User talk:Lupo

Archives of older talk are listed on the archives page.

---

Dangling image references

I see from your archiving that you consider our discussion of dangling image references over. As you will. If you later wish to continue it, my talk page is open. JesseW, the juggling janitor 16:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed I thought so: you stick to your point, I stick to mine, and that's that. Sorry if I misinterpreted something, but neither of us is budging, and both of us are free to do as we please, so why continue arguing? We've both made our points. Lupo 08:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

sydney moon image

Okay, fair enough about the Sydney Moon wallpaper. But do you have any idea where one can get acceptable images of online models? It looks like many images posted for online models--such as Jana Cova and Penny Flame for example--are under review for deletion. The one for Sylvia Saint is acceptable for complicated reasons that are not obviously clear or reproducible. Surely, this problem has come up before. Do you have any positive suggestions on how to get an acceptable image? The girl deserves a picture.

Blargh

Okay, how about this? If I get a positive response to the informal request for an image from the Boilerplate Request section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission), would that work?

Blargh

Answer on User talk:Blargh. Lupo 07:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Marion Tinsley image.

Lupo. I fixed Tinsley's image. Look it over and make sure I haven't overlooked anything. ~Sr.Wombat

Answer on User talk:Sr.Wombat. Lupo 07:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Re:Coincidence

09:59 Alex Ong (diff; hist) . . Sjakkalle (Talk | block) (AFD)

09:57 Charlie Dodd (diff; hist) . . Lupo (Talk | block) (vfd)

Within two minutes, independently. Talk about serendipity... Check your AfD if you want to know why this made me smile. Cheers! :-) Lupo 10:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice the Charlie Dodd article. The only reason I spotted the Alex Ong one was that I made a routine look through the contributions of a vandal after reverting some of their edits, and immediately grew suspicious of any articles that he/she had created. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting away the childish nonsense on my userpage. I didn't notice that one. Kids these days... :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, but really, there's no need to thank me for that. Standard procedure (as you must know well enough, looking at your page's history :-), and he got a 48h block out of it. Lupo 13:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Mental Retardation edit

OK, I see what happened. Some anonymous user had been vandalizing the main star wars page, and when I saw the guys history with all vandalism, I reverted several of those. Upon having a second look, I see that those are outdated from months back when the guy did the vandalism on them. Sorry if I caused any problems there! I was actually trying to catch the guy who did those edits in the first place! The Wookieepedian 14:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sydney Moon follow-up

Hey, thanks a lot for the rapid and detailed follow-up on Sydney Moon. As a matter of fact, Sydney has informed me that she is very interested in her Wikipedia entry, so I will follow up with your suggestion about the publicity photo. Thanks so much.

Blargh

SydneyMoon promo

Uh, oh. This copyright thing is so tangled. Here's the publicity photo that I want to upload from Sydney's site (http://shop.sydneymoon.com/sku_images/1005_b.jpg). And here is what Sydney wrote me about posting her photos:

I'm happy with any tinkering with my Wikipedia entry as long as no meanies get in there ;)

Go ahead and post any pic you think appropriate there

)

Trouble is, if you look very closely at the bottom of the photo, you will see a copyright statement with all rights reserved. That would seem to send it afoul of one of the copyright policies which forbids the use of copyrighted photos by permission. Could this photo still be used? Can she just pick another photo without the copyright statement? Does she also need to do some kind of formal release of permission or acceptance of the GNU rights or whatever it is? Thanks again for your trouble, and I hope I can get this resolved quickly without bothering you any more.

Blargh

You really think Sydney Moon herself would answer e-mails? :-) Somehow I don't think so... Anyway, either you get them to release that image under the GFDL (and forward the permission granting e-mail to "permissions at wikimedia dot org"), or you make a "fair use" claim... Note: on that particular image, a "fair use" claim might be difficult since the image is for sale at an affordable fee. It might be even better, despite the somewhat dubious source, to try a "fair use" claim on a thumbnailed version of the one you've uploaded, maybe even cropped to only head and shoulders: promo photo previously published, thumbnailed (unfit for print or other serious re-publication), tiny fraction of a whole series (one img only, other images from that series can be found elsewhere on the net), no impact on market value since much larger versions are distributed elsewhere for free-of-charge download. Just my two cents. Lupo 08:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

sydneymoon fair use

Thanks for the specifics. Both of your suggestions sound good, but I will start with your second. My fair use rationale won't contain any surprises.... Thanks again for your help.

Blargh

Ok :-) Since we claim "thumbnailed", I have thumbnailed it to the size used in the article. Take a look at Image:Sydney2.jpg now... Another hint: in the future, try to upload images under less ambiguous names. "Syndey Moon.jpg" would have been better. It doesn't matter now, since apparently we had no images of Sydney, Australia under that name, but using specific file names that identify the subject is always a good idea. Lupo 07:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Promophoto use

Thanks Lupo, seems I've been misunderstanding the promophoto rule. I thought it applied to any images that had been provided to promote the person or the product (or the institution, in this case). Proto t c 12:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Hazel O Leary fisher.jpg

Thank you for your work on Image talk:Boniface8.gif. Please see Image:Hazel O Leary fisher.jpg. Andy Mabbett 13:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen this mess. I see several possibilities: (1) the image has been taken by a staff or newspaper reporter, and Scott scanned it in from some publication (newspaper, or lab-internal flier, or some such). Conclusion: Scott doesn't own the copyright, but (especially if it was a lad-internal publication) he might have permission to republish it as PD of under the GFDL. (2) Image taken by a friend or co-worker of his; again, assuming good faith, he might have permission to republish as PD and maybe just tagged it as {{PD-self}} by mistake. (3) Someone mentioned the possibility of his having used an autotimer: I consider that highly unlikely given the setting and the composition. However, irrespective of the licensing status of that image, I contend that it is unencyclopedic (there are better images of Hazel O'Leary available, see e.g. [1]), vanity (since Scott himself is pictured, too), and doesn't add anything to the article on her. A case for WP:IFD as OR, UE, poor quality. Lupo 13:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Note also lack of response to requests on his user page - I made quite clear that I would take his silence (while he was otherwise active) as his having no case to make, days before I flagged as copy-vio. Vanity seems probable, as he's previously added other images of hmself with celebrities. I'm just about to leave my PC for a while, please feel free to tag the image yoruself. Andy Mabbett 13:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I've left messages for both of you at User talk:Pigsonthewing and User talk:Scottfisher. Lupo 14:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, Andy has been (again) blocked for a WP:3RR violation and his 'disruptive behaviour' associated with this image. The image is indeed not particularly great (however, this was not the issue). I would only be speculating if I suggested he's asking you to tag it because he'd already reverted the tag status on the image 4 times today. So I will not speculate. Proto t c 14:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I know. And speculation about other's motives doesn't lead us anywhere, let's just assume good faith. I had already noticed the 3RRs, and seen that this has degenerated into a big mess that could have been avoided if all involved parties had kept a bit more cool. There is no need to add fuel to the fire by airing "non-speculative" speculations on my talk page. Lupo 15:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry. Proto t c 15:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

My two cent

The picture of Dear Hazel was taken by Human Resources of which has since retired. Do consider this and users page of POTW, and should be changed;

Dear Lupo, Please remember the MO of this user, Seriously, You may not understand the disruption caused and such. Been going on a long time. Thanks [[2]] [[3]]

"That's all I have to say here" Thanks Scott 15:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I had already seen the RfC, and I think it's petty. As I said elsewhere, I can form my own opinion, thank you. Andy might explain a bit better why he does certain things and might try harder to keep out of revert wars. You might've answered his question on the image you both ended up revert-warring over. Now let it rest, and that's all I have to say on this. Lupo 16:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Lewis

[[[User:217.41.241.254]] has faked your name as a keep vote for this article. CambridgeBayWeather 09:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out to me. Guess I'll have to put this one on my watchlist, too. Lupo 10:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Rewarded by Ingoolemo for commendable attention to his Administrator's duties.

When I saw that you had reverted the vandalism to my userpage, I decided to check your deletion, block, and protection log, and came to the conclusion that you have been quite commendably active in your Administrative duties. Thanks for your work! Ingoolemo ^talk 05:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

And thanks for fixing my page, too. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)