User talk:Sensevivid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Removal of content

Why are you removing the image from all of those pages? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use is suitable for images of deceased persons, a free use image can not be reasonable obtained. The image I remove links to a page which explicitly states that only free use is allowed. Sensevivid (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
And since when did that ugly placeholder image become the norm? - Sensevivid (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it encourages people to upload images (for example, people who do not regularly edit - readers). But if you are not removing it from anybody who is alive, thats okay I guess. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Sensevivid, slow down with all the svg image deletions. Don't you think you should consult with other editors first? It is pointless editing, to be polite—and counterproductive pointlessness at that. (Mind meal (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC))
What sort of consultation started off these placeholders? None at all. They just happened, and people generally don't remove them, because they're being too polite, or think it's enshrined in guidelines or policy. Not at all. I'd gladly have no placeholder images, the lack of an image is enough, but an image stressing that only free-use is allowed when its not, will slow down the progress of the encyclopedia. Sensevivid (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
You're not just removing them on articles of deceased people, but articles where fair use is NOT suitable. I suggest you get more familar with the topic of "Fair use" before you mistakenly invoke it . How about discussing this with people before going on a massive personal crusade to remove something that a great deal of people think is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't patronise. You edit a lot of Wrestling articles, and I found a lot of pointless "free image only" placeholders in the way. To show defunct wrestling teams and corporations, one must generally use a fair use image - it is unreasonable to believe that a free use equivalent be created. In the same way that fair use is appropriate for deceased persons, it is appropriate for groups or bands that have disbanded. Sensevivid (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sensevivid, please will you give a full explanation, including references to appropriate Wiki policy, as to why you are engaging in these mass deletions? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

I'm removing erroneous placeholder images. For example, I removed the placeholder from Duk Koo Kim; if you were to click on that placeholder, it would have taken you to Wikipedia:Fromowner which states that only free use images are permitted. In this case, it is erroneous, it is unreasonable to suggest that a free-use alternative could be created. A fair use image of a deceased individual, and in this case, especially as his most prominent highlight was a notorious boxing match, would be fulfil the policy and criteria at WP:NONFREE. Are you suggesting that we replace the infobox image at The Beatles with a placeholder? How about Nirvana (band)? Sensevivid (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Sensevivid, I find your explanation neither comprehensive nor clear. I have no comment to make about the articles The Beatles or Nirvana (band). I note that your edit history started on 19 January 2008 and, apart from a few edits to your own space, contains solely several hundred image deletions. In view of your lack of editing experience I suggest that in future you foreshadow deletions on an article's talk page and ask for comments. This can do no harm. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Stop stalking/Ridiculous uw-vandalism 3 warning

Stop stalking now, and refrain form removing placeholder images. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Paul Pimsleur, you will be blocked from editing. This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Molly Ivins, you will be blocked from editing. EvanCarroll (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you taking the piss? Seriously? Read the above arguments on my talk page. Paul Pimsleur should not have a free-use only placeholder, he is dead, a fair use image is fine with a rationale. You need to read up on vandal warnings, {{uw-vandalism3}} is totally inappropriate for anything but flat out blatant vandalism. Sensevivid (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Placeholder images

Why did you revert my changes and insert the "free use only" placeholder into articles of which fair use images are suitable? This has happened mostly on articles of deceased individuals, of which it would be unreasonable to assume that a free image could be created. Sensevivid (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the Wikipedia-approved placeholder image. I see several others have abundantly explained it to you above. Chris (クリス) (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No you're wrong, flat out wrong. That placeholder is not enshrined anywhere in policy or article guidelines. Wikipedia:Fromowner explicitly states that there can be no fair use, and in general for visible living people, this is correct. For the deceased, it is not. That you feel it is the "Wikipedia-approved" placeholder image shows a total lack of understanding. - Sensevivid (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually see what you're trying to do, Sense. However, people may be suspicious that these are your first edits. Try adding in some other contributions as well if you can. Wizardman 01:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Only remove the image when you have one to replace it with, mass removing images after being warned is vandalsim --Chris 01:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You're joking right? I cannot believe an administrator would in any way believe this to be vandalism. Mass removal of erroneous images is construed as vandalism, yet the mass insertion of such placeholders isn't? Since when did these placeholders enter into article guidelines or policy? Sensevivid (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Vandlism can be removing vaild content from an article, I my opinon that is what you have been doing, so I blocked. I am willing to unblock as long as you agree to discuss the removing the images before doing so. --Chris 01:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No where did it become policy to use a placeholder, but you are so in the wrong to assume it is permissible to remove them en masse. EvanCarroll (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Submission to have editorial permissions removed

You've been submitted to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. EvanCarroll (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock Request

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "This is a very short block, so request is really for some fresh eyes, if you are already familiar with this account then I'd prefer if you recuse, but that's your call. Please see the talk page above and the associated links. I was removing en-masse placeholder images in articles of deceased persons. There has never been guidelines to suggest the use of free-use only placeholders, I feel that they're misleading in certain articles such as deceased persons, defunct bands and groups where a fair use image would be acceptable (examples such as Luther Vandross, Duk Koo Kim and Susan Sontag). This is a single purpose account, not a deceptive sockpuppet as another user has marked on my user page. Sensevivid (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "Assuming this is not your first/primary account, using a sockpuppet to make these controversial edits and thus avoid the consequences strains the assumption of good faith. In regards to the content question itself, I don't think there's any good reason not to have the placeholder there. It's always at least possible that a family member or promotional agency of the deceased might be willing to provide us with a photo under the GFDL, so there's no particular harm in having the image there. Even if we would be willing to use a fair use image, we always prefer a free one. These things really ought to be evaluated on a case by case basis anyway. For example, if you have a recently deceased subject who was an American public figure, we have a reasonable expectation of finding a freely licensed image from flickr, a US government source, or possibly the person's own organization. On the other hand, if we are talking about someone who died 30 years ago and was a relatively private person, there's much less of a chance of a free photo. But anyway, considering that this block is about to expire on its own, I'm upholding the block. Please consider discussing the issue from your main account rather than removing the tags en masse from a sockpuppet. — B (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

In my eyes, it is a deceptive sockpuppet as long as you don't disclaim your main account. You haven't stated the reason to use a SPA either. And, the IRC consensus is you're guilty of disrupting wikipedia. EvanCarroll (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
IRC consensus. Where's the deception? In your eyes, it's suitable to label good faith edits with {{uw-vandalism3}}. I was unpleasantly surprised and disappointed that User:Chris G thought it pertinent to agree. Sensevivid (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The deception is in the disconnect between this account, and the account that should bear the result of your actions. EvanCarroll (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If I were an agent of an organization that felt that a particular image on Wikipedia was inimical to the cause of the organization what I would not do is log on to Wikipedia and delete the image. What I would do is log on to Wikipedia and delete several hundred images with the expectation that the one I aimed at would get lost in the noise. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

This isn't about a single image on a single article. If I had removed one placeholder, no one would notice. Sensevivid (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
What does no one noticing have to do with righteousness? EvanCarroll (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.