Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk | contribs) →Restored images: haha |
Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk | contribs) →Why Have you deleted pics: waste my time again... |
||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
Why have you deleted the two [[hell in a cell]] pics? |
Why have you deleted the two [[hell in a cell]] pics? |
||
[[User:Dingv03|Dingv03]] 02:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
[[User:Dingv03|Dingv03]] 02:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Because they didn't have a source, and, as essentially videos of the two moments could not possibly survive any even liberal interpretation of fair use criteria (ignoring that they had no rationale anyway) would be deleted in short order as it is. --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|<*>]] 02:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:57, 13 July 2007
Random deletion
I have noticed that you have deleted several images on an article that I had worked on 1. I do not see a reason for your deletion, so please restore all images you have inappropriately deleted. –YeLLeY511 16:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Not random. Two of the images have been restored (see below). I have double checked the others on the page, and they shall remain deleted. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate your speedy response, and the fact that you did restore 2 of the 4 images that were deleted. If you double check the image, File:Critical Mass Brimstone Hostile, Chavez & Mayhem.jpg, I believe you would see that the user Angr (Talk | contribs) had deleted the image in April, but then restored the image after realizing that permission under the GFDL had been given. --YeLLeY511 19:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Given, how? Something like that really needs to be logged through OTRS... and in many cases, especially with pro-wrestling media, fairly comprehensive websites (such as Obsessed With Wrestling, and Online World of Wrestling, and many fansites) tend to "give permission" to use media that they do not own, usually promotional images from companies, television screenshots, and images from magazines like PWI. This image certainly quacks/smells/looks like a Duck, which is sometimes the most we can use in dealing with websites that either do not know better, or do not care. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- It was logged through OTRS when I originally recieved permission. None of the images were retained from OWW, but I get what you are saying. User Angr and I held several conversations (archived here) over image Image:Critical Mass Brimstone Hostile, Chavez & Mayhem.jpg, and after realizing that permission under the GFDL had been given they restored the image.
- As far as image Image:Brimstone and Rexx WWF Superstars 03.jpg goes I gave it a fair-use tag, and a fair-use rationale, as per wikipedia standards. I do realize that it was a screen-shot owned by the WWF, but I tagged it properly for its use in the article. Also, aren't images usually tagged before they are deleted- that way the user can have time to fix any tags if necessary? I would like to work this out with you, so please let me know what I can do. Thanks, YeLLeY511 20:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
First, the Superstars image was replaceable fair use. It was an obviously copyrighted screenshot of living individuals, and we don't use copyrighted images on living individuals, sorry. To the more pressing concern of Image:Critical Mass Brimstone Hostile, Chavez & Mayhem.jpg, if it was logged through OTRS, there should be a link. Even if it was, I am having serious concerns about whether or not the Entrance To Hell website could even give permission for the image. Many of the images hosted on the website seem like they could reasonably own them, while with some, there is no way they can possibly have the rights (one example - a screenshot to a television program, and there are many of those there). If the website's managers have given blanket permission to use images from that site, and they do not own some (many?) of the images, it throws all of the images into doubt, and I am seriously disinclined to believe any claim they have to any of the images. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I know the Superstars image was replaceable fair use, but again, I had followed wiki standards on tagging and rationale- but I do understand if you will not restore that shot. I appreciate the time you took to look into the Entrance to Hell website, and as far as the Critical Mass image goes, they do own it, and I did recieve permission to use it. That site is the official site for this wrestler Brimstone, and they do in fact own that image as well as most (not all) of the images on the site. The webmaster knows that the Superstars image is a screenshot, and that they do not own the image, I would assume they use it (as well as their other screenshots) to illustrate career points. I do not particularly care what they use it for, as it does not pertain to me- but I do know that the image I am concerned about is owned by the site. It is the only image I am able to find of all four original members of the Critical Mass faction, so I feel it is an integral part of the history of Critical Mass section of the article. Please let me know what I can do to resolve this issue once and for all. Thank you, YeLLeY511 21:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- My biggest concerns lie in their giving permission to use images they do not own (and there are many on the website). How are we to know for sure that they do? My gut is telling me that the image is a (copyrighted) promo shot, in part because of the composition of the image (especially in contrast to the other images located on the website), and that it predates the website by a couple of years. Also, I scoured the website fairly thoroughly and I could not locate the image (I may have missed it). If the image is not there, the issue is a non-starter. If it is, we are back to square one, of having serious doubts about the provenance of the image, doubts which are entirely reasonable. If we don't know that an image is legal, we can not have it here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- The image can be found here. The image itself I believe 'was' a promo shot, which is owned by WK Promotions, as is Critical Mass Pro Wrestling. I went through all of this when there was the initial issue back in April. Again, I had received permission and emailed the OTRS -in April- and had since thought the issue was resolved. What can we do to resolve this issue for good? --YeLLeY511 22:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Image Deletion?
I went onto the Brimstone article and saw that the same has happened to the two images that I uploaded Image:Brimstone & Valentino Autograph Signing.jpg & Image:Brimstone.JPG. I personally took these pictures therefore there is no copywright infringement. I do not understand why they would be taken off, I believe I added them properly. Please restore my images, I put them up under free-use. Thank you for your cooperation. WrestlefnLI 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- The images were deleted because they said "Photo Credit: DM138 Designs." That indicated to me that they were from a company or website, and intentionally mis-tagged, as is a chronic problem with professional wrestling images. I have restored them, but you need to clarify what "DM138 designs" is, and, if possible, note when and where you took the picture (this isn't required, but helpful). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for restoring the photos. I thought I had to put my name credit on there, I may have mis-read. I'm a huge wrestling fan and I took those photos at an event on June 2nd 2007. I don't like to put my real name out there, so I use the moniker on any photos I take and release onto the web. I could remove it if it's a problem, I thought I entered everything correctly? I would be more than happy to put up any information wherever I need to, I am still learning and working on what I know. Any suggestions? WrestlefnLI 19:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- The images, as they are, are fine. Always try to provide as much information as possible when uploading media. Thanks for your contributions. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
In regard to your recent I4 and I6 deletions
Jeffrey, speedy deletion criteria I4 and I6 apply only to images that have been tagged for 7 days or more. I checked several of your deletions and none had been previously tagged. Before I assume anything, I just want to make sure that you're aware of that detail (the time requirement). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Grumbles... I was not aware that if I called it I-4 or I-6 that they had to be tagged as such (I was saying such to expedite the process). I shall go back to saying nosource/no tag/etc. If I come across an image that does not have its source listed or has been intentionally mis-tagged or has been used in violation of our fair use policies, as is often the case with professional wrestling images which I am going through right now, then it will be deleted. The level of abuse of media prevalent in pro-wrestling and mixed martial art is astounding and I am doing what I can to stem the tide. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't much matter whether the deletion summary reads "no source" or "CSD I4" as the relevant criterion remains the same. My point is that by skipping the required step of tagging articles with such problems (lack of licensing info, orphaned fair use, missing fair use rationale, replaceable fair use) you are:
- Speedily deleting pages that do not qualify for speedy deletion (criteria I4 through I7 require prior tagging),
- Increasing the likelihood that you will mistakenly delete images that should be kept,
- Depriving uploaders of the opportunity to provide the missing information, and
- Depriving uploaders of the opportunity to be informed of the fact that they have to provide that information for all fair use images.
- I suppose I just don't see why you skip the step of tagging pages; if they're not fixed within 7 days, they'll be deleted anyway. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't much matter whether the deletion summary reads "no source" or "CSD I4" as the relevant criterion remains the same. My point is that by skipping the required step of tagging articles with such problems (lack of licensing info, orphaned fair use, missing fair use rationale, replaceable fair use) you are:
- Process is important to you, but that is not necessarily a universal concept among admins. Sometimes it is necessary to bypass process to benefit the Project, and although you are relatively new at the admin thing, I'd imagine you've seen plenty of examples to admit that. I am not indiscriminately targeting random things... with many of my recent speedies, they have been of professional wrestling media, (which, as noted elsewhere here, have a track record of almost always being prohibited in some fashion), and I then following up and nuking the material of abusive uploaders. While the system is not perfect (what can be? - indeed, I contend that it works better than tagging, where abusive or ignorant editors can then manipulate the system to allow prohibited media to remain), the vast majority of actions hold up to scrutiny, and I have a pretty good eye at finding these, both as an admin with 20 months on the mop, and a lifelong wrestling fan. For non wrestling things, I trust both my administrative experience and my common sense, which, again, more often then not prove to be reliable and more beneficial than tagging. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I've both seen and had a hand in bypassing process where necessary. And you're right: I do value process, but not to the extent where I can't ignore or partake in technically out-of-process actions. My concern in this case is an overuse of IAR, as it seems to me that most of your deletions "bypass process".
- Though the removal of images that do not meet our copyright policy certainly benefits the project, speedy deletion without tagging has the potential to generate a lot of (time-wasting) controversy and provides very little advantage over speedy deletion after tagging (and waiting 7 days). Tagging images before deleting may be ever so slightly more time-consuming in the short term, but poses numerous advantages: it provides an opportunity for problems to be fixed, it informs uploaders so that they avoid similar mistakes, and it does not undermine consensus and the deletion process.
- It is the last one, especially, that bothers me. IAR is a poor excuse for overriding consensus because one person's opinion of what constitutes "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" can quite easily be wrong. In addition, the rules are not preventing you from having these images deleted ... they're just preventing you from having them deleted immediately as opposed to 7 days after tagging. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- The specific rules in question only prevent troublesome images from being deleted in cases where users take advantage of the system, especially in cases where there is a track record of abuse. There are immense benefits to the Project in speedying without tagging, otherwise, I wouldn't do it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Restored images
I thought I should let you know that a few images you deleted have been restored:
Another two (Image:Cool Calm Pete.jpg and Image:Bob Ostertag.jpg) are taking a little longer, but they should be restored soon. I wanted to let you know this not to be inflammatory, but to let you know that OTRS letters were not faked in the first place and they were not meant to be deceptive. I have discussed this matter at great length with User:Zscout370, and he has taken back his accusation that I faked the letters and was in fact the admin who restored the images. You threatened to block me if I "forged OTRS" letters again, so in the hopes of protecting myself from that, I thought you should know where the issue stands. I intend on uploading more images in a similar fashion, and I wouldn't want you to assume that they were done maliciously or deceptively. Thanks for your understanding. Drewcifer3000 23:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I know about these right after they were restored and spoke with Zscout today. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good stuff. Thanks again. Drewcifer3000 23:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- hmmm, I must have missed your apology to Drewcifer3000 for calling him a liar? 166.165.139.224 02:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dif that. I was informed that the OTRS permissions were faked, which I passed along. If anything, I'm sorry you are so criminally misinformed. Tisk tisk, for shame! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Why Have you deleted pics
Why have you deleted the two hell in a cell pics? Dingv03 02:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Because they didn't have a source, and, as essentially videos of the two moments could not possibly survive any even liberal interpretation of fair use criteria (ignoring that they had no rationale anyway) would be deleted in short order as it is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)