User talk:Thivierr/archive-9

Intelligent design images and WP:NFC

In regards to your bogus claim in this edit summary[1]: "Note, even if we could use these images (we can't) we'ld need critical commentary of the *cover* (not just the book)" please note:

WP:NFC is a guideline, not a policy, and so not binding.
It explicitly permits use of "cover art from various items ... in the context of critical commentary of that item" (not merely of the cover itself)

Such misrepresentations lose you, and your fellow image-deletion-warriors, what little goodwill and credibility you might have left in that article. Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 05:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask you not to remove the images from the page for a couple days. I'm talking with others on the talk page to get some critical commentary added to the article, which would be forward progress and, I think, has a better chance of long-term stability. There is plenty of time to get this article into compliance with policy, and that is my ultimate goal. I think that a little bit of patience will benefit the article here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't say what I'll do right now. I don't see progress. I see a potential attempt to add commentary about the inside of the book, not the book covers. The book covers are what's decorative. Allowing this sets an awful precedent. Most major articles have highly relevant books (or other publications) worth mentioning. I find it annoying, that if an article has an especially vocal group of local editors, that they can opt to override policy, and behave in a way, not accepted elsewhere. The presence of those images serves as a green light to everybody to add such images elsewhere, and will be repeatedly cited as an example. Also, the best chance of a long-term solution, is to definitively terminate the use of unjustified unfree images, and then, when people realize it's over, they'll go out and create/find beneficial free images, which could be permanent. Currently, nobody is making any efforts to find more free images, as the article doesn't look to need them, with the three unfree images being present. Instead, they're focussed on writing text to justify the unfree images. --Rob 13:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed response. I am only asking that, as a show of good faith, we wait a couple days for the editors there to make a step forward. There is plenty of time to bring this article into agreement with policy, and I am not asking for an indefinite delay, just a couple days. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will wait for at least two days from now, before re-removing the image. --Rob 14:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting disussion. Looks like a bad case of good cop, bad cop to me. Of course, the discussion misses the whole bloody point; but hey, who needs to deal with such trivial things as facts or points or any such nonsense when we have rules? That sense of comfort one gets from absolute obeisance to rules must be quite the opiate, no? Jim62sch 23:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate goal is to get the article into compliance with policy. It's unfortunate that you seem to be think this isn't necessary. My offer of some time to improve the article was genuine. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This just brought to my attention. Unfortunately the policy is a quickly shifting policy made up by a small group of WP users. Further, the associated guidelines, which have repeatedly shifted even more, are being misrepresented as policy. That is what is most unfortunate, IMO. ... Kenosis 00:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It's odd too that the bigger discussion, that regarding the validity of the policy (and the adoption of guidelines as policy) is being blown off in the NFC, FUC arenas.

Carl, Dave Souza trusts you, and knowing Dave as I do, I'll trust his opionion. My gripe was really with Thivierr's "Ok, I will wait for at least two days from now, before re-removing the image. ". It wasn't, "I'll wait to see how it goes and then evaluate", it was "I'll wait and then delete". This is officiousness and abuse of imagined authority of the worst order. Now, I suppose Thivierr could argue that he didn't mean it the way he wrote it and the way I read it, but that would be a pretty hard position to sustain. Jim62sch 10:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly C Page Edits

Just wanted to let you know that the person who is the "font of all knowledge" and continuously reverting and treading on peoples toes within the page (for example the recent picture revert) is as much as a pain in the ass here as he is in the KC community in general. Thanks for your strong points on the matter. If I could make a barnstar I'd probably give you one. Cheers (EMH88 16:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Kat Von D

In defense of ImageRemovalBot, the current image was replaced my a better one a few weeks ago by some random IP, which was deleted for some such reason a day ago. The images name was almost identical to the image currently be used. Simple mistake. Cheers. -- Jelly Soup 06:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dominionism

As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Australia

Per your contributions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants, if you have some time, would you please look at the recent changes to the Miss Australia article. They may not be correct. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 15:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Mariah Stanley

An editor has nominated Mariah Stanley, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariah Stanley (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TheRevengeofKali-Ra.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TheRevengeofKali-Ra.jpg. 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 non-free media 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. Rockfang (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking it to the talk page!

Hi Thivierr,

I just responded to your comment on Image talk:Claire Bennet Season 2.jpg. I just wanted to stop by and thank you for bringing it up in the talk page. I honestly think it's an interesting issue, and although I disagree with you (as indicated in my arguments), I wanted to let you know that I understand and respect where you're coming from.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter! --jonny-m t 05:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TheRevengeofKali-Ra.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:TheRevengeofKali-Ra.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Carlie Brucia.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carlie Brucia.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Hehr

Merges do not require AFD consensus. Especially when that merge is entirely consistent with standard Wikipedia practice for unelected political candidates. Thinking that every person who ever runs in any election deserves an article regardless of whether they win or not is just as unencyclopedic and ridiculous. More so, in fact, because it basically amounts to an end run around every one of Wikipedia's core content policies. Encyclopedic notability in politics is determined by winning an election, not by running in one. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia consensus has already pretty clearly decided that candidacy for political office is not, in and of itself, a sufficient claim of notability for a person to merit an article. I'm not imposing a personal solution that goes against Wikipedia policy here — I'm treating the articles in exactly the way that dozens of Wikipedians decided, by consensus, to handle the conflict between notability and proper encyclopedic coverage of the election itself. If you don't like it, you're free to go to WP:BIO and try to build a different consensus on how to handle unelected candidates (and, well, good luck trying.) But there's no use in taking your disagreement with it out on me personally, because I have no interest whatsoever in getting into an argument about standard Wikipedia policies. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again: I'm only doing what Wikipedia consensus has already established as the standard practice for unelected candidates. Take an alternate proposal to WP:BIO if you don't like it, but the decision was made by a consensus of numerous users hammered out over an extended number of AFD disputes, not by me personally, so you're wasting your time complaining to me about it. Bearcat (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't seek a change in WP:BIO, since I support WP:BIO what it actually says (I notice you still don't quote it, since it contradicts you). --Rob (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO explicitly states that only people who have been elected to a state, provincial or national legislature are considered inherently notable, and that unelected candidates need to be notable for reasons other than their political candidacy alone to merit independent articles. You'd have to be engaging in some pretty determined wishful thinking to believe that my position contradicts that at all. And see also the section in WP:OUTCOMES pertaining to politicians. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said Kent Hehr is "inherently notable"!!! You do know that there is multiple sources with non-trivial of Kent Hehr, that predate his entering the campaign right? You did do some research outside Wikipedia, and found this, and read this??? You didn't just delete it without reading *independent sources*, right??? You did some reading of paper sources, right? You searched newspapers and magazines, right? I never suggested for a second, that all candidates should be included. Also, the whole issue of holding office is clearly stated in WP:BIO as secondary, to the issue of what independent coverage there is. I get the distinct impression, you've been blindly going to every candidate article and delete/merging without doing research. I see you've been copy/pasting masses of unsourced material, in violation of WP:V. --Rob (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. In your haste to copy/paste all these bios, you also managed to copy a substantial amount of copyright violations. Even if we had legal permission, we shouldn't copy/paste material from election web sites. We're supposed to be independent. It seems very clear to me, you're not looking at each *individual* article on it's own. You never would have done this, if you actually read the articles. --Rob (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly: if you catch a copyvio, you're entitled to remove it at any time. Nobody else, including me, had any special responsibility to catch it before you did. That isn't how Wikipedia works. You catch a copyvio, good for you, but that doesn't give you a right to claim that I somehow failed to meet a responsibility that wasn't mine in the first place. My responsibility is to fix the issues that I catch, and your responsibility is to fix the issues that you catch. But the fact that I didn't catch an issue that you did does not mean I'm not doing my job properly.

Secondly: the existence of independent sources about a person does not, by itself, justify an article about them if those sources are not supporting a statement of notability which meets the demands of WP:N and WP:BIO.

Thirdly, and finally, you're still attacking me for an established practice that I have absolutely no interest in arguing about. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't just catch a copyvio, I caught you not reading articles, even once, before deleting/merging them. The text was so blatantly political/promotional, that even if you didn't see it was a copyvio, you'd know it was written for promotion, and you would have removed it, if you read it. All your comments reconfirm, you've never read *any* of the content we're discussing, which is why you insist on treating everything the same. Without reading all the bios, you can't possibly determine how each should be treated, on an individual case basis. Honestly, did you actually read the bios? --Rob (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Billings

AWB has some limitations in how much it can do on a category batch job — namely, it's impossible to add either pipetext or the {{DEFAULTSORT}} template to an article while simultaneously adding a new category to the same article in the same edit. It also won't convert pipetext to defaultsort unless every category on the article has the same pipetext already in it. Which means the only way to do that conversion is to manually change the pipetext over, article by article, after running the batch job in AWB. And I certainly wasn't about to do a manual conversion job on 500 articles in one go. Bearcat (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:D

Considering you were my early mentor who taught me to find photos from military websites... I thought you might appreciate this pic that I found! A decent shot of Miss USA & Miss Teen USA together in the same photos, with their autograph cards including Miss Universe on the table. Bliss! The hunt is definitely worth it when you find pics like this :) PageantUpdater talk • contribs 13:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, both in the same pic, and no combat fatigues! I continue to be impressed, how you found a great quantity of free pics, after I thought the well went dry. --Rob (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Have you checked out commons:Rachel Smith and commons:Hilary Cruz as well as commons:Miss Teen USA and commons:Miss USA? Things have sure improved this year :) PageantUpdater talk • contribs 22:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might like this one too :) PageantUpdater talk • contribs 06:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like, but I'm sure Spc. Deane Barnhardt liked it even more. --Rob (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Its just so great to finally find some pics of more than two titleholders... (if you check out the commons sites you'll see that I've done a bit of category reorganisation today)... PageantUpdater talk • contribs 06:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving tip

thanks for the moving tip, i didn't know i can do that ;)--MJKubba|talk|contributions 15:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merle Terlesky

Merle Terlesky has objected to your picture of him. You may wish to comment here. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob if you did a little research on the issue of Ezra suing Merle you would find it. It ius not in the media yet as it has not gone to trial, but you live in Calgary go to the Alberta Law Courts QEB and search it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlet (talk • contribs) 16:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is Wikipedia forbids editors from doing original research. Rather then behaving as reporters, we cover what secondary sources say (like newspapers) and provide citations to those sources. So, what city I live in, is entirely unimportant. Also, you should not be writing about things you only know about because you were involved in them (like being a party to a lawsuit). Incidentally, this prohibition against original research is why most of the negative claims in the Merle Terlesky article were removed. Even though an editor (Mista-X) claimed he "knew" they were true, they were removed, because they constituted original research. This policity is a good policy, even though we're sometimes slow to enforce it. --Rob (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Reina del Sabor.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Reina del Sabor.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]