User talk:J Milburn/archive27

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

• From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
• News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Rollosmokes

I see you just posted a notice on his page. He's been indef'd since last October. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuous restoring/deleting of links to images for Glen Campbell videos

In reply to your warning on my userpage, can I still ask you a question (although you may feel otherwise, i'm all doing this in good faith)? Why do you say I am ignoring our policies and guidelines? I assume you mean the non-free content policies and guidelines? We have obviously different opinions on how those should be applied to the Glen Campbell videos article, but I wouldn't call that "ignoring". Or do you mean other guidelines and policies about restoring deleted content or something? I haven't been able to find anything about that. In my view I have just as much the right to restore certain content as you have to delete it, as long as there is an unresolved difference of opinion.Lumdeloo (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You answered on my userpage:

If someone believes that calling someone else "a fucking nigger whore" (or whatever) is not a personal attack, does that mean that they have a right to restore it, "as long as there is an unresolved difference of opinion"? No. These images are in violation of policy at the moment, and you're going to have to demonstrate otherwise if you want them to stay. It's ok that you believe otherwise, but continually adding them back in the meantime is not acceptable. To give a real world example, I see no harm in prostitution (which is illegal where I am) per se, but that doesn't mean it's ok for me to go out and pick up young girls and pay them for sex as I see fit. Whether you like it or not, these guidelines are in place, and you're going to need to give specific reasons why these images are required in this article before we can even discuss adding them back. J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, these comparisons are not good. I am not personally attacking someone (i really hope you don't feel that way). And the non-free content guideline and criteria is nowhere near as clear as a lawbook. That is why we have a difference of opinion, not because you follow the rules and I don't. You may think these images are in violation of policy, I think they're not.

And I have indicated why I think so. You however have not replied on that. Instead you started using coarse language and, in your role as administrator, threaten to block me. So please provide me a reply on the points I brought forward on your user page on 22:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC) and 20:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC). I have decided not to revert the changes again for now, you're right, eventually they can be put back (or not) if that's our conclusion. But then I would appreciate a decent reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumdeloo (talk • contribs)

• You've been explicitly told how and why this image use violates our policies. Edit warring to violate that policy is not conducive to your editing privileges. This use has been debated ad nauseum, and THE USE HAS NOT BEEN PERMITTED. Knock it off. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hammersoft, you must be aware that the non-free content guidelines are not clear at all on some points. I read on several discussion pages (indeed ad nauseum) which included contributions from you, that some people want to change them, but these changes have not made it into the guidelines (yet), apparantly because some other people have different opinions on it (like I do). Discussions are good, but they're not the same as guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumdeloo (talk • contribs)

• So what if there is discussion to change them? Discussion is all fine and good, but discussion is not guideline. Guideline states we don't permit this use. Read and understand Wikipedia:Non-free content. I just went through all 49 articles in Category:Videographies. Only two had fair use images on them (one each). One had a screen capture for a Britney Spears video that is already used on the song's page, and thus shouldn't be on a videography, and it also lacked a rationale for use on the videography page anyway. The other was a Lenny Kravitz non-free image that I replaced with a free image that serves the same purpose (WP:NFCC #1). Every other article (and now all of them) lack fair use images. Please explain to us all how it is that everyone here has it wrong, and you have it right; that fair use covers/screen captures should be permitted on videography articles. Why are we all supposed to stop what we're doing, acknowledge you are right and we were all sadly mistaken, and lockstep with you into a new age of putting covers on videographies and discographies? Why? Because you say everyone else is wrong and you are right? You're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than that. I'm not going to keep debating this with you. If you attempt to restore the images to the article again, I'll report it as vandalism. You know what the policy is. You know what the guideline is. You know what current practice is. If you insist on violating it, the consequences will be your responsibility. Your move. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• First of all, I appreciate your response. Then my reply: i have taken a look at most of those videography pages you mention. The big difference between those pages and the Glen Campbell videos page is that those pages merely list the videos but they do not provide commentary on them. I totally agree those articles shouldn't have front cover images. We can find this in the guideline under Acceptable use for images: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." and under Unacceptable use for images: "An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above." However, the Glen Campbell videos page does provide commentary on the releases and therefore, in my opinion, it's not against the guideline to include non-free images of the cover art. Indeed, the article becomes better with the images, just like an article about a single album/video/dvd is better off with an identifying image of the original cover art. So no, I'm not saying everybody is wrong and I am right. I'm just saying this kind of article is different than the other pages you mention. And no, I definitely don't want a new age of putting covers on all videographies and discographies. That would be against the guidelines and it's not what I'm after anyway.Lumdeloo (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've had this very same debate before with someone. They attempted to make a claim that their article was new, a different type of article, that the guideline didn't apply to because it was different. Ah, here is that discussion. There was a similar discussion about an unrelated article here. Guess what the resolution of both cases was? Elimination of fair use images on one, and reduction to one on the other. You've been told the principle this is done under; if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article. Are images useful? Sure. But, we are a FREE CONTENT encyclopedia, which means we accept non-free content on a very, very limited basis and only when we must. What are you after if not after covers being on all video/discographies? Special dispensation for this article being special and thus beyond the scope of our non-free content policies and guidelines? I assure you, that's impossible. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. That discussion was very enlightening. I think you're right when you say that the underlying principle there was: "if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article." My point however, is that this principle (which in my opinion is crucial to your point of view) cannot be found anywhere in the non-free content guidelines or policy. It can be found in certain discussions, but as you and I have said before: discussions are not the same as guidelines. I don't want special dispensation for this article. I just want this article to be treated within the context of the current policy and guidelines. In my opinion this means that the use of non-free images here is acceptable.Lumdeloo (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• <forehead slap> I give up. Restore the images at your own peril Lumdeloo. There's no point in discussing this anymore. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• <sigh>If that's the only way to get to the bottom of this... Thanks for your replies anyway.Lumdeloo (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please do not reinstate the images. Your argument basically seems to boil down to "we disagree over the policy. My opinion is as valid as yours". Frankly, I don't care. I've demonstrated why that's a ridiculous argument, and you became rather snooty about it. If you want to start a centralised discussion about this, go for it, but you'll be wasting your time. J Milburn (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think I will start a more centralized discussion about this, thanks for the suggestion.Lumdeloo (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Lumdeloo, we already HAVE gotten to the bottom of this. You simply choose to disagree with our WP:NFCC #8 policy. I'll re-iterate what I said above. If you persist in restoring the images, you will be blatantly violating policy and it will be treated as vandalism. Your call, sport. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hammersoft, i don't agree. I have been searching all over wikipedia for guidelines which support your statement "if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article." I have not been able to find anything. On the contrary, the notability guideline clearly states that there is no direct link between notability and content (WP:N#NCONTENT).

• Oh, so this is the "I can't find exactly this situation explained exactly in policy, so you're wrong and I'm right" approach? Right. Everything you need is in the non-free content criteria. If you want to demonstrate what those images are adding to that article, be my guest. J Milburn (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• <de-indent> Lumdeloo, there's no point in continuing this discussion with you. There's a zillion possible types of articles. Policy can not and will not anticipate every single possible type. Restore the images at your own peril. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  I took the discussion to Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Glen_Campbell_videos. Lumdeloo (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Crown Fountain FAC 4

You are opposing based on changes made by and for our image reviewer Elcobbola (talk · contribs). Could you possibly speak directly since images are outside my area of expertise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted to the single still image as the main image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you still oppose?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have rearranged and reworded, but have further comment on the FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the template. Does the article pass now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You made no comments today. I think the ar/pr folks are waiting for your final decision. I hope I am close to getting your support.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you are back online. Could you commnet on this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine

Fine, and thanks for the care to remove contents pertaining to policy violations. --Bhadani (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Bratospoulosm

Great. I told him how to get them properly submitted and I am glad that everything turned out ok. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Susan Atkins photo

Regarding this edit, wouldn't that photo actually be in the public domain as Manson's booking photo is? See the "ownership" policy of the California Dept of Corrections. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

admin abuse

Stop abusing your position as an administrator to allow you to vandalize wikipedia to make a point. You've said you'd stop the removal of pictures from television articles, but in reality, you have increased the number of files deleted and pages altered. You have edited dozens of articles, but i'll just list the ones i can remember:

WDIV-TV, WMYD-TV, WXYZ-TV, CKCO-TV, USA Network, CHRO-TV, WJBK-TV, WKBD-TV, WWJ-TV, WJW-TV, WEWS-TV, WTOL-TV, WNWO-TV, WKYC-TV... this is blatant vandalism and abuse of power, and these articles MUST be restored to their pre-vandalism condition. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 17:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I take to offence that the images removed in the CKCO article were explained in great detail. I thought you wanted critical commentary for non-free images. Well there was critical commentary for the CKCO images. I would like to see you describe a television logo that you removed. File:Mctvbbs.svg would be a good start.

I'm not against having a solution to resolve this situation, but I feel the way everybody is acting right now is not the correct way to resolve this. I think that there should be a resolution so there wouldn't be edit wars every few days over this subject.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 23:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Creating critical discussion without sourcing the discussion in secondary sources external to Wikipedia is original research. We don't add logos everywhere we want to, and then describe them, in an attempt to keep them in articles. Was the logo notable for some reason? If so, cite sources showing that. Was the transition from one logo to another significant in history? If so, cite sources indicating that. If you can't do this, including the logos does nothing to improve the article, and actually makes it worse. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Emarsee, original research in image captions counts for nothing. Are the logos genuinely significant? Would they be discussed in the article if you weren't so keen to prove they are "necessary"? I think not. What a logo that the channel used years ago looks like is of pretty much no importance. J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You may believe that the logos used by a local television station is of little importance, but there are people who disagree with that. I'm not saying that every single logo that a television station had should be on their articles, but what I am trying to do is to keep the most significant logos of the television stations. Independent sources with regarding with local television stations in Canada are very few, and and even fewer have anything regarding logos. I will gladly accept a limit of one non-free image outside the infobox on the articles if it would mean that the logos come with clear and critical commentary with some limited sources.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• No arbitrary "one logo" limits. We don't work that way. Look, you said it yourself, "even fewer have anything regarding logos". Then it is blatantly clear the logos aren't significant. If you can't discuss an historical logo without using any sources at all, then the discussion is original research an not encyclopedic. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Emarsee, to give a similar example, there are very few sources discussing villages local to me, and even fewer discussing specific roads (take Ireleth, my village, and High Duddon Close, a street near me). As such, though I write about the village best I can, I will not mention roads of no significance. Equally, I would not include pictures of said roads, even if they were free- this isn't a copyright issue, this is just common sense editorial decisions. The same is true here- write about the TV station as best you can, but do not just slip in random facts for which you have no reliable sources, and certainly do not slip in random non-free images of no importance. J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate that you have a certain understanding of the dilemma I'm facing at the moment.

If the logos's only sources were press releases from their former owners, would it be considered to be a reliable source? I've found a few press releases regarding some non-free television logos. I've found one reliable source for a non-free logo which I've already added to the articles.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 01:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources are sometimes permissable, and I do not deny using press releases in some of my articles. However, you have to ask yourself whether that really justifies the use of the logo. If the company made a big fuss about the new design, perhaps it would. However, if you are down to scrabbling through press releases, perhaps you are focussing too hard on trying to add the logos to the articles, when there are more important things to discuss. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've think I've found a good source from the Canadian Government describing many non-free logos. Take a look at the file on BBS. It shows when the logo was first registered (close enough to first being used) and how the logo looks like in a legal manner.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 04:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So? That doesn't suddenly make it significant. J Milburn (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

admin abuse

Stop abusing your position as an administrator to allow you to vandalize wikipedia to make a point. You've said you'd stop the removal of pictures from television articles, but in reality, you have increased the number of files deleted and pages altered. You have edited dozens of articles, but i'll just list the ones i can remember:

WDIV-TV, WMYD-TV, WXYZ-TV, CKCO-TV, USA Network, CHRO-TV, WJBK-TV, WKBD-TV, WWJ-TV, WJW-TV, WEWS-TV, WTOL-TV, WNWO-TV, WKYC-TV... this is blatant vandalism and abuse of power, and these articles MUST be restored to their pre-vandalism condition. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 17:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I take to offence that the images removed in the CKCO article were explained in great detail. I thought you wanted critical commentary for non-free images. Well there was critical commentary for the CKCO images. I would like to see you describe a television logo that you removed. File:Mctvbbs.svg would be a good start.

I'm not against having a solution to resolve this situation, but I feel the way everybody is acting right now is not the correct way to resolve this. I think that there should be a resolution so there wouldn't be edit wars every few days over this subject.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 23:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Creating critical discussion without sourcing the discussion in secondary sources external to Wikipedia is original research. We don't add logos everywhere we want to, and then describe them, in an attempt to keep them in articles. Was the logo notable for some reason? If so, cite sources showing that. Was the transition from one logo to another significant in history? If so, cite sources indicating that. If you can't do this, including the logos does nothing to improve the article, and actually makes it worse. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Emarsee, original research in image captions counts for nothing. Are the logos genuinely significant? Would they be discussed in the article if you weren't so keen to prove they are "necessary"? I think not. What a logo that the channel used years ago looks like is of pretty much no importance. J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You may believe that the logos used by a local television station is of little importance, but there are people who disagree with that. I'm not saying that every single logo that a television station had should be on their articles, but what I am trying to do is to keep the most significant logos of the television stations. Independent sources with regarding with local television stations in Canada are very few, and and even fewer have anything regarding logos. I will gladly accept a limit of one non-free image outside the infobox on the articles if it would mean that the logos come with clear and critical commentary with some limited sources.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• No arbitrary "one logo" limits. We don't work that way. Look, you said it yourself, "even fewer have anything regarding logos". Then it is blatantly clear the logos aren't significant. If you can't discuss an historical logo without using any sources at all, then the discussion is original research an not encyclopedic. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Emarsee, to give a similar example, there are very few sources discussing villages local to me, and even fewer discussing specific roads (take Ireleth, my village, and High Duddon Close, a street near me). As such, though I write about the village best I can, I will not mention roads of no significance. Equally, I would not include pictures of said roads, even if they were free- this isn't a copyright issue, this is just common sense editorial decisions. The same is true here- write about the TV station as best you can, but do not just slip in random facts for which you have no reliable sources, and certainly do not slip in random non-free images of no importance. J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate that you have a certain understanding of the dilemma I'm facing at the moment.

If the logos's only sources were press releases from their former owners, would it be considered to be a reliable source? I've found a few press releases regarding some non-free television logos. I've found one reliable source for a non-free logo which I've already added to the articles.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 01:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources are sometimes permissable, and I do not deny using press releases in some of my articles. However, you have to ask yourself whether that really justifies the use of the logo. If the company made a big fuss about the new design, perhaps it would. However, if you are down to scrabbling through press releases, perhaps you are focussing too hard on trying to add the logos to the articles, when there are more important things to discuss. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've think I've found a good source from the Canadian Government describing many non-free logos. Take a look at the file on BBS. It shows when the logo was first registered (close enough to first being used) and how the logo looks like in a legal manner.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 04:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So? That doesn't suddenly make it significant. J Milburn (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)