User talk:Papa November/Archive 6

Gagarin Photo in the Russian Article
Greetings, Papa November. First of all, thank you for the excellent collage for the article on Russians. Do you think it would be possible to replace the image of Yuri Gagarin with a more flattering one that does not obscure his features? After all, he is representing the entire ethnicity. For instance, this image from the Commons would fit better, since it is more clear: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Aab-gagarin-portrait3.jpg --Humanophage (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, the Gagarin image in the collage is awful! However, the Commons image is probably copyrighted, so it may be deleted soon.  The new 2008 Russian copyright law is quite restrictive, and makes life very difficult for us!


 * Some examples of free images we could find are:
 * A photo taken by a US federal government employee as part of their job such as Image:Gemini 4 Astronauts Meet Yuri Gagarin.jpg. (This image unfortunately only shows Gagarin in profile)
 * A freely licensed photo of a public statue permanently exhibited in a country with freedom of panorama such as Image:Juri Gagarin memorial Erfurt 2 (aka).jpg (obviously a photo of Gagarin himself would be better, and the bird crap on the statue doesn't help!)
 * A Russian photo published by an author who died before 1950 (only PD in the US, and Gagarin would have been 16 at most)

Papa November (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Radiohead
I currently have the book Exit Music: The Radiohead Story checked out from my library; I'll have it until October 10th. Would you like me to reference anything for you? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I'll have a look through OK Computer and put a few fact tags up. I'll try to be as pedantic as usual! Also, does the book have much to say about Nigel Godrich?  He's a pretty important part of the story, but his article is seriously lacking in references.  Thanks! Papa November (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's very little on Godrich as a person in the book. In the book's narrative, he just shows up and helps out a bit. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: "Paranoid Android" citations: there's no set style of referencing on Wikipedia, but the guideline is to use whatever is the predominant style on any given article. The article doesn't use citation templates, so there's no reason to change refs to utilize them, unlike in OK Computer, where the citation templates are used throughout. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, but WP:REF states that there must be an internally consistent style. This is lacking in the article because "Sources" are listed, while "Footnotes" use the opposite.  Also, the "Sources" use Cite book style, so for consistency we need to use the cite web style for "footnotes" too (not the citation ones I added, sorry!)Papa November (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, referencing needs to be consistent. The main worry is inserting cite templates that Brandt Luke Zorn doesn't use in the article (him and I stopped using them a while ago, because we find them cumbersome; this is common among many Wiki editors). WesleyDodds (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature in the Western Chalukya Empire
Hi, how are you. If you have time, please peer review this article.thanks,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Princedavid46
IUP aside, has been engaging in the creation of hoax articles, the latest which I just wiped being Love (Keyshia Cole album). I noted that you had blocked the user for one month for IUP violations, but I am curious if an indef' for the blatant recreation of hoax articles, and for the persistent IUP violations, would be in order. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  14:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd support an indef block if you want to go ahead with it - he has been quite blatant in his disregard of policy! He does however appear to have some ability to be constructive, provided he's watched carefully.  Papa November (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Radiohead lead
I don't really mind; I wouldn't mind removing the stat too. Radiohead's achievements are hardly judged by their record sales. One thing though, I am not too fond of paragraphs-long hidden comments (with borders and in capitals) that rant and threaten everybody against touching something. Seems contrary to the wiki spirit to me. indopug (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Film posters
Hi. In future please can you try to take the liberty of adding a fair use rationale yourself to flailing posters. It will save a lot of time reuploading them later.Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually yes, but I was clearing out a massive 10 day backlog of images. Anyone can write a fair use rationale and the images were all tagged for over a week.  I think that it's reasonable for admins to just get on with the unpleasant job of deleting obvious CSD violations as quickly as possible in such a case.  If there are any specific images you'd like restoring, then let me know - there's no need to reupload them manually. Papa November (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Manchester City Logo
Hi, you appear to have deleted the logo for Manchester City, this is a key peice of content in a Featured Article and I can find no discussion about removing the file anywhere. Could you please restore it and start an appropriate discussion before you remove it again. Thanks Paul    Bradbury  15:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll leave a reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football shortly. Thanks Papa November (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much Paul    Bradbury  16:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, stop removing valid content from articles. If an FUR is not in place for a specific article try adding it. We are trying to improve wikipedia. This is not a case of using copyright materials like newbies do, the same FUR applied to all articles, you could have added it instaed of removing valid content. Please start trying to apply the spirit of the rules rather than the letter. It's not helpful and its tedious, wasting both my time and yours. Paul   Bradbury  23:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael Gross (writer) photo
You either deleted or approved the deletion of a photo I uploaded to the wikipedia page about me. I own all rights to the photo. The page history says it was deleted because no emails were received from volunteers for the six months after I posted it. I was trying to be helpful and add to the content. I don't get it. Can you tell me: Why was it taken down?? What do you need to let it go back up? The fair use instructions are a yad opaque. Thanks for a reply. PS I am a Wikipedia novice so please forgive me if this is a thoroughly stupid question! And if my assurance is enough, can you just restore it? 64.131.160.145 (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Michael Gross (writer)
 * Hi there, the image was deleted because of possible copyright issues. There are a couple of important things to consider.
 * Is the photographer happy to release the image under a free license? This means that anyone, anywhere in the world may modify it, use it and distribute it freely. Note that you will still maintain Personality rights because it is an image of you.
 * If so, then the image should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons so that other Wikimedia sites can share it.
 * If not, then unfortunately you won't be permitted to upload the image here. This is because non-free images are only allowed here if it's impossible to create a free alternative.  In the case of living people, someone else could take a photo and release it freely, so non-free images aren't allowed.
 * If the image is freely licensed, you must do all of the following things:
 * Identify the photographer, the website the image came from and the date the image was first published on the image description page.
 * Ask the photographer to choose a suitable free license for the image. The options are listed here.
 * Place a tag on the image description page, stating the license for the image.
 * Either place a notice on the website hosting the image stating that the image is released under that license, or ask the photographer to send the Wikimedia foundation an email confirming the license.  Details are listed here.
 * I hope that helps! Papa November (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It certainly does, thanks. But of course it leads to more questions: The suitable free licenses say nothing about MODIFYING an image. If the photographer is willing and able to release it, can she not only require credit but also state that it may not be modified? Also, I think I understand that the image must be sourced to a web site (such as mine). But must it also be hosted on that website? That's fine, as it is hosted there, but I want to be sure I understand the requirement clearly. Thanks again.64.131.160.145 (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The freedom to modify images is essential if they are to be hosted by Wikimedia Commons. All of the free license tags explicitly state this as follows:
 * GFDL-self states "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document"
 * PD-self gives up all of the rights of the photographer and passes them to the general public
 * CC-BY-3.0 and CC-BY-SA-3.0 both say "In short: you are free to distribute and [modify/make derivative works of] the file..."
 * Attribution or CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat both give permission to make derivative works of the image.
 * There's no way around that condition, I'm afraid. It's absolutely fine for her to require credit for the work however.  If she picks something like the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, then people are allowed to modify the image and distribute it, but they would legally have to state something like "This image is a modified version of... by ...".  There are benefits for the photographer here.  For example, if someone does some editing/enhancement work on the photo, she can freely use (and sell) the enhanced version of her work herself!  If the photographer isn't happy with this, are there any other photos you own that you'd be willing to release yourself?


 * The image doesn't need to be hosted on a website if it's available under a free license. The only condition is that the photographer herself must make a written statement somewhere about the license terms.  An email from her to the Wikimedia foundation is fine.  Papa November (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll get in touch with her and see. Thanks for the detailed explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.160.145 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: OK Computer audio samples
I think you're right; there isn't really enough there to justify including "Karma Police" or "No Surprises". "Paranoid Android" sounds good, but I'd rather include something like "Let Down" than "Fitter Happier" because we can discuss the influence of Bitches Brew on the record and, like "Karma Police" or "No Surprises", it sounds fairly representative of the album as a whole. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Radiohead page lock
Hey, about what you asked, it's fine with me if you lock the page, as there's nothing else I planned to edit there anytime soon. Yes, I do actually have an account. I just got it last month and realized I had been signed out the past couple of weeks... but definitely, please lock the page if the vandalism is continuing. If I want to edit I can sign in. Thanks. 70.21.38.143 (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for letting me know. I'll keep an eye on the page, and I'll protect it if the vandalism continues. Papa November (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

M.V.i's edits
Is it really necessary to remove all of his comments? Some of those are months old and sometimes are useful to see where the discussion went. Nobody knew back then he was the sock. --Hillock65 (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually it's not necessary, but this user seems to have the ability to disrupt talk page discussions wherever he goes. He was banned for this very reason, so I think it's reasonable to remove his comments to prevent him from dodging his ban.  Saying that, feel free to revert any edits I made if they broke the flow of the discussions - I've tried to avoid creating such problems though. Papa November (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think, he is back: User talk:I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm everything your not --Hillock65 (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Template Substitution
Hi there. Just to let you know that you should subst the template. Thanks.  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 13:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. Well spotted! Papa November (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I've seen that you were one of the few admins who commented on the GreekParadise edit warring abuse case, and I have a question for you. Does it really matter if someone posts essentially a bunch of lies to ANI hoping admins would believe it? I mean does it worth my time to go through that long ANI posts and point out lies there one by one that are easily verifiable from looking at contributions histories and such, will it lead to a block or do admins not really care about small stuff like that? For example if someone would make the lie that editor X took part in that latest dispute (which involves the GreekParadise 3RR violation) when everyone can see from contribs that editor X didn't edit the article in weeks. Hobartimus (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

reply
I want to reply to your post, but I see you titled the section "administrative response" or something similar, so I don't want to post there as my response is not part of the "administrative response", and you also marked the issue as resolved so I'm not sure I can post there at all. This is a reply to this post of yours


 * Let me explain the specific incident. (as a side note I made my report at 07:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC), so the preceding 24 hours that would need examination would be from 07:53 25-26 October all the diffs that you listed are not from that time frame they were made AFTER the report, obviously I could not predict what would happen AFTER my report, especially with regards to GreekParadise who was reported) The specific incident is as follows. It relates especially to admins overturning other admins, so I'm glad you brought that up ("Admins can't just overturn each others' decisions."). A 3RR report was responded to by an admin, (31 Hours, for incivility and nasty fighting- Admin Tznikai), then this admin action was overturned and the following warning was given " "an extended block or an ANI referral for possible topic ban would be recommended if user violates again" . So an straight block was overturned into a warning of topic ban on the next violation. Now the fact of the most recent violation is not in dispute see the 8 reverts here, see the confirmed ruling of the violation here. So this is the specific issue. A topic ban / ANI referral was ruled by an admin for the next violation, the next violation happened. So a straight block was overturned into a warning of topic ban on the next violation and now the warning should then be overturned and recognized as an empty warning. There is no need to overturn the 3RR ruling of no block for any party to issue a topic ban. However you did block one of the parties in the original 3RR report Threeafterthree described here who was party to that dispute the original ruling was "Okay, I was all ready to block quite a few editors involved in this most recent dispute..."] but gave a pass to all parties in the end including GreekParadise and Threeafterthree who edit warred there so this creates somewhat of a new situation. So the specific issue is the fact that the conditions in the previous warning "an extended block or an ANI referral for possible topic ban would be recommended if user violates again" was undisputadely met, the user did violate again, this fact is not disputed by anyone nor could it be in light of the 8 reverts listed in the report. If an admin overrules the original warning as null and void then there is no issue I'm not sure if anyone did that however. I tried to explain what the specific incident is, it is that conditions of a previous ruling by an admin (extended block or topic ban on next violation) were met and this situation was unaddressed and the original admin ruling made a specific reference to "ANI referral" that's why I brought it to ANI. Hobartimus (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I think you need to be clear about individual admins can and can't do.
 * Administrators can only make "emergency" decisions to stop disruption to the encyclopaedia. If User:GreekParadise is actively edit warring (more than three reverts in same article within the last 24 hours), then an admin can block them to protect the encyclopaedia.  At the moment however, he has reduced his revert rate and I personally won't block him unless he breaks 3RR.
 * Administrators cannot issue a topic ban by themselves. It is a very serious decision to make, and it is up to the whole community, not just  administrators.  If you think this is the right thing to do, you should take the issue to WP:RfC to see if you can work the problem out between you.  Papa November (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well thanks, at least you replied to the matter, others didn't even do that. I was hoping consensus would develop on ANI so it wouldn't be a single admin but obviously not enough admins read that board/comment there nowdays for that to happen in a short period of time. The topic ban solution was not really my idea but a previous admin ruling on what should happen if the same thing happens over and over again. Which was edit warring on the same article again and again and again. So that came from that previous admin comment not from me. Unfortunately that other admin who said that also edits very sporadicly a few minutes every day or even leaving days out which does not help when acute problems are discussed. Anyway thanks for replying to the issue at all it's more than anyone else did. Hobartimus (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

God help the closing admin on Image:Companions EP vinyl cover.jpg
Today's the day when the image debate closes. I'm fearful that a random user, rather than an administrator with some experience in such matters, will come along and close the debate as no consensus, by way of strict vote counting. The 'keep' arguments have boiled down to: There's really no defense with respect to policy, except claiming it is minimal because, well, it is and it's fine because, well, it is. User:Jheald who has always fought vociferously for keeping every fair use image up for debate thinks the most important reason to keep the image is because it's useful.
 * It's useful
 * It's legal fair use
 * It's minimal use because there's 38 characters, so we can't get lower than 38 images.
 * It "seems fine"
 * Would be a violation of WP:BLP if we used an essentially identical image of characters from free content.
 * This isn't a list

It would be useful to have album covers of every album on discographies too.

These people simply do not understand what Wikimedia is trying to accomplish. It's like we set about designing and building a plane, and they're trying to build an oil rig. Both have their uses, but they're not exactly capable of doing what the other does.

I've challenged and challenged and challenged and challenged people to defend their positions. If 38 IS minimal use, what constitutes non-minimal use? No answer. If this article is not a list, what makes it a non-list where plenty of other similar articles are considered a list? No answer. And on and on and on.

If this image is retained, it will be a massive erosion of our fair use policy and guideline. I have diminishing hope that it will be deleted.

Just venting. Thanks for listening. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your concerns - I really think the debate has become so large that it's unreasonable for a single person to close it. This should have been an RfC. Papa November (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That begs the question of the next step. What happens if the image is not deleted? There's a few alternatives: Looking strictly at numbers, 22 people have stated their position with respect to this image. 9 of them are admins, with 5 in favor of keeping, 4 against. 13 others are split 6 in favor of keeping, 7 against. It's 50-50, right down the middle.
 * Proceed as if this decision sets the necessary precedent to allow such images.
 * Make a proposal for a guideline change at WT:NFC to explicitly permit montages of fair use images for character identification on character list articles.
 * Start an RfC, and advertise widely...really widely. I think this particular debate has not received much coverage.
 * Let Signpost know about the conclusion of the debate.

I'm thinking it might be a good idea to create a side by side table showing the policy/guideline points raised, and noting each side's various responses to those issues. Three columns, first the policy or guideline, second the keep position, third the delete position. This would take time, but needs to be done by SOMEone, in some form, to allow realistic closure of this debate. If it's not done, someone will just vote count and close as "no consensus". I wish I had the time to do this today, but I do not. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Due to the precedent this will set (whether deleted or kept), I think it needs to be an RfC. What it shows is that the community is completely divided by this kind of thing, and we need to decide on a much clearer policy. Papa November (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to start an RfC, I'll be happy to help you craft it. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I let Signpost know of the ongoing debate . --Hammersoft (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Now I'm being accused of disrupting the project because I uphold it's mission and policies. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC) As noted above, if "consensus" is viewed as counting keep/delete, this is no consensus. But, it's important to look at this from the view of compliance with policy and guideline. To that end, I've begun creating the table I previously suggested at User:Hammersoft/image. The essential idea I have is to note each realm of policy/guideline being debated and the support and oppose positions for each, and referencing diffs for arguments that related to that point. I'd appreciate your help in putting it together if you're willing, as it is a lot of work. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've refrained from commenting on the RFC proposal section you've put in. I'm obviously heavily biased and don't want to polarize the discussion. Well, at least not yet :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it was closed by User:Peripitus as delete. He went about it in the right way; he looked at the strength of the arguments with respect to policy. I'm going to keep User:Hammersoft/image around for a little bit at least to see if there's a DRV over the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet
It looks like is a new reincarnation of M.V.E.i (judging from "shure" instead of "sure" and the interests, also see this: I tryed many nicks and they were all caught). Colchicum (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think it looks likely. Please keep watching him and I'll do the same.  Let me know if you see any other suspicious activity from the account.  Papa November (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC
Hello, I was wondering if you are still planning on doing that RfC. You certain have my support and I'm willing to help some if needed. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it would be a good idea but I think it's less likely to cause drama if we let the IFD finish first. After that, we can take it to RFC as discussed.  Thanks, Papa November (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)