Talk:Jeffrey Jones

untitled comments

I had to highlight Principal Rooney. It is a classic. 27 Jan 05

"It was later revealed on a European news program that Jones' computer was hacked in an elaborate extortion scheme. Hackers exploited Jones' love for online poker and reportedly uploaded various materials including bomb making, tips for committing credit fraud, and pornography. Whether this revelation will affect his standing in the U.S. criminal justice system remains to be seen." I removed this part. A search of all major European print sources turns up nothin on Jones after July 2003. This can't be verified. lots of issues | leave me a message 22:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Screenshot Image

The image that I uploaded (I'm spliph on the article history) was taken from the IMDB and is a screenshot, protected for use, labelled with the following:

This definition can be found on the Image copyright tags page, and is considered fair use as film screenshots are allowed, one per article.

As the image is being used as information on how Mr Jones looks like, and not for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents, we can't claim fair use here. --Abu Badali 03:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we could get a better picture?

I uploaded a screenshot from Beetlejuice to replace the mug shot, which may not even have the right licensing information (I'm pretty sure he was arrested in Florida court, not federal court). Sure, he's kind of a funny-looking guy, but there's no reason to make his only photo an unflattering mugshot. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As {{Mugshot}} explains, mugshots form part of a legal document. Legal documents and public records created by state and local government agencies are public domain. The photo was taken by an official of the Sarasota, Florida police department, which falls under the umbrella of "state and local government agencies". So, the image is free. Once that's established, you can't really justify replacing it with a non-free fair use image (with a faulty rationale at that, since it wasn't being used to illustrate the film), regardless of whether its "prettier" or not. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because the image is "free" does not make it appropriate. It is biased. It is not NPOV. It should go, and I will remove it unless it can be shown why it should stay. Jake b 03:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If I'd put it up with the caption "Jeffrey Jones, noted baby-eater and all round evil guy" it would be, but I disagree heartily that putting the only free image we have of the guy in an article in place of a fair use one is biased or POV. However, I'll accept that the image really isn't that flattering. If you choose to remove the image I've no real objections, provided that no fair use images are put in its place. If you believe that the article is better off without any images, go ahead and remove the mugshot, but I'll happily return the favour if any fair use images are subsequently added. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Second that. --Abu Badali 19:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The image is NPOV. As this is the only image we have, there's no POV decision being taken. If we had two or three images from him and we were picking up this one for the article, we would probably being POV.

The article without an image would encourage people to upload (faulty) fair use images, that would be removed. Let's leave the article with the ugly image, as it encourages people to find better free images. --Abu Badali 11:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The mug shot just makes me sad, because he's a really great actor in my opinion. It sucks that he'll be remembered this way.

I think the image should be changed because I knew who the guy was once I found pictures on Google. It's very hard to recognise him from this picture. BillPP 22:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed the mug shot. I don't think it adds much to the article (in that he is barely recognisable in it), it is highly unflattering per WP:BLP, there is already another more suitable image in such a short article, and the removal appears to be the consensus in the above discussion. If anyone has strong feelings otherwise, do speak up, however. Rockpocket 06:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, while it might be arguably defensible to include the Beetlejuice fair-use photo alongside the mug shot, one thing we cannot do is substitute fair use for free images. That defeats the entire purpose of fair use, which is that they are the only option we have, so we have to infringe on your copyright, but only as little as is strictly necessary. Of course this is a paraphrase of Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy, but you get the idea. I'm reverting your changes, having learned from my similar suggestion above several months ago. -- nae'blis _(talk) 02:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused, if the problem is using fair use when we don't strictly have to (since we have another option) why leave the fair use image there? It should surely be removed.

It makes no difference to the copyright holder whether the fair use image is alongside the free image or by itself. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement; the image is either a valid fair use claim or it isn't. I have no argument with using the free image on that principle, but i really can't see the logic, nor the legal argument, that fair use is valid alongside the free image but not by itself. Rockpocket 05:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the above note about fair use only applying to the work/subject being presented. Technically, the FU image isn't depicting Mr. Jones, it's depicting the film. Therefore it's probably ineligible. I didn't remove it myself because I'm not 100% sure on this point, but what I *am* sure of is that you can't replace a free image with a fair-use image on Wikipedia. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the screenshot is not fair use here because:

1. It's against {{film-screenshot}} , as it's not being used "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents". It's being used to show Mr. Jones face so that the reader would recognize who this article is talking about.
2. It's against rule #1 on Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy, that is, we can't claim fair use when we have a free replacement. (The mugshot being the free alternative way to make the reader recognize who the article is talking about).

I have tried to remove this image before, more than once I guess, but it keeps comming back. --Abu Badali 16:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that line of reasoning is, if both images were already there (as was the case), and the free mug shot was/is removed, the fair use image is not replacing the free image. As both editors above point out, under the terms of fair use there is no justification for it being there at all. I have removed it. Rockpocket

here is counterexample 8 to the fair use rules: 'An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like'. this fits that counterexample and therefore can't be used under fair use

I would like to point out to you guys that police mug shots are matters of public record by governmental agencies and they have no copyrights attached, in the U.S., anyways.24.243.2.132 (talk)Biggus_Dickus

Florida Mugshot

This seems tricky, but in order to view the subject's entry in Florida's list of sex offenders, you must click on the link. You will see the site's general home page. Click on the back arrow on your browser menu to return to article. Now, click on the link again. This time the Jones' record will show up. Don't know why this is the case, but this is the only way you can view the entry utilizing the link. --XLR8TION 04:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It goes straight to Jones' mugshot when I click the link only once, they must have fixed it.172.201.91.31 20:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Invader Zim

According to the commentary in Invader Zim, he voiced a hobo on the episode "Gaz, Taster of Pork." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.185.163 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 11 January 2007

Sexuality

The "bisexual" categories should be removed. His child pornography arrest does not automatically make him gay or bisexual; absent any other evidence of his sexual orientation, this is an offensive (and, I'm sure, unintended) statement that pedophilia and bisexuality are somehow related. They're not: check your own articles on the subject. --Treybien 21:39 12 July 2008 (UTC) moved comment to bottom of talk page per WP:TALK. --SSBohio 12:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

While I can see where, at first blush, it looks questionable, the circumstances of Jones' offense indicate that it did not involve a prepubescent child, so his activity does not constitute pedophilia. Sexual attraction to a peri- or post-pubescent member of the same sex, coupled with a previous history of heterosexual involvement would, to my understanding, constitute bisexuality. --SSBohio 12:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Child Porn Charges & his frequent arrests

I don't know why but it seems that someone is making a great effort at scrubbing this page clean of all references to this guy's child porn arrest & conviction and his LIFE TIME status as a sex offender. He has been arrested twice now for failing to register. Once in Sarasota, FL, and now just recently in LA. Needless to say, I will keep on top of this and make sure that this information stays on the site.24.243.2.132 (talk)Biggus_Dickus

Well at least part of my own question was just answered - some fool is using some kind of robot program to mess with peoples' pages!!!! I wish there was something I could do to stop it. I will look into that. 24.243.2.132 (talk)Biggus_Dickus