→Casa de Manuel Rojas: re to:Mercy11 |
→Footvolley: good! |
||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
:::::I find it troubling to see a relatively harmless article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Footvolley&action=historysubmit&diff=340369134&oldid=337985941 completely stripped] of all content without any hint that the editor who accomplished this feat did any research at all to try and find sources, then that same editor edit wars to keep the material out after another editor comes in, restores the material, and is actively and obviously finding a large number of sources. And what exactly was the great rush to keep the content out of the article at the exact moment I was sourcing and copyediting, especially considering that it had been sitting there for four years? If it had been a [[WP:BLP]], I would have pulled the unsourced content into a sandbox, but in this case there was no reason not to edit the material in place - it was easy to find plenty of sources connecting Footvolley to the people mentioned in the article. That's the core of my objection. [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">☥</span>]]</small> 17:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
:::::I find it troubling to see a relatively harmless article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Footvolley&action=historysubmit&diff=340369134&oldid=337985941 completely stripped] of all content without any hint that the editor who accomplished this feat did any research at all to try and find sources, then that same editor edit wars to keep the material out after another editor comes in, restores the material, and is actively and obviously finding a large number of sources. And what exactly was the great rush to keep the content out of the article at the exact moment I was sourcing and copyediting, especially considering that it had been sitting there for four years? If it had been a [[WP:BLP]], I would have pulled the unsourced content into a sandbox, but in this case there was no reason not to edit the material in place - it was easy to find plenty of sources connecting Footvolley to the people mentioned in the article. That's the core of my objection. [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">☥</span>]]</small> 17:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::While important, [[WP:BLP]] is not the only valid reason to remove unsourced content. As an example (and I'm not necessarily saying this is the case here), Wikipedia is often used to promote subjects or companies and people related to a given subject. Just as you are troubled with the way I work, I also had a hard time to understand your mass reverts, that readded unsourced content and undid other cosmetic edits. But I understand there are a lot of people working on this project and we can't simply expect them all to work the way we would. --[[User:Damiens.rf|Damiens<small>.rf</small>]] 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
::::::While important, [[WP:BLP]] is not the only valid reason to remove unsourced content. As an example (and I'm not necessarily saying this is the case here), Wikipedia is often used to promote subjects or companies and people related to a given subject. Just as you are troubled with the way I work, I also had a hard time to understand your mass reverts, that readded unsourced content and undid other cosmetic edits. But I understand there are a lot of people working on this project and we can't simply expect them all to work the way we would. --[[User:Damiens.rf|Damiens<small>.rf</small>]] 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Footvolley&curid=975760&diff=341883768&oldid=341842940 Definitely better!], I missed that one, thanks! [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">☥</span>]]</small> 16:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:25, 4 February 2010
This talk page is not a battle ground
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Bennett_Sisters_grappling.jpg/600px-Bennett_Sisters_grappling.jpg)
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
David Carradine
hi, I have put a great deal of work into the David Carradine article with the intent of having it elevated to GA status. I guess I took a chance in uncharted territory (for me) with the images. I won't make that mistake again. But when it comes to the actual writing, I have not intentionally "weaseled" or committed any other wiki-faux pas. If you feel that there is something that does not pass muster, could you please just communicate it to me? If it is something I can fix I would rather do that than to have you delete it. I check the article daily for messages and I am pretty good an immediate responses. Take Care--DorothyBrousseau (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
File:JD Salinger.jpg IFD
I would appreciate it if you could explain why you believe my comment on this IFD is "immaterial to the discussion" - I gave an explanation for why it is relevant, and if you still have any objections, please do leave a note on the IFD page so I can alleviate them. Prodego talk 03:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, telling people who don't agree with you "Try to understand what's the issue at hand before voting" is rather rude.[1]--Blargh29 (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry. I was just trying to point out how offtopic the votes about replecabilty were, since the image was not nominated on that grounds. I didn't realize it could sound rude, but now that you point it, I kinda get the point. --Damiens.rf 07:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- And your comment was also not that polite anyway. --Damiens.rf 08:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I really am seeking to understand where you are coming from. I have taken an interest in the Salinger case for a couple reasons, one being that you have also slated files that I uploaded for deletions and I find the Salinger case to be a stronger case than mine (in favor of fair use). In any case, I made a comment on the files for deletion:Salinger page that said "'Fair use' was designed to allow the public access to publication/images etc. that would otherwise be kept private by those seeking a profit." And you said, "No it wasn't", but you did not explain and therefore I could not learn. As I have been reading up of the subject as it pertains to my files as well as the Salinger file, I keep coming across stuff that says things like "the rewards to copyright owners should be carefully balanced against the public benefits of fair use: access to works, dissemination of information, and the promotion of learning through a variety of uses." Which I read as that "fair use" allows the public access to works that would otherwise be kept for private profit. Tell me where I am wrong in my interpretation. I would also like you to point to an example, if there is one, of a photograph of a person, living or dead, that you think is justly used on Wikipedia under the fair use doctrine.
- I do get the fact that the reason you put forth for deletion of Salinger was inadequate copyright information given and not its irreplaceablity. I think that people, including myself, argue the irreplaceability because we feel strongly that it trumps any argument for deletion. Thanks in advance.--DorothyBrousseau (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Every day many images are produced and kept for the private profit of Associated Press. While the fair use doctrine allow us to use, without authorization from AP, one of this images in a commentary about the photo itself, or in a text about photo-journalist, or in a text about photograph techniques, it does not allows us to use the image in a text reporting the news event the image captures. In one can't understand this, one does not understand what fair use is all about.
- That picture was privately produced to show what that man looked like. We can't freely use it to show what that man looked like. Period. Simple as this. Being non-profit, educational, low-resolution, irreplaceable... nothing of this changes anything.
- About irreplaceability "trumping any argument for deletion", please understand that WP:NFCC is not multiple choice. Passing one criterion (no matter how 'good' you do it) does not diminish your obligations with the other criteria. --Damiens.rf 17:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and for the example you ask, there are many. For instance, promotional images of long death people. Images of dead Canadian judges and politicians that are produced by the government (not free, but also no WP:NFCC#2 concerns). The basic rule is that the person should be dead (or somehow permanently out of public eye) and the copyright holder should have no interest in capitalizing on the use of the image. --Damiens.rf 17:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you're right. I don't understand. Which is why I asked, politely, I thought. I don't know if you checked my user page. I have been doing this for 1 month and something like 9 days. I feel like I have read volumes of stuff on free use and some of what you are telling me does not jibe with what I read. And, for the record, I know that the criteria is not "multiple choice". I guess I was trying to explain to you why people kept pushing that point-on an emotional level. Sorry to have bothered you.--DorothyBrousseau (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Casa de Manuel Rojas
Absolutely, it is the same. When I was 15 years old I visit my father in Puerto Rico. He in turn took me to meet my Grandfather (his dad) for the first time who so happened to reside in El Barrio Barstolo in the town of Lares which is close to where Manuel Rotas resided. I have always been a history nut and I always have the habit of taking a camera, even a cheap one where ever I go. Now, when I first uploaded the image I just about did everything wrong with it because of my lack of knowledge and at the end I just said the hell with it, but I have admit that despite our arguments in our interactions, I have learned a lot from you (who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks). I believe that I have it right now. Did you read my statement in regard to the Ramiro Colon image? Tony the Marine (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- You could have saved us all a lot of drama and confrontation by disclosing this earlier. Anyway, I'm happy that we are being able to handle the image issues like grown up people now. --Damiens.rf 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- You know, I don't think that we could have avoided the drama and confrontation with the other images, I think that it comes with the passion of one's work, plus there were other issues involved. The mass nomination caught me by surprise altogether and I have to admit at first I didn't know where you were coming from, however I am also happy in the sense that we are now working together at a better pace. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hello Damiens, I have Tony's talk page in my watchlist and happened to come across the remark you made above which, as I see, is also all repeated here.
- I would like your clarification on your remark above that "we are being able to handle the image issues like grown up people now." My question to you is, What exactly does that remark mean, and more precisely, Exactly WHO are the ones who BEFORE (by inference) were NOT (by inference) able to handle the image issues like grown up people but who now (by reference) are able to? Mercy11 (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Where are your parents? --Damiens.rf 10:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Talent
Thanks, that was during my college days (long time ago). I think that I have four or five drawings that survived. I can't draw worth a crap now (hands are not stable anymore) as you can see in my terrible Juan de Amezquita sketch: File:Amezquita.jpg. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's normal for great artists to change their "style" over the years. :) --Damiens.rf 22:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from, but I suggest that you scale back your tone. The end result is likely already determined due to present opinion and the inking from OTRS, so there is no need to make your point anymore. ÷seresin 08:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'll follow your wise advice. --Damiens.rf 17:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Footvolley
<copy from here>
Hi. First of all, thanks and congratulations for your efforts in improving the article on Footvolley. You are doing what no one (including me, of course) was capable (or worried enough) to do in like four years.
I come here to point what I perceive as localized problems in some of your edits in that articles, but in no way this criticism should be views as referring to the essence, rather than to the exception of your voluntary work there.
I believe your tendency for mass reverts is detrimental. I have been removing from the current article's version content that has been gone unsourced for more than one year. It's bad for our readers, as well as for our reputation to be publishing such material. Not to mention this goes against our polices. While working to find sources for material currently hiddeen in the article's history is a commendable action, reverting the removal of unsourced material from the current version is not a wise thing to do.
One can always use this history to save previously unsourced material one finds source for. There's no reason for us to be publishing usourced material this long.
I'm sure you understand the revert of removal of unsourced material may be seen as a bad decision under the eyes our policy. I hope you will be able to continue your great work without resorting to such acts.
Yours --Damiens.rf 19:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- WP:BOP recommends that editors be given "time to provide references," even if not putting forth the extra effort to "make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them". Since I was obviously working on the article, actively engaged in finding sources and copyediting, these BOP recommendations should have been followed. And no, I disagree with your assertion that the reversion of the material in this particular circumstance was bad. Dreadstar ☥ 20:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please respond here to keep the thread in one place, I've got this page watchlisted. Dreadstar ☥ 20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Editors have been given time to provide references. The article has been tagged as lacking sources since November 2006. --Damiens.rf 20:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't given any time at all. And I recommend that editors find sources before completely removing all article content as was done in this case. Dreadstar ☥ 20:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if we have to give time to all editors to try, one by one, we will never remove unsourced content. I don't know why do you object the removal of old content tagged as son since 2006. The content is available at the article's history for you to work on. The content does not need to be on the current version of the article for you to fix it. --Damiens.rf 22:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I find it troubling to see a relatively harmless article completely stripped of all content without any hint that the editor who accomplished this feat did any research at all to try and find sources, then that same editor edit wars to keep the material out after another editor comes in, restores the material, and is actively and obviously finding a large number of sources. And what exactly was the great rush to keep the content out of the article at the exact moment I was sourcing and copyediting, especially considering that it had been sitting there for four years? If it had been a WP:BLP, I would have pulled the unsourced content into a sandbox, but in this case there was no reason not to edit the material in place - it was easy to find plenty of sources connecting Footvolley to the people mentioned in the article. That's the core of my objection. Dreadstar ☥ 17:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- While important, WP:BLP is not the only valid reason to remove unsourced content. As an example (and I'm not necessarily saying this is the case here), Wikipedia is often used to promote subjects or companies and people related to a given subject. Just as you are troubled with the way I work, I also had a hard time to understand your mass reverts, that readded unsourced content and undid other cosmetic edits. But I understand there are a lot of people working on this project and we can't simply expect them all to work the way we would. --Damiens.rf 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I find it troubling to see a relatively harmless article completely stripped of all content without any hint that the editor who accomplished this feat did any research at all to try and find sources, then that same editor edit wars to keep the material out after another editor comes in, restores the material, and is actively and obviously finding a large number of sources. And what exactly was the great rush to keep the content out of the article at the exact moment I was sourcing and copyediting, especially considering that it had been sitting there for four years? If it had been a WP:BLP, I would have pulled the unsourced content into a sandbox, but in this case there was no reason not to edit the material in place - it was easy to find plenty of sources connecting Footvolley to the people mentioned in the article. That's the core of my objection. Dreadstar ☥ 17:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if we have to give time to all editors to try, one by one, we will never remove unsourced content. I don't know why do you object the removal of old content tagged as son since 2006. The content is available at the article's history for you to work on. The content does not need to be on the current version of the article for you to fix it. --Damiens.rf 22:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't given any time at all. And I recommend that editors find sources before completely removing all article content as was done in this case. Dreadstar ☥ 20:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Editors have been given time to provide references. The article has been tagged as lacking sources since November 2006. --Damiens.rf 20:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely better!, I missed that one, thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 16:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)