User talk:Ejfetters/Archive 3

FYI

I saw your edit to User:Quadell/Pages with too many non-free images - just thought I'd draw your attention to the template {{non-free}} and its associated category. It's relatively new, but it was inspired by Quadell's page and will draw more attention to the article than just Quadell's. Cheers - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Smith Image

Hi. I was editing the Coral Smith article, and was curious as to the origin of the image that someone added to it. Clicking on it, I saw a tag on it stating that permission was granted to use it, and was curious as to the rationale on the part of the editor who uploaded it, User:Tratare, and when I saw that Tratare has had other prior issues with editing and images, I thought I'd let you know, since Image copyright issues are not my forte. Thanks. Nightscream 14:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSI

Thank you, thank you. I've already fixed the other pictures. I usually write the fair use thing but this time... i just forgot. Those articles need a lot of clean up, i'm gonna get in to that one of these days. thanks again! Yamanbaiia 09:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the new Fair use rationale image nazi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CobraBK (talk • contribs) 02:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on your tagging character articles for CSI as in-universe: the section containing the in-universe material is headed Fictional character biography in most cases (e.g.: Sara Sidle). This heading presupposes that the underlying text is fictional and ergo in a fictional universe, on the same logic that a section entitled Plot in an article about a book is assumed to contain the plotline (and so, does not need to be tagged with {{spoiler}}). Would like your thoughts on this. --Editus Reloaded 20:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale

I have added the fair use rationale after you tagged it for speedy. Check if it is adequate. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 04:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah its good, I removed the tags from the image and the article, I removed the image from my talk page as well, as fair use images don't really belong there, but I appreciate you posting it there to bring to my attention. Next time if you want to list a link to an image, but not the entire image, just follow the following procedure: Image:Image Title.jpg - just replace the image title. Notice it just means to add a colon in right after the opening brackets. This will just created a link without putting the image in the page. Ejfetters 04:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

This. I also posted something on his talk page earlier, but seems not to have gotten across/accepted. --EEMeltonIV 16:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard. I seem to have that editor confused with someone else. --EEMeltonIV 16:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CircusCircusLogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CircusCircusLogo.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 00:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:CharlesTucker.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:CharlesTucker.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Taric25 20:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:CharlesTucker.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:CharlesTucker.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Taric25 20:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Image-Star Trek Archer.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Image-Star Trek Archer.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Taric25 20:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Image-Star Trek Archer.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Image-Star Trek Archer.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Taric25 20:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon and Trip

Hey there, I thought I should leave you a personal message too. We're not allowed to use fair use images if we already have free alternatives for copyrighted images, so I have replaced them, just like in Uhura. Also, I'm going to get some more pictures to add to Scott Bakula and Connor Trinneer. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thanks! Taric25 20:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek images

Hello, I received a message from you that I do not understand. I have posted some images of Star Trek characters on the character pages, and they are non-free images. If you are questioning that free use images of the Trek characters can be obtained, they cannot, as they are fictional characters and all images of them are such copyrighted. Are you questioning all character images for all television shows throughout Wikipedia? The only image I uploaded of Uhura was a screencap, and it was later repalced by another user who claimed it was free use replacing the non-free use, and I never changed it back. As far as Bakula and Trinneer go, the images again aren't mine, and have a rationale saying they were taken by US military, making them free. Any use of character images on actor pages, if that might be in question, is prohibited, and I have removed several, as we need free use real world images for the actor pages. Please clarify your message because I don't understand what you're saying. Thanks. Ejfetters 04:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We must always use free images of fictional characters, if the images exist and we can obtain them. For example, Image:Nichelle-Nichols-GPN-2004-00017.jpg is a free image, because it is on the NASA website, even though the character is copyrighted, just like Image:Elvis presley.jpg from Jailhouse Rock is copyrighted; it's also free, since it's on the Library of Congress website. Thus, Image:Scott Bakula.jpg and Image:Connor Trinneer.jpg are also free. Image:CharlesTucker.jpg and Image:Image-Star Trek Archer.jpg are not, however, we are allowed to use copyrighted images if we can use them under fair use. Just showing how something looks is unacceptable. Making a critical commentary of it is. When you last edited the image description page, it looked like this, and it had one line explaining the fair use “to illustrate the object in question”. First, that fails a criterion for fair use. Second, a free image showing how Jonathan Archer looks already exists. To simply write "Captain Jonathan Archer" in the image caption like this of an non-free image is unacceptable, because we're not making critical commentary of the image.

I overhauled the image description page, to look like this, which is acceptable. Then, I gave the rationale for fair use that it was describing the character as he appears in the first season, something the free image does not. When I readded the image to the article, it looked like this. Notice, in the image's caption, I wrote, "In “Fortunate Son”, Archer explains to Travis Mayweather why the crew of the Fortunate can't kill Nausicaans as a matter of revenge , “Just because someone wasn't born on Earth doesn't make them any less Human.”" I also gave a reference in the form of a citation. That is very different from just writing "Captain Jonathan Archer". In the image caption, I gave the source and when the image occurs (Episode name), and described the object in question. In the citation, I gave the name of the director, writer, actors in question, airdate, company, media, location, and the quote. When you give all the information and you make a critical commentary of the object in question, then that is fair use.

Also understand that none of this is my job. I was just doing this to be nice. It is the responsability of the Wikipedian claiming fair use to give all the necessary information. I also had some pictures of Bakula and Trinneer in real life, so I uploaded them and added them to Scott Bakula and Connor Trinneer. Feel free to take a look. If you need any help with fair use in the future, then please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Taric25 15:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek and "in-universe"

Please tell User:FastLizard4 what you told me about what the Star Trek character articles need in order to address the "in-universe" tags. This is precisely the stuff that some people keep removing in order to make sure these articles stay tagged. ShutterBugTrekker 19:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That image on Target Corporation

Hello, in response to your edit, I requested that the Converted Richway image be brought up on the talk page prior to removal so a consensus supporting its removal can be reached. I am not too big of a fan of the image myself, but since it is a free image and no other image of a Richway exists, I had it undeleted and moved to Commons. I am sorry I haven't had too much time to seriously work on the article lately, I have been busy in college. Best regards, Tuxide of WikiProject Retailing 07:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed

Is there a reason you marked EVERY SINGLE image in the non charmed main page, but every other charmed page as a candidate for deletion? In one shot, you said it was a publicity shot and should be replaced with the actress portraying the character, however, in the shots of the actresses protraying the character, you said there is no reason why it is permitted, yet ALL of the licensing info and such is there. I have no idea how to contest that many images being deleted, but trust me, I will find a way. Myzou 07:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the person to put the fair use rationale on it, As I didn't upload it, and I actually agree SOME images shouldn't be there, I'm kinda surprised someone who is a major editor of the charmed pages hasn't added one yet though o.O; Myzou 13:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was referring to the fact I don't quite have enough time to do that atm ^^; There are some major people who edit the charmed pages, so they should be able to, if not, I'll try in a couple days if they're still up, but I only have a few minutes on occasion to check wikipedia >.< Myzou 13:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q Images

Hi, I wanted to bring up another similar issue with the images on the Q (Star Trek) page. There are 2 fair use images there of the same subject now, and quite frankly, I prefer your image because it captures the subject in a more common appearance throughout the series, in the red Starfleet uniform, rather than the God image in the infobox. However, I do think the God image has a better full face view. Wondering if we can't find an image in the red uniform with more of a complete face view to replace them both. I looked at memory alpha, and there was one, but it was from early TNG seasons, and I think it would be better if we got a more current one, from later TNG seasons, or even Voyager. Ejfetters 22:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on it now. You are right. Red uniform does suit our Q better :) I do think we can use two images on this article. Perhaps an image of Q with his son or wife or both! What do you think? -- Cat ^chi? 23:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I did find Image:STDS9Ep107.jpg on my initial search. A minor crop of that image would give us a good profile. -- Cat ^chi? 23:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

nice to hear from you

Thanks for the notice of the lack of rationale. I was getting kind of lonely and was glad to receive a couple of messages. Jecowa 18:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

White Cat has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-- Cat ^chi? 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your PRODs and deletions

Please stop for the moment.

A more detailed explanation and argument is forthcoming. --20:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. I'm a brash, new administrator and do not think that proposing 69 articles for deletion and nominating a dozen-odd within a day is feasible or acceptable. So can you give me, say, an hour, to get my arguments in order, so we can try to talk your issue out instead of trying to solve it by brute force? --Kizor 20:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Well I was requested to nominate all the articles AFD instead of doing it that way, so I am just so confused as to why I am not allowed to AFD articles now. Is AFD just for admins now? Ejfetters 20:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you nominate them, at least do it right. They all go to the same Bajoran Resistance topic. Rockfang 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - No, it's not, but there are still problems with bringing several dozen Star Trek articles into it at the same time. I see the other admin told you so in an edit summary? Summaries are good for small notes, but even more useless for in-depth discussion than YouTube comment sections, and the matter is a bit more complicated.
    
    Mass nominations are problematic and not very well suited to the AfD process. Some articles have merits that others lack, and pretty soon we're in a complete deadlock. The amount of text that must be read to give any sort of informed opinion can be, and has been, measurable by multiples of the text in Machiavelli's The Prince. Take this mass nomination from some time back - it was closed, rightly, as USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE. No other outcome was really possible. What you're trying to make is three times the size. At the same time, an enormous flood of single AfDs would still have the latter problem: we're an all-volunteer organization, such an onslaught would make it nearly impossible to treat all nominations well and fairly. --Kizor 21:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's more to this, but I can only type so fast and will get to that next. --Kizor 21:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to further emphasize that the site is not in any kind of hurry. Avoidable reduction in discussion quality for saving time is... bad. --Kizor 22:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To get back to this, there's the matter that there are several other means of solving content problems other than deletion. For instance, consolidation of characters into larger lists seems to be a very popular option at present. The currently used version of WP:FICT specifies that deletion is a last resort. (Or did, the last time I looked. It's a pretty turbulent time.) --Kizor 21:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't about how you're doing it procedurally, we're just saying that it's unusual (and goes against wiki etiquette, to an extent) to nominate so many articles at once, especially ones that are unlikely to be deleted (ex: Kahless will never be deleted). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - I removed all those prods as the deletion of those articles means a huge shift in the status quo of wikipedia and that is not something you would want to do through the backdoor. The community has to decide. I believe that you already found prior AfD discussions which resulted in a keep of the article in question. I don't think AFD'ing all those articles is a productive exercise as the outcome will be either keep or at worst a merge/redirect. The sheer number of incoming links has to be considered. Those articles (or sections) can not be compared with the average I just started my own garageband and want a page on wikipedia nonsense. Agathoclea 22:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed what I was nominating, going through them by each series, one at a time, and finding the ones that are minor and very insignificant instead. Ejfetters 22:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I recommend you see the current nominations as testcases before proceeding further. That way you can gauge the attitude of the larger community. Agathoclea 22:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's suggesting that you stop for now and see how things go. --Kizor 22:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok understand the issue of nom. so many. I am going to remove the AFD that I was working on earlier, and condense them down to smaller groups and not all at once. I already listed one of minor characters from Enterprise, and then after that will continue that way. Ejfetters 22:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being reasonable. As much as I'd like to not bug you in the future, there are other matters to go through, such as the obligation to research the subject before nominating - absence of proof is not at all necessarily proof of absence. An AfD isn't a claim that the article in its current state is not acceptable, but that it can in no way be made acceptable. Similarily, content is required to be verifiable rather than verified. You'll notice that one of the articles you nominated earlier as no real-world notability has already been outfitted with multiple research papers and books.
But if you're not going to AfD any other articles for some time, then I can go collapse in peace. I was supposed to be doing a late-night term paper and have been staying up by the power of caffeine. --Kizor 22:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kizor explained me pretty well. I was saying that it might take a week until your current nominations are decided. It would be prudent to wait until then and base your further actions on the outcome of those. Less aggravation - less effort and the same outcome in the end. P.S. it would be easier for all involved to keep the conversation here rather than at various peoples talkpages. Agathoclea 22:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Another admin requested that I nominate them for AFD instead. I am confused now, cuz your comment seemed like a threat. I don't like threats. "I am a brash new admin" - sounds a bit like a threat, maybe since you are a "new" admin you should start to be more polite to people that are taking another admins suggestions. Ejfetters 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a threat, just a slighly self-degoratory statement. I was using the word in the third sense of this page; if it's usually taken in the first, then I apologize.
If I ever make threats, they'll be explicit about it. --Kizor 21:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely point out any future breaches of etiquette. Come to think of it: Is it usually used in that sense? --Kizor 21:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]