You requested the mediation cabal to help resolve your slight dispute at Talk:Linda Hamilton. I will be taking the case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-06 Linda Hamilton--Phoenix 15 19:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
No offense, but please see WP:WIARM. "Ignore all rules" is not an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia. (emphasis mine) I'm sorry, but your repeated inclusion of this non-free image on Linda Hamilton is a violation of policy, which has been pointed out to you numerous times. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- And I say that other Wikipedia policy supports me and that the picture makes sense. If you disagree, then get a Wikipedia dev in here for a ruling, so I can kick it up to his boss. I figure eventually we can get to Jimbo Wales and get a definitive answer.
- I tried compromising for the sake of co-operation and you guys decided, "Okay, we won, we're done here!" Fine, but if you want to compromise the articles, you're going to have to do the work to get an answer from some higher-ups. -- Geno Z Heinlein 15:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia devs are merely people who help to write the software that Wikipedia and other sits run on. They have no say over content. Even if you meant admin, they can't let you violate the appropriate policies concerning fair use content. And nobody here has a "boss". Corvus cornix 16:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- (1) My gods, are you all barracks lawyers here? I want someone who can definitively rule that it is a complete violation of all common sense to disallow in-character pictures on an actor's page. I want that ruling from a high-enough level that you legal geniuses will stop reverting the pictures. I don't care if the person making the ruling is called dev, admin, hoo-hah, muckety-muck or grand high wizard.
- (2) Everyone here reports to someone; or there's someone who controls their access; that's their boss. The guy who runs the Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, could come in here and say, "No, of course I didn't mean that you can't show an actor acting. That would be silly!" That would resolve this, yes? We don't need to kick it up that far, of course, just enough to stop the reversions.
- (3) Even assuming the anti-fair-use crowd is correct in their interpretation of the policies -- they're not, even according to pages they themselves have repeatedly pointed me to -- those policies didn't write themselves; someone wrote those policies and someone can re-write them. -- Geno Z Heinlein 23:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You want dispute resolution, but people there are not bosses. An an admin, User:Butseriouslyfolks, has already rejected your arguments at talk:Linda Hamilton. Corvus cornix 23:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Linda Hamilton and 3rr
- How come all of you guys' rules and regulations end up with your picture up there, instead of the original image? -- Geno Z Heinlein 23:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because the original image was not fair use, either. Corvus cornix 23:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair use and living people
Using a fair use image of a living person to solely illustrate what the individual looks like is forbidden by fair use law as well as Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. Read point #12 of Unacceptable images, which states plainly that "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image." Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria states that if a free alternative can be procured, then a fair use version is forbidden from use.
- I've written over and over again that a free image would NOT "serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image", because the free image won't show the actor acting. Why is this a sticking point? Are you saying that a free image can show an actor acting, or are you saying that the policy verbiage trumps the quality of the page? By what standard is a picture of Linda Hamilton at a premiere (or whatever) a better picture than a picture of Linda Hamilton acting? Because, frankly, any standard that would support that position is NOT based on the quality of the article being the primary concern. If the anti-fair-use interpretation is the real policy here, then what's been done is a placement of the policy issues at a higher level than the quality of the articles. -- Geno Z Heinlein
Using a publicity photo of Linda Hamilton from the Terminator movies to illustrate the article on the actress is inappropriate application of fair use and non-free content. The only photo of Linda Hamilton that can be on that article is one of er taken by you or someone else and able to be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons where they only accept public domain, Creative Commons Attribution + ShareAlike (no No Derivative Works or Noncommercial), or under a GNU Free Documentation License such that all the projects that have or can have an article on Linda Hamilton can use the photo.
- Excuse me, can I issue orders like that? Because I would really like to tell all you people putting some pseudo-legal over-verbal nonsense ahead of the common sense of showing an actor acting on their page, "You must put in-character images on every actor's page." Is that okay with you? -- Geno Z Heinlein 23:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ummm, no he wasn't. There's absolutely nothing in Ryulong's statment that can be described by the word 'politely'.
- And what marks Ryulong as an admin? Are you an admin? What marks you as an admin? -- Geno Z Heinlein 02:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- If Adolf Hitler and Jack Valenti were the last two people on Earth, Adolf Hitler would be the best person on Earth; he still wouldn't be a good person. "Do not..." doesn't start a polite anything, it starts an order. -- Geno Z Heinlein 03:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
OK then, here you go:
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -- But|seriously|folks 03:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I got it, already. He was still rude. -- Geno Z Heinlein 03:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please see the Linda Hamilton Talk Page for why this still does not address the issue. -- Geno Z Heinlein 09:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- At that page you say "Is it your position that promoting free content is more important than article quality?" and the answer is replace "more" with "equally" and you will finally be getting it. Jimbo specifically stated that Wikipedia is now important/powerful/famous enough that we can ask for and get copy-left images of living people so we should because it is more important for the Wikimedia mission to in a few years time have free images rather than to immediately have a better article with a non-free image. After he said that and the Wikimedia board of directors backed him up on it, the current situation of deleting fair use images of living people came into being. The well reasoned careful balancing of as free as possible versus as good as possible is that the temporary lack of an image is to be used to encourage the donation of free (copy-left) images; producing in the end both most free and best content. The owners of images can relicense that image under GFDL. More and more are doing so in order to get the free publicity that comes from being in Wikipedia. Please read this for insight. By the way, thanks for helping to improve this free encyclopedia; your enthusiasm is wonderful. I'm kinda getting burned out myself. WAS 4.250 22:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Tish and stacy bellomo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Tish and stacy bellomo.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was
true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to
false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.