Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mercy11 (talk | contribs) at 21:45, 10 December 2009 (→you are being discussed: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is not a battle ground

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The picture you put up for deletion

This picture is NOT an "unnecessary decorative picture of tough guys showing tenderness". This is a fight that has been engulfed in debate for almost fifteen years, and a major question was which fighter would have won had there not been time limits, or had there been judges in place. This picture illustrates the type of damage inflicted during the fight, a visual picture of damage that cannot be expressed merely through text. It is extremely necessary to the article in order to provide a world class encyclopedia. Nyquistx3 (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

New Brunswick general election, 1987 picture deletions.

I somewhat understand your deletion of File:Richardhatfield.jpg from the page in question, as there are questions regarding its copyright status. However, I have trouble understanding why you deleted the picture of Frank McKenna, as the status of this photo is clearly defined, and it is used in a different article without any issue. Could you please explain the rationale behind the deletion of both photos?

I noticed the phrase at the top of your talk page, and I do not want to start a battle here. I hope that my concern is not misconstrued in a negative way. While I did not upload either photo to the site, I would greatly enjoy seeing them back on the page in question, and I thought I would discuss the situation further with you before making that decision on my own.

Bkissin (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought some users could see as bias to use a picture of one of the candidate but not the other. I actually have no problem with the free image being used there. --Damiens.rf 19:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

By now you probably noticed that I am not the only one reverting your edits. Be forewarned that I do not intend to continue doing so, one more revert and the issue goes to ANI. The fact that you are acting unilaterally is not a good sign, try establishing a consensus. Your constant "name calling" won't help you either. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the site-wide consensus: WP:NFCC. Really, you're no familiar with our non-free police and practices (you are the one repeating that bit about WP:NFCI#8 on all nominations, aren't you?). Don't try to learn that from the Marine's guy. He's a great article writer but have poor knowledge of our polices.

I would not object if you want to ask third part opinions on either WP:ANI or WT:NFC or somewhere else. That could come out to be enlightening for you. --Damiens.rf 12:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Damiens: you are talking to editors who have been, in some cases, involved with wikipedia since 2001. None of us are newcomers. A significant number of those involved are also administrators in good standing. Perhaps going to WP:ANI or WT:NFC will be enlightening, but to you.

That said, in the interest of good faith, let me do an extensive commentary on the recent request for deletion you have made.

First, you are correct that none of the images are free. Second, you are mostly correct in treating them separately, as they are mostly distinct images (you could have treated the politician's as one, but thats a detail). Thirdly, you are also correct in invoking WP:NFCC, as this is entirely within its purpose. Fourthly, I will treat the images as one for the purpose of this commentary, but will point out the differences when applicable. Fifthly, I admit openly I have trouble assuming good faith in this case, however, trouble doesn't mean not assuming it - I wouldn't take this time to write this if I didn't think it was somehow worth it.

That said, lets see WP:NFCC's Ten Points of Inclusion, and how they apply:

1. No free equivalent. - An entire wikiproject in good standing is telling you: we looked, and no dice. This does count for something. Ask around.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities. - no of the images fail this criteria. In fact, all of the images have intrinsic historic value to illustrate either events or people.
3. Minimal usage. the images are low-res and they are for the most part cropped from the originals.
4. Previous publication. all of the images have been used by multiple authors and editors to illustrate similar topics in multiple publicly available websites and publications.
5. Content. all of the images are deeply encyclopedic and enrich our knowledge of the subject illustrated
6. Media-specific policy. all images meet this criteria.
7. One-article minimum. images are used in at least one article and not orphans.
8. Contextual significance. the images' presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
9. Restrictions on location. images are only in articles
10. Image description page. there was one image incorrectly identified as PD (although being from 1924 it means it will shortly become PD, so this was probably a mistake in good faith) The editor fixed this when pointed out. You have described the alternative rationale as "imbecile" - them fightin' words! Without getting into how in-artful such language is in productive discussion, it is true that reasonable people can disagree on criteria. However, all of the criteria provided fits around the above nine points. I do not see how could it possibly be described as "imbecile", except by means of either lacking good faith, or a failure to assume good faith. Please ponder this.

I hope this serves to illustrate why your invocation of WP:NFCC in this case actually contradicts your charges. All of these images enhance the reader's understanding and knowledge of the topic discussed, and in particular, serve to give context. They are meet the legal criteria of fair-use, such as not limiting commercial exploitation on the part of copyright holders or being used for purposes other than those claimed for fair use.

Ultimately, I think that you need to be less arrogant in your approach, and assume that other editors, in particular editors with long-standing commitment to the encyclopedia, also know what they are talking about. Just because we are brown and speak English as a second language, doesn't mean we are stupid. --Cerejota (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to be short and concise:

• No free equivalent - I honestly doubted all the members of the project are searching for freely equivalents even after a non-free images is used in the article. In ffd discussion I've seen several cases of images deemed irreplaceable to have freely equivalents found, sometimes by the original uploader himself.
• 'Respect for commercial opportunities. - We can only assert an images passes this criteria once we know the images copyright holder (there's a lot of difference in a riot picture owned by my grandpa and by Reuters). Many of the images used in those articles are, for instance, "sourced" to latinamericanstudies.org, that's a website that will use any image it sees fit without ever crediting the copyright holder (it's otherwise a great site).
• Minimal usage. Using a headshout of a boxer is an article as broad as Sports in Puerto Rico is not minimal use, for instance
• Contextual significance. - This is the main problem. How, for instance, is the understanding of Grito de Lares compromised by the lack of a P&B picture of a house in the woods?
• Image description page. - Rationales are supposed to explain why the specific article would suffer (and be harder to grasp) without the visual aid of the specific picture. Marine's rationales mostly fall short of that. (And as a side note: no, Work published in 1924 will not be in the public domain anytime soon. See Copyright Term Extension Act).

I found it amusing to call my attitude arrogant while still asking for a special treatment for the elder editors of wikipedia. I don't care about the color of your skin or your ability with any language. Stop vitmizing yourself, or trying to find some hidden agenda. My agenda is WP:5P, and I'm sure its yours as well. See you. --Damiens.rf 18:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I only made the appeal based upon your implication that we are ignorant and hence needed "enlightenment" in WP:ANI. If your sole concern is WP:5P, you are making a very bad job in showing it; drive-by ethnic-targeting such as what you are doing is a sport of certain editors who certainly disdain 5P. Try to be more, you know, encyclopedic and helpful rather than destructive. For example, try to find free alternatives before claiming non-free images are replaceable. --Cerejota (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Per our own policy we don't have to find free alternatives to establish an image is replaceable. --Damiens.rf 10:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Our own policy also calls upon us to ignore all rules if they keep us from improving the encyclopedia. And this policy is the core policy of wikipedia. Your actions for the most part, do not improve the encyclopedia, but make it less. Consider that.

It does more to improve the encyclopedia to find a replacement free image to a non-free image than to delete the non-free image being used under fair-use. In particular, when speaking about documentary history and biographical subjects with limited potential for commercial exploitation - which is the basis of fair-use under copyright laws.

It is evident to me that you are not taking the time to actually understand why many of these images are to be included under fair use. For example, Manuel Rojas' house is not just some "house in the woods", but has the same historic value of say, Abraham Lincoln's log cabin. This doesn't mean some of the points you make are valid, for example some of the images (like the headshot you mention in Sports in Puerto Rico). It just means that you assumed some sort of bad faith and arrogance, and that is not productive.

What is really nasty and generates so much drama is that you completely ignored the existence of a Wikiproject for Puerto Rico, and instead of attempting to engage us, you started just requesting deletion. We could have worked out the issues like editors assuming good faith. Going directly to deletion smacks of dickery. If you are so worried about 5P, follow them by trusting your editors to do the right thing by engaging them.--Cerejota (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What was really nasty was that the Wikiproject for Puerto Rico completely ignored the existence of a policy restricting the use of non-free content. Now live through your own drama. I'm tired.--Damiens.rf 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Painter

The answer is no, just the owner of the photo taken. By the way, I realize that you are right about the "poster" image issue. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between owning a photograph and owning a photograph's copyrights? (Good to hear about the posters issue. Try to be less arrogant next time some inferior editor contest your work. Even the greatest user can commit mistakes.) --Damiens.rf 03:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I do own the copyright to the photo which I took. Hey, you are not an inferior editor, you are a damn good one, hell I remember having a fine level headed conversation with you once. I guess you hit me hard with the image things (some of wish I don't agree with), but we all can get a little out of hand sometimes. Listen there are a couple of images that I would like you to reconsider, Colberg and the Ponce Massacre, especially the latter which is a sensitive issue for the Puerto Rican community. I will fix the the source on the General's image. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking a picture of a copyrighted painting does not transfers the copyright to you. There was no creative work in producing such a simple copy of the image. Please, consider deleting it to save us some time.

About the Ponce image, please understand that by being a picture of a sensitive issue for your people have no impact on our policies. We can't take copyrighted pictures and use as we wish. If that image is really famous (like in a award-winning picture), we could use it in an article section discussing the image itself. But if what you want is an impacting image o illustrate articles that deal with the Ponce Massacre, I'm afraid you'll have to find a free image. We don't keep non-free material just because it fits our convenience.

About the Colberg image, track down its copyright holder. By "source" you sometimes seems to understand "the website you happened to download the image". But this is not enough to determine the licensing status, or to ponder any possible WP:NFCC#2 concerns. I suggest you find some book that use this image and see who it credits. Usually, books behave better in regard to copyrights than websites. --Damiens.rf 03:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the More about Ponce, I'll see what I can find out about the image. I'll take care of the painting situation. It seems as if the website with the generals image isn't working as before, however I do have a book "Historia militar de Puerto Rico" with the same image and which I will site as a source. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Request

Damiens, listen I took care of the "painter" image per what you pointed out. I have a request and that is that you please withdrawal the nomination of File:Gilormini,Mihiel.jpg. The cited source belongs to the Puerto Rico Air Guard which in fact is under the jurisdiction of the United States Air Force. Puerto Rico being a U.S. territory among many other things cannot have an Armed Force per Federal Law. The Federal Government of the United States rules here and the Commander in Chief of Puerto Rico's Guard is the President of the U.S., that is why there are troops of the guard right now in Iraq. The governor of Puerto Rico only has the authority to use the guard in national emergencies. A lot of people do not understand the political relationship between the U.S. and Puerto Rico and do not realize that the island has little to say when it comes to military and commercial aspects which are governed by the U.S. I posted an explanation in the deletion page. Thank you Tony the Marine (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Which cited source are you referring to? The book or the Picasa Web Album? Which one you're saying belongs to the Puerto Rico Air Guard? And how can I verify this information? --Damiens.rf 15:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my god! I feel ashamed for you. When the Picasa photo page says (in the right) the image "Belongs to Guardia Nacional Aérea de P. R.", it's actually say the picture belongs to an album called "Guardia Nacional Aérea de P. R.". But that was funny, I have to admit. --Damiens.rf 15:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I didn't notice the album thing, I feel ashamed . Even though after fully reviewing the album, it is obvious that album owner does not own the copyright to the majority of the photos which were taken while some of the subjects were in active military duty. However, it would be best just to delete it, which I will. Maybe, a less colorful replacement from the "Historia Militar de Puerto Rico" would do. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:PD or not PD

The book sites it as an Air Force image, but when I uploaded the picture under image from a "book" that format came-up and I thought that it was needed for where the image is going to be used. I do see your point as to the confussion created. I'll do what I hope to be the proper fix. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Your actions are being discussed here --NeilN 21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

you are being discussed

at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Uninvolved_Admin_Requested:_User:Damiens.rf_multiple_JPG_deletions_and_related_matters Mercy11 (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)