User talk:GrimbleGrumble

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] J. R. Ackerley

Hey, GG,

After more than a week it seems you and I are the only people interested in the issue of merging the two articles about J. R. Ackerley. Perhaps we should go ahead and do it. In case you missed my comment, by the way, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about attempts to interpret Ackerley exclusively as a homosexual writer. I'm sure Ackerley would have thought them hilarious. John FitzGerald 15:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your reply on August 7 – I have to check the chamge page, eh? Anyway, I've read it now and am glad you agree. Since you suggested the merger I suggest you ahould get to merge it. John FitzGerald 13:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi GG – Like your plan. To redirect once you've finished merging just replace the page with #REDIRECT followed by a link to the page you're redirecting to. If there's any problems you can always retrieve the old version and start over. John FitzGerald 15:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Forgot -- There should be a space between the initials, which is another reason to use the longer article.

I hadn't seen the finished merge unntil you notified me – I'd checked earlier but you appeared to still be working on it. It's a good job, and thanks for doing it. That article's had a rough old time, but it's looking good now. As for the photograph, some of his as a young man should be out of copyright now. I'll see what I can find. John FitzGerald 02:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You've fleshed out the article admirably. Thanks. Considering how much inaccurate description there is of Ackerley and his life, I'm happy that this article has developed into one which actually pays attention to the details of his life. Ackerley was turned into a demonic mythical figure by some. I realize that in many ways he was far from exemplary, but further vices were invented for him. John FitzGerald 23:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images seems to me to imply that a cover photo is OK. I'll check with an administrator or whatever they call themselves, though. John FitzGerald 21:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No luck so far. Maybe I'll try another administrator. John FitzGerald 00:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
But I see you've added it. As I said, I imagine it's OK. Still haven't looked to see if I have any old pictures I can scan.
We'll see; from what you sent it seems to be ok / fair use....--grimbleGrumble 12:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I got an answer, which was the same as our conclusion -- that is, it seems to all right. John FitzGerald 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supermodels

Hey!! There are alot of supermodel stubs here at wikipedia. The only non stubs seem to be the VS Angels. I was wondering if you could please help add more/edit articles of supermodels such as Doutzen Kroes, Jessica Stam, Gemma Ward, and Bianca Balti. Thanks. Lil Flip246 16:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mydogtulip.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mydogtulip.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Blah blah blah -- images are the downfall of wikipedia. Rather than simply deleting images if in doubt, why not actually provide some explanation as to why they are not acceptable? Since Wikipedia doesn't own any images, how is any image of an author from the mid-century (i.e. pics are not in public domain) going to be ok? They're not. Which is why wikipedia sucks for images and will always suck for images, forever. Good luck with that.--grimbleGrumble (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore you've missed my improper use of a cover on the Glenway Wescott page. Purloined images appear all over the web. People will go to these semi-legal to view images as long as the Web remains the Wild West, say for another ten years or so. The authors of Wikipedia pages, being poor schlubs, can't get the rights to use images the way, say, a biographer would. Wikipedia, with its armies of lawyers, could, but they don't care about articles about Joseph Mitchell or J.R. Ackerley. Unless this changes the whole enterprise is doomed to failure.--grimbleGrumble (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Myearsarebent.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Myearsarebent.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)