User talk:Epolk

• User talk:Epolk/Archive July 2006
• User talk:Epolk/Archive August 2006
• User talk:Epolk/Archive September 2006
• User talk:Epolk/Archive October 2006
• User talk:Epolk/Archive November 2006
• User talk:Epolk/Archive December 2006
• User talk:Epolk/Archive May 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Dead_can_dance_-_host_of_the_seraphim.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dead_can_dance_-_host_of_the_seraphim.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 09:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fantasmic_theme.ogg

I have tagged Image:Fantasmic_theme.ogg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 13:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Illuminations_score.ogg

I have tagged Image:Illuminations_score.ogg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 15:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:One_Little_Spark.ogg

I have tagged Image:One_Little_Spark.ogg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 21:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good grief! I give up! Some Wikipedians are becoming so picky about everything that is put on that I am beginning to wonder if this site is being run by lawyers.

I followed ALL of the guidelines that were part of the sample guidelines at the time that I uploaded these samples but SOMEONE keeps coming up with reasons to delete things.

And now we can't upload pictures of buildings that MIGHT have been designed by someone somewhere. Or pictures that show ANY people. Or pictures that might have anything that could possibly be identified as being to any specific place. This site is very soon only going to be able to have pictures of rocks and sound samples of static as anything else MIGHT be able to be remotely identified with some being, known or unknown, that exists somewhere. And pretty soon, someone will make an argument that rocks and static were created by some greater power or intelligent designer or something so we won't even be able to have those either.

Please, delete all of my stuff since I am done uploading anything here. I am tired of having to jump through hoops to justify every little thing. Enjoy the text-only encyclopedia.

Epolk 04:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Unwoman_Envy.ogg

I have tagged Image:Unwoman_Envy.ogg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:ShakspeareFan002

Saw your message on their talk page. I'm 100% in agreement with you, and a major reason I mostly quit is copyright paranoia. The fights I went through getting Pink Floyd to FA over having a simple picture of the band at the top of the article were downright moronic.

I just want to point out that this particular jackass has obviously decided to pad the crap out of their edit count by tagging media with this May 4 2006 policy message. Editcountitis is ruining the Wikipedia more than anything, because people create and use this bureaucracy in order to have tags they can apply to articles and increase their edit count. Most problems I had on Pink Floyd were the result of one edit-counting jackass. As a result of this guy, who has contributed nothing of any relevance to the entire project, they lost me, who had gone through the most difficult, time-intensive and useful process in the entire project (WP:FAC), created many new articles, and made substantial edits to many pages.

This ShakespeareFan002, while not the one I had my old troubles with, seems particularily egregious. I'd estimate thousands of edits with no actual content, just tagging stuff with bureaucratic bullshit. You'd think a Shakespeare fan would spend more time improving most of the woefully bad Shakespeare-related articles on here rather than hassling people uploading 20-second song clips.

In addition, they're clearly doing it so fast they're screwing up constantly. The one of mine he tagged with the "applies to media uploaded on or after May 4 2006" was uploaded in Feb. 2006. He fixed his mistake, but I notice he just deleted my comment off their talk page, but didn't archive it - I wonder how many other similar screwups are in his talk page history? Another user got his tagged, despite the fact his fair use rationale appears to be in the media, but wasn't in neat bullet points so this idiot didn't notice. I also notice that he's recieved reproaches for not informing people properly.

People like this protest that they're doing it for the greater good, but if they really cared about the greater good they'd fix the problems themselves, rather than slapping a tag on to make it someone else's problem. What makes it worse is that at least the people who run around stub-sorting to boost their edits don't hurt anyone. These tags this guy is slapping on are only seen (usually) by the person who uploaded it, and if they're not around, it's nuked after a week without anyone else getting the chance to see and fix it. On top of that, few people uploading media to the site are copyright experts, and the first time they've ever seen the words "fair use" was on their talk page boilerplate from someone like this, and have no bloody idea what to do about it.

I'm too weary to bother fighting the fight (and anyone noticing some of my previous obscenity-laden rants about this on my talk page would probably disgregard me), but if you still care about the project enough to get involved in the mess of it, I'd suggest looking into this one specific user's history and initiating a WP:RFC or something about him. If you don't have the energy either, maybe you'll come across someone else getting messed with by this person and pass the message along. There's many out there like us, but unfortunately we spend too much time being useful and not enough time chatting on IRC and organizing bureaucracy to band together and fight back. dharmabum 07:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am right there with you. I am not of the inclination to fight this as there seem to be 10 bureaucrats for every 1 person who does the real work. As a social experiment, Wikipedia seems to be following the same pattern as every well-intentioned orgranization or brilliantly innovative company that came before it. A great revolutionary idea becomes mired in red-tape and legalism.

I am currently trying to decide if it is worth-while to continue working on Wikipedia or not. If I do decide to continue, it will probably be as a Wikignome as it is not worth the agony of trying to justify why something is worthwhile or is allowed under one of the ever-increasing sets of guidelines that are being treated as policy by the bureaucrats.

Epolk 16:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Right there with you as well regarding the disinclination to fight. Thought you might be amused that I noticed that our favourite user has been running around reverting their own comments in other users' talk page archives, and was smacked down, with prejudice. Along with their obvious decision they didn't have enough media pagespace edits, a very transparent prelude to an adminship run. As long as there is a hierarchy to aspire to here (outside of getting a paid position with the company running it), this silliness will endure. dharmabum 06:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)