UnqstnableTruth (talk | contribs) |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 252: | Line 252: | ||
It's been listed in [[WP:AIV]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=129088543&oldid=129088124]. What's up with it? Doesn't appear to be flagged either. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Bibliomaniac15|<font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' 23:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
It's been listed in [[WP:AIV]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=129088543&oldid=129088124]. What's up with it? Doesn't appear to be flagged either. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Bibliomaniac15|<font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' 23:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
: See below, this account had nothing to do with me. I woudn't even know how to run a bot! --[[User:JoanneB|Joanne]][[User talk:JoanneB|B]] 11:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Commonsusage100]] == |
== [[User:Commonsusage100]] == |
||
Line 260: | Line 261: | ||
:I'b being bold and assuming someone is impersonating you and using Wikipedia for free hosting or something, so I'm deleting the images and blocking the account. I'm basing this on the facts that you're an admin and clearly know your way around policies and that the bot went into operation two hours since your last edit. --[[User:Wafulz|Wafulz]] 23:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
:I'b being bold and assuming someone is impersonating you and using Wikipedia for free hosting or something, so I'm deleting the images and blocking the account. I'm basing this on the facts that you're an admin and clearly know your way around policies and that the bot went into operation two hours since your last edit. --[[User:Wafulz|Wafulz]] 23:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
:: Thanks. I indeed had nothing to do with it, I was asleep at the time (hence my lack of response :)). My emailaddress is known because of my (limited) participation in mailing lists, I guess. --[[User:JoanneB|Joanne]][[User talk:JoanneB|B]] 11:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Quick question from Libs== |
==Quick question from Libs== |
Revision as of 11:04, 8 May 2007
If I leave you a message, feel free to answer it on your own page, I'll watch!
Archives
¤ 2005 • August • September • October • November • December
¤ 2006 • January
• February • March
• April • May
• June • July
• August - December
¤ 2007 • January - February • March
• April • May
Matt Sanchez
removed message, replied on user's talk page. --JoanneB 02:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Joanne,
This is what Matt Sanchez wrote to me on the Matt Sanchez 'discussion' page:
No wonder those kids teased you for being a sissy back in elementary school. You could take a lesson from your buddy Edwards and the "I feel Pretty Video" I posted on my blog [17]
This is just one in a long string of insults Mr. Sanchez has posted. Clearly, you misaimed if you meant to uphold the integrity of something...Mr. Sanchez has no integrity. That's why he's an ex-male-prostitute now involved in gay-bashing. So, I suggest you step away while others are slinging the mud.
Note I didn't call Mr. Sanchez names, but he certainly called me names. Many times.
Sincerely, Robert YoungR Young {yakłtalk} 03:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I think there are two issues here: one was those claims, with the fact tags. The other is Sanchez editing on WP, conflicts of interest issues that come with that and these personal attacks. Regarding the latter, I've left him a message about that. The conflicts of interest part is a complicated issue (especially since WP:COI is not policy but a guideline), and you're right that there's a lot of mud slinging going on on both sides, and perhaps I should not have gotten involved. The only thing I did, again, was revert when allegations without references were inserted. However, whatever is going on around an article, that should not be a wrong action. --JoanneB 04:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
lyric link
you are liek the 5th person to remove the link. Nobody will tell me how it breaks copyright rules. Copyright rules say that if it's reproduced, it's wrong. I run the website, what do i have to do to make it ok to put on it? Because [www.darklyrics.com Darklyrics] has had a link on there for like 2 years. Can you please tell me becasue everybody else who's taken it off hasn't replied. Violask81976 00:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Lyrics are copyrighted. This means that having them on your website, unless you own the copyright, is not legal. And that's why it shouldn't be linked to. If you wrote those lyrics (I haven't looked through your contribs to determine what your link to the band is, if any) then it's another story. However, in that case, the site still has some very annoying advertisements, which according to our policy on external links means we shouldn't link to it. The links to Darklyrics shouldn't be there either, I'll remove them from the articles. --JoanneB 02:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I find it hard to beleive that i'm breaking copyright laws by having song lyrics on my site. If that's true, then why are there so many lyric sites? Violask81976 02:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- A lot of stuff that's illegal still happens... Apparently, there are some 'loopholes' and websites are using those, for instance stating that the lyrics are purely for educational use. I have no idea whether that's valid, I'm not an expert on US copyright law. There are several websites where you can read about copyright law and lyrics, here are some: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. --JoanneB 03:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well..it is for educational purposess. Violask81976 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- A lot of stuff that's illegal still happens... Apparently, there are some 'loopholes' and websites are using those, for instance stating that the lyrics are purely for educational use. I have no idea whether that's valid, I'm not an expert on US copyright law. There are several websites where you can read about copyright law and lyrics, here are some: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. --JoanneB 03:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I find it hard to beleive that i'm breaking copyright laws by having song lyrics on my site. If that's true, then why are there so many lyric sites? Violask81976 02:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for the block of this guy. He has been trouble for a long time and there's a series of AfDs involving him. I tagged all his articles as speedy vandalisms or prod's. If you need more information, I can give all I got to you, but right now I gotta sleep. Toodles, thanks again! JuJube 12:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- * Thank you for your note about him! I've deleted most of the pages that you tagged as speedies, I think. Let me know if I missed any. --JoanneB 12:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for not deleting the Hart wrestling family since it is most definitly not a hoax page :) MPJ-DK 12:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Peter Green (musician)|Peter Green
Thanks for protecting this article until a solution can be reached. On the talk page, a solution HAS been reached, a concensus, if you like. But an anonymous vandal insists on reverting. This is also happening with John McVie, Mick Fleetwood and Danny Kirwan - any thoughts? Bretonbanquet 19:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Can we not block the vandal? Or does he win? I don't mean to be difficult but it's driving us round the bend... Bretonbanquet 19:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
"Bretonbanquet" is repeatedly removing all reference to England. The user is a British/Cornish nationalist and thus likes anything to be described as British or Cornish, but not English. This is not acceptable and this user thinks it owns these pages. Following his second message on here. "It's driving's us round the bend". He fails to mention he is on a one man crusade to remove all references to England.-172.207.175.60 19:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Can either of you point to a guideline other that the Manual of Style which says "Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." - now this can easy be read as "well it says country so that's England" and "it says citizen or national and they'd have a UK passport so that's United Kingdom", Joanne how do you read that?--Alf melmac 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've been reading the discussion on the Peter Green talk page, and I tend to agree that unless someone is certainly English (preferably has self-identified as such), we should go with a more general statement, as that in most cases is verifiable, - and in these cases, that would be British. I'm not British nor English though, so I don't think I should have the last word on this ;-) But reverting like what happened here, led two rather experienced admins to think a plain edit war was going on. Apparently there was a consensus, but the tone of the edit summaries certainly led me to believe otherwise. --JoanneB 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Bretonbanquet: there seems to be a broader consensus towards "English", in a lot of cases: see, for instance, Category:English_musical_groups. But I agree that when that can't be stated for certain, because there are serious doubts for some reason British is probably 'safer'. --JoanneB 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This actually isn't even about the English/British thing at the minute. Bretonbanquet is repeatedly removing the word England from all articles he edits for no rational reason whatsoever. I removed the British description as the user was repeatedly reverting English to British, so it seemed reasonable to remove reference to their nationality as there are many articles on Wikipedia that do not describe this. See Kurt Cobain for example. Although, touching on that subject, it is regarded as racist to say that someone cannot be English due to the origin of their parents and their ethnicity, which this user clearly is despite claiming otherwise elsewhere. It is more specific to refer to people as English, Scottish, Welsh or N. Irish and this subject has been discussed numerous times and discussions have come out in favour of this. I believe it seems logical to do this, but in the instance of there being a verifiable source that says the subject does not identify as either English, Scottish, Welsh or N. Irish, then they should indeed only be described as British.
172.189.165.177 21:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The Sheer Nerve!
I don't mind you removing the warning at all. I added the warning via VandalProof, and it seems that you had made the actual revert just before me. I would not intentionally piggyback a warning, as that's not really how I get my kicks. Good catch and c ya! the_undertow talk 08:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I find the courtesy you have afforded me to be quite refreshing. But on the reals, I would not have been offended. ;) the_undertow talk 08:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Your reversions
Hi JoanneB. I wonder about these edits. I think the IP added obvious vandalism. AW 01:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, the first reversion looks right, I have no idea why the second happened, it doesn't get much more obvious than that indeed. Thanks for letting me know! -JoanneB 05:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry!
I think we both edited Vint Cerf at around the same time, still trying to get used to WP:TWINKLE. Vonsche 18:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, I didn't even notice :-) I was surprised you hadn't been welcomed yet, but then I noticed that your account was only two days old. Way to go! If you have any questions, let me know. --JoanneB 18:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Phi Life Cypher
I'm one of their producers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ToughLuckMeadow (talk • contribs) 19:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
I don't have time to be dancing around with you about the legality of the image, so I'll just leave it at this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ToughLuckMeadow (talk • contribs)
Gruesome Photo
By the way, my brother was in the army.. He shot the guy himself and took the picture himself. It was fair licensing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ToughLuckMeadow (talk • contribs).
- If he shot the image, that's ok, please let him upload it. If the image has metadata, people are more likely actually believe you. As it was, you could have taken the image from anywhere, which could have gotten the Foundation in legal trouble. "Fair licensing" (I think you mean fair use) is something else. --JoanneB 19:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't even know what MetaDeta is, bud. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ToughLuckMeadow (talk • contribs).
- If you upload an image that you have downloaded from your digital camera, the metadata will automaticall be included. Just ask you brother. --JoanneB 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not like he posted it up on ogrish, it was one of the photos in his picture gallery he took there. As for protocol, he was shot and then shortly after an A-10 raid took place in the area. That was one of the outcomes.
Quick question from "Libs" re: copyvio images
Sorry to bother you. You were such a great help "eavesdropping" on Alf's talkpage I thought I would come straight to you with my question. I stumbled across some copyvio images uploaded by Bizznitchicuss (talk · contribs). Typical "impersonator using made up username to upload pics" type stuff. The listed website clearly indicate no unauthorised used without permission. What is the avenue on Wiki, besides asking someone like you, to report these types of clear policy side-stepping? I come across these all the time. I am almost to the point where I can spot an "EthanC"(blatant copyvio uploader) sockpuppet in my sleep. Thanks for your help. "Libs" 156.34.226.76 01:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Public domain is pretty extreme as a license for images like these, so I've sent the website owner an email making sure it's the same person, and that he realises what the consequences are. In the mean time, I'm removing the licenses. In a few days, the images will be deleted becuase there's no license, unless of course, that website owner replies. In general, Wikipedia:Copyright problems is the place to raise flags like these. Whatever you do with these kinds of violations that you spot (I don't mind dealing with them :)) be assured that it's much appreciated! Kind regards, --JoanneB 06:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks you so much. I do have another one. [[Image:Martyfriedmanlive.jpg]] was uploaded by a user who, at first, claimed himself as the photographer. I called foul on it(since the user has uploaded other pics that he claimed as his own but were easily googled) The user then blanked any license/source and just wants to edit war his possible copyvio back into the subject article. If he would take the time to validate the pb-self that would be great. It's a good pic and would be a good add into the article. But for now, with absolutely no source/licensing, it is not suitable. Thanks again for all your help. 156.34.223.144 09:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- PS, I guess I'm on a roll. The following images are all unsourced and tagged improperly(with some goofy comments added in as well to try and rationalise usage) Image:Mattheafytriviumold.jpg , Image:Paolo gregoletto trivium 05.jpg , Image:Corey beaulieu trivium 05.jpg , Image:Mattheafytrivium 07.jpg , Image:Twelvetribesbandphoto.jpg all have some strange text. I've never heard of "old but free" as a license tag. And "from their myspace" leaves very little confidence. Thanks. 156.34.211.18 10:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks you so much. I do have another one. [[Image:Martyfriedmanlive.jpg]] was uploaded by a user who, at first, claimed himself as the photographer. I called foul on it(since the user has uploaded other pics that he claimed as his own but were easily googled) The user then blanked any license/source and just wants to edit war his possible copyvio back into the subject article. If he would take the time to validate the pb-self that would be great. It's a good pic and would be a good add into the article. But for now, with absolutely no source/licensing, it is not suitable. Thanks again for all your help. 156.34.223.144 09:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again JoanneB. The "Marty Friedman" image uploader, Blt024 (talk · contribs) appears to be trying to backdoor into some of his images and remove his pics from the PUI list and remove 'unfree' tags from the images as well. I rv'd him a couple of times but I am not going to shade 3RR to try and "keep things clean"Gwernol may be watching :) . Your assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! 156.34.142.110 18:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll keep an eye on him. The Rolly image now has the right tag - and it's no longer a 'possibly unfree image', as it is now a definite unfree image, and some admin will have to decide whether they agree with the current fair use. It doesn't have a fair use rationale, but that's not a reason to speedy it right now. --JoanneB 19:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hi Joanne, thanks for your help editing the U of M 1013 Project articles. My students are learning a lot from their interaction with Wikipedians. They're starting to get the hang of this, and they seem to be enjoying themselves. "Final" revisions on their articles are due next Thursday, so please help look out for them over the next week. 1013-josh 07:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- My pleasure, really! I think it's one of the best educational projects around so far, and I think a lot can be learned from the way you've handled this. I hope that after the project is over you'll let us know what your experiences were: how did the students respond, how much time did they spend on it, how much time did you spend on it, etc. The big issue here, I think, is that this only works when it's done well. Otherwise, it will be merely a frustrating experience for teachers, students and Wikipedians, and I think such projects have failed before. But somehow it seems like this does work. --JoanneB 07:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's definitely been a learning experience for me, as well as the class. And it does take more time than the average "research paper" unit would. I have to go offline for several weeks when the semester ends, but I'll be "cocooning" the project, archiving all the pages, etc., and when I have some time later this summer, I'll write up something for future instructors to use. There's a new project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination that may also help to make things easier for teachers, students, and Wikipedians going forward. 1013-josh 07:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Trivium Images
The images that you put up for deletion were given to me by an admin to add, why are you removing them!? Maurauth (talktome)(wha?) 10:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- If an admin asked you to upload them, he (or she) should know that a license and a source are always needed. Why doesn't the admin upload them himself? I'm not removing them, I'm just asking for licenses and / or sources where they weren't provided. --JoanneB 10:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- They said they didn't know the band members enough to discern who was who. Maurauth (talktome)(wha?) 11:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Still, how could we ever know she really gave her permission? Please see your talk page. Or tell her who's who and let her upload them. --JoanneB 11:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay you seem to be confused, the set that are from an admin are from a page linked on flickr. The other pictures from Jenna are being allowed to be used by her when I asked her on the Trivium forums. Maurauth (talktome)(wha?) 11:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's strange that I'm confused: you're not giving the correct information. For every single image, provide a license, a source and, if fair use, a fair use rationale. "Given to me by an admin" is not enough. Let her send an email to the address I gave you. If she's really an admin, she should be very aware that 'someone told me I could use this' doesn't work for images. --JoanneB 11:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You are being incredibly obtuse. I've explained that she's not an admin, here is the permission from Jenna, and I'll find the page on which the admin told me to use the flickr pictures. http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6057/proofffffuf0.png Maurauth (talktome)(wha?) 11:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trivium#Images Maurauth (talktome)(wha?) 11:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please stay civil, thanks. Regarding Jenna: you only asked her about using the image for Wikipedia. However, because of the license, the image will now be free for everyone to use. Do you realise that? And ok, so I mixed up the two sitations, which are both a problem though. Re: admin, "The images that you put up for deletion were given to me by an admin to add,". That's the admin I was referring to be stating that she or he should know better. --JoanneB 11:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm being incredibly civil, despite the situation. She gave permission for it to be used as long as her name is attributed. So you're saying that the admin shouldn't have said I can use those images for the articles? Well doesn't it then just become your word against his? How should I decide? Maurauth (talktome)(wha?) 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but calling people 'obtuse' isn't very civil in my book. I don't know who the admin is who told you that it was ok to use the images for that article. I don't know either whether he knew that you had only asked for permission for the images to be used in Wikipedia. And I don't know how well the admin knows the rules and policy regarding copyright issues. He might very well be an expert (in which case I invite him to convince of why I'm wrong) but copyright policy is not an area that is discussed in WP:RFA, so his being an admin does not automatically mean he has any experience in this area. You don't have to take my word for it. Re-upload the images, and I'll list them at a copyvio problem page. Then someone else will judge if there is a problem and whether the images have to be deleted. --JoanneB 21:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I linked you to the page where the admin didn't just say it was okay to use them, but directed me to those images as they're free, unlike the previous ones I had uploaded. You being purposefully awkward isn't very civil either and nor is wikistalking but I'm not saying anything about that to you. Maurauth (talktome)(wha?) 22:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I get it now. My (sincere, really) apologies for mixing up the Jenna MacPhee images and the Flickr ones. The Flickr ones are ok to use, although they still need a source. And the licenses you used aren't correct but I'll change that. The other issues still stand though. --JoanneB 22:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay what needs to be fixed now then? Maurauth (talktome)(wha?) 22:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've gone through the (three?) Flickr images by Rokfoto and have added the correct license and the source. You can use that as an example for the rest, if there are more images that have already been licensed with a free image by the uploader at another place (like on Flickr, this time). I don't believe what I did was wikistalking: someone pointed a problem with one of your images out to me, and I decided to go through the rest of your image edits to see if there were any other problems. This is common practice to do in such cases, and can prevent a lot of problems later on. Furthermore, I truly wasn't purposefully being awkward, but I guess there's only my word for that.
- Ok, for the rest of the images, piece by piece, to avoid further confusion:
- Image:Triviumlivedublin07.jpg - the screenshot really isn't enough, sorry. First, she has not licensed them under a free license now (just for Wikipedia) and also, it doesn't state her name anywhere. A screenshot is also not very convenient for later use: you'd have to upload it to Wikipedia, because other wise, in the future, no one can check if she really licensed them. I think you have two options: 1) ask her to send an email to you and then forward it to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, 2) ask her to email to that address directly, 3) ask her to create an account and upload them herself, and ask her to add an license tag herself as she uploads them, stating something like "I am ..., I took these pictures and I license them as ...". Again, this page Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission has all the details.
- Image:Mattheafytrivium 07.jpg - as above.
- Image:Twelvetribesbandphoto.jpg - is a publicity picture, but can only be used in certain circumstances, see here: Template:Promophoto (that's the license you should use, and you should link to their MySpace, like I did with the Flickr pictures)
- Image:Trivium_Ascendancy_Cover.jpg and the other album covers: the license is right, but it also says that it needs a source (a link to the place you found it, their website?) and a fair use rationale: why you believe the image can be used for the specific article its used in, see Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale for details.
- Regards, --JoanneB 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Follow up questions
Did you hear back from the listed source on the John5 images?. "Twinkle Toes" keeps putting the image you tagged as unsourced back into the List of Telecaster players... which is a featured article and would be better served without the dubious content. Also, the Marty Friedman image uploader, Blt024 (talk · contribs) went bezerk yesterday and got himself permanently banned. He has returned as BLT420 (talk · contribs). And has already uploaded the same copyvio pic again... this time naming it after Scooby and Shaggy? Some people never learn :) . Thanks, as always, for your help. 156.34.222.50 13:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Re the John5 guy: a weird situation, the guy from the website doesn't reply to emails to both his emailaddress on the website, nor his emailaddress listed in the whois. The copyright mark on the image contradicts the license, so I'm not quite sure what to do with that. I'll list this case at the copyright problems page. That will take a while, but I thinking taking the long road is best in this case. In the meantime, please don´t revert any more, 3RR is around the corner, no matter how right you are...
- I've looked at the BLT420 contribs too. The Rolly image is at best fair use, all the other licenses that have been thrown in (I've lost count) were invalid. Fair use can be disputed, but until that is resolved (one way or the other), it basically should be allowed to stay. The Friedman image I have doubts about: a small border, no metadata, but in spite of all that, he might be right. I've asked him the upload a more original version of the image (no border, if possible with metadata). And I found this when looking for possible copies of that image. Who knew? :) --JoanneB 14:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think I'm missing something in that link??? :) . Either that or the picture of the muscle bound "ALF" disturbed me to the point where I couldn't see the rest of the page :D . I am guessing our image was there earlier?? but has been switched now to something else? 156.34.222.50 14:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, since I am still recovering from sinus surgery which left me rather swollen/sore... I can very much relate right now to Alf's protruding proboscis. 156.34.222.50 16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alf returns from the kitchen still clutching a Gouda's Gilde extra grote Siroopwafel, notices the crowd gathering around Joanne's talk and hides in the biscuit cupboard until he thinks it safe, meanwhile the noise of lightly crunched Siroopwafelen is heard through the cupboard door
- Joanne doesn't mind the crowd, as long as they're all here for tea and stroopwafels :)
- Joanne points Image:No_Remorse.jpg out to Libs, mutters something about 'no source' and 'no fair use rationale', glances at Alf and runs.
- Alf mutters something about the original being uploaded before rationales were thought rational, drops a stroopwafel into Joanne's coffee from as high as he can, watches the coffee mug spill its contents before toppling over onto Joanne's laptop. Alf thinks it then prudent to run as fast as he can manage (which when full of stroopwafels is considerably slower than usual)
- Joanne points Image:No_Remorse.jpg out to Libs, mutters something about 'no source' and 'no fair use rationale', glances at Alf and runs.
- Joanne doesn't mind the crowd, as long as they're all here for tea and stroopwafels :)
- Alf returns from the kitchen still clutching a Gouda's Gilde extra grote Siroopwafel, notices the crowd gathering around Joanne's talk and hides in the biscuit cupboard until he thinks it safe, meanwhile the noise of lightly crunched Siroopwafelen is heard through the cupboard door
Knew that was a bad idea (WP:BEANS) - I saw this a few mo's ago - (diff) (hist) . . m Image:Rollyairguitar.jpg; 17:40 . . (+11) . . BLT420 (Talk | contribs | block) --Alf melmac 17:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, at least he's got the right license, and an attempt of a rationale. It's still lacking a source, however. And yeah, the fair use can be disputed, in terms of replacability, as often. --JoanneB 17:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, after some spoon feeding that I'd have lost my patience doing. JoanneB 1 Rest of the World 0.--Alf melmac 17:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alf mutters something about cessation of siroopwafelen rations to his Dutch friend (if she makes a habit of nudging his elbow as she did above) as he makes this edit.
- Joanne smiles and notes that she has read the discussion. She mutters something that uncanningly sounds like "Don't even think about moving to another wiki, I'll come and haunt you!"
- Ali wonders if she is going to get fed this week after all that work she did for Joanne...
- Alf hands Ali a stroopwafel to be going on with and wonders whether BLT420's name is related to Bacon, Lettuce and Tomato...
- Joanne offers both Ali and Alf a full
breakfastmeal of choice in accordance with your timezone, but hopes that Alf won't start nibbling on innocent Wikipedians.- Alf looks startled and drops the innocent wikipedian he'd been nibbling on, and quickly tries to hide it behind the 'fridge, rather unsucessfully (he wishes now that he'd chosen a less chubby example).
- Yummy! Thanks Joanne. /me eyes Alf to ensure he does not steal her meat pie - not that they have them in Ye Old Country.
- Alf looks startled and drops the innocent wikipedian he'd been nibbling on, and quickly tries to hide it behind the 'fridge, rather unsucessfully (he wishes now that he'd chosen a less chubby example).
- Joanne offers both Ali and Alf a full
- Alf hands Ali a stroopwafel to be going on with and wonders whether BLT420's name is related to Bacon, Lettuce and Tomato...
- Alf mutters something about cessation of siroopwafelen rations to his Dutch friend (if she makes a habit of nudging his elbow as she did above) as he makes this edit.
- Yes, after some spoon feeding that I'd have lost my patience doing. JoanneB 1 Rest of the World 0.--Alf melmac 17:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Bfp wanders by Joanne's talk, looks to see if Alf has left any stroopwafelen lying around and wonders why Joanne falls under Category: English musical groups.
- Joanne sees that the ever lightning fast Alf has already fixed it, thanks both Bfp and Alf and throws in an extra packet of stroopwafels for all. (Not this millenium's answer to the Beatles? Alf, you've hurt my feelings!)
As I have seen you edited the old page of Wikipedia:Esperanza I would just like to inform you I am holding a deletion review to attempt to restore the project. Eaomatrix 14:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
See [5]
- Thanks for letting me know, but I agree with Doc's closing of the discussion per WP:SNOW. There has been so much discussion about it, and I do believe that there was a large majority who wanted the page deleted. True consensus will never be reached on issues like these, I believe. Esperanza had some great aspects (and some not so great, obviously), but at the moment it started causing conflicts itself among Wikipedians, it defied its own purpose. Kind regards, --JoanneB 17:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
John 5
I've uploaded a better looking free to use image. Don't bother trying to get usage of the old one. ≈ Maurauth (talktome)(wha?) 19:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Illyriaforever
Hello Joanne! I would like to know why my cari site been removed dozens of times. I thought it was violating anything? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illyriaforever (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
- Your links did not meet the criteria in our policy on External links. It's a personal website (fansite), and that's in the list of websites that should be avoided. Also, please don't link to any websites that you own or maintain, because of conflict of interest concerns. Kind regards, --JoanneB 22:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Is There anything i can do to fix that? Crazy Cari is not a personal website —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illyriaforever (talk • contribs) 23:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
- No, sorry, it's a fansite, and fansites aren't good external links for our articles. --JoanneB 23:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
not even unofficial sites? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illyriaforever (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
- No, not those either. There are several reasons for that, among others: 1) If such links would be accepted, a lot of the articles those people would be twice as long because of the huge amount of links. Long lists of links are hard to maintain: people have to keep checking that they still work, for instance. 2) We have no way of checking the quality of fansites, and we can't risk linking to websites that for instance spread illegal content (for instance, images that are copyrighted by someone else, or MP3s) or defamatory information. Kind regards, --JoanneB 23:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What about this site: http://www.denise-quinones.com ? It is listed on here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illyriaforever (talk • contribs) 23:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
- No, that's a fansite too. I've removed it. (and please sign your contribs by typing --~~~~ or clicking the signature button, see [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages) --JoanneB 23:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Rolly Picture
im sorry for uploading that rolly picture so many times with so many copyrights, wiki is really too confusing. every page i read for copyright stuff is very detailed and which i do not understand all that much. i will admit, that marty picture was not mine and i did not have any right to post it (its right on his website [6]). i could post an image that i have taken personally live but i would not know the copyright to put on it. with the rolly photo, it is the only photo that can be used. i do talk to him personaly, and he very much wants to make a english wiki, as he is getting a growing western fanbase because of Rock Fujiyama. all of his photos are owned by some company except for that. it is a promo picture he sent to fans in 2002 after his movie, and i asked him if i would be able to use this on wikipedia, and he said sure. if there is anything i need to show you, i will. also, are you able to use screenshots as their main picture, because i uploaded one for marty friedman and they erased it. the one i have in question is Howard Stern because that is also a screenshot, it says so right in its copyrights. thank you soooo much for giving me a second chance, i realy want to help wiki and not to "vandalize" it. BLT420 09:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a lot to take in. An image that you have taken yourself, would be perfect! If you would want to license it as "CC-BY-SA" or "GFDL-self" that would mean that other people could use your picture, as long as they give you credit, and if they change your picture (for instance, they crop it) they will have to use the same license.
- Regarding Rolly, that's a bit tricky. It might be very frustrating, but it's not really enough he told you you could use it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, which not only means that people don´t have to pay to read it, but also that the information and images can be used for other projects (even commercial ones!). So the thing he would have to agree to, so the image can be used on Wikipedia, is the CC-BY-SA license, or GFDL. If you can ask him this, by email (you can find example letters here: Wikipedia:Example requests for permission, you could use the last one for example). If he has replied that this is ok, you can forward that to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org.
- Screenshots can be used in certain cases, but only if the article is about a show or a program, or sometimes, about the host of that program, like Howard Stern. If a concert by Marty Friedman was on tv, a screenshot wouldn't be allowed. If he presented a television program, and you would write about the television program itself, a screenshot under fair use would be ok. It's pretty tricky! Kind regards, --JoanneB 12:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- that is kinda my question. its a screenshot from howard sterns show. this is a screenshot of marty from his show, thats why i believed that photo was allowed if the stern one is. i already started a page on his show, Rock Fujiyama. let me know if that is alright, thanks BLT420 01:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted page
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Lovebirds.family.jpeg/220px-Lovebirds.family.jpeg)
you could have left it on for a few more min? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iloveashlynn (talk • contribs).
just 5 min please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iloveashlynn (talk • contribs).
i have to congragulate you, your quick. but not quick enough ;) my love saw it. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iloveashlynn (talk • contribs).
- You were lucky then! Next time, however, please use the sandbox for stuff like this, or you'll be blocked. Thanks. --JoanneB 17:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Rodeo article
Dear Joanne:
First of all I want to thank you and all of the other good people at Wikipedia that have been so kind and helpful! Nonetheless, I realize now I was never meant to write for this encyclopedia. No matter what I do or how hard I try, all I get is nasty, cutting remarks on the talk page. Never one kind word. As you and others have told me, nobody "owns" an article in Wikipedia, so good. Somebody else can take over.
If you decide to pursue the animal rights issue, be advised that it is extremely complex, which is why I did not go into detail, or single out PETA as my critic requested. The best sources are the books by Fredriksson ( 3 chapters) & Wooden, as well as the PRCA & WPRA rules books.
Before I ever undertook this project, I asked if references were required and the answer I got was no, but they would be nice. So I tried to be nice and include endnotes. Now I am told they pose a "conflict of inbterest" because of too much of my own work. Well what else? So, if you people feel it is necessary, go ahead and "unbundle" the notes back to their original sources. I can't handle it. I am a retiree on a fixed income who no longer has a University to pay for faxes and copies, and I can't be going to Kinkos and sending all that stuff. Your volunteers surely have access to a library where my book and journal articles are available.
Before you proceed, I just want to give you a small idea of what will happen if you do unbundle the notes. I spent 2 hours yesterday on note #27, and the result is below. I'm never going through that again.
I look forward to reading the perfected article sometime in the future. If you have any factual questions that I can help you with, please let me know. But I gave all my raw data to the various archives, so I can't be much help there. Again, thanks to all. I'm sorry I have been unable to meet your standards of excellence. Below is unbundled note # 27.
Sincerely, Mary Lou LeCompte
27. Interviews with Nancy Binford, Dixie Reger Mosley, and Mary Ellen Barton, Hereford, Texas, 15 March 1988; Binford’s scrapbooks and files located in Archives, National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame, Fort Worth, Texas; "All Girl Rodeo a Knockout," clipping, n.p. n.d., Binford scrapbook; "Rodeo Spectators Stetsons Off to Feminine Bulldogger," Amarillo Daily News, 24 September 1947, 1;. Amarillo Daily News, 21 September 1947,7 & 20; Hoofs & Horns, September 1943, 4; "Girls Rodeo Aces Ride Tonight for $3,000 in Prizes," Amarillo Daily News, 25 September 1947, 1; "Record Crowd Hails Champion Cowgirls," Amarillo Daily News, 26 September 1947, 1 and 8; Willard Porter, "Dixie Lee Reger," Hoofs & Horns, September 1951, 6; "Girl's Rodeo Association," Hoofs & Horns, May 1948, 24; "Cowgirls Organize Group Here," n.p., n.d., Binford Scrapbook; "Girl's Rodeo Association," 24. Mrs. B. Kalland, "Rodeo Personalities," Hoofs & Horns, December 1951, 17; WPRA/PWRA Official Reference Guide, (Blanchard: Women's Professional Rodeo Association, 1990), vol. 7, 72; Margaret Montgomery files, National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame; "GRA," Western Horseman, July 1959, 10-13. (Sanctioned events were as follows: Races: flag races, figure eight and cloverleaf barrel races, line reining. Roping events: catch as catch can, team tieing, figure eight catch. Rough stock events: bareback bronc riding, saddle bronc riding, bull riding); Jane Mayo, Championship Barrel Racing (Houston: Cordovan, 1961), 9; RCA Minutes, Prorodeo Hall of Fame; Mary King, "Cowgirls Have the New Look Too," Quarter Horse Journal, November 1948, 28-9; Hooper Shelton, Fifty Years a Living Legend (Stamford: Shelton Press, 1979), 31-32, 94; Houston Post, 2-13 February 1950; BBD, 11 September 1954, 62 & 16 October 1954, 48; New York Times, October 1954; WPRA/PWRA Official Reference Guide, vol. 7, 4; Powder Puff and Spurs, July and August 1950; Fog Horn Clancy, Rodeo Histories and Records (n.p.:n.p. 1949, 1950, 1951; Quarter Horse Journal, May 1954, 22; PRCA Official Media Guide (Colorado Springs: Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association, 1987), 184; Copy of "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RODEO COWBOYS' ASSOCIATION, INC. AND THE GIRLS" RODEO ASSOCIATION," WPRA files, Colorado Springs, CO. Billie McBride Files, National Cowgirl Hall of Fame; NFR Committee Minutes, 14 January 1959, 5 May and 16 September 1959, March 16-18, 1960, 115 march 1968, Prorodeo Hall of Fame; WPRA/PWRA Official Reference Guide, vol. 7, 22-32; PRCA Official Media Guide (1987), 220; RCA Board minutes, 16 March, 24-27 November 1960, 6 January 1962, 10 August 1965, and 30 January, 13 May 1967. (Unfortunately, it is not possible to chronicle this achievement from the women's point of view. Although it is known that many WPRA representatives spent countless hours and traveled thousands of miles pleading their case to the PRCA before finally succeeding with the help of the Oklahoma City promoters, their names will never be known. Alone among all of the organizations and agencies involved with this project, the WPRA refused to allow this writer access to of any of its files, documents or minutes); PRCA Official Media Guide (1987), 195-217.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mllecompte1 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
It's been listed in WP:AIV [7]. What's up with it? Doesn't appear to be flagged either. bibliomaniac15 23:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- See below, this account had nothing to do with me. I woudn't even know how to run a bot! --JoanneB 11:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Joanne, is this automated/bot-like account yours? What's the purpose behind uploading those images? They don't appear on first glance to be useful for Wikipedia?
Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert 23:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'b being bold and assuming someone is impersonating you and using Wikipedia for free hosting or something, so I'm deleting the images and blocking the account. I'm basing this on the facts that you're an admin and clearly know your way around policies and that the bot went into operation two hours since your last edit. --Wafulz 23:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Quick question from Libs
How "free" are "public" Flickr pics? My AGF for that site is thin to null. Check, for instance, the Fickr source for this image: [[Image:Cliffburtonfree.jpg]]. I mean really? I've seen that poster umpteen times. According to the source page, the image was taken in Sept. 2006 and the man's been dead for over 20 years. The Flickr page still has the white text up in the top right corner and text at the bottom linking some sort of Metallica fansite. And yet our uploader, 75pickup (talk · contribs) has clearly smudged out the top text and cropped the bottom text, possibly in an attempt hise cover it's copyvio'ness'ness'ness's'ssspardon the made up word. I have serious doubts about the "public" use of some of the image uploads I am seeing from flickr. Have there been any other rumplings about this within the "Wiki walls" of admindom? To me it's creating a growing 'integrity gap' within the project. 156.34.223.204 03:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Another User:Asad Aleem Sock
Asad Aleem, the user who was recently indef blocked for creating hoax articles and deliberately adding nonsense to actual articles has created a new sock in User:Asad Entertainment. See his contribs. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)