User talk:TLSuda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Help with non free photo, please.[edit]

We're working on Joan Robinson Hill and we need a photo of the music room of her home. She died in 1969-her husband was accused of her murder. He was having an affair with another woman and had spent a lot of money on making the room perfect. One of the couple's last arguments ended with Robinson Hill telling her husband he'd just lost her, his son and his music room. Five days later, she died in a local hospital under mysterious circumstances which will probably never be solved.

There's a lot of cited commentary in the article about the music room and it seems to need a photo for a better description and also for understanding as to why it was a possible motive for murder. All photos of the home I'm aware of would be in books, magazines and newspapers, and so on, which would be copyright-protected. When the home was offered for sale not long ago, the realtor posted photos of it. The music room has remained about the same as it was when the Hills owned the house. Realtor's listing photo we hope to use. Can we use this as a non-free photo for the article and if so, should it be classed as a promotional photo or a historic one? Thanks! We hope (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey @We hope:. I was looking over the article to see if this photo you want to use would actually meet the requirements of WP:NFCC (specifically #8). I've noted a few things. There is a quote in the John Hill section by Thomas Thompson that seems to be extremely long per WP:COPYQUOTE. That text is quite possibly copyrighted, and using that much material is against both WP:COPYQUOTE and WP:NFCC#3. That's a completely different matter, but I did want to point that out.
Second, as for the photo you want to use, I do not think the image would pass WP:NFCC#8 in this article. You are right that the music room is mentioned a few times in the article and you do have one source (used a couple of times). But, to pass WP:NFCC# the photo must do two things. 1) it must "increase readers' understanding of the article topic." In this case it might increase the understanding that a music room exists, but it doesn't, in my opinion, increase the understanding about Joan Robinson Hill. Even if that were met (which would be a stretch in my opinion) it has to meet a second requirement. 2) "Its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." We do not need to see an photo of the music room to understand that it existed, that it was fancy, how much it cost, what it was used for, or that John Hill lost it. Every bit of text is the article about the music room is understandable without the photo.
Overall, it is my opinion if you uploaded the photo and used it on that article, it would be taken to WP:FFD to be deleted. Alternatively, if the music room still exists in a form similar to that recent listing, the photo would immediately fail WP:NFCC#1 and would qualify for speedy deletion. However, you could reach out to the realtor and see if they would release the image under a free license (using WP:CONSENT) and they just might. I know that is not the answer you wanted, but I hope that helps. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Will start working on paraphrasing the quote and will also try contacting the realtor to see if they will release just the one photo of the music room. AFAIK, the home is not on the market now, so it probably wouldn't be bad for their business to do so. Have found another website with interior photos of the house, claiming the present owners open it once a year as a Habitat for Humanity benefit, but the site leaves no way to contact the owner of it to try asking for use of photos he/she probably took during an Open House. :/ Thanks again! We hope (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Placement[edit]

Hey. How's life being an admin? {{Oldffdfull}} goes into talk page, not image description page. (That's why it implements {{tmbox}}). Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey @FleetCommand: Being an admin is like being a janitor, all the work and none of the fun. As for your comment, if you read the instructions of the template documentation page, it says "If the talk page for the file already exists, add this template to the talk page. Otherwise, the template may be added to the file page itself under a heading such as ==Deletion discussions==." I haven't been adding the header because I think that it is silly, but I haven't been creating talk pages just to put a deletion banner. I haven't found any definitive required process either way, so I go by the template's documentation page. If there is documentation specifically somewhere, the template documentation page needs to be updated. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
{{oldpuffull}} has the same message in the documentation and I do the same thing for those discussions. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Administrator instructions and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/Administrator instructions say otherwise. This conflict needs to be resolved somehow. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Template documentation pages often remain behind the time and everyone feels quite safe editing them. But those Wikipedia: namespace pages are closely monitored and are under discretionary sanctions. So, they pretty much override what's written in /doc pages. I'll just hop over to Template:Oldffdfull/doc and fix things up. Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't completely agree with that. The template documentation has been around since October 2008, whereas the instruction guidelines have been around since June 2008 (and both included the respectable information since creation. I don't think, as it stood before you made the edits, that there was truly one right way over the other, but both should agree. If this is what is wanted, I have no problem doing it. I just didn't see any evidence that one way was preferential so I defaulted to the one that had been around longer. In the future, although I think it is silly, I will create a talk page just to put a deletion banner on it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The alternative would be to change the Wikipedia: namespace pages in admin capacity, fix those templates to use {{fmbox}} when put on image description page and ask Twinkle developers and bot operators to look for {{oldffdfull}} on image description pages as well. So, don't worry; creating a talk page just to put {{oldffdfull}} isn't stupid; it is according to KISS principle and the lesser of the two evils. Fleet Command (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Help 2[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TLSuda. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TLSuda. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TLSuda. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TLSuda. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Don't reply back. It's clear that you simply want to be confrontational about a non-issue. Thanks. Bye. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TLSuda. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

relist “I’m too sad to tell you”?[edit]

I wonder if you could relist the deletion discussion for file:I’m too sad to tell you The original deletion request was made before the article I'm too sad to tell you was created. This article discusses the art work and was the only use of the image. The only vote after this article was created was for “keep”. Further discussion is warranted.--Nowa (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nowa: A few things to note. You added the comment after the file was deleted. Second, the issue of WP:NFCC#8 is not magically resolved by moving the image to a different article. Unless and until an editor adds content to any article that not only supports but also requires the image to be seen to understood (more than just be seen as a visual representation or identification) the image won't be undeleted. If you want to take that task on yourself, that's fine. I would recommend finding third-party, reliable sources that discuss things about the photo that need to be seen (more than it just exists) like the composure, the lighting, why he framed it like he did, etc. The article needs this information before the image can be added. As a side not the article also does not have a WP:NPOV and seems to be WP:OR. If you want to work on these things, get the article cleaned up and ensure that the article meets the requirements of WP:NFCC#8 (and the other criteria), I will happily restore the image without relisting the discussion. Otherwise, even if you were to find someone to relist it, or take it to deletion review, it would likely not be restored. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I agree my “keep” vote was late and can be disregarded. To be honest, however, I’ve already done my best to accurately summarize the content of the references. If you genuinely feel the article has POV or OR, I invite you to point it out and I will correct it.--Nowa (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Nowa: I want to start by saying this subject has the potential to be a great article. In the following assessment, I am not criticizing the work that you've done, rather showing how it could be improved. The lead and first sentence are not very encyclopedic. "I'm Too Sad to Tell You (1970–71) is the most popular work by conceptual artist Bas Jan Ader." It should be something like: "I'm Too Sad to Tell You (1970–71) is a mixed-media conceptual artwork by Bas Jan Ader." Because that is what it is. As far as I can tell, only one person says its the most popular work, which is fine to include that information, but you need to include the attribution and it should not be the first sentence.
The second paragraph is simply just re-wording of Frieze Magazine source. That article is an opinion piece that you've summarized. You're giving someone else's opinion as fact, without stating anything like "so-and-so art critic says...." Opinion is not fact, so summarizing opinion in an article reads like WP:OR. The criticism section does a better job of this, but doesn't even mention the work, its a quote about the artist. In the interpretation section you use words like may and might. These are either unconfirmed (so possibly untrue) or someone's opinion. For all we know the tears may be made of alcohol and the artist might be drunk. The second sentence of this section is a summary of an interview, not facts. So basically the entire article is summary of various persons opinions (without mentioning the person or why their opinion is important) with very little based in fact and loads of fluff. It needs serious work. My recommendation would be to look at Good Articles (or even Featured Articles) about artwork to see how they are written and stay neutral while factual and attribute opinions. A good place to start would be the Art section of Wikipedia:Good_articles/Art_and_architecture. Let me know if there is anything further I can help you with. Cheers, and good luck. TLSuda (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
TLsuda: This is very helpful feedback. I appreciate the effort you put into it. What I hear you say is: more facts; attribute opinions; and use other good articles as models. Thank you. I’ll let you know how it goes.--Nowa (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I think you are on the right track, Nowa. Keep me updated. Like I said before, if we can get the article to where it needs to be (with relation to WP:NFCC) I'll happily restore the image. If there is something else I can do, please let me know. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Though to be fluid...[edit]

Is reverting outing not considered an exception to 3RR? Tutelary (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a direct exception as far as WP:3RRNO, no. It probably should be. Both of you back and forth reverting does not accomplish anything, and is still edit-warring. Someone else is obviously oversighting and they could help out, as could anyone else around, including myself. I just wanted to give you both a chance to calm down and step back, regardless of the situation. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Bogus claims of outing should definitely be an exception, yes. I'm sure that enough editors know the story to understand that I didn't out anyone. The editor outed himself, Tutelary advised him to remove the admission and requested revdel. Nothing else. Too bad that you as an admin didn't revert Tutelary's repeated removal of my perfectly acceptable reply to his statement about canvassing. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Sonicyouth86, you should be blocked for misunderstanding WP:OUTING and repeating oversighted material. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing. Tutelary (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. I didn't repeat oversighted material. If blocks are handed out, then we should start with the one for (admitted) canvassing. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Look y'all, I left you both messages to give you the opportunity to calm down, not so you would bring it here. I'm not a party to the dispute. I don't know what happened; I don't care what happened. I just want y'all to clam down. Good luck, TLSuda (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
TLSuda, the correct channel to request an addition to WP:3RRNO would be an RFC at WT:EDITWAR, right? Tutelary (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
That would be a fine place to start, but you might cross post (not canvas) at WP:AN as this would be relevant to a good many administrators as well. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Indefinite blocking of IP[edit]

I am curious why you indefinitely blocked an IP address (99.104.7.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) from editing. Aren't VAOs only blocked indefinitely and IPs temporarily? π♂101 (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Its being fixed. Huon (talk · contribs) is cleaning it up for me. I intended to block for 1 week, for persistent vandalism and after three tries failed. I'm gonna stay away from blocking until I figure out why I keep messing it up. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I thought that you believed that it was an open proxy. Dang mis-clicks! Happy editing! π♂101 (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it was part mis-clicks, part stupidity for me, and part a fight with my browser. Thanks for checking in so quick. Better to find these issues (even when they are simply human error) and fix them fast than to let them linger. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that some more cleaning may need done. The notice on the IP's talkpage says indefinitely blocked as a VOA. In response, the IP has requested a username change! And Huon even responded! Maybe the notice should be changed and the faulty name request should be explained. This way, we don't appear bitey. Just some suggestions. π♂101 (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm apparently having issues doing the most simple tasks today, but I will try! Wish me luck! TLSuda (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Piguy101: How's that? TLSuda (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. π♂101 (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)