User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Archive2

/Archive1

May 2007

All contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User talk:ST47/Archive16 may be offensive or unwelcome. I also ask that you revert similar edits to other users' archives. Thank you. --ST47Talk 18:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

All that can be easily done so reverted.

Thanks for being 'on the ball', andhope that one 'crazy-day' won't sour relations. ShakespeareFan00 20:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the removals, all is forgiven ;) --ST47Talk 20:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

AACS encryption key - consensus is leave it in

See Talk:AACS encryption key controversy for a detailed discussion. davidwr ^09f9(talk) 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ogg file tagging

Regarding your tagging of several OGG files on May 11: Of the three that I randomly checked, the uploader did actually type in a rationale. For example, on Image:Blancmange - Living On the Ceiling excerpt.ogg, the uploader entered, "This audio sample is used for illustrative purposes within the linked article(s) and is of a reduced length and quality from the originally-published recording. Where known, the source and copyright owner are credited."

That might not be a great rationale, but it is a rationale, and thus your tag that it has no rationale is improper. I'm assuming all of the OGG files in Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 11 May 2007 are yours; as such, could you please revisit all of them and remove your tag from the ones that actually contain rationales?

Thanks! --Spike Wilbury 05:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate the effort, awesome work. --Spike Wilbury 15:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Penny for your thoughts

How would you like to have a shot at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship? I've seen your contributions around the place - especially when clearing image backlogs - and I've been impressed. It would be an honour to write up an RfA nomination for you. Thoughts? Moreschi ^Talk 10:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. You've got 14000 edits, that's way more than me, and this guy didn't have a clue what the hell a wheel war was months after he was sysopped. You need more experience like a hole in the head.

But if you won't be persuaded now, please let me know when you feel you're ready. It will be a privilege to nominate you. In the meantime, I'll go and clear those fair use no-rationale backlogs you have a habit of creating :) Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Proposal

WikiProject Domesday

Description

Me and ShakespeareFan00 have been looking at the BBC Domesday Project and have found that it could be quite useful of improving geographical stubs. ShakespeareFan has already been able to expand a one line stub, Maughold (parish) (which he knew nothing about), into a bigger article using just the Domesday project. This is potentially a very valuable source to geography articles on Wikipedia and the WikiProject would aim to get people dedicated to using the source and expanding Geo-Stubs using the data provided. — Taggard (Complain) 22:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. — Taggard (Complain) 22:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
2. - User:ShakespeareFan00

Comments

thanks for pointing out

the copyright issue with Image:Noguchi-Detroit1.jpg. i took the picture and I posted it there in the summary, that much is mentioned on the picture and I also did the copyright release tht produces the water buffalo head. A user created GFDL image I think is what it is called that is in the licencing section. I have perhaps 500 (this is not a math question) other such images and and if they all get removed then it must be my destiny. Carptrash 14:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me with such dispatch. I am not sure what the issue that you refer to is, nor am I interested in finding out. I've posted a bunch of images on wikipedia, mostly mine, but those that I didn't take were from pre-1923 publications and I always wrote up a rationale for them. For my pictures I picked the copyright tag that seemed the best at the time, though they have, I seem to remember, changed over time. I think that I have perhaps two dozen in the United States section of this article alone, [[1]]. But I am no longer interested in expending any effort in maintaining any of them. These were a gift to wikipedia, licensed as best I could, and, as with all gifts, they can be turned down. Carptrash 14:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for telling me about the lack of fair use rationale on Image:Stanstatue.JPG, I'd completely forgot about the image and didn't realise I hadn't added a fair use rationale. Dave101→talk  14:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use question

I updated the fair use description at Image:DarkSunRevisedCampaignCover.jpg, but I'm honestly not sure if it's really an improvement, because it's not different than what was already there. Is there supposed to be something more? It might help if you provided examples of sufficient rationales with your boilerplate message, as I'm not really sure what's necessary there and the fair use guidelines aren't that helpful. Mister.Manticore 19:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I6

As you can see at CAT:CSD, it's been requested that I6 deletions be suspended until 1 July while rationales are provided after Betacommand's big bot run. At the moment, there's not so much urgency with this problem. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 11:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Redcube-noguchi.jpg

Done and i've removed the no rationale tag. thanks Chaerani 12:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Atlur_Kabuterimon.jpg FUR

Thanks for telling me, we did this at the project but some slipped through the cracks. I believe I did it right. Momentai. trainra 11:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1829.jpg

Thanks for the note and fix to the fair-use description ShapespeareFan00. I'd forgotten I'd uploaded this one - Peripitus (Talk) 10:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! card images

I've included a Fair Use rationale for the images you alerted me about. Can you check them and see if what I've done is OK? Deltaneos 15:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Banknotes

Hello, I get the images from other wikipedia pages and do not scan them myself. If you look you can see where they come from. I am also not interested in helping global anti-counterfeiting efforts, thats what my taxes are for. But thankyou anyway for the information. Enlil Ninlil 03:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:2pula.png

Thanks for your two messages. This currency note was demonetised in 2006. Prior to this it had a value of around $1 U.S. Furthermore, the image is purposely a low resolution one from which it would be very difficult to make convincing copies. All in all, I think the world economy can continue to sleep safely. Let me know if you disagree. --John 15:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't mind in the least. Sorry if my initial reply was a little waspish. --John 15:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking that. Good point. --John 15:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Film tagging

Done already. We should really come up with a standard rationale that automatically adds a rationale for film posters. It would save a lot of trouble for everyone. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No rationale

I'm confused by some of your recent edits. Why did you tag Image:Disneyland Hotel (California) logo.png as not having a fair use rationale? And why did you leave warnings on a bot's talk page instead of on the original uploader's talk page? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(replying to message on my talk page) — OK, that's fine. But in the future, instead of demanding that other users write rationales, why not just write them yourself? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree. While I admire your industriousness, it seems that instead of tagging all of these images for deletion, you efforts would be more productive if you simply added the fair use rationales yourself. It's really not that difficult - please my recent contribution history for some examples. Thanks, Satori Son 19:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No rationale again

Hello! You tagged Image:Pti.gif as not having a fair use rationale. As I understand it, this image has a fair use rationale listed under the licensing. The rationale is listed in the Template:Tv-program-logo which includes:

It is believed that the exhibition of low-resolution images of logos
    * to illustrate the television program in question
    * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

Is this not considered a valid rationale? - Ektar 21:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect tag

You have incorrectly tagged Image:RadioDisney1260logo.png. Your tag indicates that the image was uploaded after 4 May 2006, it was, in fact uploaded on 17 April 2006. I don't know if this makes any difference, but it has been incorrectly tagged for deletion. Either an explanation is required, or the image should not be deleted.Hillrhpc 00:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale templating

I've done them both but I don't know if your going through my backlog or what but you are going to find an awful amount of images from my film articles. Please do me a favor and help me be adding the standard rationale - the time it takes to notify one image could be sorted and you could be on to the next. Maybe it should have been done when I uploaded but it would help if you could do this. Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

Seriously we must come up with a way that the license tag automatically provides a full detailed rationale. If this could be done automatically every time an image is uploaded it would save time and effort of all involved. What do you think about this idea?. -this way we would have a standard rationale system for film posters and saving a lot of effort chasing them up. The only thing would be to regulate the number of images uploaded. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain it can be done with a natural template. I don;t like to see too many fair use images per article but I also absolutely agree with you that if we are using the images we have an obligation to professionally state the legal usage. However for the main posters and selected screenshots which significantly contribute to the article - If you like I can create a template for film posters which you can insert into film posters you come across. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have created one which can be used on all film related media.

I hope this helps. Template:Filmrationale . Please add: Filmrationale with the {{ }} . All it needs then is to enter the title of the page into it. It would be great if you could notify others who are sorting out the images - it can be done much quicker this way and save a lot of time. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it needs some moderation - it would incorporate the source details etc and also leave blank a place to write the name of the article it should be used in without affecting the template. Repetitive editing need not have to be done by either of us if it is automated. Keep up the good work with the tagging though. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 22:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes - it should be standardized and generalized. Really a bot could and should add the rationale tag itself -saving time and effort again. I'd like to see some kind of standard rationale for all of the fair use images. -there are far too many inconsistencies on wikipedia - if wikipedia is to become as professional as possible rationales should really be automated on uploading rather than leaving a huge task for editors tagging and images which don't give adequate usage criteria -I am guilty of this clearly but I am very busy on building articles!!! This should be proposed at the council or image council if there is one -it is definately an important topic ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 22:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

Beatles samples

Thanks for your diligence in policing the proper documentation of this non-free content; all of these samples are very short, very low quality (I think I resampled them to 22k mono, high compression), and otherwise fall fully within the rationale supplied by the "non-free audio sample" template used. --LDC

Please check back later to make sure that User:Lee Daniel Crocker hasn't removed the missing rationale tags again without providing the rationales. — Moe ε 23:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete any existing rationales, only the debate templates. --LDC 01:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said you removed rationales, I said you removed the tags. — Moe ε 01:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Remninder

The answer to your question is on my talk page. Fourohfour 22:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Imogen_Heap-Speak_For_Yourself-Hide_and_Seek.ogg

I have tagged Image:Imogen_Heap-Speak_For_Yourself-Hide_and_Seek.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 13:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We've already been over this — beat your head against someone else's wall (or better yet no one else's). ¦ Reisio 22:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Dispute?

Shakespearefan, if you had bothered to look at the images in question, youi would see that they are covered under the historic photo rationale. Seriously, I do not know why you bother removing images from pages when you don't even view the pages. Do you get brownie points or something? Seriously, get a life mate. --ansbachdragoner 03:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)