User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 19

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you are privilege to any facility that allows you to revert--because you apparently thought that the closure was wrong.Thus I have undone your series of edits. Further you would do better by having a look at

The "privilege" is called "literacy". The close you refer to was a "Keep". That's why it says "Keep" in bold letters at the top. You don't get to change it because you disagree with it. As for the rest of your ranting, your failure to look for sources in obvious places doesn't mean they don't exist. And the contents lists of books are generally reliably sourced to the books themselves; to claim otherwise if mindless pedantry. Now multiple editors have opposed your redirects. Stop edit warring and whining. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Alpha 1 (Robert Silverberg anthology)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Winged Blades ^Godric 11:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is w.r.t to this AfD and simultaneous proceedings, where you opposed the merge.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are seemingly already aware but still doing this,lest I be accused of canvassing!Winged Blades ^Godric 11:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned. Keep disrupting the page and you will be reported. Another editor (CCamp2013) and I have already told you to stop, so stop. MSMRHurricane (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing copyright violations is not disruption. Verbatim repetition of PR/advertising/promotional text is an obvious copyright violation. Do you really think an admin will hit me with a folding chair on your complaint? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet I have not been "advertising" anything. How is using the correct term (WWE Superstar) of an athletes career advertising or spam? It's used a total of three-four times throughout the summaries, in different sections! You have been warned by me and another editor, it's not advertising. Get off your high horse and stop trying to start drama, clearly seeing your talk page and your act of "everyone on Wiki is out to get me" is a cry for help, just because other editors hold different views and opinions to you doesn't mean they're out to get you. You disrupt the page by removing content that is clearly not used for advertising purposes. You have been the only user to come with this complaint and you should really handle it differently instead of removing it. MSMRHurricane (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What part of COPYRIGHT VIOLATION do you not understand, you loud-mouthed buffoon? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, very mature, I see. This is ridiculous, I don't see how this is accused of copyright when the plot summaries on the pages differentiate from any other site that contains plot summaries of each of these episodes. MSMRHurricane (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of other sites don't follow our policies and include copyrighted textIf you can't accept that Wikipedia doesn't, you shouldn't be editing here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly didn't understand what I said about other sites. I was comparing it to Wikipedia, specifically the page I have been editing, and the summaries were different to AVOID copyright violations from other sites. You haven't even given specifics on what was exactly "copyright" and why, therefore I feel your claims are void and null. MSMRHurricane (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at

• Now closed. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. You participated in that discussion; your input is welcome at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 15:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, i have mentioned you at the above afd, hope that is ok. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering why you have been going Wrestling article to Wrestling article removing links to WWE Hall of Fame from them and using the reason as spam? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 21:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reference see this conversation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is spam, promoting a particular commercial enterprise. The WWE-related articles have been riddled with blatantly promotional labels and honorifics, which serve no encyclopedic purpose but inflate the significance and promote the WWE and its performers. Articles like New York Yankees and Dallas Cowboys mange to be written without sticking promotional epithets before the names of their most famous athletes. While Victoria's Secret Amge;s are identified as such in their own bios, the lebel is generally not repeated when their names are mentioned in other articles. "Honors" conferred by employees by their employers generally lack broad encyclopedic value, and while they may be appropriate to mention in the actual bios of the recipients, their principal function is other article is primarily commercial promotion. I've been doing this for quite some time (I think starting in 2015 with some particularly spammy use of the phrase "Disney Legend", and there hasn;t been any serious controversy about the practice. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern over the quality of the articles, but that should be addressed on the articles themselves. Unilaterally labeling Wikipedia articles as spam and de-linking them from other articles is likely to be seen at best as arbitrary and possibly even disruptive. I would encourage you to open a discussion somewhere appropriate, possibly on one of the various related project talk pages, and see where things go. You are also free to edit the articles to remove any obviously UNDUE or WP:PROMO material. But just going around and de-linking articles w/o any kind of consensus is probably going too far. I would further suggest self reverting the de-linkings that you have already done. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's painfully obvious you haven't bothered to review what's going on. Neither the WWE, Disney corporate, nor any other commercial enterprise gets to decide how their employees and hirelings are described on Wikipedia. Advertising slogans, branding, and in-universe drivel have no place here. If you don't understand that, hang up your admin hat here and go off to Wikia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what's going on is that one editor is unilaterally declaring a handful of Wikipedia articles to be SPAM and is going around de-linking them w/o any kind of consensus. That's an over reach, however well intentioned. This is not your private playground and you don't get to make that kind of decision on your own. Please stop and open a discussion somewhere so that if there are problems on these articles they can be addressed and fixed with some degree of community consensus. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a dishonest fabrication, and you goddamn well know it. I have not declared the articles "SPAM"; if I had intended to do that, I would have put a spam tag on the articles and marked them for speedy deletion. If you really don't understand that process, you have fundamental competence deficiencies that should keep you from acting as an admin in this area. We are talking about inserting advertising slogans and catchphrases into articles about (mostly) living persons. If I were removing the phrase "Must-See TV Superstar" Jennifer Aniston from articles which mentioned her, nobody would bat an eye. As I said, above, and you willfully ignored, I've been doing this for an extended period of time, and there were no serious objections until yesterday -- and they don't relate to the practice in general, but to promotions for one business which has an intense fan base. "WWE superstar" is an advertising slogan, not factual content, and it doesn't belong in an encylopedic biography outside of a very narrow context relating to promotion of a performer's career. We don't describe someone as a "supermodel" merely because their management company does. We don't describe someone as a "porn superstar" merely because their agent does. Hell, we've pretty much scrubbed Wikipedia of the phrase "porn star" for the same reason -- because it's promotional, not factual. We have community consensus on the broadly applicable policies and guidelines about promotional content in articles. If you think we should create an exception to these policies and guidelines to allow promotional content related to a particular commercial business, then it's your responsibility to open the discussion, boneheaded as such an action would be. And, by the way, we don't refer to a particular US senator as "Lying Ted Cruz", even though WWE Hall of Famer Donald Trump made that his "official" non de guerre. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to your editing articles to remove promotional language. The issue here is your de-linking those articles elsewhere. [Side note: I haven't seen any of that since this discussion opened so from my perspective that issue seems to have gone away.) Beyond that this is a content dispute and needs to be handled accordingly. On which note that also means being

WP:CIVIL when interacting with other editors. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Hullaballoo!

First off I want to say that I should have done this earlier, and probably before simply reverting your edit. I would also like to add that 2A02:C7F:943B:6D00:68F3:6B68:65E4:B764 isn't me.

Ok, with that out of the way, let's have a discussion. I appreciate that the citation used is both paywalled and from a few years ago. I have done some digging, and found some more recent paywall-free sources:

http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/celebrity-couple-sue-perkins-and-anna-richardson-adopt-dog-from-animal-lifeline/story-30214293-detail/story.html

http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/29/anna-richardson-turned-down-chance-to-host-great-british-bake-off-out-of-loyalty-to-sue-perkins-6413159/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/anna-richardson-on-the-power-of-naked-attraction-and-leaving-her/

What are your thoughts? Greg (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any rule saying that a non-free book cover can't be used in the author's article. Can you point me to it? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See, for example, Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/May#Nonfree book cover on author page. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hullaballo, Do you have any advice on how to provide the copyright that would allow the display of the book cover in Wikipedia? (The book is Risk, Chance, and Causation - Investigating the Origins and Treatment of Disease" by Michael B. Bracken.) Should the copyright be changed to 'free work'? I have an email from Yale University Press agreeing to the online reproduction of the jacket image of the book. The jacket shows the original work (J. Gillray, "Metallic-Tractors," acquatint, 1801), with minor changes. According to Circular 14 of the US Copyright Office: "A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable." Does this apply here? Thank you! LENK2121 (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that applies here. The image has been both edited (not merely cropped) and recolored (not merely filtered). Permission for "online reproduction" isn't enough; the rightsholder must allow use by anyone for any purpose. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hullaballoo,

First, apologies for misspelling your name in the first instance. Second, thank you for clarifying your concerns about the image. Third, if I pursue the rightsholder to allow free use of the image of the book jacket, will that satisfy all requirements for displaying the image online in the Wikipedia article? Best, LENK2121 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hullaballoo, Just circling back to you about my question above from July 10th. Any thoughts? Best, LENK2121 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so long the rightsholder issues one of the accepted free licenses, such as the (CC-BY-SA) license listed at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to that thread, you've not responded to my suggestion at talk:Lana Rhoades. Are there any serious BLP concerns you have that would prevent the restoration of the article for the purposes of an AfD discussion? Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Complete lack of reliably sourced biographical content. Nobody's argued that there is any, so there's no reason for any lengthy debate, is there? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You removed the Picard pic that we had in the Star Trek: The Next Generation section - diff. The rational was

Hi Hullaballoo, Thanks for your detailed edit comment in reverting my reinstatement of the non-free image of Peter Goldmark. It gave me something to review to get on the same page as you. I'm still not sure that I see the basis for excluding non-free images from infoboxes. When I searched on "infobox" in the links that you provided, the only place that it occurred was in Wikipedia:Non-free content, where it said, "A rationale template for logos, assuming they are being used as a header image (standalone or infobox) for the entity the logo represents". Perhaps you could point me to—and quote—the passage that you find to be informative on banning non-free images from infoboxes. I would appreciate that very much to improve my own understanding of the rules of WP. I'll look for your reply, here. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 18:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the general rule is that you can't use nonfree images of living people in their BLPs; there is a very, very, very limited exception for illustrating specific points, which doesn't apply to general illustrations in infoboxes. (There's also an exception for people who'll never get out of prison or are long-term fugitives, but that doesn't apply here). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reply, Hullaballoo, but I don't see where this rule is that you mention. Please give me the link and the quotation. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 20:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the very first item in

WP:NFC#UUI, which I recommended you give particular attention to: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for that, Hullaballoo. You did point me there, but I failed to grasp what was conveyed. Any thoughts to offer at

Talk:Peter C. Goldmark, Jr. or should I proceed, as proposed? Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 20:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. Could you explain the reasons for removing the "pink shirt" cover from the Peter Norton article? Is this not "fair use" or is some legal principle being violated here? Thanks, --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Fair use" isn't the issue.

WP:NFCC are more restrictive than the law of fair use. Absent unusual circumstances, nonfree book covers aren't allowed in author bios, and, with very limited exceptions, nonfree images of the article subjects aren't allowed in BLPs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Bear with me, I don't yet understand this. The nutshell at

WP:NFCC has no nutshell but the points are no free equivalent, respect commercial opportunities, minimal usage, previous publication, content, a Matrushka doll of nesting requirements at "media specific policy", one article minimum, contextual significance, restrictions on location, and image description page. OK, looking at "media specific policy", it points me back at WP:NFCC so that's a loop. It would be really helpful to me in interpreting all the vaguely legal-sounding text there and tell me where I went wrong 8 years ago? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

See, for example, Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/May#Nonfree book cover on author page. Consensus interpretation is that such use fails the contextual significance test. NFCC enforcement has become stricter since you originally uploaded the image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Amazon allow such images on their site?

Was there an

RfC that determined the "consensus interpretation" regarding the use of images of book covers? wbm1058 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

That discussion, interestingly, says "The one exception would be if the reliable sources about the author also substantially discuss the book cover; if for example the cover were widely hailed as exceptional or were extremely controversial, and that cover was a substantial part of the author's notability." The "pink shirt" cover gets discussed in sources, and became the model for every subsequent jacket photo for Norton. Is that not "contextually significant" ? Unfortunately the Amazon use is no help here; Amazon has enough money to hire more lawyers than anyone who could conceivably sue them so they can make their own rules. Wikimedia doesn't have enough money for that. And I don't have enough money to get Mr. Norton to pose for me. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt many or any authors would object to Wikipedia publishing low resolution images of their book covers; such images are useful to them as a marketing tool. I realize there are many editors who object to using Wikipedia for "free advertising" of products, but that's another rationale. I'm confident that if we published anything that made WMF's lawyers uncomfortable, they would exercise their WP:Office actions rights. On a somewhat related note, I'm puzzled as to why File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg is allowed to stay online, not only in low-res form but as a monster-sized 2,912 × 4,030 pixels image, while its human author has strenuously objected and asserted his copyright rights. Recall the girl who was taken to court for encouraging a boy to commit suicide on social media. The prosecutors asserted that she was responsible for the boy's death even though she didn't literally "pull the trigger". Even if the photographer didn't literally click the shutter, he is still responsible for setting up the photograph and seducing the monkey to push the button. wbm1058 (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia foundation page [1] says, in part "...Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. ..." I'm not sure what distinction there is between a "doctrine" and a "policy" nor why this is redundantly designated so, and this page doesn't say what the en.wikipedia project policy actually *is*, but since it's the star project I'm sure its policy, wherever that may be, is compliant. If so, "identifying a protected work" would be included as allowed, as I read this. Surely the WMF has so exercised enough due diligence to warn anyone who, say, wants to print out the Wikipedia and sell copies door-to-door, that there are non-free files here that hypothetically require permission to reproduce? Thanks for the continuing feedback. I appreciate the time it takes to educate the copyright novice. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of educating the copyright novice, per this discussion, BU Rob13's proposed talk at Wikimania CopyrightforDummies was evidently declined. Perhaps Rob can weigh in here with his opinion on whether the image of the "pink shirt" cover, which has adorned Norton's bio for years, can be allowed to stay. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a definite disallow. There are potential free alternatives to illustrate the article subject himself, and the book cover is not contextually significant for the article subject. There is no discussion of that image in the text. See

WP:NFCC#1. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

But the article says 'The first (1985) edition was nicknamed "the pink shirt book", after the pink shirt that Norton wore for the cover photo, and Norton's crossed-arm pose on that cover is a U.S. registered trademark. . Please explain! --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I was reading further down the page, since the image renders lower than that text on my screen. With that, it's more ambiguous. Probably meets

WP:NFCC#8. You could take it to FFD if there's still concern over it; I'm more an expert on public domain and the nuances of whether someone could make a copyright claim on something (de minimis, freedom of panorama, etc.) than fair use, so I'm not comfortable giving an authoritative statement on this one way or the other given that text in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BU Rob13 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

What's FFD? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FFD, Files for discussion – wbm1058 (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Revert wars don't help the encyclopedia. Could you please explain why WP has policies for including non-free content? Could you explain to me why, in light of all the above discussino, the picture of the pink shirt cover is in violation of WP policies? --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring content policies established by the WMF really doesn't help the encyclopedia, and that's why removing clear NFCC violations like this is an exception to 3RR. Nonfree images of living persons are the canonical example of replaceable images, failing NFCC#1, and nonfree book covers aren't allowed in author bios, per the link I provided to you before, above. Neither the concept of "pink shirt" nor that of "crossed arms" requires a visual cue to be properly understood. If you're going to add nonfree images to articles, you need to understand the nonfree content policies, and asking for endless explanations/justifications of well-established policies, your responsibility is to educate yourself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy is the only policy I'm aware of that's been established by the Wikimedia Foundation.
2. The Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria Exemption Doctrine Policy was established by community consensus, not by any Foundation directive. There are 67 pages of archived talk discussing the NFCC.
3. The "learning curve" on this is quite steep. Few of us are copyright lawyers or experts, and our Exemption Doctrine Policy was apparently not written by experts in the field.
4. All 10 of the Non-free content criteria must be met to include an image in an article.
5. #8 Contextual significance says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

By your hard-line reading of this, I'm wondering whether any images can pass this requirement. What picture of a book cover is really necessary to understanding an article about the book? A hard-line reading of this would require that virtually all infobox images of book covers in articles about the contents inside the cover should be removed. Omission of a picture of a book cover is not detrimental to understanding an article about the contents of a book, or the reception of the book, or the significance of the book... wbm1058 (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF's licensing resolution, which you cite, states that EDP's may authorize the use of "identifying protected works such as logos", in particular in the context of "complement[ing] (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works". Those two provisions, taken together, create the "space" for the EDP to, by consensus interpretation, treat such cover images as meeting the "contextual significance" test. I've argued, repeatedly, that we should rewrite the EDP to align more closely with the exact language of the Foundation's Resolution on the matter of identifying images, but the prevailing sentiment has been that the practice is generally well-understood. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The use of non-free images is by policy not permitted in Biographies of Living persons, because the image fails the test of non replaceability precisely because the person is alive and the possibility exists of taking a suitably free or licenced image. The policy specifically prohibits the uses of book covers to illustrate articles about living persons fo this very reason. However: a loophole exist in the policy that if that specific book is discussed in the text of the article, then the non free image can be used to illustrate the section on the book (because a non free image of the book is not available). In this case, the book is not sufficiently discussed in the article beyond a mention in a list of books. I do find it hard to believe that as Peter Norton is well known, that a free or suitably licenced image is not available from somewhere. 86.174.155.8 (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In September 1983, Norton started work on The Peter Norton Programmer's Guide to the IBM PC. The book was a popular and comprehensive guide to low-level programming on the original PC platform (covering BIOS and MS-DOS system calls in great detail). The first (1985) edition was nicknamed "the pink shirt book", after the pink shirt that Norton wore for the cover photo, and Norton's crossed-arm pose on that cover is a U.S. registered trademark.^[1]

The second (1988) edition, renamed The New Peter Norton Programmer's Guide to the IBM PC & PS/2, again featured the crossed arms, pink shirt cover image.

Are you claiming that this text does not discuss the cover of the book?? wbm1058 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously claiming that readers of the article cannot understand the idea of "crossed arms" or "pink shirt" without a visual aid? It is well-established, and almost universally accepted, that simply describing an image in an article's text is an insufficient justification for the use of a nonfree image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky. It mentions that the book exists, but does not actually address the book contents beyond a vague synopsis. It is part of the biography (thus talking about Peter Norton, the person), but not an in depth discussion of the book. As pointed out, the image does nothing to enhance the reader's understanding of a BIOS, MS-DOS, a pink shirt or crossed arms. But as posted below, an article specifically about the book could include the image without problem. 86.174.155.8 (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But, an article titled The Peter Norton Programmer's Guide to the IBM PC could include this image in its infobox, without specifically discussing the cover at all, in blatant violation of the Contextual significance criteria #8? wbm1058 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Use the pink shirt book cover. This is the iconic image of Norton. He's by far best known through the book(s), and that is the only image that most readers have ever seen of him. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hullaballoo. I'm tidying up some pages, and I've just done Principality of Wy. In it, there's a file that's a copy of a painting of the "royal" family. Reading between the lines, it may have been uploaded by the artist himself (Sam Wade), and the rational that was added by 124.171.5.241 was likely added either by that same uploader, or by the person that commissioned it, Paul DelPrat. He has retained copyright though - it's not CC. Do you think we can fairly use it in that article on his micronation? My reading, from the permission (" critical commentary"), is no.

Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I promise to not treat you like dirt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You and I have disagreed a number of times. Nevertheless I am going to offer you some advice, the same advice I would offer you if you and I were best friends.

You do realize your signature suggests you have big chip on your shoulder?

You addressed this comment to administrator Explicit. Doesn't it seem confrontational to you? Has anyone suggested you consider that showing a confrontational and uncompromising persona makes it harder for others to take your opinions seriously?

The wikipedia has policies, and guidelines, that urge civility, collegiality, and the "assumption of good faith". While these policies and guidelines are often ignored, some my most positive and productive working relationships here have been with people who strongly disagreed with me -- who nevertheless did not take our disagreements as insults.

I remember one of the challenges I got in my first year on the wikipedia. My challenger thought some passages I drafted showed bias. I did my best to not react as if his challenge was personal, rather than concern over my contribution. I ekpt my cool, and asked some questions. He kept his cool too. He said, paraphrasing from memory, "I don't think the article should say X, unless we have substantiation Y. Well, I had read references that substantiated Y. I rewrote some passages.

Result, after our dialogue, and the improvements he triggered, I thought the article was considerably improved. H thought the article was considerably improved, as well. I thought I could look forward to years of positive challenges, like that. I had no idea it would prove to be a high water mark.

I have had other positive interactions with contributors who disagreed with me strongly. One guy in particular I could count on for valuable, fair, challenges, that were really worth taking seriously. I knew if I made a good, convincing point he would acknowledge that point. I think I acknowledged his good points. Over the years, when my google news searches confirmed points he had made, I'd give him a heads-up. I think, like me, he looked to get things right, not struggle to prove his initial points, without regard to whether further research supported them.

I was targetted by a mean spirited clique, some years ago. Their views on controversial topics were close to his. But they were violating policy by attacking my motives and character, not my reasoning. Even though his views were close to theirs, he stuck up for me, my character. His support was a huge relief.

I suggest you will find it difficult to win supporters, who will defend your character and motives, so long as seem bitter, confrontational, and quick to accuse.

Your signature strongly suggests you feel isolated. If I feel you have started to show genuine cooperation, and fairness, I will speak up for your character and motives, even if I am doing so on an issue where I disagree with your opinions.

I am sure I am not the only one.

So, why not consider this? I'd start with retiring the bitter signature.

Did you ever read anything about Benjamin Franklin? He wrote advice for ambitious young men. Part of his advice was to pretend to be humble to your elders. He told ambitious young men that they didn't have to actually feel humble, they merely had to act humble.

It is the same with good faith, the project will work best if we all give the appearance of good faith, and patience, even when our patience is exhausted.

This is the same advice I would give you if you and I were best friends. Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hullaballo, What means "fails NFCC#8"? Regards, Kintaro (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kintaro, Talk page stalker here. It refers to point 8 here. Basically, it's a non-free image that isn't absolutely essential for the article. An easy example for you: a pic is used on the Jean-Luc Picard article, because it "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic"; that same pic was removed from the Patrick Stewart article's Star Trek subsection as it wasn't essential to understanding Stewart, the article's topic.

In addition, as that pic of Tippett is now orphaned, it's been tagged for deletion.[2] Bromley86 (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you, Bromley. Anyway, several relevant articles are in connection with this image, so there's no reason to delete it if it can be used. For example, to illustrate articles such as Prehistoric Beast, Dinosaur! ("origins of the project" section) or Go motion. As the photograph was taken while Phil Tippett was obtaining one frame in a go motion special effects process, I simply suggest to use it in the article Go motion (to illustrate the introduction). I did it so you simply need to check... What do you think, Bromley/Hullaballo? Kintaro (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, I'm afraid. I was the one that originally added that Picard pic to the Stewart article, so I'm clearly not an expert on non-free :) . Bromley86 (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:NFCC #1. The image is replaceable by free content. We do not need to use a non-free image to depict this as a free image can be created which demonstrates the technique. Simply having an image for illustrative purposes is not enough to justify non-free media in this case. I recommend you remove the image from Go Motion and allow the image to be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Hammersoft:, the image's purpose was to illustrate the "career" section in the article Phil Tippett (please, just check over there) because this guy is so closely related to this technique (as it is known nowadays) that he could be pointed out as the inventor. In my opinion, the photo should go back to the Phil Tippett article... Regards. Kintaro (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It is unnecessary in either case. We do not need a non-free image to depict him (we have a free image for that purpose) and we do not need this image to depict the technique, as a free one can be created that serves the same encyclopedic purpose. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok ! Kintaro (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, could I get a more thorough explanation? (I am not saying you are wrong, of course, and I had misgivings even when I uploaded the file and added to the article in the first place, but I'd like to understand this better so I do not make mistakes in the future, yes? Especially as the billboard featured in the photograph is specifically discussed in the article and may never again in the future be photographed, which I had come to understand meant it would qualify as fair use as not replaceable by any other potentially free image... It seems you've had a number of people asking you similar questions over the past month or two. But help me out here. Thanks!). KDS4444 (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nonfree photo of a nonfree artwork. Even if the billboard itself isn't under copyright (which is possible if it were first published before 1989 without an appropriate copyright notice), the photo isn't. There's a strong possibility it could be replaced by a free(r) image, especially given US freedom of panorama rules, and therefore fails NFCC#1. Just because the billboard is discussed in the article doesn't justify use of a nonfree image. The billboard isn't the subject of the article, the person on it is. You don't need a picture of the billboard to understand that Angelyne's picture appeared on billboards; therefore the use also fails NFCC#8. To use a simple analogy: you don't need a picture of their centerfold to understand that a model was a Playboy playmate, even if that's what they're most famous for. If this were an article on "The Angelyne Billboard Phenomenon", it would likely be an acceptable use. But it's a biography of the person, and the standards are different. In general, for the same reasons, we don't allow magazine covers to be used to illustrate the articles of people appearing on them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed you hadn't already reported it, but I just reported Quiteashtrudel, Kidsndreamers, TheOldestEstablished and TheOldestEstablished to SPI.Marauder40 (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case is here [3]Marauder40 (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted [[4]]. I thought the user was a vandal you had been reverting but the Bot seems to see it as a constructive edit. Is the user a vandal? 2600:1:F15A:C3A1:BD59:8361:B763:3860 (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user is not a constructive editor, and is likely the subject's publicist or someone else close to her. Note, in particular, that their history of "The Kopykats" is heavily faked -- the short run TV show did not win any Emmy Awards and that (at least per IMDB listings) the subject appeared in fewer than half the episodes [5]. The article has been laced with faked and exaggerated claims for years. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I was interested in your comment here. You seem largely supportive of my proposal but your comment is "Oppose as framed". What modifications would permit you to support the proposal? --John (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John, I believe it's a question of emphasis. For all that some editors find Hillbillyholiday annoying, his work is overall a substantial net positive. Removing content that doesn't comply with BLP requirements is much more important than salvaging the small amounts of worthwhile content caught up in it, and no balance needs to be struck. Enforcing BLP is time-consuming and relatively thankless, and adding a layer of explaining the obvious will only discourage work in the area. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. So your !vote is more like a "not guilty" verdict. Thank you for explaining. --John (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]