User talk:Jenolen

Hello, about the Template:Level 42, see the talk page.

Theleop June, 10th 2007

Done. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

eom Daniel Case 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For me, a nonfree image is nonreplaceable if it's copyrighted 2- or 3-dimensional art, a still from a TV show or movie, or a photograph showing a unique historical event. A nonfree image is not easily replaceable (but still not completely nonreplaceable!) if it's of a no longer existing structure (bridge, building, etc.), an extinct or endangered animal or plant species, of a deceased person, or a living person who is in prison, under house arrest, or known to be reclusive. (The fact that we didn't have a free image of Anna Nicole Smith until after her death shows that a person's death does not automatically make all copyrighted images of them nonreplaceable.) A nonfree image is replaceable if it's of an existing structure, an animal or plant species that's not endangered in the part of the world where it's endemic, or a living person who regularly appears in public. The distinction you wanted to make between "A-list" stars and "B-list" stars where nonfree images of the "A-list" stars are considered "not generally replaceable" is not only too vague to be helpful (who decides which star is on which list?) but is totally belied by the fact that we have free images of a lot of the biggest names in show business (Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Britney Spears, Madonna, Cher, Barbra Streisand). And three Commons members have recently applied for press credentials from Wikinews, which will make it even easier for them to get access to stars so they can photograph them. —Angr 06:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What's intesting about your six primary celebrity examples? In the top photo in all of them, the photo I assume to be the best photo we have -- not a single one of them is actually looking at the camera. Classic amateurism... but very, very "libre." I'm not sure what point this proves, other than "copyright-free or GFDL photos of major celebrities are likely to be sucky." Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, don't worry about me assuming that you're "picking a fight". I am open to having thoughtful conversations about these issues, believe it or not, but it is easy to understand why you might not have that impression.

As for the Twiggy example, I'm not all that interested in that particular image. I'll try to explain my two larger concerns, which aren't at all specific. One is that we've gotten quite lazy about verifying copyright holder information, and we get email not infrequently about how we've gotten it wrong. I don't mean to overstate the case; I'm not talking about a deluge here by any means. But reguarly enough. In this case, while it seems a safe assumption that the photography they're publishing is owned by the subject (or, more likely, the subject's agents), we don't know that. They may have licensed it for republication and sale. One thing we need to ask ourselves, and I mean anybody who is doing any thinking about this, is where our comfort level lies in making these assumptions. The other concern is, in some ways, a little more esoteric. Let's say that we get mail saying "Hey! Why is my photograph on your website? Please take it down!" and I, or someone else, goes and looks at it and says, "Oh, this seems to fail WP:FUC", and it gets deleted. If the image gets uploaded again by some random user, that's signficantly easier to explain, and thereby head off a takedown notice, than if one of our admins undeletes it. In short, I'm uncomfortable with what seems to me an apparant blitheness about copyright concerns when tallying votes. Now, obviously, if I thought that there was any urgent concern about this image, I'd have done more about it than just tag it and chat about it. As I said above, I think the assumption that the copyright is owned by the subject's agents is probably right.

Incidentally, it seems that Library and Archives Canada has a lot of old Montreal Star material in its collection, which they allow unrestricted use of. Unfortunately, they don't have a digital image of this photograph available. I'm considering buying a print to scan anyway. Think it is worth it sight unseen? I'm not sure I want to make a habit of doing this; it could get expensive. Jkelly 01:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it wasn't meant to be sarcastic but I'm sure you can see that it sounded a bit flippant. In future I'll think more deeply about rewording rather than deleting. Sorry again. Algebra man 18:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:IBYA or WP:ADIEU. C.m.jones 09:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to post a note here letting you know that I, for one, appreciate your ongoing fight against the anti-free-use zealots who have been running rampant over Wikipedia. While its nice to have optimists out there who believe that all images can one day be set free from their captivity, common sense is a more appropriate approach and it should be the goal of this encyclopedia to place providing the highest quality and most relevant content above imaginary disputes over easily identifiable free use images. So, thank you, thank you, thank you for keeping up the fight! Jmdustin 21:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The fight is a loosing battle here, however. Because the edict has come from the top. 70.146.32.22 02:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick post to let you know I respect your stance against the crazy surge of labelling all album-covers as not of fair use. BetacommandBot is one of the main offenders, and the sheer weight of complaints against it should say something. Yet there are people who stick by it, abandoning all attempts at creating an encyclopedia to waste time argueing about whether an album image is correctly tagged... The Hurball Company 22:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We're getting badly tangled up in terminology here. Something that is licensed under the GFDL is still copyrighted. You, for instance, enjoy copyright protection on all your pro-Wikipedia-use-of-promotional-media arguments, you just agree to license them under the GFDL when you publish them here. When I take a blurry, unflattering photograph of some celebrity, and upload it to Commons, I retain copyright on that blurry, unflattering photograph, but choose to dual-license it GFDL/CC-BY-SA. Some people do just donate their work into the public domain, meaning that they give up any copyright protection altogether, but there's nothing either encouraging or discouraging that. There is a little cartoon that encourages people to not license solely under the GFDL, but one can if one wants. This matters because it is important that we don't infringe on copyright regardless of the license; content creators who choose to license their work under something that is compatible with our mission still need to be properly credited as part of the GFDL or CC-BY, for example. Jkelly 21:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jenolen, I took the liberty to reply your message here. --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The image is on Commons; please list it for deletion there. Also note that without a policy change that will allow the International Symbol of Access to be used, it will not be deleted. --NE2 21:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

hey thanks for finding a solution for reverting the anastacia discography... i was the one who originally cleaned it up and made all the tables i was a little mad when that user changed it to how he wanted but i wasnt sure if he was right thanks for your help Rsf7589 00:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In the case of both the Hindenburg disaster and with Elian Gonzales, along with the Tiananmen Square protest and some other topics, the photography is very much part of the public discourse; it is what Wikipedia calls "iconic". An encyclopedic treatment of these subjects could conceivably, and I might go so far as to say "ideally should", contain commentary on the imagery and reaction to it. There's nothing particularly iconic about Image:20061016 02.jpg that I am aware of; there's apparantly no more reason to use this image than some other image of the incident, we don't know of any third parties who have commented on this photograph; in short, we're using it without comment to illustrate an article about the event instead of as a cultural artifact, which is precisely the original role of photograph, and there is therefore nothing obviously transformative in our use. Jkelly 18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think guideline pages are an appropriate place for WP:POINT joke edits. --tjstrf talk 08:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Both it and your initial post in the thread where you "proposed" it are worded like satire, and I'm reasonably certain the reason it didn't gather any opposition is because everyone else who opposed it thought the same thing. See my comments on the talk page if you haven't seen them already. --tjstrf talk 16:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. utcursch | talk 10:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments at the village pump on the use of the international wheelchair symbol. I appreciate it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You are aware that George Washington (inventor) is absolutely a true article, right?--Pharos 01:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the write-up as it appeared on the main page: George Washington was an early inventor of instant coffee, and worked to ensure a full supply to soldiers fighting at the front. Early on, his campaign was based in Brooklyn, but later he crossed into New Jersey toward a more profitable position. In the countryside, he demonstrated a love of wild creatures, and was often seen with a bird or a monkey on his shoulder. Washington's choice beverage was taken up by the soldiers for its psychoactive properties, even though it tasted terrible. Some thought his brewed powder could even remedy the chemical weapons then in use. But, despite this, Washington failed in his first bid for the Presidency, as papers were filed too late, and the nominator forgot to tell him about it. - Not sure which parts of this are supported by the article, and which aren't. The presidency thing is clearly a joke; the article goes on to explain that as a foreign-born citizen, this "George Washington" wouldn't be eligible. So, if it's not an April Fool's joke, at the very least, it's super-stretched-trying-way-too-hard-to-be-funny... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And the "Rush Limbaugh appointed ambassador to India"... of course, not refering to the most well known "Rush Limbaugh" ... Misleading ... always a good characteristic in an encyclopedia. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in suppressing the facts of Essjay's behaviour or his fake persona. I figured it out almost a year ago, and it was no surprise to me that there was an eventual fall from grace. Having said that, I _am_ interested in ensuring that every single fact in the article about the controversy is irrefutably referenced to an unquestionably reliable source. Failure to do so opens up the article to justifiable attacks and the real possibility of deletion. It may not be the most interesting article in the encyclopedia to read, but that is not the point. It is unfortunate that you see the misidentification of one of the key parties in this situation as a minor issue. To me, it is symptomatic of a lack of care and attention to detail that is unacceptable with respect to biographic details about any person, whether or not associated with Wikipedia. There is a certain irony in people complaining about the need to rigorously source their information in an article that stems from the story of someone who failed to do so. Risker 19:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly draw a distinction between a factual error and a copy editing mistake; if the editor, working in his user space, had shown no inclination to correct obviously misstated material, I would have your level of concern. But the editor quickly and with gratitude changed that "factual error" when it was pointed out. (We could, of course, see that in the diffs, but the whole thing has been swept away...)

The problem, as I see it, is two-fold - First, no one was willing to point out the "errors," other than to rely on blanket "this can't be saved," or "it's so horrible, I don't know where to start" pronouncements. That was it? Nothing other than one blown reference, and the whole thing had to go? Worse, the whole process smacked of bullying from the Essjay apologist community; the sanctity, limited though it is, of one's personal user space should be protected, and absent anything flagrantly libellous, I think that sanctity should be vigorously defended. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Further to our conversations at and with respect to User:Jord/ArbCom-Abu badali, I will be posting the arbitration including a summary of all of our concerns shortly. Jord 17:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's "controversial" because it belongs in the project namespace, not the article namespace. This fails so many criteria for inclusion as an encyclopedia article that it's not even funny. Deranged bulbasaur 06:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a "sandbox" for potential signpost articles? I simply went one layer "down" from where Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions was.... Move it to wherever it needs to be, but let some people have a whack at it. As the discussion at WP:POST/TIPS shows, there's interest in working with this article to get it in to shape. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 06:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that you forgot the "Wikipedia:" prefix in the name, thus creating it as an article (like Sulfur) rather than a project page (like WP:POST). Move it at your own discretion, but if it stays here it deserves to get speedied. Deranged bulbasaur 06:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well of course that's fine... why would it stay there??? A simple move would have solved this "problem" before it started. Sorry for missing the "Wikipedia:Wikipedia" at the top. As I've moved it, I suggest removing the speedy tag. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 06:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Simply not screwing up in the first place also would have solved this problem. I don't like your patronizing tone. This clearly did not meet article criteria, so I tagged it. There was no misconduct on my part. Deranged bulbasaur 07:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Who said there was misconduct on your part? Not me, certainly... I'm sorry about the tone, and certainly about the screw-up, which was 100% totally my fault -- but I'm totally curious: When faced with either moving the obviously mis-filed article to the proper space, or putting a "proposed deletion" template on it, which, in turn, would begin a whole round of wiki-manuevering... why didn't you simply move it? It seems like you could have used your skills to solve this problem quite easily, and spent, maybe, one minute writing a "Hey, dunderhead, make sure you create your new articles in the proper project space" note on my talk page, instead of going through all this? Again, I'm very sorry for causing you problems, but in the future, if you can fix something simple instead of going through this whole thing, go for the solution! Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

When I first tagged it, I didn't think non-admin users could move a page from one space to another (it's that way at another wiki I edit). You're the one who made a drama out of this. In any case, now that it's over can you also remove your rationale from the talk page? Since you removed my reasoning but not your own, it gives the impression that I acted unreasonably to anyone who stumbles across the page and doesn't carefully peruse the history. No hard feelings, I hope. Deranged bulbasaur 07:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings, whatsoever! This is such a non-thing... I'm so sorry it's even become a "thing!"  :) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 08:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just added some bits to try to explain how you could improve the rationale for Image:After The Fire in 1980.jpg. Basically, it's necessary to provide verifiable information for the claim that the image was released as promotional material, and it should be explained why is this image being used for, why is this use necessary and why a free replacement couldn't fulfill this task. Let me know if I can be of any help. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see here. I commented before realising that it was an old article that no-one might be watchlisting any more. Carcharoth 08:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Brunokirby2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 14:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious what you think of the rant on my user page. I'm trying to figure out who I want to vote for. — Omegatron 04:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to comment at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Am I doing this right? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make any further comments like this. Picaroon (Talk) 18:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you prefer something more like:

"Although your lengthy list of classical music credentials is indeed impressive, recent events in the Wikipedia community, not limited to but including the infamous Essjay controversy, make this sort of credential-claiming suspect, at best. However, I am in full agreement with the part of your sentence where you indicate that your credentials do not, in fact, matter. That is true, they don't, so perhaps listing them here was a mistake."

I find "Thanks for the classical music update, Essjay. You're right -- it doesn't matter." to be quicker, snappier, and it gets the point across in much fewer words. If people read it as incivil, they're looking for incivility where none exists. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment looked like a suggestion of false credentials, which is incivil. Picaroon (Talk) 21:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Reading through your "evidence" section on the arbcom case led me to Image:Crazy8s.jpg, which I found of questionable fair use status and which I have tagged accordingly. Sorry about that.

About the issue above: I didn't intend to comment further on your little gratuitous act of nastiness, but since it's been brought up here: Your paraphrase above would in fact have been more acceptable. Addressing me as "Essjay" (rather than just mentioning Essjay) implies you were calling me a liar. I will appreciate an apology for that. I'm willing to mail a scan of my diploma to a trusted third party if you insist. Incidentally, the issue of my qualifications was of course totally irrelevant, I just couldn't resist responding to Badagnani's bizarre insinuation that my objections to his violotta image might be related to me being ignorant about the field, which struck me as somewhat ironic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean the image you deleted after 6 hours, not allowing for any discussion from other editors, then insinuating, very nastily, I might add, that I had tried to insert the photo into an article that was unrelated to the subject?^[1] Why would you have stated that the article was unrelated if you did know something about the subject? It's utterly incomprehensible and, yes, bizarre. Badagnani 22:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Reading through your "evidence" section on the arbcom case led me to Image:Crazy8s.jpg, which I found of questionable fair use status and which I have tagged accordingly. Sorry about that. WP:SOFIXIT seems appropriate. Pointing out problems without offering solutions - or believing deletion to be the primary solution when it comes to creation is part of the problem. Tagging instead of fixing is only slightly more helpful than not helpful at all, and actually makes you look more vindictive than concerned about the encyclopedic content. So fix it!

As for references to Essjay, it's a pretty obviously a shorthanded way to refer to something that we all know - people online, and especially on Wikipedia, claiming glowing credentials should be trusted about as far as they can be thrown. You then seemed to acknowledge this, with your "Not that it matters" comment; I agree. It doesn't matter. But you still want to feel offended for bringing up something that doesn't matter? This is your choice, certainly; however, I'm not going to be a part of it. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 00:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)