Talk:Stephen Romer

COI tag (May 2022)
has held herself out as the photographer who took a photograph of Romer. —C.Fred (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * No, the said photographer appears to be Avigail Himself. She approved the publication of her photograph in an email exchange Jezzathustra (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Avigail Schimmel. You can look her up : https://avigailschimmel.photoshelter.com/about/index Jezzathustra (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How did you obtain the copyright for the photo, then? —C.Fred (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The photo can be found on Google Pictures. The author confirmed the photographer agreed with any use of the picture as long as her full name was provided Jezzathustra (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a direct link where she placed the image under a free license? —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Capture d’écran 2022-05-07 à 22.17.20.png Jezzathustra (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that's problematic three ways to Sunday. First, you're claiming to be the author of the email. Second, a screenshot is not reliable, because it can be fabricated. Third, emails are not acceptable unless it's direct communication with the Foundation. And to top it all off—how did you get access to the email, if you aren't one of the two parties in the email? —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, the photo can be found on Google Pictures and I had to ask Mr Romer about possible copyright infrigement as I wanted to copy it on his article. I really find it difficult to understand how incredibly relevant articles such as "Pope Michael" (of Kansas) or pictures simply captioned as "own work" can get their way on Wikipedia for years...and then you come here to harrass an original contributor on a piece about the relatively niche field of contemporary poetry. Plus, an email sent by the address of the photographer, as indicated on her own website, gives her approval : what more could be possibly missing ? This is procedural nonsense. Mr Romer even took several months to answer my copyright request and you come here to vandalize an article with groundless suspicions of me being some relative or other (!). I hope you'll understand my position Jezzathustra (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The photographer needs to email the Volunteer Response Team directly. Wikipedia has had many instances of people claiming similar things in the past at other articles, only the story didn't check out. That's why it's not procedural nonsense: it's procedural necessity. —C.Fred (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * D'oh! I just reread the email. It's not a free license in the first place. To "permit the usage...on his Wikipedia page" does not grant commercial reuse, so it's a non-free image. —C.Fred (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're both suspecting a fabrication (as if some people would forge or hack email exchanges for a lecturer they heard ) and a conflict of interest. Not only do you seem to be "wikilawerying" a lot around the place, this shows a contradictory paranoid mindset I don't often expect from administrators. So don't be surprised I might prefer to disregard and remove all future groundless accusations coming from you Jezzathustra (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I will obviously leave the template here inasmuch as the purpose here is of course to have a quality article, and I haven't got all week (even though you seem to have an impressive amount of time on your hand) Jezzathustra (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you prefer, I can just escalate the matter to the conflict of interest noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)