User talk:Slazenger/Archives/2017/October
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please read WP:BIO1E; there is no need at this point to have a separate biographical article about the identified perpetrator of the Las Vegas shooting. People notable for only a single event should generally be discussed in the article for that event. If, in the future, there's enough material in reliable sources to justify a separate article, it could be re-examined. But at this point, we serve the encyclopedia and our readers best by redirecting the name to the main article. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- This is new territory for me (editing active current events is not something I participate in often), so I appreciate you bringing this up! I went on and used BIO1E in the article talkpage to help clarify the need to delay creating a separate article. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 06:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Edit summaries MIA
Hi, Slazenger. Please start using edit summaries as they are very helpful in giving clues to the intent of your edits or unedits. Also, per MOS:CAPTIONS all captions are supposed to be as succinct as possible. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Appreciate your concern, but I've provided sufficient edit summaries for my edits. Per CAPTIONS, they should be brief yet descriptive - chopping captions to a state where they are broken English and impair a reader's understanding is not per CAPTIONS. Appreciate the feedback. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 08:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe I have you confused with another editor regarding a lack of edit summaries on the Las Vegas shooting article. Incomplete sentences are fine for captions, and encouraged, per MOS:CAPTIONS. The operative word is succinct, which none of them were. Feel free to improve them without bloat. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}08:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe I have you confused with another editor regarding a lack of edit summaries on the Las Vegas shooting article. Incomplete sentences are fine for captions, and encouraged, per MOS:CAPTIONS. The operative word is succinct, which none of them were. Feel free to improve them without bloat. Cheers!
- Appreciate your concern, but I've provided sufficient edit summaries for my edits. Per CAPTIONS, they should be brief yet descriptive - chopping captions to a state where they are broken English and impair a reader's understanding is not per CAPTIONS. Appreciate the feedback. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 08:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Las Vegas Shooting Map.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Las Vegas Shooting Map.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the file description page and add the text
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing<your reason>with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable. - On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
helpful links section
Slazenger, I like your helpful links/info section, do you mind if I copy & use it on my userpage? let me know! Ein.vögelchen (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Absolutely, you're more than welcome to use it! Happy editing! --Slazenger (Contact Me) 05:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Try again on the Las Vegas image:)
Could you have a go at adding red lines and some explanatory text to this image, which I have cropped and edited from "pyramid"_LCCN2011636337.tif on Commons. It looks as though some people will moan about any aerial photo that is copyrighted, so this is the only one I could find with the shooter's vantage point and the concert area. Thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hey there Ian! I appreciate your support and reason last night while we were working on the article - your contributions have been excellent. As I mentioned on the talk page, this isn't really my forte and I pulled out my legal background in an attempt to provide rationale for use, but rather than receive useful feedback, I received belittlement and silence from the likes of Andy (who I've had run-ins with in the past) and the admin who deleted the image without a word or comment to address my concerns and positions. As of last night I had authored roughly a fifth of the article and saw this as a good opportunity to witness/take part in a current event article startup, but I guess my history/counter-vandalism efforts are more my style. I can get where Andy was coming from, but the rationale I provided here passed the litmus test for fair use of what would be considered a non-free image - for good faith efforts to be given no consideration and no meaningful dialogue only discourages useful contributions that editors would like to make in the future. I'd use the image that you linked, but showing a ten year old photo of a shooting into an apparent parking lot does the article a disservice and would only serve to decrease readers' understanding. Hopefully a good image will pop-up or something can be drawn that is sufficiently detailed to provide a good base to develop an image similar to what I initially created. If you see something come along, let me know! --Slazenger (Contact Me) 06:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I really liked your images that were based on Google Maps, and I have saved them to my computer, which is just as well because they are now deleted from Commons. Although Google doesn't seem to mind non-commercial use of its maps, they don't seem to be suitable for Commons itself. One of the problems with the image that I suggested is that it is rather old, and the current image in the article was taken in September 2017. There must be some Wikipedians in Nevada who can take up to date images, so it's best not to be rummaging through old file photos.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, the issue is more with the fact that to get an image from the East of the Mandalay Bay would require you to be directly over McCarran as I laid out in my rationale on the picture - it's just not feasible to obtain a picture from the requisite height and angle to provide what the Google Maps image did. Media uploads to en-wp allow for non-free content to be used (unlike Commons), but apparently the rationale was not enough, or so I'm left to guess given the lack of feedback. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 07:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Although I'm not an expert on the buildings in Las Vegas, it seems to be very difficult to get a good view of the shooter's trajectory unless it is an aerial photo. This is why I chose the rather old aerial photo, because despite its age, it does show clearly how the shooter did it. Version of image with lines It's a very long range, estimated at up to 1200 feet.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, the issue is more with the fact that to get an image from the East of the Mandalay Bay would require you to be directly over McCarran as I laid out in my rationale on the picture - it's just not feasible to obtain a picture from the requisite height and angle to provide what the Google Maps image did. Media uploads to en-wp allow for non-free content to be used (unlike Commons), but apparently the rationale was not enough, or so I'm left to guess given the lack of feedback. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 07:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I really liked your images that were based on Google Maps, and I have saved them to my computer, which is just as well because they are now deleted from Commons. Although Google doesn't seem to mind non-commercial use of its maps, they don't seem to be suitable for Commons itself. One of the problems with the image that I suggested is that it is rather old, and the current image in the article was taken in September 2017. There must be some Wikipedians in Nevada who can take up to date images, so it's best not to be rummaging through old file photos.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hey there Ian! I appreciate your support and reason last night while we were working on the article - your contributions have been excellent. As I mentioned on the talk page, this isn't really my forte and I pulled out my legal background in an attempt to provide rationale for use, but rather than receive useful feedback, I received belittlement and silence from the likes of Andy (who I've had run-ins with in the past) and the admin who deleted the image without a word or comment to address my concerns and positions. As of last night I had authored roughly a fifth of the article and saw this as a good opportunity to witness/take part in a current event article startup, but I guess my history/counter-vandalism efforts are more my style. I can get where Andy was coming from, but the rationale I provided here passed the litmus test for fair use of what would be considered a non-free image - for good faith efforts to be given no consideration and no meaningful dialogue only discourages useful contributions that editors would like to make in the future. I'd use the image that you linked, but showing a ten year old photo of a shooting into an apparent parking lot does the article a disservice and would only serve to decrease readers' understanding. Hopefully a good image will pop-up or something can be drawn that is sufficiently detailed to provide a good base to develop an image similar to what I initially created. If you see something come along, let me know! --Slazenger (Contact Me) 06:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
