Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:05, 7 March 2008

Hey, wait! Hang on a sec! If we started talking on your page, then I'm watching there. If we started talking here, then I'm watching here. I appreciate your attention; I just want to try and keep the active discussions in one place, it makes it much easier to follow the flow of conversation.

Archives

/Archive 1 2004-12-05—2006-09-10 /Archive 2 2006-09-15—2007-01-04 /Archive 3 2007-01-05—2007-03-28 /Archive 4 2007-03-29—2007-08-07 /Archive 5 2007-08-08—2008-01-28

Stella Hudgens

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Stella Hudgens, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not and Misplaced Pages:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kasey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kasey.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, I only reverted an image upload there, the actual uploader is Lillygirl (talk · contribs). — pd_THOR | 02:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:2179223763_64ac45e0e1.jpg

I saw your tag. If you look on the discussion page of Talk:Ashley Tisdale, you will see where he not only found the image on Flickr, he then found another copy on Ashley's official site, http://www.ashleytisdale.com/galleryn.asp, all before deciding that he should claim to be the copyright holder.Kww (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Grumpy doughboy.gif

What do you mean by "possibly unfree image"? What is the problem with the picture? (I'm still new to Misplaced Pages so I don't know) -- 224jeff6 18:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Pillsbury Doughboy is a copyrighted and trademarked character. By claiming {{PD-self}} on that image, you're saying that you own the copyright to everything in that image, and are releasing your rights. Obviously you don't own the copyright to the Doughboy character, so you can't make that claim. Strictly speaking I should have nominated it for deletion (WP:IfD) as a copyright violation, as the "possible unfree images" is only for images where someone is uncertain if the image is copyrighted.

Ultimately, the image will be deleted as it's (a) obviously not your copyright and (b) it doesn't serve any encyclopedic purposes to be kept under fair-use (WP:NFCC). — pd_THOR | 18:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. OK. But what do I do? 224jeff6 19:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing you really need to do right now; an administrator will eventually get to checking the image, find it unsat, and delete it. — pd_THOR | 20:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes a good rationale?

Hi, I'm sure you might remember who I am.

Since you know alot about how fair use rationales are being created for the best suitable type pictures, (In this case, a television screenshot), I would like to know if this is more or less enough and really appropriate? I have many more images with this kind of fair use rationales. Over the years, I have taken notice how so many Simpsons TV screenshots have been deleted due to the disputed fair use rationales... But luckily so far, none of my contributions have been tagged for deletion. Today, I visited my favourite article, and noticed within one night, most of the images were gone. Seeing what has happened, I wouldn't want this to happen to all my other images; I do take my contributions seriously, and I should tell you that I do take pride in any of my contributions and I don't want them to be tagged for deletion. I would like to know if I there is a better quality way of writing a good rationale in the example I gave above to avoid deletion. I just never liked to see things happening this way.

Concerned, and learning. Thanks.

Someformofhuman Speak now! 02:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that, for what it is, it's a pretty good and strong rationale. I don't generally fiddle too much with well-tagged fair-use images anymore, just because you said: people are proud and have strong feelings about their contributions (especially images); I generally try to limit myself to obvious copyright violations and the ilk now. However, that's not to say that despite your good rationale somebody won't feel that it's superfluous and only decorative and either remove it or delete based on that (see WP:NFCC#8). I highly recommend trying to bulk up the content that your image is supporting. In this instance, mention exactly how many times this specific character has appeared, how critical to those episodes he's been, and especially anything you can include (that's reliably sourced!) about his depiction and appearance. I wish you good luck; and if you need anything else, let me know and I'll do my best to help. — pd_THOR | 17:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, oh yes I'll have to agree that not all might keep up with its rationale and might come up with some other theory about deleting it. That was my concern. Anyway I'll continue to keep it up this way! :)

Someformofhuman Speak now! 00:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Joe Torres

hi, i really dont know how to do this, so sorry that im editing your page. i see that you keep changing the joe torres article to state that he starred in the 2002 movie groove. well, thats actually inaccurate. a guy named aaron langridge played somebody named joe torres in the movie, but it wasnt actually the same guy who starred as danny lightfoot. sorry about the harassment some of my friends may have been giving you, but we're just pretty touchy when it comes to the subject of our friend joe torres.

looooove, Presently (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't not believe you. But Misplaced Pages can't accept information that we know, only information that we can prove; that's the rules that makes Misplaced Pages reliable. TV Guide says one thing, but I can't find another reliable source that says another. If you can find one online (and IMDb is not a reliable source), let me know and I'll edit the article appropriately.

And don't apologize for editing my talk page, that's what it's here for. However, since this is more a discussion about the article and may be applicable to other editors, I'm going to suggest we continue it here. — pd_THOR | 19:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• as discussed, moved to: Talk: Joe Torres#Groove.

What is your problem?

• Hey asshole I scanned these in myself. You better out all the shit I worked my as to scan in and put on here back up. NOW! License plates are not copyrighted and I created the image of them so get your head out of your ass and fix things shithead! MRPL8 (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)