User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2007/January

Blu-ray Disc Player Articles
I noticed on two BD player articles (the Panasonic DMP-BD10 article, for example) that you added the "reads like an advertisement" template. Why exactly are they considered like adverts, as being a list of specifications doesn't seem to be a reason.Nick 8 00:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because a list of specifications reads like an advertisement. In the Panasonic article you link, there's literally no other content. It's just a copy of the specification sheet for the product. That's unencyclopedic. Wikipedia isn't a product catalogue. -- Mikeblas 06:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Doonesbury, Time cover
Can you explain why you don't think the Time cover is fair use? The copyright information on the image page seems to indicate otherwise. Robert K S 22:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See item number seven under FU. -- Mikeblas 23:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Further, the uploader failed to provide a Fair Use rationale and explanation, and didn't include source for the image as instructed by template:TIME. -- Mikeblas 23:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have to side with Robert on bullet point one of the copyright notice. I find the whole thing ironic anyway, as Jengod uploaded the image in question AND was the original author of the template you are citing. Have you attempted to contact her to fill in the gaps? --JohnDBuell 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any establishment of fair use in the article or the template. I also don't see any release of rights for use of the image on Wikipedia for non-Fair Use applications in the TOS and legalese on the TIME site, including in the cover archive linked by the template. Do you? -- Mikeblas 05:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The first point wording says "to illustrate an article, or part of an article, which specifically describes the issue in question or its cover". Unfortunately that's vague. We can agree that we're not discussing the issue of TIME in question (as opposed to, say, a social issue illustrated by the cover, which is done in the Soap Opera article). So what of the cover itself? It's an illustration of the then major characters of Doonesbury, drawn for the magazine by G.B. Trudeau. Thus I don't see how the cover can NOT belong in either the article about Doonesbury or Trudeau. If it would help, one could discuss the various covers that Trudeau has illustrated instead of just TIME, such as Newsweek and Rolling Stone (recent examples of the latter include covers of a wounded B.D. in Gulf War II - prior examples are duplicated on the Doonesbury Flashbacks CD-ROM). Thus you'd get around the claim of using the cover as an illustration of the characters. --JohnDBuell 12:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong in the article because it's a copyright violation. Using the article to discuss the illustration or the article is Fair Use. Using the article simply to decorate the artilce--which doesn't discuss the illustration or the magazine, or its content--is not Fair Use. Discussing other artwork doesn't help. Again, I think WP:FU makes this perfectly clear; without an explict release from TIME, the cover can't be republished in applications where Fair Use doesn't apply. -- Mikeblas 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you know anything about Valve? SMF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.51.166 (talk • contribs)