User talk:BenBurch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Violet Blues
Hi BenBurch, I appreciate your edits regarding the Violet Blue / Violetta Blue / Noname Jane scenario, but I reverted the two edits that were clearly overly biased towards the latter. I'd be hard pressed to be convinced that an AVN article pleading the latter's case is the source of an unbiased statement with any validity, and the "single mother" quote is just unnecessary and somewhat spiteful.
I believe the case has been settled, so when/if details are released we'll have some more factual information about what actually happened. Until then, we're just relying on each of their own statements, which clearly doesn't work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by KathrynA (talk • contribs) — KathrynA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Replied at editor's page. Mostly reverted the edit. Thanks for signing that one, Mike; She appears to actually BE the author in question from the edits that she has made to that article. Also, I notice that the photo with the article is a publicity shot and I recall that those are ruled out? --BenBurch (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You know, I really don't think that trying to out an editor's real-life identity is a good idea and is probably a policy violation per WP:OUTING. You really should have just noted that she has an apparent conflict of interest without going that route. As to the image, I'm not an expert, but as long as it is properly licensed, I'm not sure why it would be inappropriate for the article. Fair use of living people is not allowed, but this wasn't a fair use image, it was a CC-licenced image. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not outing anybody to observe that a single-purpose account edits nearly immediately after new press on the subject of the article... Note I said "Appear to be" - When somebody on wiki edits as though they were the subject of the article, then that person can be assume to be the subject of the article, and should avoid editing it. --BenBurch (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Agreed that it's not outing anybody to note that they're a single purpose account with a POV problem and likely COI problems. Naming names is a different matter altogether. Note that there is no policy against editing an article on which you have a significant COI, but there is a policy against posting an editor's real name. I just think that you shouldn't be speculating about the real-life identity of any editor. It's sufficient to say that they have a COI without actually naming them. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, would you mind explaining further why you removed the image from the article? It's a free image from Commons. I don't understand the rationale for removal. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, first, being a self-portrait of a living person, its a self-published work - not a reliable source. Second, its a publicity still used by the subject. I suggest that somebody other than the subject take a snapshot of her and put it into the public domain, and then we can use that. --BenBurch (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm still confused. The image is free to use, per the CC license. It certainly not our policy to require public domain. As far as being from a reliable source, there's nothing wrong with primary source for basic biographical information and I don't think an image is much different. I'm just not seeing what you're objecting to here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going from example here; I've seen similar pictures for other authors removed even though they were placed in commons, and as best as I can I have repeated the rationale given at the time. I defer to more experienced editors (I've only been here a few years) on this matter. So if you want to put it back in, do so, but I think it likely that others will eventually remove it for those reasons. --BenBurch (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please point me towards an example? I'm not an expert, either and I'd just like to see what you're talking about. I don't want to put it back if it really shouldn't be there. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well it was done with the Annie Sprinkle article a while back. Annie provided an image and placed it in the public domain, but it was a "replaceable image" because it was a publicity still. A shame too because it was a great picture of her. --BenBurch (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, you're talking about Image:Annie Sprinkle Labcoat Press Photo.jpg, which was a deleted as a replaceable non-free promotional image. It wasn't a public domain image. The stumbling block there being the restriction on commercial use. That's a different circumstance than what we have here, which is a freely licenced image. I'm going to go ahead and reinsert the image. I'm also going to copy this discussion to the article's talk pages, for future reference, if you don't mind.-Chunky Rice (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well it was done with the Annie Sprinkle article a while back. Annie provided an image and placed it in the public domain, but it was a "replaceable image" because it was a publicity still. A shame too because it was a great picture of her. --BenBurch (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please point me towards an example? I'm not an expert, either and I'd just like to see what you're talking about. I don't want to put it back if it really shouldn't be there. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going from example here; I've seen similar pictures for other authors removed even though they were placed in commons, and as best as I can I have repeated the rationale given at the time. I defer to more experienced editors (I've only been here a few years) on this matter. So if you want to put it back in, do so, but I think it likely that others will eventually remove it for those reasons. --BenBurch (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm still confused. The image is free to use, per the CC license. It certainly not our policy to require public domain. As far as being from a reliable source, there's nothing wrong with primary source for basic biographical information and I don't think an image is much different. I'm just not seeing what you're objecting to here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, first, being a self-portrait of a living person, its a self-published work - not a reliable source. Second, its a publicity still used by the subject. I suggest that somebody other than the subject take a snapshot of her and put it into the public domain, and then we can use that. --BenBurch (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I addressed your concerns in the article's talk page, under the section you added about me. KathrynA (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Except it was a free image, but somebody kept changing the tag on it as I recall. --BenBurch (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm looking at the image page right now and it clearly says "Redistribution or commercial use is prohibited without permission from Annie Sprinkle." which makes it a non-free image, by Wikipedia's definition. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'll put the image back in, then, but I'm pretty sure it won't remain. --BenBurch (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you like, I'll ask about it over at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions, but I'm fairly confident that the two situations are not analogous. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, its a BLP issue, not a copyright issue. The principle objections being its use as a publicity still and its self-published nature. Now, another image not self-published and not so-used would be unobjectionable. --BenBurch (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, well, that's a different reason from why the Annie Sprinkle image was deleted, and not one I'm familiar with. There's no BLP reason that a free publicity photo shouldn't be used, but since you already started a section at the BLP noticeboard, I'll ask the question there. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, its a BLP issue, not a copyright issue. The principle objections being its use as a publicity still and its self-published nature. Now, another image not self-published and not so-used would be unobjectionable. --BenBurch (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you like, I'll ask about it over at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions, but I'm fairly confident that the two situations are not analogous. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'll put the image back in, then, but I'm pretty sure it won't remain. --BenBurch (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm looking at the image page right now and it clearly says "Redistribution or commercial use is prohibited without permission from Annie Sprinkle." which makes it a non-free image, by Wikipedia's definition. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Except it was a free image, but somebody kept changing the tag on it as I recall. --BenBurch (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- (unindent) Too late. Still, like I said, I don't want to put it in there if it's not supposed to be there, either. No harm in asking for wider input. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Okay
Okay. I won't change it again. I just think the "junior" and "senior" labels are only helpful if we're talking about two senators from the same state. Then it might be nice to know which one has been serving longer. But if we're only talking about one senator, if we're talking about senators from different states, and especially if we're talking about a national website (wikipedia) I don't understand how the labels are helpful. I won't change it again. Sorry. Thank you.
[edit] Blue
Howdy, I went ahead and deleted the redirect you created for the given name of Violet Blue. From what I was able to piece together, there has been considerable concern that this amounted to "outing" the identity of someone, based on original research. Wikipedia, of course, can not be used for such a purpose. I apologize if this understanding is incorrect. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Good to see you
Hello Ben,
Its good to see you contributing around Wikipedia again. I haven't done all that much here for quite a while either, but I just wanted you to know that it has always been a pleasure to work with you. And if I remember correctly, you are also from Illinois, so I hope you've been able to take some time out this spring and enjoy our first place Cubs and White Sox! Have a great day.--RWR8189 (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hey! Feeling is mutual! Yes, we are loving this weather! AND the Cubs! (OK, the Sox too.) --BenBurch (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
