User talk:Jeffness/Archive 2

Do you have any suggestions about how to write the Plot section for this article? I'm leaning toward a fairly concise plot summary, maybe 4-5 paragraphs in length that just covers the basic story arcs in the film. It seems that specific detail would lead to even more detail as well as interpretation, which should be reserved for the Interpretations section. Generally, it seems that FA-class film articles tend to keep their Plot sections short and basically not serve as a text-based alternative to seeing the movie. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 01:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to say that this film has any plot. "3 : the plan or main story (as of a movie or literary work)". I must admit that my interest in The Fountain stems from my dislike of the movie. :) The plot section, as it is, helped me understand the movie.. So I kind of like it. Plus, I looked at your Batman Forever article and it seems the plot section there is quite verbose.--Jeff 03:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, Batman Begins, you mean? I didn't touch a word of the Plot section in that one. I basically helped out with the Production section (which I still consider incomplete) and wrote the majority of the Design section. I cleaned out some pulp, too. Someone just went ahead and nominated it as a GA, and after it got the status, I didn't really have much of a drive anymore to work on the rest of it, haha. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 03:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your note. Wikipedia policy is that fair use images should only be used if a free image does not exist and could not be created. This is obviously not the case for current sitting governors. While this policy has been in place for some time, it's only recently been enforced. It's a shame it wasn't enforced from the beginning, because now everybody has the good-faith impression that such photos are okay. But they aren't. —Chowbok ☠ 18:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffness, Your comments were correct. This guy is wrong and acting in an Inappropriate manner. Thanks for your contribution to the wikipedia project.--Megatropolis 21:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it overall. One thing, though. I noticed that you cite Usenet posts as sources in a few places. We've tried to do this in the Smart article before, but we weren't able to get consensus to do it. Check the talk page archives. The main sticking point is that WP:RS says not to do it, and we couldn't get any consensus to deviate from the guideline.

On the other hand, I think they would be acceptable under the up and coming replacement for RS, WP:ATT. Hopefully that'll come in sooner rather than later.

I mention this your user talkpage instead of the article talk page in the hopes of bringing your attention to past events without causing the argument to flare up again. Ehheh 21:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks for the heads up. I'll fix it.--Jeff 21:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it by removing them but wow.. I really need those for citation for many of the claims made about Smart's behaviour. Do you know if they would fly as external links? --Jeff 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they'd be OK as external links. While I can't predict what the Smart supporter camp will think is reasonable, I expect you'll have plenty of support to keep them as external links. They'll certainly do better than the werewolves link did, and that had fairly strong support. Ehheh 21:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the Freespace Licensing section. I was going to read the article tomorrow to see if that whole thingy was the quote, but now it seems I won't have to! Mael-Num 00:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

^[1]

^[2]

^[3]

---

pulled here for saving

No one is stopping him, and further, he is being encourgaed by jimbo wales. Also, the WP:C policy was "conviently" edited moments after I made that remark by an admin to remove exact language I was referring to, so there may be more truth to my statements then one thinks. Odd isnt it? Hackajar 06:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, jimbo sponsoring his actions has only emboldened him, which is stupid. these 'tards take Jimbo's word as if it fell from the heavens. Jimbo's just wrong about fair use. Fair use has a place on wikipedia. --Jeff 06:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My take, and I'm working on locating "he vs. she" case, is that promotional images (the bulk of which is at argument) are in public domain and are not interpreted as fair use. In the tech world if you do not defend your intellectual property, patent or trademark it is the same as releasing it into public domain. (wish I had some cases to cite, but having trouble locating them right now).Hackajar 06:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely an interesting take on it and I hope you have success, but I don't know... By the way, don't edit war the copyright page, it really was a good change. :) --Jeff 06:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem was he carfully changed the policy without disscussion. It's as if he wanted to render my point in-arguable. You can do that on a public policy page, but not in actual law. Hackajar 06:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a policy change though, that line never intended to convey what you're saying it did. It was just a friendly introduction someone added they shouldn't have because, as you've found out, it's too easy to misinterpret the intent. --Jeff 06:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Dude! I put in the summary that this should be disscussed first! This pushes me close to the WP:3RR rule!Hackajar 06:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know.. But you're wrong; It's not a policy change. :) Sorry! I wish you were right. Really! --Jeff 06:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the admin who made the change is on our side in the fair use issue, too.--Jeff 06:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL but I problably should have taken that career path ;) Hackajar 06:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me, and I used to be on the same side as you. But it seems Wikipedia has decided and these images aren't wanted. Instead of complaining about this, users should work together to improve the quality of WP:FU and instructions to uploaders. This would be productive to WP. --MECU≈talk 15:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my mistake in the Derek Smart article. I intended to place the opening of the HTML comment much later in the paragraph and only catch the sentence containing the unreferenced statement. I obviously made a mistake (I am guessing I may have been a line off and edited the line above the one I meant to edit). Sorry about that! --ElKevbo 04:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Hey, if you didnt mean to comment out so much, do you want to fix that part now? I just moved the citation. --Jeff 04:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it again (after a full night's sleep), it all appears to be fine now. I must have just accidentally included the citation. Thanks for the help! --ElKevbo 16:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like user:Chowbok?

Does deleting things for no reason give you a sense of power too?

No power trip here. In fact, I feel a little impotent compared to the anti-promophotograph people. --Jeff 23:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jeff. I know that your intentions were good, but selective canvassing, as you did early today by cross posting this invitation to "join the battle" to about 40 user talk pages is not acceptable (see WP:SPAM#Canvassing). I also wanted to let you know that you endorsed one of the summaries of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chowbok twice; you may want to return and consolidate your comments into a single entry. ×Meegs 22:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sucks. I didn't know about that policy. Thanks for the heads up I guess. I never felt as though I was spamming at all because user notification is part of marking images with RFU. My situation may be a bit different because it occurred through the course of letting them know about marking the file for deletion, I felt I should tell them why I was doing it, and also where to get more information about the WP:FU issue. Thanks for the heads up on the double endorsement too. I guess I didn't remember doing it the first time. --Jeff 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coaches sometimes call for 110% effort; you endorsed 200%. You should also be aware of WP:POINT. Your image tagging is an awful lot like some of those examples, and I would encourage you to stop. Regards. ×Meegs 23:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought long and hard about my reply. It's been difficult because you are right about established wiki policy. I've been semi active in Wikipedia for about a year now and still am not familiar with the intricacies already covered in the varied policies. So, my bad about WP:SPAM and WP:Point. Thanks for letting me know about them and I'll stop tagging images in bad faith.

That said, I'm still really frustrated and I don't know what to do about it. I am an wiki-inclusionist by nature. I think people put a lot of hardwork into finding photos that can be used under fair use and posted them to wikipedia to improve things. Now, users like chowbok are going around pissing on others' work. This is unacceptable and in my opinion and many others, not supported by Wiki policy.

By its' very nature, this type of action favors a limited audience. With a limited audience, the people who know about the problem are limited to those "in the know" and in this case, those "in the know" are more likely to support the very strictest interpretation of policy. Therefore, I believe that finding this issue needs a larger audience would lend itself to supporting what I believe is the correct interpretation of policy; that fair use does have a place on Wikipedia.

In the future if I get bored and go on a tagging rampage of high profile FU images, I'll try not to be as obvious about my motivations.--Jeff 05:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...that my goal is to get rid of all copyrighted content. You've said it a number of times, and it simply isn't true. You're not obligated to agree with my viewpoint, but you are obligated to not misrepresent it. —Chowbok ☠ 06:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But your goal is to have a wholly free encyclopedia, it must be your goal then also to have a Wikipedia free of fair use.--Jeff 06:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that my goal was to have a wholly free encyclopedia? —Chowbok ☠ 07:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? The primary argument behind your actions is that you want fair use images replaced with "free" images, consistent with Wikipedia's goals to achieve a wholly free encyclopedia. If you aren't saying that, then your entire position crumbles into nothing more than harassment.--Jeff 08:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I want fair use images replaced with free images whenever possible. In many cases, it's not possible. —Chowbok ☠ 18:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you prove that it is possible instead of implying that without checking?Hackajar 05:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on the people uploading encumbered images to our free encyclopedia. —Chowbok ☠ 15:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the burden of proof on the admin that must go through and delete tagged images? They do have the final say, after all. Therefore, by tagging images for deletion that don't have a free alternative, you're (theoretically) just making more work for admins. Wouldn't a category work better than outright deleting something? Something like "Free alternatives of nonfree images requested" ? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you have to create a problem with Chowbok about the Jim Doyle photo? I did all this work looking for the proper e-mail address, sending them a nice little letter, waiting for a reply, and I actually got a photo. But then you had to question it. I saw the whole Granholm debate, so I could understand why you're frustrated, but you're just kinda screwing me over here on this one. Now it's tagged as "possibly unfree" even though there's nothing to question about it. I try to work with Chowbok, which is quite possibly the most difficult thing to do, but you just made it a little harder. Just wanted to let you know what. VitaleBaby 19:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My limited involvement in the Jim Doyle issue has no effect on Chowbok's actions about it. I don't know what you're talking about.--Jeff 21:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where Jeffness edited the image, the image talk, or the discussion at "possibly unfree images". You sure you're not confusing him with Axlq? —Chowbok ☠ 22:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the note about the IP editing Derek Smart - the user involved may indeed be Derek Smart himself, but bringing it up on the talk page won't bring any good so it would be best to instead join the discussion on WP:ANI#User:WarHawkSP_and_Derek_Smart where an article ban is being considered for Warhawk as well. Thanks, and I hope you don't mind. Cowman109^Talk 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cowman109, I didn't know that was there. --Jeff 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I did an IP address locator on 63.44.66.100 using this website [1]. I got Pompano Beach, just outside Ft. Lauderdale. Use it as you wish. Cardinal2 17:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed your photo, Image:Kids diversity.jpg, over at WP:FPC. Did you obtain parental permission to publish the photograph of the children? I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly what the law says, but it seems to me that it's always a good idea to attain parental permission for this kind of thing. ~MDD4696 00:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a random candid shot, i didn't see any guardians around. I'm familiar with the law saying that if someones in a public area there's no expectation of privacy; but I'm not sure how that applies to kids. I thought it was a great photo but there's been lots of negative feedback (Some even thing it's on the wrong page), so I might as well delete it anyway. Thanks for the feedback.--Jeff 04:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your views on fair use, but I'd prefer that Image:Nigella Lawson.jpg be left out of it, or decided to be "fair" and sourced. Specifically, I don't want this perfectly good image to be deleted because of your (worthy) campaign. Any ideas? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't want it to be deleted either, she's smokin, but I don't think there's a way to legitimately keep it. It appears as if my campaign has not had any effect at all, so I won't be doing anything anymore. I give up.--Jeff 04:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your comments on User talk:Werdna/Review: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —Chowbok ☠ 16:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stupid kid banned me from IRC because hes a power tripping asshole. I'll personally attack him all I want, thanks. Also, the page says its uncensored, so I took advantage.--Jeff 02:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. —Chowbok ☠ 02:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's little content to comment in in a situation that is inherently personal. I wish you wouldn't get involved in a situation you know nothing about. his actions on IRC were inexcusable.--Jeff 02:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with saying exactly that; if you'd posted "your actions on IRC were inappropriate and inexcusable" on there, that'd be fine. It's absolutely not okay to say "you're a prick" or "I hope you die in a fire". —Chowbok ☠ 02:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL :) --Jeff 02:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, either discuss your problems with Werda civilly or drop them all together. I do not know what transpired on IRC, but if you continue making edits like

• "I hope you die in a fire"
• a sarcastic LGBT barnstar
• "power trippin 15 year old kid"

you are going to wind-up blocked from Wikipedia as well. ×Meegs 22:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if people expected civility, they would show it firstly through their initial actions.--Jeff 22:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how it started, just stop it here. I was about to remove your "die in a fire" comment; why don't you do it instead? Not only is it hurtful, but every time someone reads it, it does nothing but reflect poorly on you. ×Meegs 22:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fine] there. happy?--Jeff 23:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your position on fair use images, they're right; if you continue to be uncivil, they can banninate you. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My incivility towards User:Werdna has nothing to do with the fair use image thing; it's about him banning me from #wikipedia on IRC for no good reason. --Jeff 23:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just let it go, man. They're not going to listen to you. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

consider it let go. I'm still banned from #wikipedia, and still very upset about it. How can such an open encyclopedia have such assholes being channel administrators I'll never know.--Jeff 00:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obligated to keep your edits in a page in my userspace. Don't call my edits "vandalism" and stop with the snide remarks about Jimbo being my "best friend". Isn't there something more constructive you could be doing? —Chowbok ☠ 00:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helping people learn and become aware of the RFU issue is certainly a valuable use of my time. My contributions to the RFU explanation are fair and representative of what is really at stake with the RFU. Also, you do not WP:OWN your userspace. Please see Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space.--Jeff 00:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia custom, as laid out by the page you linked to, (quote: "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit") is that people are generally permitted to control the contents of their own userspace, so long as they do not transgress community standards in doing so. (Note also that the 3RR page you linked to states specifically that 3rr is not generally enforced against users reverting pages in their own userspace.) If you would like to place your rebuttal in your own userspace and link to it in discussions, you are welcome to. You are not free, however to force Chowbok to change her userspace page. If Chowbok and I disagreed, for example, over the format of one of the citation templates in my userspace, my opinion would prevail; I have put those subpages there for my use, and am permitted, within the community's standards, to arrange them as I like. Similarly, as Chowbok has created a page in her userspace for her own convenience in explaining her actions, she has the right to arrange it as she likes. Please do not revert the page again. --Robth^Talk 05:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your wikilawyering is nothing more than an attempt at silencing the opposition and quite transparent. Is it not important for people to be made fully aware of EXACTLY what the situation is? Certainly you must admit that the summary posted on that page is nothing more than a summary of one side of the matter. I would think you would find it atleast slightly hipocritical, given wikipedia's openness and DESIRE to inform EVERYONE, that you insist on silencing all contrary viewpoints and not making it easy for people to get involved in the debate.

Besides that, I can't make my own rebuttal and link it in every discussion everywhere; that's WP:SPAM#Canvassing.--Jeff 05:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, fot the record, I think you are correct. --Irpen 05:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, what a surprise. —Chowbok ☠ 05:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, you are facing an uphill battle if you want to get involved. The right place, though, is Policy pages and their talk pages rather than going after every edit of those several stalkers who attack other people's work.

For links and feedback, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chowbok, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive153#Personal attacks.2C harassment.2C baiting and pestering by user:Oden, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive156#User:Oden.27s threats. --Irpen 06:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that makes sense. If you're annoyed with me, be sure to attack Abu badali and Oden too. Just to be safe. In fact, just enlist on Irpen's side in every battle and edit war he's in. That's the best course of action. —Chowbok ☠ 06:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not attacking you, i was just trying to get some fair reporting on that page. There's obviously two cabals to this issue that are diametrically opposed.--Jeff 06:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, you're not attacking me (at least in this instance; I'm less sure about your message on your userpage). I didn't mean to imply that you were. I'm just amused that Irpen thinks that the next logical course of action for you is to join him in his complaints about Oden. —Chowbok ☠ 06:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, you can't prove that little note on my user page has anything to do with you :). That's just a general observation after seeing it happen more than a few times. I'll admit, the RFU "debate" (less of a debate than a dictation) pushed me to finally airing my grievances, though. I didn't take Irpen's link as an incitement to attack but more as a "There are other users besides Chowbok tagging RFU" thing.--Jeff 06:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my link was not an incitement to an attack. And not even pointing that there are other users whose run amok with fringe interpretations of the policies. I simply pointed out the interested editor to the linkt where the issues have been raised to give him additional background to decide on how he wishes to proceed. My point is that we should clear up the confusion with the policies such that it should not be interpreted unencyclopedically. Those RfC and ANI discussions include more links. Personally to me, Abu badali, Chowbok or Oden are of very little concern. I care about encyclopedia, the work of editors here and of myself as well. --Irpen 06:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those links, Irpen. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

A request for arbitration has been filed on the article Derek Smart, which you have been involved with in some manner. If you would like to contribute to the request, or subsequent case if accepted, please visit WP:RFAR. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, although I generally disagree with your stance on the Derek Smart article, I found "quasi-notable belligerent turd" to be worth a smile. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-12 20:38Z

I'd just like to say thank you for taking the time to organise and discuss this matter in an appropriate and very polite manner. While I obviously don't support your specific goals there, I very much appreciate the manner in which you are approaching this and your willingness to listen to other opinions. If only everyone who disagreed with me behaved like this. --Yamla 05:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know about that. I have tried other things before (see above), it's only their lack of success that has made me try another thing.--Jeff 05:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 23:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I founded Wikipedia and donated it into a nonprofit organization. I have spent countless hours from day one advocating for certain core principles in what I think is a thoughtful and respectful way.

And my thanks from you is to be compared to a mass murderer? Did you really mean to say that?

For the record, I closed down the poll in order to ENCOURAGE rational discussion and dialogue, not to shut down debate. It is my view that a premature and highly biased poll is exactly what people use to shut down debate. Closing the poll allows a real discussion and dialogue to develop, a reasoned search for common ground. For this, you accuse me of being like someone who would poison hundreds of people?

I am stunned. And I think when you calm down and think about what you have done, you will be stunned too. I certainly hope so. And then you can come and apologize, and we can have a serious discussion.

My email address is jwales@wikia.com, and I am open to discussing this issue with you at whatever length you find necessary.--Jimbo Wales 15:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo, thanks for visiting my talk page. "Did you really mean to say that?" Not really. I mean I wrote it and meant to write it so in that way, yes, but my motivations for doing so have less to do with truth and more to do with getting attention. There are certain correlations that can truthfully still be made. It's acknowledged you've become a pivotal leadership figure in the "free as in freedom" movement, your opinions carry far more weight than others, and also motivate others who look up to you or who desire to participate in a group to take up the banner which you also carry. The weight you carry and are able to toss around makes any issue which you get involved in a very dubious one to take up a contrary viewpoint, you'll understand.

But yes, of course, you aren't a mass-murderer and I know that stating that did cheapen what I have to say. The extreme statement was a way to get attention and not much else, and by you being here I guess it worked. It must have been a tough decision on your part to pay me any heed at all, so thanks for that. My apologies, of course.

I guess my disagreement over this though is that discussion have been held. Please see Wikipedia:Fair Use/Publicity Photo Advocacy. On that page, I and others have created a bulleted list of why publicity photos of persons are good for Wikipedia as well as a list of places in which discussion about this subject has occurred. I'm sure you're aware of all the various places, but it's a handy reference. Others have been discussing things for several months, I've been discussing things for a month, and yet more people are continuing to delete images properly used under fair use policy on Wikipedia while ignoring our pleadings.

I don't think we need more discussion. It's been discussed to death. I can come up with a 1 page document that explains both sides arguments on the matter with bullet outlines. I understand the situation and all arguments from both sides. Every discussion I've read for the past 2 weeks has been a recursive arguement where there will be no agreement. At this point, we need to come to a decision. If it's passed down from on-high, then so be it, but as it stands it's simple to state that Wikipedia allows fair use under policy and certain groups of people are interpreting policy in the most extreme way possible while others are left impotent to do anything about the ongoing deletion of fair use publicity photos.--Jeff 16:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at my wit's end in that fair use debate. I'm about to give up on Wikipedia because of this crap. Mind helping me out here? - Stick Fig 01:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I help? What can we do? We've tried everything?--Jeff 01:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sure seems like we've tried everything; they ain't budging. I seriously think we should propose some sort of fork. Clearly we're not having much luck here. - Stick Fig 01:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fork of Wikipedia? how would we do that?

1. Download the MediaWiki software here.
2. Download a database dump of English Wikipedia here.
3. Find some place to host it
4. ???
5. Profit

—Chowbok ☠ 01:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way you put that is sort of rude. Our frustration level is rising here because of all this. - Stick Fig 02:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to be rude. I'm not even sure how it is rude. I'm making a little joke at the end, but that != rudeness. The links are genuine, and the description of the process is accurate, though brief. —Chowbok ☠ 21:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Stick, I made a post on the Citizendium forums asking about the fair use policies over there. Maybe we won't have to start our own fork.--Jeff 05:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... I checked the first article i started on my favorite band... chowbok had deleted the image... i read this and your comments... this name has been my number 1 internet indentifier since about '99... thought you'd appreciate the irony... by the way, mine is here, can chowbok both nominate for deletion and delete, or must admin delete, and if it is deleted again, who in admin do i appeal? Guyanakoolaid 08:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some one posted this--Pierson's Puppeteer 17:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea that's me! No replies yet though.--Jeff 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

an old post.only thing that exist on the isue in my nolege.I think that we can sell our case to Sanger--Pierson's Puppeteer 01:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thaut that this should interest you,for the debate.--Pierson's Puppeteer 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have proposed to put a tamplate on top of Wikipedia talk:Fair use to balance out the other tamplate that is alredy there ,and hopefully atract more followers.My initial proposal is:

This template or project page is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair Use/Publicity photos, a project that aims to hold fair and open discussion on the use of promotional photographs on Wikipedia and prevent gratuitous deletions. If you would like to help, please see the project page for more information.

--Pierson's Puppeteer 18:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{User Considering-moving-to-Citizendium}}

If you don't like it you can create an other one

I know this is old news, but I have to say that Jimbo jumping down your throat for the koolaid remark was a real load of BS. I stumbled on the whole fiasco a couple weeks back when working on some photo copyright issues, but never said anything then and quickly lost interest in the debate on that page. Now given your involvement on the Smart page I was reminded of it and felt compelled to give you my vote of support. Jenolen was right on the mark in backing you up. Everyone knows that "drinking the koolaid" has nothing to do with being a mass murdered. I saw a 60 minutes program some time back where they were interviewing the CEO of Starbucks Howard Schultz, and the interviewer remarked that everyone at Starbucks had "drank the koolaid" and bought into his business plan. Remarkably, Schultz didn't respond like he'd just been called a murder! Can you imagine it? Anyways, that's my story. It wasn't you it was clearly Jimbo. Regards,Beaker342 07:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Beaker, thanks for your message. Yeah, funny how that worked out. I mean, I did take it another step and said we should call him "Jimbo Jones", which takes the analogy maybe one step too far. So, I did a bit more than just referencing the kool-aid as an allegory.. But then, the kool-aid situation is what we are faced with whenever a prominent person has herds of followers willing to take his word as gospel. Especially with such a passionately charged debate. Many people are taking up the "Free as in freedom" fight as though it's their purpose in life, and no doubt that makes them all the more difficult to rationalize with.

I'm not overly concerned with Jimbo jumping down my neck as I am frustrated at his non-response. For all his vociferousness, he never really addressed any of the points us fair-use preservers brought up. I just hate it because I feel like we're presenting a fairly good arguement and the dismissiveness, at the highest levels even, with which it's been handled is frustrating.--Jeff 08:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the Jimbo Jones comment, perhaps that crossed the line. All's well that ends well. --Beaker342 08:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NoSourcesDanger has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Robert A.West (Talk) 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The few articles that had the template appear to have sources, and the template was used to point out something dangerous. >Radiant< 09:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. Please double check your diffs. The sections they were applied to did not have sources. See Lacrosse.--Jeff 09:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That section also has half a dozen "citation needed" tags, though, and it is in Category:Articles with unsourced statements. I don't see the need for more tags, actually. >Radiant< 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In re: this -- Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jkelly 09:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not personally attacking anyone, get off my talk page.--Jeff 11:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other editors ‘jihadists’ is offensive. Please stop doing it and generally remember to stay cool. —xyzzy_n 23:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What word I use to describe the actions is inconsequential and using a weaker term would betray the truth of the matter. Whether something is offensive or not, especially in this case, is entirely subjective.--Jeff 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, truth is a nice thing, but actually not policy; WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are policy, albeit lacking in beauty if considered on their own. I’d like to invite you to let the latter two have precedence over the first one anyway if you wish to continue the debate. To make this last part clear, I mean that if you insist on being, bluntly put, rude, then discussion with you will probably end, not that I’m threatening to ban you (I’m not an administrator) or to ask somebody to ban you. Also please consider that outside of pubs and politics, arguments are more persuasive when expressed politely—even if they’re true. —xyzzy_n 00:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past months, politeness has been paramount in this discussion. Only after afforded no concessions whatsoever from those disagreeing with us is politeness lost.--Jeff 00:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I felt like I was getting bombarded today in the midst of this edit war. I know it seemed like we kind of took a break from it all in the last week and all, but I really want to emphasize our need to continue to organize over this.

User:Stan Shebs seems to think that I don't have any credibility because I don't do any of the heavy-duty image editing he does, and I find that to be a little harsh. I feel we have to work for the common user because many of those in favor of the current image-editing policies aren't in that mindset. Let's keep it up. - Stick Fig 00:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noted your message about vandalism by this user on his talkpage. I've been having problems today trying to correct his multiple vandalism attacks as WP:VP doesn't seem to be letting me put warnings on his page, instead it was merely indicating the vandal had already been reported. I have placed a message on Admin Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington with a request to check his contributions as I feel, due to the amount done, a short block would be suitable to make the warning more potent. Richard Harvey 15:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your vandalism revert on Grassland by the above user and your constructive comments to him/her the article has been vandalised again within a matter of hours. Richard Harvey 19:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism never ends. :)--Jeff 19:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for giving such a helpful explanation on WT:ICT about image tags etc. I agree that it is very much of a botheration to find free images, and as far as my previous experience has shown me it is even quite a struggle to submit a good fair-use rationale. I've worked extensively on the Shilpa Shetty article and I actually wanted that screenshot to depict her time in the television show, and I am also looking for a "lead" picture to go in the infobox "for informational purposes". I guess I'll just have to satisfy myself with taking a digital photo of a Shilpa Shetty image and upload that under a CC license, as all this copyright, free-use, fair-use gives me a great headache! :) Ekantik ^talk 01:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure no problem. You should be aware that taking photos of copyrighted material does not make the photograph you take devoid of copyright or free for you to license. That's called a derivative, and unless specified by a specific license the original author places on the creation, is not permissible by US copyright. You might want to find a publicity still released by Shilpa or her representatives as the case for using publicity stills under fair-use terms is far stronger. You might also want to consider contacting Shilpa's fan club or whomever and request a high quality image released under a license such as creative commons, which would be an ideal scenario.--Jeff 03:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]