in Casino Royale"

2) Rationale Point 1 says :

|Description= Film Screenshot showing Peter Sellers in Casino Royale. This rationale is for the use of the image in the articles Casino Royale (1967 film) and List of James Bond characters in Casino Royale.

The names of the articles are thus prominently displayed twice.

Tovojolo 18:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bouchet&Niven2.jpg

Please note :

1) The heading is "Rationale for use of the image in the articles : Casino Royale (1967 film) and Casino Royale (novel)"

2) Rationale Point 1 says :

|Description= Film Screenshot showing David Niven and Barbara Bouchet in Casino Royale. The rationale for this image is for use in the articles : Casino Royale (1967 film) and Casino Royale (novel).

The names of the articles are thus prominently displayed twice.

Tovojolo 19:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the above images into compliance. I removed them from articles which had no rationales for their use there. Videmus Omnia 21:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Why, thank you! Tabercil 22:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

{{no rationale}}

What will you with this tag? We have for over thousand screenshots in ] only {{Non-free game screenshot}} see: {{Non-free game screenshot}} without fucking additionally {{no rationale}} infospam! --Fidelfair 23:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you read the last sentence of the above tag? Videmus Omnia 23:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is the source for this newer rule? It is inappropriate, many images are older, include me. And many Image have already Entry for Description and Sources! {{no rationale}} demands additionally only Portion, Low_resolution, Purpose and Replaceability Info. Who needs this for the life? --Fidelfair 23:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NFCC for the policy. Videmus Omnia 23:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion there is not at the end, we should not create hastily facts. --Fidelfair 23:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Wikimedia licensing resolution. Videmus Omnia 23:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are only you, for there, something. The page there, has not deleted my images. --Fidelfair 00:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just left a friendly comment to Fidelfair's user page. I hope this can be solved with friendly comments. Wikidemo 00:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikidemo - I'm not sure where the hostility was coming from. Videmus Omnia 01:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Transformers Season's 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 jpg

You made a mistake about the fair use rational. The fair use rational only applies to photos that were uploaded after May 4, 2006. These photos were uploaded before May 4. I am going to take the no rationals off my photos. Next time look at the upload date so next time you won't make that same mistake again. Thank You.--Stco23 07:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry - it applies to all non-free content. See WP:NFCC. Videmus Omnia 12:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about my other messages and I know that you have been a wikipedian for 3 months. I took off my old messages, but do not put back those fair use rational messages on my photos. I promise that I will have those photos with fair use rationals sometime within the next two days. I am very upset with this rule that you have to put fair use rational on every single photo that is Non-Free no matter what date you upload it. One editor told me that only photos that were uploaded after May 4, 2006 needed the Fair Use Rational. I hope I do not have to put fair use rational on every single photo that I have uploaded so far. I will be so angry. I am so angry about this and I hope you understand this. Thank You.--Stco23 13:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand, a lot of people were unhappy about the Foundation's change in policy regarding non-free media. Indeed, I believe your statement about media uploaded prior to May 2006 was correct at one time, but it's changed. I'm afraid you will have to put a rationale on all non-free media you've uploaded in the past. I won't go back through your upload log, but I recommend that you do so. There are currently bots running (and others being coded) to examine all non-free images for valid rationales, so it's only a matter of time before you get notified about them. You do not need rationales for any free images (GFDL or PD) that you have uploaded. Videmus Omnia 13:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with my Fair Use Rationals. Let me know.--Stco23 15:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Gah! Big error on my part, I've gone back and fixed it. Videmus Omnia 15:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and by the way there is not chance that they will be resized because that was the best i could get it. If you wanted me to split them, then that would be a problem. Thank You.--Stco23 15:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Normally the resizing is done by a handful of volunteers who work those requests - if you'd like to split them, that's up to you. Non free pictures should be limited to .1 megapixel or less (about 315x315 or so) per WP:NFCC#3. Thanks! Videmus Omnia 15:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I put them together is to save space and not to have many photos on one article. Do you think that these photos needs a resize because of them being too big. Let me know.--Stco23 15:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please - see my message above for the recommended size. Videmus Omnia 15:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's stupid because my camera is a high res camera that puts photos on the computer. It's a stupid rule because I try on myspace to resize my photo and I get crap from myspace saying that I need to resize my photos again and I hate it. I hope you know how I feel about that.--Stco23 15:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand - you don't need to be the one to resize the image, someone else will do it. Don't worry, the resize request does not mean the images will be deleted, it's just housekeeping. Videmus Omnia 15:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Will the resizing ruin the quality of my photos, because if it does I will be very upset.--Stco23 15:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It will just make them smaller. Videmus Omnia 15:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I did my own resizing of my uploads of those DVD covers they are not as small, but they are not as big as they once were. DVD covers have to show detail, but Fuzzy510 made my uploads very small that they showed no detail and looked like crap, so I did my own resizing of my uploads so that these DVD covers do show detail and not look like crap. I hope this resizing change that I made makes you happy. Thank You.--Stco23 09:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Was that necessary?

Sticking over 130 notices on my talk page overnight? Possibly you could contact me and I could repond. user_talk:mathewignash

I'm sorry - I was working my way through some of the Transformers categories. I recommend checking back through your upload log to make sure any non-free content you have uploaded is in compliance with policy, this should prevent any future notices. Videmus Omnia 12:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hoynomepuedolevantar.jpg

I have added the fair use rationale for Image:Hoynomepuedolevantar.jpg. Please can you tell me if the deletion process is over or I need to explain something else. I actually work on Grupo CIE, the producer of this play in Mexico, and I'm clearly aware that the use of this image is permited under informational uses; also Misplaced Pages can be considered for educational purposes and Grupo CIE decided, under the Mexican Law of Author Rights and Intellectual Property, to permit the use of their plays for educational purposes (please refer to main Grupo CIE web site: for information). Hapmt —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:46:20, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

The licensing and rationale on the image look fine now. Thanks! Videmus Omnia 12:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image links you removed from Musical Theatre

I have no particular interest in that page or its pictures, but I noticed that you removed the links to some of them (the selection seems somewhat random to me). All of those images are used in other articles.

The images Image:Pnight.jpeg, Image:MOULINROUGEF.jpg, and Image:Oklahoma-DVDcover.jpg do have Fair Use rationales. It would have been useful if you had used that page's Talk Page or the images' Talk Page to point out why they are insufficient.

PS: It would clutter an article's history less if you (or your bot) could perform your edits in one session instead of six. Michael Bednarek 11:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The images had fair use rationales for use in other articles, but not for use in Musical theater. See WP:NFCC#10c. Thanks for the tip on editing - it took me a while to look up all those non-free images and I didn't want to run into an edit conflict. The edits were manual, I don't use a bot. Videmus Omnia 12:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgency logos

Why do you think that the insurgency logos on Iraqi insurgency do not involve, in the words of {{logo}}, "identification and critical commentary"? It certainly seems to be that they do. And, looking at your user page, someone might easily think that there is an appearance of a conflict of interest. I'm not saying there is; I don't know you or what your motivation was or why you might think displaying those in the article doesn't count as identification or critical commentary. It's just that you might want to avoid the appearance of impropriety by, for example, asking another editor to look at things like this. ←Ben 12:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked for an opinion here before removing the images. The logos would be appropriate for the articles about the groups, but the list in which they were contained had no critical commentary about the groups or the logos. Videmus Omnia 12:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

See also WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use, first paragraph. Videmus Omnia 12:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that instead of acknowledging the obvious fact that the images meet the significance criterion because they allow readers to identify groups from their logos where they would otherwise not be (not if they were used in separate articles, and not if they were interspersed) you have decided to revert without comment and leave a 3RR warning template for me. I assure you I am familiar with policy. I have asked Mike Godwin for his opinion. ←Ben 14:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If you get an exception to policy from Mike Godwin, then I have no problem with the images being placed back in. Until then, the policy applies, I'm sorry. Videmus Omnia 14:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Which policy? The significance criterion which is quite obviously met, or your interpretation of the sentence which says non-free galleries aren't allowed because they usually don't meet the significance criterion? ←Ben 14:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but obviously other editors disagree with your assessment of the significance criterion being met. You might try a request for comment to bring in other opinions on this, but the policy is pretty clear, based on my experience with non-free images. Videmus Omnia 14:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I will wait for Godwin's input, but I think your unwillingness to address the fact that without the images, readers would be unable to identify groups by their logos speaks volumes. ←Ben 14:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the logos used in the articles about the various groups? Videmus Omnia 14:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of them; some of the groups don't have articles yet. That doesn't help a researcher with a picture of a logo -- who might very well be a diplomat or military officer in the US or anywhere else trying to decide a policy question -- who wants to know what group it's associated with. Removing that ability, which so obviously meets the letter and spirit of the significance criterion, strikes me as just absurd. ←Ben 14:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to convince each other. Since User:Angr already offered a third opinion, RfC is probably the way to go. (I could be wrong, but I doubt Mike Godwin will deal with an issue this minor.) Videmus Omnia 14:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OP Caracas

In matter of facts.. You added an incorrect tag on that photo... so I had to revert your change.Jfreyre —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:31:50, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

It was not an incorrect tag, it was a notification that the image is possibly unfree. If that is mistaken, please make your case at the WP:PUI page, don't just keep deleting maintenance templates, as you have apparently been doing for some time. Videmus Omnia 18:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

and why do you think that the image is unfree? maybe do you have to explain why do you think that instead of putting those maintenance templates in such way... And let me tell you something else I'm not been deleting maintenance templates as you said. Jfreyre —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:11:43, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

In regards to deleting templates, see this, this, this, and this. Videmus Omnia 21:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh tell me something dude.. why are you tagging the images that I've uploaded as if they were unfree? Jfreyre —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:24:15, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Can you provide any evidence that they are under a free license? Videmus Omnia 20:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Inactive users and TFA archives

Hi there. I have the talk page of several inactive users on my watchlist, so I saw the tags that you put at User talk:Mirlen. Is there a way for you (and others) to check whether a user is inactive or not? It wouldn't take long, and you could then try and find somewhere else to notify as well. It seems a bit of a waste of your time leaving notifications that probably won't be seen. I would suggest Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Star Wars in this case. PS. Did you see the reply I wrote to your post at WP:AN about the pictures in the TFA archives? Have a look at what I did at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article#Images in TFA archives (redux). I haven't got round to listing the non-free ones, but I did see a few. I estimate of the 1277 blurbs, about one or two a month might need checking - so about 50 or so cases where the images should be removed or a free alternative used. I still think blurbs for article about images (eg. Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/May 10, 2007), should be a WP:NFCC exception. :-) Carcharoth 23:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching your post at TFA - wow, that's a lot of work, thanks for taking it on! On the notifications, those are done by script, so I don't see that the user is inactive until after the message is posted. I recommend that folks at the WikiProject watchlist the images they are interested in. Videmus Omnia 23:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Or better yet, go through and fix the rationales. :) Videmus Omnia 23:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have no interest in Star Wars pics. When you get to the Middle-earth pics, I might take more interest... I have been mulling over the possibility of sensible non-free use strategies to limit excessive non-free use. Something like, for a music performer, the minimum number of photos would be a current picture (if available), and one of them in performance (if retired). The former would be left for someone to eventually snap a free pic. But the latter would usually have to be fair use if they are no longer performing. For things like the fictional projects (Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc), it could be something like a maximum of 2 fair-use images from a particular movie, and no more. And a maximum of 1 non-free image per 5 articles, up to a maximum of (say) 20 (depending on the size of the project). That way, it would still be possible to purge Misplaced Pages of excessive non free use, while still allowing some and forcing people to carefully pick what is really needed. Kind of like a non free use rationale for a set of images for a topic area. Does that sound reasonable? I can just see the license now: "The use of these 20 images, and only these 20 images, to illustrate the XYZ topic area, and used in these articles, is considered fair use..." The reason I'm noting this here? I only just thought of it! Carcharoth 00:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean - it's really subjective. I designed the template {{non-free}} to use in cases like this, it really takes human judgement by someone who is familiar with non-free content policy, which not a lot of Wikipedians take interest in. Betacommand said he would think about a bot to count the number of non-free images in articles, but it may be a while. Any sort of policy change would be contentious, there are already a lot of old heads freaking out about non-free content enforcement. Oh, and above, I didn't mean that you should fix the rationales, I meant the WikiProject people should. But nobody does anything until the images are up for deletion, then they usually scream at the person who tagged the noncompliant images. <sigh> Oh, well - cheers, and thanks for your rational inputs on this issue! Videmus Omnia 00:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential use of a bot

I do not know if you are using an unauthorized bot to make the fair use tagging but I'd recommend the use of an authorized bot. It would be easier for you. :) -- Cat 10:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not using a bot, just a monobook script. Videmus Omnia 11:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

USS Enterprise XCV 330

I noticed you tagged Image:USS Enterprise (XCV 330).jpg with "should be replaced with a smaller version". The image already is a low resolution copy of the original art, and any lower resolution would make it impossible to read the ships full name and registry, which is the reason the image was added to the article. —MJBurrage • TALK • 13:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The standard for non-free images seems to be 0.1 megapixel or less, which is about 315x315 (or so the experts who do the rescaling tell me. I think it would still be readable at that resolution - if not, would it be possible to crop the image to ensure it only includes the required portion? Videmus Omnia 13:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no standard at all. That's simply bull shit. Matthew 14:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding source of Image:Ferengis1.jpg

I saw that you tagged this as missing a source. I'm just wondering how detailed a source specification is needed. Based on the background scenery, I'm sure it's from Star Trek: The Next Generation. I'm also pretty sure that it's from the episode Rascals, though I can't currently verify this, as I'm not close to my box-set for at least a couple of days. Would it be sufficient to state that it's a screenshot from the Star Trek: The Next Generation series? --Pekaje 15:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It has to be verifiable - I think that might be too vague, based on what I've seen in the past. I think I might have that episode around somewhere, I'll try to find something as well. Videmus Omnia 15:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can't verify that it is from that episode, I suggest replacing it with this one. It has a verifiable source, and I actually think it's a better image because it shows Ferengi of different ages. --Pekaje 15:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's perfectly fine to state it's from ST:TNG. Unless soldier boy has something to back himself up that it isn't? Matthew 15:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil, thanks. And I'm not a soldier, or a boy. Videmus Omnia 16:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

Image:MusicalTheater3.jpg, Image:MusicalTheater7.jpg, and Image:ChorusLine.jpg all have very detailed rationales for using them under "fair use," and each one is used in two articles about subjects related to them. I noticed you are questioning their validity. Why? ConoscoTutto 18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I included the reason in the 'disputed' template', but basically I feel they're not in compliance with WP:NFCC#8 in the Musical theatre article. Videmus Omnia 18:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So if others feel these images do comply with WP policies, they are free to revert your removals? Michael Bednarek 02:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what's happened. Videmus Omnia 02:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully request that you be a little more specific. I see nothing in WP:NFCC#8 to suggest these images don't belong in the Musical theatre article. Thank you. ConoscoTutto 18:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If the images were removed from the article, would it be significantly detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic Musical theatre? I don't believe it would be. Videmus Omnia 18:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The above seems to me a completely new argument which states that you think the images are superfluous, in other words, your changes are editorial changes. Isn't the correct way before making wholesale editorial changes to discuss it on the Talk pages first and reach consensus? Michael Bednarek 02:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If the images were allowed to remain, would they be significantly detrimental to Misplaced Pages? No. They are iconic images of classic musical productions and definitely belong in an article about musical theatre. I'm concerned that you're being overly diligent in your pursuit of invalid images and ultimately will damage good articles by removing them. These are images that have been in place a long time, so I don't understand why you're questioning them now. Thank you. ConoscoTutto 18:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If they remain, they're detrimental to the objective of keeping the encyclopedia free - see the Foundation's licensing resolution. I know that you're passionate about having a quality article, I respect that. But using free images instead of copyrighted ones will benefit everyone. Videmus Omnia 18:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with using images of album covers and publicity posters to illustrate an article about musical theatre? The producers of these shows/albums are more than happy for these images to be distributed on the internet, as it can only increase the interest of the public in seeing and hearing these shows. In addition, most of these images are already widely distributed on the internet. It is amazing to me that Misplaced Pages editors should try to remove obviously qualified fair use images from articles created in good faith by other editors. If you have any free images that would illustrate this article, by all means add them. Otherwise, I am certain that you have better ways to improve Misplaced Pages than to remove images that pose no danger whatever to the encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers 19:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment immediately above yours. The Foundation has directed that copyrighted content will be kept to an absolute minimum in order to keep the encyclopedia free - I didn't make the policy, I'm sorry. Videmus Omnia 19:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:IGNORE. There are no free images available, or we would be happy to use them. Why would you spend so much energy to destroy something that will delight our readers? -- Ssilvers 20:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:WIARM - "Ignore all rules" is not an invitation to use Misplaced Pages for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia.". And there are free images available - Musical theatre already has public domain images for illustrations. I'm not attempting to destroy anything - just trying to keep our encyclopedia free. Videmus Omnia 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have free images, please tell us where they are. Otherwise, I think that these images do help the reader to better understand musical theatre, and removing them will hurt Misplaced Pages and deprive its readers of useful information that cannot adequately be explained in text. Thanks --Broadwaygal 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but arguing with me isn't going to change the policy. Once again, please see the non-free content criteria and the Foundation's resolution, linked above. It's not enough that the images are useful or helpful, they have to be necessary. Videmus Omnia 20:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Videmus: I don't think you understand the policy. The policy is not to delete all non-free images, it is to encourage the addition of free images where available. I do not believe that you are correct that there are free images for Wicked, Hair, etc., and you have not pointed us to any of them. Images of these copyrighted properties are only available under the doctrine of fair use (an exception to Section 107 of the U.S. copyright law), and Misplaced Pages policy DOES allow fair use images where there are no alternates. If you can point us to some free images then, by all means, please do so and we will happily exchange them. But I do not know of any that exist for the modern musicals. Please remove the dispute tags until you have identified free images. -- Ssilvers 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I have a pretty good understanding of the policy, as most of the work I do is with images - not just removing non-compliant ones, but obtaining free images as well. See my user page. Why do you need to decorate the article with those particular copyrighted images? Why can't you use more public-domain images, or maybe obtain free images from lesser-known musical productions? Those are just suggestions. We can back and forth on this for days (I'm already tired of repeating myself in this conversation), but it won't change the policy that non-free content must be kept to an absolute minimum. Videmus Omnia 21:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Using images from some non-notable private theatricals wouldn't be much encyclopedic, don't you think?SuperElephant 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The article examines the history of musical theatre and describes some of the most important musicals. After 1923, the publicity posters and album covers of these musicals are under copyright, so there are no such free images. The article is not supposed to describe "lesser-known musical productions", it is supposed to describe the most historically significant ones. These images are the best way to illustrate those productions. The images being used are all comfortably within the "fair use" doctrine, AND they are not readily replaceable, as you must know by now, since, after all this, you have not been able to point us to even one free image. I know you must be trying to act in good faith here, but you are only creating an issue where none exists. These images (or similar fair use images) are the best ones to illustrate this article. It would not even be permissable for a person to go to a Broadway show and take photographs of the productions. In addition, most of these productons are closed now, and no free images are being contributed to the public domain until the copyright expires. Would you kindly withdraw the dispute tags? -- Ssilvers 21:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to agree on this. I think it's best to wait; an uninvolved administrator will eventually make the determination on whether or not the rationales are valid for the usage you would like to make. Videmus Omnia

Indeed, it would have been better to seek authoritative input and community discussion before you embarked on this crusade. Michael Bednarek 02:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a crusade, just trying to help keep the encyclopedia free. If the removals are uncontested, then there's no point in seeking outside opinions. There are so many noncompliant non-free images that WP:BRD seems to be the best way forward in cases like this. Videmus Omnia 02:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The BRD procedure is inappropriate in a case where other editors are interested in the issue and communicating with you. At this point, the consensus is clear for you to stop deleting images from musical theatre-related articles. If you point out to me that an image is missing a needed fair use rationale, I will gladly add it, OK? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's nothing personal. If a non-free image doesn't have a rationale for use in a certain article, it has to be removed from that article. I presume the article is being closely watched by several editors, and I'm stating what I'm doing in the edit summaries, and why. Videmus Omnia 03:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is disagreeing with you about this. These images HAVE RATIONALES and are legitimately useful in these articles. If someone has forgotten to add a needed fair use rationale to an image, we can easily add it. Please reconsider your position, which seems to all of these editors writing here to be a distortion of the intent of the rules. We all want to make Misplaced Pages better, and the consensus is that it is better to include these images in the articles discussing the history of musicals; not to tag them for deletion. We all agree that if there WERE any free images that illustrated the historical place of these musicals, we would happily use them intstead. Think about the purpose of this online encyclopedia: People can read about this subject online and see images that graphically illustrate the subject much better than, e.g., Brittanica can do. These images qualify under the fair use doctrine (an exception to the copyright law), and it is proper and useful that we supply these images to our readers. -- Ssilvers 03:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I have not deleted any non-free images from Musical theatre that had a fair use rationale written for Musical theatre. When I disagreed with the rationale, I disputed it on the talk page, which is the correct process. This was met by other editors (I won't name names) simply deleting the 'disputed' tags from image pages, which can be considered vandalism. Can you please follow process instead of constantly arguing on my talk page? I promise I am not going to change my mind on this interpretation of the non-free content policy. Not everyone disagrees with me about this interpretation, only the !owners of the Musical theatre article. Videmus Omnia 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No one owns articles in Misplaced Pages. There are only editors who are trying to create useful content and editors who are trying to delete useful content. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you have been putting your notices on the talk page of a blocked editor. If you must tag images, please put the notice on the talk page of the article from which you wish to remove the image. Then, people watching the article can respond instead of having to pick it up from the page of the blocked uploader. Thanks. -- Ssilvers 03:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, but under what authority does your tag make this statement: "Unless concern is addressed by adding an appropriate fair-use rationale, or in some other way, the image will be deleted or removed from some uses after Monday, 27 August 2007"? I think that a fair-use rationale HAS been supplied. You disagree. Will you kindly take this text out of your template? -- Ssilvers 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not my tag, it's a standard template that everyone uses, I don't know who wrote it. My sentence in tag clearly states that I'm disputing the rationale that's in place. Videmus Omnia 21:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you opened a case at ]. I guess interested editors should post further comments there. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not an army!

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not an army!SuperElephant 21:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - good thing I'm not in the Army! Videmus Omnia 21:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What?

Uh...notice board?--Angel David 21:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI might be a good place. Or perhaps a request for comment. Videmus Omnia 21:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Drakkhen non-free images

Just wondering on how you arrived at the two or three figure as being appropriate for the Drakkhen article. Cheers Vranak 01:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think even that would be too many. One is probably enough to show the style of the game, as non-free media needs to be kept to an absolute minimum per WP:NFCC#3a. Videmus Omnia 01:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

However, this is contradicted somewhat by the article gudelines at WikiProject Video Games:
"Screenshots are great for enhancing the comprehensiveness of articles, and all computer and video game articles should have at least a couple."
I think three is a reasonable number, especially considering that one of them is from a different system and company (Amiga). Goldenband 04:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your tagging of Image:James Doohan 1980s.jpg

Please try at a minimum to give notice on the articles where the images you tag are being used, either by using Template:Deletable image-caption or through an article talk page notice, or both. Notifying the uploader alone is not an effective means of ensuring that the problem gets corrected, particularly when the image was uploaded years ago, because there is no guarantee that an uploader will remain interested in the image or involved in Misplaced Pages at all. I've already taken care of it for this image. Postdlf 02:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

That's just plain ornery and wrong. First you call for everyone to "let an uninvolved admin decide" whether to keep the images. Then when one does show up and decide to keep them, you rush off and WP:IFD it. And you wonder why people are opposing you in the discussions? Your stock has gone way down in my eyes. FeloniousMonk 14:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how listing this image for wider consensus is disruptive. To what forum should I have taken my concern? Videmus Omnia 14:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please. You and I both know that there's broad consensus already expressed on the talk pages and elsewhere to keep these images, and your zealousness on this image belies your claim of simply seeking broader community input. Looks to me you don't like being challenged on these matters and aren't willing to accept outcomes that you disagree with; neither are useful attributes on the project. FeloniousMonk 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedians in the United States Armed Forces