Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Dulé Hill

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

Dispute resolved

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

The case[edit]

I suppose, the case is very simple. Quentin X is correct at his/her points. The fair use image, i.e. Image:Dulé Hill.jpg does not qualify for Dulé Hill because for the article, one replacable fair use could be made available. One free image could be taken as he is a living being, whereas the image is acceptable on the article Charlie Young as his role as Charlie Young is unique and replacable fair use image could not exist if the owner of the picture does not release it under free-licenses. So, I suppose there is no problem with present scenario. Still, if anyone from both of you want to make some comments then please comment below. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 06:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Input Appreciated[edit]

Hi Shyam. Thank you for taking this case. I completely understand your point about replaceable fair use. However, I would like to point out that the image was originally placed in the "Roles" section of the article Dulé Hill and is intended to depict the role that he plays. Many bio-articles on Wikipedia have images depicting character roles. Furthermore, even NBC (which is the distibutor) uses this same picture in Dulé Hill's biography on their website. So, I really don't understand how, if fair use qualifies under Charlie Young, this would not qualify for Dulé Hill "Roles" section. Thanks again for your help. Anubis3 18:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anubis3, your point is valid. But do not forget, Wikipedia is free encyclopedia. Here, we are intended to get the content under free-license. The image qualifies its fair use criteria for Charlie Young because the role of Dulé Hill as Charlie Young can not be repeated in the future. So, unless the owner of the images does not release them under free-license, they could not be replacable fair-use. The article about his character depicts his role and follows the guideline and really makes sense to the article with the image, whereas roles of Dulé Hill on the article does not follow fair use rationale guideline. The section has its significance without an image. There is really a requirement of having his real life photo on the article. I suppose, the free-image could be made available by contacting a person who has very near to his place or Dulé Hill, himself. That input would be appericiated. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning[edit]

Shyam, I’m not exactly sure what this means: “There is really a requirement of having his real life photo on the article. I suppose, the free-image could be made available by contacting a person who has very near to his place…that input would be appericiated.”

As to your point about “Wikipedia is free encyclopedia,” obviously, Wikipedia will never be completely free.

Anyways, I still think that Quentin X's and your reasonings are completely self-contradictory but the issue really doesn’t matter to me that much. You, however, might want to take a look at images provided in these articles and countless others: Pierce Brosnan, Steve Carrell, John Krasinski, Jenna Fischer, B.J. Novak, Miguel Ferrer, Jerry O’Connell, Goran Višnjić, Maura Tierney, Mekhi Phifer, Jack McBrayer, James Caan, Josh Duhamel, Nikki Cox, James Lesure, Patricia Arquette, Vincent D'Onofrio, Kathryn Erbe, Julianne Nicholson, Sprague Grayden, Kathryn Morris, David Krumholtz, Eva Longoria, Nicollette Sheridan, James Pickens, Jr., America Ferrera, Alan Dale, Ashley Jensen, Becki Newton, Rebecca Romijn, Michael Urie etc. Certainly, if you and Quentin X are interested in changing Dulé Hill so much then I guess these articles should be reverted too based on your reasoning. However, I am not the type of Wikipedian that constantly removes credible information from articles.

I’m also not sure why your reverted a my two screenshots in Dulé Hill when they are considered fair use according to the guidelines. You have a problem with that also?? Thanks, I guess. Anubis3 04:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use the image on the section, then section should be talking about his role in detail such that it follows the fair use rationale guidelines. Please expand the section as Charlie Young to make a significant role of image in the section. Shyam ^(T/C) 06:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing mediation[edit]

I would like to close this mediation if all the parties agree with the current format of the article. If any parties disagree with the current one then please mention their disagreement with valid and concised points within five days latest by 16:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC). Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 15:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the mediation closing. Thank you (Quentin X 16:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.