Misplaced Pages

Will do! It looks like someone made the effort to add a refu-c to the templated warning so this should basically just be a matter of copying and pasting. Thank you for the excellent suggestion. --Yamla 15:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about the new {{refu-c}} template. I just thanked Sherool for creating it. -Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect 3RR warning given

Hello. I see you gave 4.191.245.163 (talk · contribs) a WP:3RR warning over War Eagle. However, I had looked into the article issue from the AN thread and the anon was removing uncited negative information about a living person (which was being re-inserted by other editors). As you know, WP:BLP requires the removal of such uncited negative info, and such removals are not subject to the 3RR rule. (I have just noticed that a source has been found for this, so it's somwwhat a moot issue now, but thought I should remind you of this anyway) Regards, MartinRe 00:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. It was always my intention that the editor understand that no 3RR violation had yet taken place, but I'll point out that no 3RR violation was about to take place either. --Yamla 01:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Abbie Cornish

I understand why you took down the picture there, but did you mean to take out the information regarding her affair with Ryan Phillipe? If so, why? This seems like legitimate information. If you did not intend to delete this, is it acceptable that I put it back up there?

Jinxy

It is acceptable if you can find a reliable citation (not just the gossip magazines). Please see WP:RS and WP:CITE before adding it back. If you can find a reliable citation, I'd love to have the information there. --Yamla 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

uploaded image

I uploaded an image and im not sure if it is uploaded with the correct information needed. I dont know how to put the link to the photo in here. It is the image for this article, The Runners. If it is not correct please go ahead and delete it. Thanks. —Darkneonflame 01:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the image. WP:FUC requires that we use freely-licensed images to depict living people, so we can't use this one because it is copyrighted and not freely-licensed. In general, when adding a copyrighted image to an article, you need to explain why it is fair to use it in that article. Why is it necessary to use an image at all? Why this particular image? Why not a free image? Why is it particularly unlikely that the copyright owner would take offense? You also stated that this was a promotional photo from an issue of XXL Magazine. We cannot use photos from inside a magazine, and promotional photos must come from a press kit. That is, you need to provide evidence that this came from a press kit (or promotional kit). Certainly, XXL Magazine would not be the copyright holder in that case. This is a lot of information to take in in one paragraph. If you'd like me to clarify any bit, please feel free to ask. As you can see, there's a lot of requirements. If it strikes you that Misplaced Pages seems to actively discourage copyrighted images with lots of policies and requirements, you are most certainly correct. We much prefer free images. --Yamla 01:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What are some sources for "free images", is myspace considered as one? –-Darkneonflame 01:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of the images on myspace may be released under a free license, most aren't however. If you find an image which states it is released under most Creative Commons licenses or the GFDL or is public domain and the source of the image is reliable (so, fan sites claiming that images are public domain are not reliable, see WP:RS), you have found a freely-licensed image. I estimate probably 99.5% of the images on the Internet are not licensed under a free license, however. The Creative Commons article has some links to a way to find freely-licensed content. Flikr can also be a source, though again most of the images there are not freely licensed. --Yamla 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What info would I need to upload a cd cover from amazon.com? I've seen many album cover images with nothing but the link for the source. --Darkneonflame 02:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a copyrighted image, so source (in this case, the name of the album), license, and detailed hand-written fair-use rationale justifying each use. Plus, it may only be used to depict the album. You can't use it, for example, to show what the singer looks like. --Yamla 02:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible sock of c14u

After comments left on my talk page from Tennislover, I checked out User:Pumpkin Pie. It does seem like there's a similarity to c14u's original writing style. The user has transcluded a status template much like mine.... I'm also going to have someone from a Japanese Wikiproject check out here Japanese userpage.--Ed 01:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeap, this was a confirmed sockpuppet of the banned user. The account has been shut down and the contributions (mostly) deleted. I took a look at the Japanese user page but unfortunately, I cannot read Japanese. --Yamla 03:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was a good hypothisis from me. I didn't know for sure.Tennislover 03:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeap, sure was. Please let me know if you find any others. --Yamla 03:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I sure will. She doesn't really do a good job hiding herself.Tennislover 03:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

responding to the most recent messege: AMEN!Tennislover 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked someone from WikiProject Japan to translate the userpage. Check out my talk page for details.--Ed 04:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be against the user's block or anything, but what exactly was the evidence against PPie?--Ed 04:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In order not to give anything away, I'd rather discuss this via email. Please send me an email and I'll let you know. Not until tomorrow, though, as I'm signing off for the evening now.  :) --Yamla 04:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I sent the Japs an alert on .--Ed 04:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes

Hi. I was just looking over your revert on A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes, and followed the link to User talk:Pumpkin Pie for the reason why. Do you mind if I reimplement that edit? It corrects the Orlando Brown wikilink, and rightly removes the extra listing for an actor who guest starred on one episode of a series. I don't have to call it a revert, if that's helpful to you. (In fact, I really should work on fleshing out the substantive part of the article, but that's not a task for tonight.) I just thought I'd check with you first - don't want to get in the middle of a mess! Karen | Talk | contribs 04:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. The key point, though, is that you would then be taking responsibility for the edit. So if for example redoing the edit introduced some slander or something, you would now be responsible. Not a problem here, of course, but I'm just letting you know. We don't let the edits from banned users remain but there's no problem having someone redo them. --Yamla 04:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 05:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Lieutenant Dol Grenn/Gerzi

I've removed all his comments from my talk page if it'll put an end to this nonsense. Cheers, HamishMacBeth 12:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I very much appreciate it. --Yamla 15:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use

Could you explain to me what is this fair use? I am sorry for that, but I really cannot understand what it means. You see, I am from Poland and English is not my native language, so I sometimes can't understand what you mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varda (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:FU. Thanks. --Yamla 15:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Riya Sen Image

Hey dude, I have added a fair use rationale for the biopic on the article Riya Sen. Please take a look at it. And, oh, since I have removed the deletion tage from the image as advised on the tags (i.e. the tags mat be removed if provided with a fair use rational), I also have removed the line from the article page that says the image is scheduled for deletion. I also have changed the licensing information from screenshot to fair use in Riya Sen and Style (film). I also have looked for another image to be used (yes, using google), and have done so. Well I admit that it didn't vary much, if any, in source and copyright status from the earlier one. But, I think before there is a replacable picture available it may stand. Please, check and advise. - Aditya Kabir 18:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I already responded prior to this message, but just to be clear... WP:FUC prohibits the use of a fair-use image to depict a living person, so this still fails the criteria. We can't wait until a replacement image is provided, that's not sufficient grounds under WP:FUC. Additionally, this is a film screenshot so we cannot use a different license. And given that, we are not using the image to provide critical commentary on the film but rather, just to illustrate an actress. It still violates the license. I know you are working hard here and you definitely are editing in good faith, but the image still violates WP:FUC. Please feel free to ask for more detailed explanations. --Yamla 18:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While I was checking for the proper rationale I came upon Rglovejoy's image contributions] - all copyright images from Playboy, all depicting living persons, and all uploaded without a fair use rationale (well, alomost all). Either they have not been noticed or I am failing to see the point here. I thought, if the article expounds heavily upon one aspect of the subject matter then in case of a living person that particular aspect may be illustrated to enrich the informaiton further. Was I wrong? And, yes, I would like to take the opportunity and ask about the replacebility thing. What should I understand by that term? - Aditya Kabir 18:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC) - (p.s. please don't quote me verbatim on my talk page, it looks a bit silly (hahaha), I know what wrote to you)

They have not been noticed. There are in fact a large number of similar images currently in violation. It takes time to track them all down and tag them. WP:FUC was tightened up recently. It used to be permitted to use a fair-use (non-freely licensed) image to depict a living person (with appropriate rationale). This is no longer the case. As to what "replaceable" means, it really comes down to whether it would be reasonable for someone (not necessarily you) to create a free image. For example, you may not own a particular car but if this car is or was sold, someone else may and could take an image. You may not be able to take a free image of a living person but someone else certainly could. In both cases, the fair-use image is replaceable. --Yamla 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(In response to you comments) I think I met the WP:FUC on 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 (1 and 9 not being applicable in this instance). I have found nothing on living persons on the page. And, I don't see how the iamge may be replaced wthin the give time. If you check history of the article you will find that at list 3 contributors, including myself, have taken an attempt to provide a biopic for the subject (all revolving around Style the movie) and failed. Please, advise. - Aditya Kabir 19:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does 1 not apply? Is the person dead? If so, I apologise. But if the person is still alive, criteria 1 most definitely applies. "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." If the person is still alive, the subject of the photograph still exists and a free equivalent "could be created that would adequately give the same information" (in this case, what the person looks like) simply by having someone take a picture of her, or having her agent release a promotional image under a free license. As to having the image replaced within the time, this follows from the current image violating WP:FUC so therefore, see the non-compliance section in WP:FUC. Images that fail WP:FUC must be deleted within 48 hours or 7 days, depending. --Yamla 19:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

But, FUC #1' says nothing about if the person is dead or alive. If it does, I apologise. I have already stated in the rationale that it may be replaced if a free image is available, which may not be coming soon. Besides, according to the Policy Page - "Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use... (8) An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like." I did not do that, rather I uploaded an image that describes a significant event in the subject's life/career. - Aditya Kabir 19:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. "However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." A living person is a subject of the photograph that still exists. A dead person would be a subject of a photograph that no longer exists. I agree that it is not spelled out explicitly but I assure you this is how it is meant to be understood. As to your other point, that you are not using the image merely to show what she looks like, I disagree. The image is in the page's infobox and thus is definitely showing only what she looks like. If it was not in the infobox but instead was attached to a paragraph discussing that particular movie and that paragraph made specific note of what the character looked like, then it would be an example of an image not being used solely to depict the person. As of now, though, it is not attached to any such paragraph and in fact the article makes only passing reference to that movie. --Yamla 19:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm here again

Is it possible to restore my user page and your comments on my discussion page again? XXMad99ManXx 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You asked to disappear. Why did you recreate this user account? If you plan to keep editing from this account (and no other), I can reverse the deletion but this is not something we generally do. --Yamla 19:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

A little help, please?

If it's okay, I'm requesting assistance in dealing with the user Jinxy. He continues to blatantly disregard civility and edit warring rules, despite warnings. Not only did he attack edits to the Abbie Cornish article (see page history) - but take a look at my talkpage, his talkpage (which he's been generously deleting things from against Wiki policy, I might add) and both the talkpage and user page for 124.177.248.52. Perhaps the voice of authority from an admin he's listened to before might calm him down a little? Cheers. misanthrope 20:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! misanthrope 20:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. He's done it again. Take a look at his talkpage, calling me a "kid", saying I'm being " being impudent to my betters", don't know "smack about smack", etc... this flame-baiting is getting ridiculous. He really needs another warning, or something, because he's not going to cease of his own accord, be it hostility directed towards me or anyone else. misanthrope 09:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice cupcake, thanks

Yeah, sure. Nice cake. Loved the taste. I really appreciate what you admins are doing here. Great job. Sorry about the "existing" thing, my page search with strings - "living" and "dead" overlooked it. Not a right procedure, I guess. But, I still have points of disagreement, if you are no already tired of arguing over one little picture of one indian starlet. They are:

1. "...if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken", along with "...having her agent release a promotional image under a free license". Hahaha, you ever tried taking a picture of or talking to the agent of Bollywood people? I did. It's far from "simple" as you said.
2. "The image is in the page's infobox and thus is definitely showing only what she looks like." Well, the caption said it showed the subject of the article featured in line with the subject of the image (i.e. Riya Sen in Style). That "definitely" doesn't count as a depiction of merely how she looks like.

Anyways, I have removed the offending image, and hoping for either a better rationale or freer image to appear. I intend to take this article as a case of becoming encyclopedic for myself. It still needs a lot of work.

And, oh, here are a few more fair use images you may like to take a look at. They fail more miserably than Image:Riya Style1.jpg on the rationale for deletion you provided to me. It is only fair, otherwise, another poor soul may be misled by their existence and do the same mistake as I did.

• Image:3180834 Bernardo Bertolucci.jpg
• Image:ALFRobinWebbSHAC.jpg
• Image:ALI IBN RABBAN AL-TABARI.jpg
• Image:Aarti Chhabria.jpg
• Image:Abdul Hamid.jpg
• Image:Abdul Rahman(convert).jpg
• Image:Ahmed Makarfi.png
• Image:AdamRyland.jpg
• Image:Akhatova.jpg
• Any picture uploaded by Scorpio80 with a name that begins with ac
• Any picture uploaded by Rglovejoy with a name that begins with 19

Thanks again. - Aditya Kabir 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not tried taking a picture of any celebrity, actually, but I have worked with some celebrities and non-celebrities to get a freely-licensed image for use on the Misplaced Pages. None of them were Bollywood actors or actresses, however. As to the infobox, these are used to provide basic information and to depict what the person looks like. If an image is to be used to provide critical commentary on a film, it needs to be attached to a paragraph providing that critical commentary. Often, an image which was attached to a paragraph and was fair-use there is moved up to the infobox but then must subsequently be removed for exactly this reason. Some of this stuff, unfortunately, is not explicitly spelled out. Other times, we try to spell something out (criteria #1 of WP:FUC) but people understandably read it differently than was intended. And then what about a situation where, say, the person is still alive but is in hiding? They still exist so a strict reading of #1 says we cannot use a fair-use image of them. But it's not reasonable to create a replacement. Now, try to write out a clear policy that will take all of these crazy situations into account, and you can see the problems. In the end, the only way to really go about things is with discussions like this, even though they take time. And thanks for noting the other image problems. I'll try to mark at least some of them when I have a moment.--Yamla 20:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just wanted to know that

OK, I just wanted to know that because I'm a curious man. Ciao XXMad99ManXx 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

SJ revert

I think it comes off as a little elitist, and a tad creepy, that you immediately jump on this and throw it out citing the lack of a wikipedia article, as if that makes or breaks someone's notability. The band in question is internationally touring and signed. So to some extent they are artists with influence in pop culture. I understand you don't want vandalism, but what's the point of information exchange if interesting tidbits are left out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachelor Steak (talk • contribs)

Do they meet the notability criteria guidelines outlined in WP:MUSIC? --Yamla 22:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For the advice and the response. I responded as well. I look forward to communicating with you in the future under more pleasant circumstances.

J.

User:Chadbryant

I apologize for bothering you about this but I noticed you have dealt with Chadbryant previously. I posted a warning on his talk page so that he will perform proper reversions, while also asking him to stop claiming that I am a sock puppet. He has refused to abide by either. Instead of a polite response he made this edit: . To make the story short, I am not a sock puppet. I came across what I thought was a questionable edit by a poster on the recent changes page. I reverted and looked at the poster's history and saw other questionable edits. I reverted them and asked him to use the talk page. I haven't reverted since, meanwhile he refuses to use the talk page (he used it until I oointed out the application of WP:Notability) Chadbryant has somehow confused this with sock puppetry. I don’t know what else I can do? I have asked him to use talk pages. He refuses. I have asked him to explain him stating how I have supposedly harassed him. He refuses. I have asked him to abide by basic wikipedia policy. He refuses. I am trying to abide by the rules. Is there anything you can do?

Again, I apologize for bringing this minor issue to your attention. I simply find it annoying. I didn’t know what else to do. Thanks. CraigMonroe 03:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

From WP:SOCK:

Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Misplaced Pages and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits.

And from the same policy, under "meatpuppets":

A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion. This is common in deletion discussions or controversial articles. These newly created accounts, or anonymous edits, may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate.

The "CraigMonroe" account first edited on 12 October 2006, and almost immediately jumped into several AfD discussions (see ; this account was being used to comment/vote on AfD discussions before its 20th edit). Interestingly, this account (as of this writing) does not even have a userpage set up by the user in question. The majority of this account's recent edits are reverts to my deletion of non-notable content in several sports facility articles. This account is at the very least clearly exhibiting the characteristics of a meatpuppet, and quite possibly is a sockpuppet of another user who also continues to Wikistalk me and revert/delete my contributions in bad faith.

If the continual (and obvious, at this point) harassment from "CraigMonroe" does not cease, I will file a RFCU on the account. - Chadbryant 01:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive page and re to email

I added an archive link because the bot was archiving to archive 8, which didn't have a link on this page.

Also, thanks for the reply to the email I sent you. I realize that Misplaced Pages doesn't have the regular complicated justice system, but it's always good to verify my facts. =)--Ed 03:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Mines45

I hope it's alright posting this; I wasn't sure whether it'd fit on any of the noticeboards. Could you do something about User:Mines45 please? He adds incorrect information to articles, and has removed the warnings from his talk page to stop. He then posted this on my talk page, which, according to my Googling , is quite offensive. Thanks a lot, SteveLamacq43 15:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has been blocked for a month. He was previously blocked for one week for similar behaviour and his continued blanking of his discussion page showed bad faith. --Yamla 15:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Cheers, SteveLamacq43 17:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kate Beckinsale link

Hi, thanks for your comment on my talk page about adding an external link to the Kate Beckinsale page. I am aware of the policies and did think carefully before adding one - however, I think you may be over-interpreting the rigidity with which this rule should be applied. I do very much agree that commercial links should not be added willy-nilly, but that was not my intent. If you look at my contribs record, I carefully defend quite a number of pages against exactly that. However, I do think that surely on a star page, at least one prominent fansite should be referenced. This also happens to be the case at a casual browse with the following randomly selected star pages - Sean Connery, Kirsten Dunst, Helena Bonham Carter, Scarlett Johansson (Yahoo Movies), Jenna Elfman - I could go on! In each, just one typical example of a good-quality fansite is shown, and that is what I was trying to show on the Kate Beckinsale page, about which, I assure you, I care a good deal on both quality and accuracy issues. Thanks for your time and attention. Best regards, Mark. MarkThomas 16:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ted Hughes

Hmmm. I see that you also deleted a perfectly good academic site link from another page I pay a lot of tlc to, Ted Hughes - can you justify please? MarkThomas 16:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Are you acting as an editor or administrator when you reverted Jennifer Morrison three times between 15:47 and 18:56 on 17 November 2006? --Oden 19:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I was reverting a simple case of an image which violated policy and so had to be removed. It is not considered a 3RR violation to enforce policy. --Yamla 19:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kristen Bell

Whatever you say Template:Emot... MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A vandal to keep an eye on

I'm not particularly interested in hunting down vandals, and you seem to be willing, so I thought I'd let you know that 66.64.223.2 seems to be capable nothing but vandalism. Perhaps you can take care of it. Just a thought. Gamiar 23:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Images

On another talk page, you wrote

Misplaced Pages has decided the choice is between a free image or no image at all

That is simply not true. In fact, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights clearly says All original Misplaced Pages text is distributed under the GFDL. Occasionally, Misplaced Pages articles may include images, sounds, or text quotes used under the U.S. Copyright law "fair use" doctrine. It is preferred that these be obtained under the most free (libre) license (such as the GFDL or public domain) practical. In cases where no such images/sounds are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available). Please don't mis-state the facts. Jenolen 23:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The full quote is "It may not always be feasible to find free images all of the time but for subjects where it is possible, Misplaced Pages has decided the choice is between a free image or no image at all". This is indeed the case, please see WP:FUC, first criteria. --Yamla 23:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that quote in the article. Dionyseus 01:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)