User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:35, 6 February 2012

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

Image Unfree Files Claim

Hello. I'm still relatively new to editing and uploading images to Wikipedia. File: RFYL-Blood Pit.jpg and File: Zombie Chase are both pictures taken by me and stored on my friend's computer, Billy Weiss. There is no copyright on either picture. I didn't know what to put on where the images came from, my actually taking them or the person's computer they came from. I'm not positive what I need to write to allow them to stay up. They shouldn't be breaking any copyright laws or infringements because I didn't take them from anywhere else. I assigned a creative commons license to them because the details said it didn't need copyrights. Can you tell me what needs to go into these two images to display the correct information and not have them deleted because of wrong or missing tags? I really appreciate it. Thanks.

Thanks

Regarding deletion of 150 years old photo of Antun Knežević JPG

Well this is a (Re-brushed) photo not a painting, as you can see, and its more then a 100 yrs. old photo of the person that lived between 1834 - 1889. This means that photograph must be old at least as person it depict, don't you agree? I placed appropriate Licensing, but hardly anyone knows who took this photograph some 150 yrs. ago (!?). So, I am certainly not able to say who took it, but I can say that I borrowed it from bs.wikipedia article about this person. Please feel free to delete or what ever you think is appropriate.

RE: Image upload wizard/form

Hello. You have a new message at Carnildo's talk page.

My Bad

Sorry about that, I don't really know much about putting pictures on. Thanks for telling me. Rb360

I was not having a "revert war"

Seeing as how my attempts to resolve the conflict with the user discretely are getting interrupted, I will be making a formal report and requesting that he be removed as admin for improper conduct.

Anonyma Mädel (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Useless. Your conflict over your block is on de-wiki. This is en-wiki. We have no jurisdiction over what goes on in the other projects. If you want to challenge a block on de-wiki, you need to do that there. You probably won't succeed though, because from the little I saw you were clearly blocked for a valid reason: your German is simply too poor to contribute usefully there, and your contributions – piss-poor German combined with naive tendentiousness – were objectively harmful both to article content and to discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're being extremely rude, but that aside, there was still no justification. There was already another user who was addressing the issue, and then this guy decided to arbitrarily get involved, despite the fact that a solution had already been worked out.

He was a German,
Who banned a Russian mixed race German,
Who is married to quarter Jew,
And then he deleted the user page that says I am half Russian.
This was also in response to objecting to the myth that Germans are totally victims of WWII, which they love to see themselves as.

But I will drop the issue.

Anonyma Mädel (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mrsafety.jpg

Hello. You put a note on a file I uploaded that it was replaceable and so wasn't fair use. So, I uploaded an (own work) image to Commons with the same file name, hoping to have the original replaced, but it's still there. Is there any way you could just delete the image that's under fair use - would this mean the commons version under the same filename would come up on the articles instead? I hope you know what I mean. Here's a link to the new image. Thanks in advance. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 17:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and thanks for providing the free alternative. You were right; the presence of a locally uploaded file will have the effect of masking a Commons file of the same name, so the local file had to be deleted to make the one on Commons visible. The new file looks okay and should be visible now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheREALCableGuy

Ha--beat ya by a minute! DMacks (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful

I'm disappointed that you've just deleted my file when I have permission to use/upload it. Hardly helpful of you. -- User:Matt.whitby

I assume you are talking of File:The Nines.jpg. I'm unfortunately not blessed with the gift of clairvoyance, so I have to go by what's on the image description page. You used the "non-free image" upload form for it, thus admitting it was not a free work. It was also very obviously a promotional image, of the type that is almost always non-free. You neither bothered to fill in the fair-use data, nor say anything about a license you had. Hardly helpful of you. If you actually do have a license – and I mean a fully free one, and evidence of it – then you are of course welcome to re-upload the file, with proper data this time. If you don't have such a license, please don't bother re-uploading, because even with a fully filled-in fair use rationale it would never stand a chance, being replaceable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ACTA protest by members of the Polish parliament.jpg

As per the discussion on Zzarch's talk page, at least one revision of this file was ineligible for summary deletion under WP:CSD#F7b. I'd sincerely appreciate letting the XfD process continue normally. — C M B J 06:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see the argument. Which revision, and why? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first version was the direct subject of commentary in at least two reliable sources, thus there is no qualified argument for automatic deletion in any event. There's also the matter of F7b's requirement having been contradicted by past consensus in nominations like Stonewall riots.jpg and expunged from WP:NFCC via an extensive RFC in May 2011, though strangely WP:CSD, {{Non-free historic image}}, and {{db-badfairuse}} have not been updated to reflect this with respect to historical images. Beyond that, there's also serious problems with assuming that any reasonable file be mandatorily and arbitrarily deleted early in defiance of consensus (WP:NOTLAW, WP:UCS), especially under these circumstances, but I'm trying to avoid going there because I know that you were acting in good faith. — C M B J 11:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I disagree on several points.

Neither the article, nor any of its sources, engaged in any amount of significant discussion of any version of the photograph. What they commented upon was the situation depicted in the photograph, not the photograph itself. More about this distinction below. This is a very common mistake in these kinds of discussion.
The RfC did most definitely not override or invalidate WP:CSD#F7b. What it did clarify was that the range of possible justifications of historical photographs in general could not be narrowed down to "object of commentary". However, it also made it very clear that – of course – every individual image, whatever its justification, has to pass all NFC criteria separately. Photographs from commercial news agencies almost always fail NFCC#2 ("commercial market role"), because our usage of the file is in direct competition with comparable usage by others who would have to pay license fees for it. CSD#F7b simply reflects this fact. NFCC#2 enforcement is compulsory; that's why the related CSD has so little wiggle room.
The only type of situation where a fair use case is so strong that it may override even the NFCC#2 consideration with commercial agency images is where "object of commentary" is true in a very narrow, very strong sense: in those cases where the creative work of the photographer, as such, is the topic of our discussion, because in that case we can make a watertight case of "transformative use" in the sense of fair-use law. That is typically the case only with very few, highly iconic or famous news photographs, like File:Tianasquare.jpg or V-J Day in Times Square. The crucial difference is whether our encyclopedic interest is focussed on the creative achievement of the photographer himself, or whether we are using the photograph only as a vehicle for illustrating something else, i.e. the historic situation that the photograph happens to depict. Most uses of historic photographs belong to this second type, as does this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I provided Zzarch with quotes from Forbes and Techdirt where the image itself was directly commented on, as opposed to just the event. He seems to have archived that discussion since I first contacted you, but it can be found here.
I wasn't the only person who interpreted the RFC's closure as having implications for historical images, but I'll admit that I only skimmed through the discussion and it's possible I've been lead astray. Setting that aside, I disagree that this case here was so comparatively clear-cut that it could be summarily ended days early against consensus; I hadn't even weighed in with the above sources (or any others) because I saw so little chance of the nomination even succeeding.
Again, I personally think that transformative work coincidentally exists to support this image. With that said, Stonewall riots.jpg is still a recent example where a Corbis image was kept without regard for transformative use. In fact, supporting arguments appear to have explicitly included the point that transformation is only one possible justification under U.S. copyright law, as well as the view that unique historic events justify photographic illustration. I'm open to the idea that consensus may have changed since I was active in this area, but these views are both consistent with those to which I have traditionally subscribed. — C M B J 13:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while I maintain that there's good reason to believe the latter version can qualify for fair use, it's worth highlighting the fact that the first version of ACTA protest by members of the Polish parliament.jpg wasn't even from a commercial agency at all: it was from the Polish Press Agency, a non-profit run by the Polish government. As a side note, and for whatever it's worth, here's a semi-auto harvested list of files likely to be on shakier legal ground:

— C M B J 13:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(←) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments don't cut it. And I see no evidence PAP is non-profit. I also get the feeling you have not really followed me about that distinction between comment focussing on the photograph as a creative work and comment mentioning the photograph as a vehicle for illustrating something else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments don't cut it, which is why I linked to the same page and essentially disclaimed the information as trivial beforehand. I made the list as a curiosity and wouldn't have even attached it had I known its inclusion would in any way serve to distract from what preceded it, or otherwise be misconstrued like this. As for the difference between commentary on the content of an image or commentary on its merits as a creative work, I recognize the distinction and attempted to address this previously. It's evident that we're of very different opinions on the issue, but I do not agree that an image can be cursorily eradicated on this basis alone. I do not think that this view is representative of the community as a whole. — C M B J 14:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for File:ACTA protest by members of the Polish parliament.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:ACTA protest by members of the Polish parliament.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — C M B J 12:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In (belated) answer to a question you made over at DRV, I suppose "definition of a creative work" rolled off my fingers as an admittedly inscrutable misnomer for a more abstract thought. There never was any real misunderstanding between us about the specific concept that you invoked, though we do espouse fundamentally different ideologies in the associated area. Beyond that, I'd like to say that the repeated, mutual miscommunication between us has probably been due to a tendency that we both seem to share in common: expeditiousness. It's undoubtedly a blessing in most facets of life, but it can, on occasion, contribute adversely in certain uncommon communicative situations. — C M B J 08:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD or CSD ?

Antid.'s latest article is Independent Albania, another OR/SYNTH essay like Myth of Albanian Indifference to Religion. He copied some parts of other articles and added other ones like After his speech they began by checking the documents.. Should I bother taking it to AfD or will CSD suffice?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Fut.Perf. ☼

Help!

Hi, could you fill in/ look to see if this image is a) got he right rationale b) not going against any policiys? Thanks File:The Voice UK Promotion.jpg MayhemMario 16:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite convinced. The logo as such already has an image in the article, and the photographs of the persons could be replaced with free photographs, as long as the purpose is just to show who they are. As for the argument that it shows the manner of promotion of the show, that would only make for a good rationale if that manner of promotion was a topic of sourced critical commentary. Please bear in mind that you can't simply take over a standard rationale for logos here, because this thing isn't actually a logo. The logo is only the thingie in the middle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite obviously this non-free image is currently being used in a draft of the article to identify the judges and as such fails the non-free content criteria on at least three counts, replaceability, contextual significance and use in non-mainspace. The mainspace article has a logo in the infobox so you can't get away with that claim either. You are just SOL on this one. ww2censor (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, although I came here to speak to this specific user, thanks for your comments. When I uploaded it, I uploaded it on the basis that it was a version of this, as this is the US version, and I was uploading the UK version. Now, I practically came here to ask to delete the image I uploaded, you can do it straight away, or keep it, or in fact delete my image and the one I linked above. MayhemMario 12:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one part of the image that it fails (supposed) is "not used in mainspace", well it will be when I split it off!!! :P The image is not there for the judges, it there to show the promotion of The Voice UK. MayhemMario 13:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for enforcement

FP, the recent editing of Smatprt (talk) on the SAQ page has been disruptive and tendentious in an effort to right a great wrong by repetitively removing a section that accurately describes the movie Anonymous.

He has been repeatedly asked to discuss the edit on the talk page, but his response has been one comment three days ago (see last three posts) and then repeating his deletion of the offending material, using various edit summaries. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FP - Tom's contention above, that his recent version of the Anonymous plot summary "accurately portrays the movie" is what is being debated here. I'm not sure what "great wrong" is being discussed, but Toms own edits and multiple reversions are just as much at issue, or at least they should be in a fair hearing of this matter. I have provided my reasons concisely on the talk page and have expanded upon them with my edit summaries, which Tom does not mention in his report above. I have also provided numerous references (NY Times and Post, LA Times, Variety, etc.), but they are not being used, while the reviews of lessor critics and non-professionals are being cherrypicked for inclusion. In any case, here are my edit summaries which explain my edits, statements which would be hard to define as controversial:

Devere is not "depicted" as illegitimate until the last few minutes, an accusation that is left ambiguous at the movies end. Please don't summarize plots if you have not even seen it.
again, not a major premise, and no ref supplied says that it is. Links to the movie and the PT theory are already provided. imdb for plot ref.
removing bogus ref, which does not mention any of this stuff!
former version inaccurate, and RS provided was an opinion piece. We can't use someone's "interpretation" of the plot, and their mischaracterization of plot elements.Stick to uncontested facts.
refs to professional film critics supplied. Removing plot summary items that are not consistently mentioned, or only serve as pointless plot spoilers. (no objection to PT mention, but need a RS, right???)

Between my edit summaries and my initial comment, I have provided more than enough reasons to justify my edits. One final observance - this section on "Anonymous" was not part of the FA and never achieved any sort of consensus. As we have seen, the reference originally supplied was a fake, citing an opinion piece that didn't contain any of the specific information being cited. I have now supplied refs to 4 Major movie critics (the bug guys), as well as the IMDB site, confirming my edits. More are available, but even this sampling of major reviewers is pretty much unanimous about what the movie is "about".^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]Smatprt (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the point - please note Toms initial edit summary: "reinsert major premise of the movie which was mentioned in every review and restore ref"[[1]] This was the first of tom's many reverts and it is precisely what the 5 major reviews links I posted disprove. After being faced with a complete misrepresentation, which was then bolstered with a reference that was later to be found to be bogus, I supplied 5+ references. All of them have now been deleted.[[2]]. How is that kind of behavior not being disruptive? Smatprt (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to challenge the notion that it is I that am responsible for the tone on the page. During my banning, even Jimmy Wales himself was attacked and had to warn the present editors about their own behavior.[[3]]
Jimbo then made this comment, mentioning the treatment he received:[[4]]. At the time, he started a "straw poll", which was since been treated by Tom as a binding decision. I would ask you to look into this as Well, as it is my understanding that "straw polls" have no binding power. Why has the administration not looked into any of these incidents?
Jimbo later left this comment on his talk page:[[5]], which sums up the situation pretty well. Its too bad that no one is actually interested in fixing the problem, instead of simply dolling out punishments that avoid the core issue, which is the empowerment of a handful of editors to the point that they are now out of control and feel like they can get away with anything, even attacking and belittling Wikipedia's founder.Smatprt (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt1521197/

[2] ttp://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/anonymous-toronto-review-233499

[3] ttp://www.variety.com/review/VE1117946025/

[4] ttp://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-anonymous-20111028,0,7562107.story

[5] ttp://movies.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/movies/anonymous-by-roland-emmerich-review.html?ref=movies

[6] ttp://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/not_so_in_love_with_this_shakespeare_x94JwcH1geBMfFFu3mgDtL

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 168: / Line 168: @@
 *refs to professional film critics supplied. Removing plot summary items that are not consistently mentioned, or only serve as pointless plot spoilers. (no objection to PT mention, but need a RS, right???)
 :Between my edit summaries and my initial comment, I have provided more than enough reasons to justify my edits. One final observance - this section on "Anonymous" was not part of the FA and never achieved any sort of consensus. As we have seen, the reference originally supplied was a fake, citing an opinion piece that didn't contain any of the specific information being cited. I have now supplied refs to 4 Major movie critics (the bug guys), as well as the IMDB site, confirming my edits. More are available, but even this sampling of major reviewers is pretty much unanimous about what the movie is "about".<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1521197/</ref><ref>http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/anonymous-toronto-review-233499</ref><ref>http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117946025/</ref><ref>http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-anonymous-20111028,0,7562107.story</ref><ref>http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/movies/anonymous-by-roland-emmerich-review.html?ref=movies</ref><ref>http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/not_so_in_love_with_this_shakespeare_x94JwcH1geBMfFFu3mgDtL</ref>[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] ([[User talk:Smatprt|talk]]) 00:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
-Further - please note Toms initial edit summary: "reinsert major premise of the movie which was mentioned in every review and restore ref"[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=prev&oldid=474316158]] This was the first of tom's many reverts and it is precisely what the 5 major reviews links I posted <u>disprove</u>. After being faced with a complete misrepresentation, which was then bolstered with a reference that was later to be found to be bogus, I supplied 5+ references.  All of them have now been deleted.[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=prev&oldid=475299468]]. How is that kind of behavior not being disruptive? [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] ([[User talk:Smatprt|talk]]) 00:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
+'''To the point''' - please note Toms initial edit summary: "reinsert major premise of the movie which was mentioned in every review and restore ref"[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=prev&oldid=474316158]] This was the first of tom's many reverts and it is precisely what the 5 major reviews links I posted <u>disprove</u>. After being faced with a complete misrepresentation, which was then bolstered with a reference that was later to be found to be bogus, I supplied 5+ references.  All of them have now been deleted.[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=prev&oldid=475299468]]. How is that kind of behavior not being disruptive? [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] ([[User talk:Smatprt|talk]]) 00:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
+:*I would also like to challenge the notion that it is I that am responsible for the tone on the page. During my banning, even Jimmy Wales himself was attacked and had to warn the present editors about their own behavior.[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship&diff=prev&oldid=452817813]]
+:*Jimbo then made this comment, mentioning the treatment he received:[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oxfordian_Theory_–_Parallels_with_Shakespeare%27s_Plays&diff=prev&oldid=459136412]]. At the time, he started a "straw poll", which was since been treated by Tom as a binding decision. I would ask you to look into this as Well, as it is my understanding that "straw polls" have no binding power. Why has the administration not looked into any of these incidents?
+:*Jimbo later left this comment on his talk page:[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=460488528&oldid=460476568]], which sums up the situation pretty well. Its too bad that no one is actually interested in ''fixing'' the problem, instead of simply dolling out punishments that avoid the core issue, which is the empowerment of a handful of editors to the point that they are now out of control and feel like they can get away with anything, even attacking and belittling Wikipedia's founder.[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] ([[User talk:Smatprt|talk]]) 01:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)