User talk:Ta bu shi da yu

NOTE: If you are here to talk to me about my application of fair use policy, please discuss this issue with the Wikimedia Board of Trustees or Jimbo Wales. Thank you. Support Wikipedia

Purchase an item from the Wikipedia CafePress! all money goes to Wikipedia. Support your local encyclopedia!

Ta bu shi da yu talk archives
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8
Archive 9
Archive 10
Archive 11
Archive 12
Leaving Wikipedia
Archive 13
Archive 14
whole section (deleted) missing
Archive 15
Archive 16
Archive 17
Archive 18
Archive 19
Archive 20
Archive 21
Archive 22
Archive 23
Archive 24
Archive 25
Archive 26
Archive 27
Archive 28 (last)
User:Ta bu shi da yu [edit]

Do Not remove fair use pictures

All the TIME magazine covers meet the Wiki standard:

As a general rule of thumb, Wikipedia allows low-resolution images of copyrighted material if they are unlikely to affect the potential market for the material, are used for the purposes of analysis or criticism, and for which there is no alternative, non- or free-copyrighted replacement available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Fair_use_considerations

Plaque

I told you it belonged on a plaque, now here it is! :-) Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 05:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

lol! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Selassie I

Glad we got that one sorted. I downloaded the image and wrote about it in both Rastafari movement and the Selassie I article that same day, ie the pic had historical value and wasn't just there as a pic of Selassie I. I do agree with your fair use push so good luck with the other 200, SqueakBox 17:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Time Magazine Covers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Virginia_people and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Virginia

There is no need to delete the images on Wikipedia. Simply remove them from the pages that contain them. Therefore, the people who watch the pages with the TIME covers can have the chance to write about the TIME covers before they are deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.240.114 (talk)

Deletion of time covers borders on vandalism. I am a law student and am familar with fair use, reading much of the case law on the subject. Your deletions are unnecessary. The time covers fit well withing "fair use". There is case law which supports this, the case that immediatly comes to mind is the case where the person used a smaller picture to illustrate an idea, which is very similar to the Time covers.

I will warn you once. If you continue to delete the covers, I will report you too vandalism in progress. If necessary, I will do everything in my power to stop your destructive edits.Travb 22:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Your ignorance of copyright law is only matched by your beligerance in being proven wrong. I am reporting you to vandalism in progress.Travb 23:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Go ahead punk

Report me. Almost none of those images are lower resolution. I'm not going to put Wikipedia at risk, no matter that you say you are a lawyer or not. Half of those images shouldn't be used to illustrate the articles anyway. My deleting will continue until a Foundation member or Jimbo tells me otherwise. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I found the tone of this comment rather aggressive. It's combative and there's no need for it to be. Please, don't drop the bastions of civility for the sake of a crusade. Thanks. Rob Church (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rob. I support what you're doing; please don't undermine your position by being needlessly aggressive—probably best to try to unruffle feathers when you know your actions are going to be ruffling them! Respectfully, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Lets start a dialogue

I am training to be a lawyer for a reason: I love to argue. It is often to my detriment though, and I often piss people off when diplomacy would solve the problem much better. I think the best lawyers are diplomats. I will never be a good lawyer.

I apologize for my caustic tone above. I was wrong, I can't report you to Vandalism in progress. I should have never said this in the first place.

Wikipedia, I am learning (often by butting heads), is about concensus, it is about working together. I think the two of us can work this out.

Please refrain from deleting anymore photos, or reverting those deletions until we work this out. Time magazine has not sued wikipedia yet, and a couple more days won't put Wikipedia in legal danger.

In return, I will hold off on the RFC. I will also hold off on escalating this beyond what I have already stupidly done.

You said that you have discussed this on: "User talk:Jimbo Wales, WP:AN, on the admin IRC channel and have sent an email to the ArbCom mailing list." I would be interested in their response. Maybe you have the backing of everyone on wikipedia, including Benevolent Dictator User talk:Jimbo Wales himself. It would not be the first time that I am wrong. I look forward to your response.Travb 01:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your kind words. regards Travb 09:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

More like total silence from the foundation, actually. At least when I tried it. I guess you're probably right ^^;; Kim Bruning 12:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Kelly

Editor HighPriestess_of_the_PDRGI (talk · contribs) is not Hugo Kelly, but is, now at least, his Valentine [1]. Note also at my talk page she claims to be the IP address I added along with the autobiographic template you removed. Is there a president for editors close to the subject. I assume we could at least confirm she's assigned over the copyright of the blog entry... Mark Hurd 06:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Privacy and the AA case

This is a difficult issue. I'm dead set against revealing private information when it is of no relevance to the issue at hand; clearly that was the case for you. On the other hand, AA's identity is highly relevant to this specific issue and, in fact, the Committee has ruled that people should avoid editing articles on subjects in which they are personally involved. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comment about mathbot

Hi. Thanks for your input at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Mathbot. Just a quick remark: the edit summary usage my bot gives does not count the talk pages, Wikipedia and user namespaces. It also counts separately major and minor edits, as the former should indeed be summarized more often than the latter.

Just thought I would let you know. :) By the way, I noticed my bot bugged you a few days ago about using edit summaries yourself, might be a good habit, you know. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

(PS You can reply here if you have comments, I will keep your talk page on my watchlist. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC))

I just got an okay from time magazine

I did something that administration didn't do:

I asked Time Magazine if it was okay to use the cover photos.

Subject: RE: AskArchivist

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:51:30 -0500

From: Bonnie_Kroll at timeinc.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert

To: travb****@yahoo.com

Thanks for submitting your question to Ask the Archivist.

Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com.

You may also use a thumbnail of our cover images, as long as you link back to a page on time.com.

Best regards,

Bonnie Kroll

Ask the Archivist

http://www.timearchives.com

I've asked Tony (admin) to contact her himself to confirm this.

Signed: Travb 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish your response wasn't so predictable

This morning I wrote this too user:Rjensen, predicting your response:

"I posted (the message I sent you) on about 6 admins boards, and Jimmy Wales user page. I think it is a hallow and fleeting victory in many respects though. These admins will start to try and poke holes in the definition of what "is" "is", and won't admit what it clearly says in this letter: that it is now okay to post the cover photos. I hope I am wrong, and good sense prevails, but given the fair use track record, "good sense" always loses."

Predictable, you question what the Time rep REALLY meant (you are questioning the defintion of what she meant, as I predicted):

""Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com." most of those articles doesn't have what I'd call a "reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com."

No one actually consulted a lawyer or at the minimum even ask Time magazine if it was okay to keep the photos.

I am going to wait for a response from Tony contacting Time, as should have been done originally.

In the interm, please read the Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation case.Travb 22:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If a represenative of Wikipedia got permission from Time

I am interested, if a represenentive of Wikipedia got explicit permission from Time to use the photos would you allow these photos on the wikipages? I ask because after you dismiss this Time e-mail, which clearly states that fair use policy allows Wikipedia too use these photos, I am intersted what would make you change your mind.Travb 23:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• We could not get permission just for Wikipedia -- we would need a license that third parties could use as well. Explicit permission solely for our project is not good enough. --Improv 02:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No one needs permission from this user. He is no one special, and he has no explanation as to why he randomly deletes TIME covers. Upload your TIME covers if he has deleted them. Uris 20:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hillsong Church

I see you've commented at the Hillsong article, so I was wondering what you think of this? [2] An anonymous user (see history) has kept adding this long diatribe from a person's blog. Granted, that person quoted, I believe, is/was intimately connected with Hillsong, but I really don't think large quotes are all that encyclopedic, especially for such a controversial topic. If you can, may I have your opinion please? enochlau (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that :) enochlau (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dmcdevit·t 06:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

Just to clear a small point up. The Alex Linder identification was based on a misunderstanding but the evidence linking Igor Alexander to User:Amalekite and the latter to a virulent Nazi is absolutely solid. See the user called frankcooper's post on Wikipedia Review. Grace Note 05:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Banning of Neonxzero

I don't understand why you banned Neonxzero indefinitely just because of one act of vandalism. Usually people get several warnings then they are banned, normally for short periods of time. I understand the Jesus article can be controversial and when a person vandalizes it by putting it up for speedy deletion it can make some people, especially devout followers, to become a little emotional. I would be lying if I said if Neonxzero had done the same thing to, say, Rukai he would still have been banned indefinitely. He only made two edits based on my research and one of those edits wasn't a work of vandalism. I think you should reconsider your ban. Respectfully --Jelligraze 15:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Lew Rockwell

Hi, I was wondering if we might get your perspective on a content dispute at Talk:Lew Rockwell. I've asked a few others for their assistance as well. Dick Clark 19:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki gets permission from TIME magazine

We asked Time Magazine if it was okay for Wiki to use the cover photos. Here's their answer: Subject: RE: AskArchivist Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:51:30 -0500 From: Bonnie_Kroll at timeinc.com Thanks for submitting your question to Ask the Archivist. Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com. You may also use a thumbnail of our cover images, as long as you link back to a page on time.com. Best regards, Bonnie Kroll Ask the Archivist Rjensen 12:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly fair use

This image is obviously not PD-old, but can it be considered fair use? Image:Alexander Papagos on cover time magazine.jpg I asked in the IRC channel, and got the suggestion to talk to you about it. // Habj 12:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not the uploader, you see. I am about to ask User:Brastite on his talk page about lots of images - he/she has labelled lots of image in funny ways, including 16th century El Greco paintings labelled "copyrightedfreeuse" and a bunch of images that might actually be unfree. For this particular image, I am happy if you can ask the uploader instead since I feel really insecure about what is fair use and not. Since we're talking, maybe you can tell me: photos of old paintings are PD, but what about photos of old statues? Does the photographer hold copyright, or not? // Habj 13:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not thinking of uploading images of statues either - rather I am thinking about Image:Demosthenes statue.jpg - Image:Demosthenes bust- r280 BC.2jpg.jpg - Image:Laskarina bouboulina bronze statue.JPG - Image:Kolokotronis statue.jpg and such. If the photographer holds no copyright, I don't even have to ask the uploader but can relabel them myself. I have lots of image questions for this uploader - but you are right, it is better I start with asking about one two or three images and wait with the rest. I'll start with something more obvious, and wait with these statue pics. // Habj 13:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please show us a model of what you think fair use of the TIME covers would look like. Rjensen 14:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of image on Aishwarya Rai

Hi, you orphaned an image (TIME cover) from the above article and then speedy deleted it. From WP:CSD, it can be clearly seen that non-free use images tagged as orphans can be speedy-deleted only after they are tagged for 7 days. I would not undo your admin actions as I believe that wheel-warring is futile. However, a glance at your talkpage suggests that you seem to be working to the point of annoying other editors. This is surprising, as I generally find your edits to be balanced and well-reasoned. The image page itself may not make fair use assertions but a look at the article suggests that it is talking about the coverage in international media including TIME. I suggest that you wait for a week after orphaning a magazine cover image so that the editors themselves can think and determine if fair use can be supported in the article or not. I hope you will restore the image from its deletion and wait for a week to see if fair use claims are proper or not. TIA, --Gurubrahma 14:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a link or diff to let me know the endorsement of Arbcom and Jimbo Wales. Also, I'm not sure how arbcom figures in this. And, as a user has rightly (imo) pointed out, could you provide a model for fair use so that editors interested in complying could do so? Image deletions can be undone as some forks still carry the same. Anyways, I am waiting for your response. Thanks again for your prompt response to my earlier query. --Gurubrahma 14:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it would be fair on my part to place additional demands on his time. Why not share the e-mail so as to allay suspicions and fears? And how about sharing a model of what would not be a copyvio? --Gurubrahma 14:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting "fair use" images

Just to save you some time next time... I find that the easiest way to get images that aren't fair use deleted is just to remove them from the articles they're in. A bot will then tag them for deletion under CSD I5 shortly. At least 95% of the time, I've found that this works without any objections, and it saves a lot of time either listing stuff on IfD or justifying out-of-process deletions (-: Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 14:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Time magazine covers

Please stop deleting Time magazine covers without discussing the issue in Wikipedia:Images. Time magazine has given permission to use thumbnails. If you don't like the terms of the Time cover license, please discuss your concerns and get a consensus before you undo people's work. If you don't like the Time magazine license, switch them to {{newspapercover}. or another license that covers thumbnail images of magazine covers as "fairuse". If you think the Time magazine wording doesn't reflect how the images are used, discuss your concerns, and the wording of the license can be changed to reflect the last few letters exchanged with the Time Warner legal department. I don't see any discussion by you at Time (magazine) either. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hi -- I think you should discuss this TIME magazine thing with a few other people before unilaterally deleting as many of them as you can. I don't think that our TIME magazine template is out of bounds with our fair use policy, and I don't see anywhere that you've posted exactly what your objections are. Many of the images you have deleted were, in my opinion, not very high risks of being fair use problems. Some open discussion of the rationale for deleting them would be more productive than simply deleting them and saying you have private e-mails relating to the matter, in my opinion. --Fastfission 17:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Also, I do not think that your speedying of them is correct procedure. Speedying is used for blatant copyright violations, which none of these are, from what I can see. If you are disputing their fair use status, there are procedures to follow for this at WP:PUI. If you are speedying on the basis of them being fair use orphans, it is not correct to do it to an image which you have just orphaned -- this is entirely outside of the intent of this provision. --Fastfission 17:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Would you mind explaining why the fair use of the image you removed from Angélica Aragón does not "apply in this instance?" and why you speedy deleted such image? --Vizcarra 04:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I'll step in here since I'm sure Tabu has enough going on... In the case you're asking about, the image (a copyright graphic by TIME) was not used in a way consistent with our fair use criteria or copyright law. The article contains no discussion of the copyrighted work we excerpt from, we were merely taking advantage of Time's image in order to have an illustration for the article. This is not acceptable. --Gmaxwell 04:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to assume any "bad faith", but I think you were definitely acting out of policy in speedying those. Most of those images were being used within the bounds of the template and within the bounds of our fair use policy as outlined at Wikipedia:Fair use; your stated motivations were that you didn't think they worked with a full legal explanation of fair use at fair use (which is not the same thing as our policy) and some sort of e-mail from Jimbo which nobody has, to my knowledge, bothered to share with anyone else.

If you want to nominate them all at PUI/ICP/etc. and then go to WP:FU and say that you think the policy should be changed -- that's great, I support it all the way. But I don't support speedying images where they shouldn't be speeded, that's all. They were not "clear copyright violations" according to our fair use policy at all; change the policy, then work from it, if you're worried about things. It is this concern for procedure and discussion with people who made some effort to understand this stuff that eventually led to me creating something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, rather than just speedying everything in sight and irritating two dozen editors at the same time.

If you had a specific policy to point to, rather than your own interpretation of an idiosyncratic copyright clause, it would make the entire thing much smoother. This is what we did in making it so fair use content is not allowed on user pages, and so now we just have to point people towards our fair use policy page whenever they throw a fit.

Again, I think if you'll look at my work on the fair use clause and its enforcement and its changes you'll see that I'm hardly just complaining because I like fair use images. In this instance I happen to think you are overreacting, but I am (and always have) been quite willing to accede to whatever people think the official policy should be once it has gone through some open discussion or at least has been made officially a matter of policy, by consensus or fiat or however; I want something to point to that says it is improper, even if it is just an order by Jimbo (in fact, those are the easiest forms of policy changes). I hope that makes sense to you, and why I attempted to stimulate some more discussion about your actions here. --Fastfission 14:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• "Please discuss this issue with the Wikimedia Board of Trustees or Jimbo Wales if you feel that I have been unfair in my deletions. Thanks." -- this is a pretty ridiculous thing to say, and you should know it. If you want to produce a letter from Jimbo and the Board of Trustees saying that you have power to go over our prexisting fair use and deletion policy, I'd be impressed to see it. Until then, I think you're way out of line, both in your actions and your response to me. Either cough up some evidence of your external authority, or start doing things according to the rules, please. Again, I'm happy with working to change the rules if they need changing, but I'm not happy with people deciding they can just ignore them. --Fastfission 00:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• OK, that would definitely smooth things over more. I will also note, though, that in looking at WP:CSD, there are no criteria at all for copyvio images that I can see. Articles can be speedied as blatant copyvios, but images cannot. Just as a note, in case you weren't aware of this (I didn't quite realize it myself until I looked it over again). --Fastfission 00:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have asked for arbitration on the issue of deleting Time magazine thumbnails at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I received your message on my Talk page regarding Image:BenJonesTime.jpg that you listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. I also note that, without notifyinmg me, you removed (and I assume deleted) the Time Magazine cover image of Albert H. Wiggin. The Upload file contains "Time Magazine cover" under the Licensing and as such, I don't understand why a cover shot would be deleted. Perhaps you could point out to me the Wikipedia:Policy page covering this matter. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 17:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU

A cleanup of the magazine cover fairuse template has long been overdue. Thank you for taking action. --Gmaxwell 03:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have replied to you on my talk page. You might also enjoy my message here. --Gmaxwell 04:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi, this is with reference to your message. I have no doubt that you mean well when you say that you are trying to clear up copyright violations. However, why not follow the process instead of speedy deleting them is all that I asked. You seem to be orphaning the images now and putting them on IFD which is great, as it follows the process. It also gives time to the uploaders to view the rationale of fair use and either ask for its retention or deletion. This would also prevent knee-jerk reactions from the uploaders, which would have been the case had you carried on with speedy deletions. --Gurubrahma 06:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again for your response. I have a minor point of disagreement though, and it is as follows:- What is fair use for one may not be fair use for another and hence I'd prefer to take them all through the ifd route if no fair use rationale is provided, rather than exercising our judgement as to if fair use rationale would be applicable or not. Also, I believ that some broader issues need to be addressed but I am afraid that this may not be the right time as the atmosphere is charged. For example, let's say a magazine cover is fairly used with proper rationale provided on the image page and with the article talking about the issue. However, it is entirely conceivable that after some time, due to many edits on the article, the issue itself is no longer present in the article, but the image is. Addressing such issues would be much more difficult, imo. The reverse situation is even more of a quandary especially because image deletions are irreversible but I guess we'll have to live with it as we need to respect the copyright laws. Morally also, I believe it is indefensible to use magazine covers as eye candies - a point succinctly made by User:Gmaxwell elsewhere. --Gurubrahma 07:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your response!! --Gurubrahma 09:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why only ONE Time cover removed?

I don't want to get into the "fair use" question—personally I think that using Time covers, particularly paintings, crosses the line into leeching off the work of others to the extent that even if legal it just isn't a nice thing to do—but am baffled as to why you removed only one of the four Time magazine cover images from University_of_Virginia#Distinguished_Alumni, leaving the other three. The Wilson cover is dated 1923, so I guess it might be on the edge, but I don't see the difference between the Katie Couric cover and the others. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop deleting these out of process without further discussion. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 15:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to your question on Gmaxwell's talk page, there is a {{fairusereview}} tag. Please visit WP:WPFU if you'd like to help us, we'd love your help with the project. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 15:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Laos Time cover

Why not? Adam 02:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Your deletion of TIME images...

I don't understand why the images were deleted without even being put up for deletion for a disuccion. I'm talking about the Kargil War article and the TIME cover story (with solid rationale provided therein), and as the talk page from a Pakistani suggests, that was the ONLY image of a Pakistani soldier in the entire article. Removing that image has actually reduced the fragile neutrality of the article, since it served as a valid proof of Pak Army participation and its neutral coverage in world media. I also find that you've been arbitrarily deleting TIME images en masse after reading your talk page discussions. So, please don't remove such images given the poor coverage for South Asian conflicts in world media. I'm reuploading the image and tagging it - rightly so - as fair use. Idleguy 05:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've responded in the appropriate talk pages regarding that Kargil TIME image. If you'd kindly understand, it's one of the 2 images from TIME, and this one shows pakistan involvement without confusion. The other image is a side on photo and does not convey the dual meaning, i.e. coverage in TIME magazine and a photo of Pak trooper in the heights. Already its temporary removal from the article has caused atleast one editor from Pakistan to lament the lack of Pakistani photos and many give importance to a TIME cover photo over others, as they are believed to be unbiased. If I had access to any other fair use image of a Pak soldier on Kargil heights, I'd be the first one to upload them, unfortunately that's not the case. Cheers. 08:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on TIME image deletions

I just wanted to drop you a note thanking you for working on copyright issues, and dealing with the TIME images. While I think speedying them was probably not the optimum way to do it, doing anything was both useful and important. Good work. You are appreciated. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Another thanks, your copyright and other contributions are very appreciated.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-27 06:58Z

Fair use doctrine?

The biggest problem I have with your process is that you're acting, yourself, as a lone judge and jury for what *you* consider to be violative of fair use policy. Just because an article doesn't explicitly mention the existence of a Time Magazine cover doesn't mean that there isn't an implicit connection or that it's violative of fair use. You say that you only care what a "court" considers fair use, yet you are running on a blitzkrieg even as people are urging you to just slow down. Have you investigated the court cases to look at what the multi-pronged tests are for fair use? Until then, I don't see how you can invoke a court's reasoning and maintain your speedy-delete crusade (even where *you* -- but not others -- may consider something obvious). Jkatzen 08:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Time image

I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not a copyright lawyer, but I would have thought the onus of proof was on you to show that any given image is not acceptable. How is my use of the image, to illustrate an article to which it is relevant, unfair use? If that is not fair use, what is? Adam 08:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am quite dissapointed with your anti-Time anti-fair use crusade. Has TIME complained about our misuse? Please explain to me how using Lech Wałęsa cover in his article is NOT fair use ([3]).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, your question is wrong. Explain to me how it is fair use. I don't see any fair use rationales on the image. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Then the proper, civil course of action is to ask the uploader to use it (and copy the info to the talk page of the article the pic is in). If no rationale is given, then by all means, delete it. Even suggested above orphaning of the images is ok, as it is less time-consuming to you yet notifies the ppl watching the page about the change. I do support checking the excessive abuse of fair rights, however starting with deletion reminds me of the MPAA tactics of 'going for the biggest gun first', suing people without bothering to talk to them first.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu seems to have deleted a bunch of images saying "sorry fair use does not apply" without giving any explanation as to why it does with some TIME images and does not with others. I am re-uploading images unless given a reason why the standard TIME COVER tag no longer is usable on Wikipedia. Uris 20:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2

Hi, I've filed an RfC against you. Please elaborate on your reasoning in your own section. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 22:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also asked Jimbo, Angela, and Anthere to comment there. JYolkowski // talk 22:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Re your comment on my talk page: Who said anything about "unfair?" What I said was is that you should have taken the time to provide clarification , something needed to avoid confusion by me, and obviously from all the issues your edits raised, by others. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 22:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Tone

Without comment on the value of your actions in general you're not coming across to well on the RfC. If you're not willing to defend your use of the powers a bit more eloquently, you shouldn't be using them, eh? Right now you seem to be saying "There's nothing you can do about it so tough shit," which may or may not be the impression that you want to be giving.

Can I get you to just be a bit nicer and a bit more patient with the people that you think are idiots? And saying things like "if they don't like it dead-min me" is a bit overly dramatic. Chin up, shoulders back, give a good clear accounting of yourself and everyone will be happy.

brenneman^{T}{L} 01:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Not rude so much as curt. Anyone who's seen the number of footnotes on Patriot act knows that you can spout text with the best of us when you decide to. ^_^ Now's a good time to do so. "Take it up with the board" goes over like a lead ballon no matter how right you are.
brenneman^{T}{L} 02:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

But to me it's pretty clear that there are crossed conversations here: one group who's saying (quite correctly) that fair use images are a big pain in the bumm and that people really don't seem to be the message, and another group who is saying (perhaps arguably) that it's not what you've done but how you've done it. This is about patience and communication and doing things in the way that ruffles the least feathers, really.

What you're presenting, that these images were not fair use, is not what they are arguing. Does that make sense?

brenneman^{T}{L} 02:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make sure you're not going to pull a GMaxwell on us. ^_^ Thanks for taking the time to talk it over with me.
brenneman^{T}{L} 02:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now we're down to the nitty gritty - you are aware that he also went batshit and ran an unauthorised bot or two with a sockpuppet to avoid a block? - brenneman^{T}{L} 03:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Time Images

Hey, I just read the RfAr filed against you. I was wondering if you're deleting all TIME magazine covers or just the superfluous ones? Because I think Fair Use obviously applies if we use a few on the TIME article to illustrate, for example, their distinctive red border around the cover. Anyways, hope you're doing well otherwise. Cheers. — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, cool :) Well then I totally agree with you...and Jimbo/WMF board I guess. — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

From RFC page

I'm pulling this convo over from the RFC page so that we don't spam it up with conversation:

1. Kwh 01:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Agree substantially with Fastfission. "Kicking it upstairs" is not a valid response in the face of direct questions regarding conduct. I respect TBSDY but his conduct could be construed as avoiding questions because he wishes to elevate his POV on the issue even above consensus. If there is a "clear and present danger" of legal liability to the project due to {{TIME}} fair use, then the Foundation should just do a database query and delete all {{TIME}} images; less contentious and saves work.

   ?!? not all TIME images are copyright violations. Some are being used legitimately. I have not deleted those images. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I know that and I'd believe it but there are two problems… I have no way of knowing which images you have 'passed over' because they met your standard, and I don't have any way of knowing what the 'fair use' statement on the deleted items did or did not say, since they are being speedily deleted. Also, I fully understand that you have about 500 people questioning you in various tones, and some of it is repetitive, but I see plenty of people asking you questions and you are not giving answers, or responding tersely and exhorting people to read fair use. Unilateral action tends to be contentious, whether it is justified or not. Again, I contend that if there is so much hazard of an imminent copyvio suit that you can't stop to explain yourself to other people's satisfaction, and if you are doing Jimbo/the Board's bidding on this, then the Foundation should make it simple and do a mass database purge or hide. Otherwise the action does not seem logical and is needlessly divisive. KWH 02:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Come now! 500 people? In that case, I have 500 people who have given me various levels of support on what I'm doing. I agree that unilateral action tends to be contentious: however, so is legal action. I maintain that editors should have read fair use, Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria before uploading images under a fair use tag. I should also point out that Jimbo has always, in my view, made his position on non-free or almost non-free images clear: we don't want them unless there is no alternative. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was being hyperbolic when I said 500 but I am still trying to understand your 'tone'.

I understand all of this, I have read all of these policies and guidelines in great detail, and as I pointed out at Template talk:TIME, I have argued at WP:CP against fair use before. Nonetheless I don't feel you have justified yourself (nor shown much intention to), and I still have not understood where you judge the "bright line" to be in fair use. You may well be absolutely right and 1,000 potential lawsuits have been avoided (though we can never know), but you are causing a lot of emotional conflict which I feel could be avoided if you clearly justified your actions (do not tell me to read fair use again), like everyone else must justify their actions when they are questioned.

And again, I would contend that if there is a critical danger of legal action, then the Foundation should be the one to take extreme measures against it, e.g. hide all the fair use images and don't release them until they are reviewed. Your constant evocation of imminent legal action reads as an appeal to fear. KWH 03:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)