jkelly(a)fas.harvard.edu wrote: I'm assuming some/most of those images are fair-use. Have you asked him to remove them? Chris

On 1/5/06, jkelly(a)fas.harvard.edu <jkelly(a)fas.harvard.edu> wrote: Develop a standard template for leaveing on people's tlak pages asking them to remove any fair use images. -- geni

On 1/4/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com> wrote: Don't tempt me. Quite a few of the "pinups" around the outside of Trekphiler's userpage are also fair use, as are the Enterprise and DS9 images on the right side. Nathan

Jtkiefer wrote: Wow, that's incredibly heavy handed. A better first step would be to ask that they remove them, then if they don't remove them yourself, explaining yourself all the way, and then do protection/blocking if it's really necessary. We're not trying to get rid of people here. Chris

Chris Jenkinson wrote: But as we've discovered, lots of people get unduly attached to images that they can't legitimately use. I've applied a very light touch on image tagging myself, still get carping and reverts. At some point (soon I hope) we'll get to where all fair use image descriptions include links to the exact set of articles where their use is justified, then it will be sufficient to run a variant of Orphanbot to quietly comment out all other attempts to use. Bots are relentless and are hard to accuse of bias or favoritism, so even the intransigent will learn to give up. Stan

jayjg wrote: Yes, I would recommend people do this. Did you read the comment she wrote, and my reply to it, or just the last two sentences? The section of my message where I discuss the fair use images is: "Firstly, I could never have known that about the two images. Regardless of the nature of their current status, the fact is, they are fair use images and are not permitted. I quote: "[a]ll other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum". I must insist you remove them." Both images state clearly that the uploader asserts the "... qualif[y] as fair use under United States copyright law". I removed them, in accordance with our fair use policy, because she was clearly not going to remove them. Is two talk page messages not enough to establish that the images are not permitted on the user page? How many do you propose I leave in future? Chris

slimvirgin(a)gmail.com wrote: I must insist you retract that allegation. It has no basis in reality and is nothing more than a disingenuous personal attack. If you have ANY, and I mean ANY evidence at all, you'll provide it. I am utterly disgusted by that comment. They were not personal attacks, and your editing of my comments was an inappropriate action for you to take. This is quite a justified word to use. I'll cite some passages from the email in question: "Almost every block is at serious risk now of being reversed by an admin who's never read the blocking policy, has had very little interaction with the community, and who got elected with under 20 votes" "leading to yet another unknown and possibly clueless admin being promoted" "Combine poor admins with hundreds of users who are turning Wikipedia into a social club, and you have a giant mess" Your comments in the previous email seemed to be directed at me, and for that record, I was elected with 30 support votes, I have been an admin since July - having made two proposals on adminship reform previously to it, taking quite a lot of flak in the meantime - I am quite well known, I read the blocking policy every time I make a block just to ensure I am acting within policy, I contribute to the article namespace, and I single-handedly got an article to featured list status only recently. I later retracted that phrase and the other person's warning about it, since it was no longer relevant. I apologised for removing the images; I was probably not the right person to do so, but I did so only after you had replied saying my actions were not supported by policy (which they are) and disregarded my second comment completely). The ArbCom recently declared that the fair use policy is indeed policy, and I was surprised to see that there was not a policy tag on it. Kelly Martin, an arbitrator, later added a policy tag on the appropriate section I quoted to you requesting you remove them. I'm bickering with no one. I'm glad to see that, but there was no bullying. Again, I have no relationship with Marsden, a fact I have repeatedly told you. I reject any such allegation, and I think you should retract it unless you have any evidence. Which you don't, because I don't have any connection with him whatsoever. Chris

On 1/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: "Jimbo himself has stated that we now should have zero tolerance for people who ***knowingly*** violate copyrights." You're safe. :=) -- Sam

Jay, In case anyone is interested, I came across this userpage when I looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/userbox_templ… ...and clicked on *one* of the 186 usernames that are now there voting keep. To properly establish whether or not this is a record, I believe we would have to check all 186. Jkelly

Pretty much any user listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Users_who_support_userboxes has a fair number . I'm currently explaining fair use policy to some of them. -- geni

jkelly(a)fas.harvard.edu wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/userbox_templ… See also: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~avar/ub When not regularly taking my dried frog pills against paranoia, I see an unfriendly takeover attempt here. Regards, Peter Jacobi [[User:Pjacobi]] -- Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko! Satte Provisionen f�r GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner