Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wikiwatcher1

Response to Wikiwatcher's statement
With regards to the Life renewals, Wikiwatcher's response is typical. He writes, "She really owes me an apology at this point, besides thanking me for finding Life's oddball registrations." He manages to miss the point that he uploaded an image claiming, baldly, that Life magazine did not renew images before 1985. He did not write, "I could not find renewal of this." He made a blanket statement that Life magazine did not renew images before 1985. (Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eisenstaedt-Monroe-Life-1953.jpg) I do not even typically work with images, but I was able to disprove that within a matter of moments, finding a renewal from 1970 and a respected resource that indicates continuous renewals from 1964. Instead of realizing that basing image uploads on pure speculation asserted as fact is wrong, he continues to defend this practice. If somebody else - in this case, me - had not doubted his veracity, we'd still be hosting these copyrighted images. This is the problem: poor standards of evidence and a seeming inability to accept that the practices are poor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you'd honestly like me to finally "get the point" and stop replying (what you call "defending",) which I'd be happy to do since I don't like typing, then please stop making inaccurate statements on what seems to be a foundation of ABF at every opportunity and ignore anything that smacks of GF. That's also the problem.


 * For instance, the Life magazine upload, is a great example. When you found that source, I had no problem immediately stating I didn't know such as photo-scanned copy of the the copyright manuals existed, and admitted that Life did have copyrights. In fact I was personally grateful, since I used to use one of the few copyright depositories in the state which had the hard copies. But for that image, I stated "The online search for "Life magazine" showed all their issues and renewal dates beginning in 1985 through the present," and explained in minute detail how a normal search would not have discovered the notice. Your response, then and now, is consistent: you label those efforts, "guesswork," "pure speculation," or "poor standards of evidence." There is no credit for the research done, despite it not being to the absolute perfection you expect. Neither you nor We Hope, who shadows my every edit in a zeal to find errors, has ever expressed any intent to collaborate, only to criticize, "for the record." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * After the Life problems in April, you asked for information; along with another editor, both of us tried providing that and some suggestions.  We hope (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding incorrect mass tagging at Commons-the user did not state that the tagging was done after a discussion with a Commons admin who had tagged some of his files for the same reason. After the uploader went to the Admin's board, a non-admin at Commons removed many of the tags. The admin's response was "These images use a special copyright excemption in the USA thus we have to be sure there was no or an insufficient copyright statement on these images. To be sure we need unaltered images of the front and back. We can't rely on thirdparty claims for this."  Many of the images were re-tagged; some were deleted, prompting the user to post "Verification requested for multiple images deleted without recourse" on the admin's talk page and "Can tagging admin also delete same image?" at the Commons copyright board. There was enough ado about the Alan Arkin and Teri Garr photos to prompt a request for their undeletion by the same person who removed the tags. A second admin undeleted both files and deleted them again. The user's Commons talk page is so full of image notice tags that the template scripts no longer display properly. We hope (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)