User talk:The JPS/archive5

; Archives
	2005; Jan-10 May 2006; 10 May-4 June 2006; 4 June-27 July 2006; ; ;

I always welcome polite, constructive criticism and comments. New posts to the bottom, please.

If you're a vandal, do yourself some justice and put some thought into your insults. Simple obscenities show a simple mind.

Please leave a new message.

STV copyvios

I am not a lawyer, but no, I don't think that changing "I" to "he" is enough to avoid a copyvio. Regards Mr Stephen 17:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's a similar case about that water company. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario clean water agency

Hi, I see you deleted the Ontario Clean Water Agency as a copyvio. Probably the right move ... but I thought the speedy delete was for copyright violations from a commercial content provider and that other violations such as content from a government site needed to go through the normal copyvio process. I was in the process of editing the talk page with both my analysis of the two versions (only 15 words out of 148 changed) and the feedback that it should probably go through the normal copyvio process. No big deal, I'm pretty sure it would have been deleted via the normal copyvio process anyway ... Brian 18:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Hmm, one more point, it looks from the logs that this is the third delete in just a few days. Maybe it needs to be protected? At least until some editor creates a non-copyvio version? I'll add a note on WikiWoo's talk page too about 10% difference likely to appear as a copyright violation to most readers. Thanks Brian 18:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Read tags

Please dont re add your dispute tag, if you read the fair use tag there is no fair use promo tag anymore. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use tag is not a get out of jail free card. I am perfectly entitled to dispute the fair use status of the image, particulrly since the source is dodgy. I'm going to re-add it, and eventually a third party will assess it. I might also take it to PUI. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is the source dodgy, explain? Impolite, explain? My message was pretty self-explantory your claims can not be held up. Also pelase read the page, there is no promo claim. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which fair use critieria do you feel this image satisfies? Because your rationale does not explicitly address the criteria. Your general tone was impolite (e.g. the directive "Read tags"). The JPS^{talk to me} 14:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, and how else would you like me to put it? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing that dispute tag. It should only be removed by a third party. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Inaccurate requests to source already sourced images removed: verified by third parties on AN/I] The JPS^{talk to me} 14:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tagging all your images

I followed the correct procedure, i tagged them & notified you. Feel free to report me but i have not done anything wrong. Also how is it WP:POINT, i saw one of your images lacked source so started checking the rest.. no point there. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is regrettable that you have chosen to turn this into a personal battle. All of my images are correctly sourced. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not. Example:[1] some dont even have fairuse ratioanles. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct that I haven't added rationale to my earlier images. "Opening titles to Joking Apart" is the source. With the screenshot tag, the source is plainly the opening titles of the television show Joking Apart. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source info states where you got it from! IE: Did you cap it your self? If the answer i yes, then you are the source so a summary would be: Source: Image taken by me (User:example) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It is completely irrelevant who captured the file. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Fair use specificly this line:

The image or media description page must contain:

    * Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different) where possible.

Also, please by aware that i am sorry if you thought it was a retaliation that i tagged your images but i was not ;-) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: charlotte morgan

Your probably best taking this image to IfD [2] as it has been superceeded by a new much better version. :-) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK tagged as orphan -- it'll be deleted naturally in a week (prob the same as IFD). You're absolutely right that my images should have fair use rationales, and I'll strive to add them. There's loads of O.C. images without rationales tho'. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personaly havent gone thru the images my self, but i would my self be willing to add fair use rationales and provide images for those without source info. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool -- well, my biggest concern is getting them sourced. Have you seen Wikipedia:Publicity photos? The promo tag has been misused so much, and the category is huge. I'm going through it and tagging unsourced images first. You can give me a hand, if you want: Category:Promotional images.

An example of what I would pick on is Image:OPPERA.jpg. There's no verifiable source information at all (see how the tag says that it is "known to come from a press kit"). It is this last point that I would challenge other images, but usually if nsd is removed. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just nominated there article for deletion as notability isnt justified in the article, [3] Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use vios

Something you may be intrested in is the main page, sometimes fair use images are used on the main page some people use the templates on there userpages and thus the images get used on there pages. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: images

Okay, I have replaced the Sandy, Seth and Alex images. They are all sourced from images already here and have FURs and summarys. For the Kirsten image that one can be deleted as there was already an image of her here in use so that one has been replaced. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the screencaps now have FURs, I have also uploaded a new version of the Theresa picture and replaced a screencap. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Clarkson Mislead

I made some changes to the Jeremy Clarkson page and you have undone them. Can you please explain why? My changes were far more accurate than the original misleading version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.120.69 (talk • contribs)

That sentence has been discussed several times over the last month and community consensus is to keep it. See the article's talk page. You can do what other anonymous users have done and write essays on my talk page, filled with abuse amd inaccurate guesses about my politics, but I will just laugh at them. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote my sentence today. I don't see how it has been discussed several times in a month. Do you work for Wikipedia? I just looked at the "discussion" and it seemed that the community consensus was severly against you. Did you refer me to the right page? (inaccurate has two Cs.) So you have authority to say whatever you want and then "laugh at them"...(opposing comments)? Is that it? I thought that anyone could edit the articles. The article is wrong. The quotes are misquoted so that Jeremy doesn't look like a prat. Look at the real article and I'm sure you will see that there was nothing wrong with my statement. You seem very defensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.120.69 (talk • contribs)

thanks!

Just saying thanks for your welcome message, I enjoy Wikipedia a great deal, and hope to be able to add titbits here and there to help others. thanks again, fbt

You're welcome -- don't foget to sign your messages... you can use ~~~~. :) The JPS^{talk to me} 16:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"

Just to let you know, and it may be something that you're already aware of, but you seem to have a... well... I don't know what the term for it is, really. An "edit stalker", perhaps? Anyway, JackRuby is their name, and here's their contributions, which as you can see consist of nothing more than reverting your edits and saying "reverting vandalism by TheJPS". Don't know if it's a new account from someone who's already got some beef with you or what, but they seem intent on making unnecessary edits to various British comedy-related articles, which brought them to my attention. Just thought I'd give you a heads-up. Seb Patrick 12:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never mind. Just as I post that, I see that you've been dealing with them. Oh well! Seb Patrick 12:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get them from time to time. Often kids who don't like me tagging their unsourced images for deletion. Cheers anyway. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar

I award The JPS this barnstar for his efforts in deleting thousands of pieces of unworthy content from Wikipedia.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

abc1uk.co.uk

Hello please can I ask why you want it deleted, as I can see no reason why it should be as it is not in breach of anything. Is this just you being a spoil sport? as I can see no clear reason why it should be deleted. Please enlighten me why.

Yours

John Thackeray

jp@j-one.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.33.119 (talk • contribs)

My reasons for deletion is clear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abc1uk.co.uk. It fails our notability guidelines. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I think your being silly, it does nothing to offend or nothing on copyright etc. Nothing is wrong with the article, why can you not just let it pass? or if you tell me what needs to be sorted out please tell me. I think you have way too much time on your hands just to be looking through articles and then moaning about them and then people who have used their own time to write articles then find that they are going to be deleted.

Yours

John Thackeray

jp@j-one.co.uk

There is to be an article on the website on the fresh website (www.j-one.co.uk) talking about the abc1uk.co.uk website, saying how it has helped uk viewers before the real site went online, how it gives more upto date info than the real site. If the site is backed by fresh and an article is shown on the fresh site, will the wikipedia article be valid?

Yours

John Thackeray

(jp@j-one.co.uk)

Nope. Take a look at WP:WEB. at present your article fails all three criteria. www.j-one.co.uk does not appear to be "independent of the site itself." See also note 4 on that page about self promotion. Many site owners want articles on Wikipedia simply to increase its visibility and increase Google ranks, rather than if it is of any encylopaedic value. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STV.tv to be deleted

I've merged STV.tv in with STV. Will I now redirect STV.tv to STV?

GarryMc 16:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Logan photo - it's legit - no need for warning

Please do not post warning about photos that are properly tagged. Publicity shots are completely legitimate for posting on Wikipedia, if they are tagged as such. (Please see wording of tag, below, that was used when first uploaded.) In addition, signed personal messages should not be left on the image description lines. Thank you. I understand it's the mission of some people to denude Wikipedia of all images, but there needs to be a limit to that zealousness. Thank you. - Nhprman ^List 15:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been incorrect about the tagging of that image, However, my message was for the delteing admin and to ensure high visibility: I will continue that practise, than you. At the time of tagging it did not have a source. [4]. I've deleted your copy and paste of the text from the tag, becasue of clutter. Also, please link to the image in question when you are discussing it in talk pages, so I don't have to hunt for it: Image:HeadshotJoshLogan.jpg Also, there is good rationale for the image, addressing out fair use criteria. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And since you focus upon the wording of the tag, exactly where is it verifiable that it "is known to come from a press kit or similar source". At the moment I see a blank screen from CBS, with a ToS prohibiting reproduction, and a third party site. Where is the evidence that this is from a press kit? The JPS^{talk to me} 16:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about possible copyvio

Hi, there. I was recently deleting copyvio on the episode summaries of scrubs episodes, and I came across My Choosiest Choice of All, an article you created (I originally mixed you up with another editor, sorry about that!). I just wanted to clarify that the content there is indeed original and made by yourself, as many other scrubs episode summaries were direect copyright violations from tv.com and scrubs-tv.com. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 20:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, I belive that in GF that it's original. There's only so many ways things can be said about something that isn't complex, and there will obviously be similarities between summaries, but it certainly isn't a cut and paste. This summary is shorter at tv.com, and I didn't actually know about the episode guide on scrubs-tv.com -- but I've just checked and that's much longer. So, to answer you're question, the article was as original, and is sufficiently different from the two sources you mention. I didn't realise the rest (which I had no hand in crating, but I probably made some frmt tweaks) were copyvios. Shame :( The JPS^{talk to me} 10:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well it's a bit late now for me to respond it seems, but yes, thanks :D. Your user talk page drifted down my watchlist so I missed the reply. :) As to the copyright violation, I asked those who created articles that were not from tv.com or scrubs-tv.com, as I was not made away of scrubs-tv.com until after dealing with many tv.com articles, so I wanted to be definitevely sure that there were no more copyright issues and that there wasn't a third summary page I wasn't aware of. Cowman109^Talk 23:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, cheers. I didn't feel too guilty about your RFA because it looks like you're pretty safe. :) The JPS^{talk to me} 23:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the Prisoner characters

Hi, Thanks ALOT for correcting my entries for Vera, Jim and Jock and putting on the stubs. I am hoping to gradually add some more and really appreciate you assisting (so quickly too!!) with my first ever created pages. Cheers!!

Just as I posted this I got your message!! Yes they are all my own work. I had been reading an articvle for a fave character of mine MIKE KELLERMAN in a US cop show. I was extremely impressed with it as it was extremely thorough for a fictional creation and thought I would give a go at trying some for Prisoner characters myself, starting with my favourite Vera!! Yes, they are all my own contributions, mainly from memory, although exact episode numbers and years may require me to check sometimes.

Cool, cheers. I reckon it would be good to have an infobox with episode numbers. We should probably go slowly on creating the articles: we're better off creating longer articles than lots of stubs. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost episodes

User:Corn Man has been reverting non-stop again, please protect the pages to admin only. --TheM62Manchester 20:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen his edit summaries?? --TheM62Manchester 20:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's already blocked him for a month for vandalism. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Hommerbocker

I noticed you removed a speedy delete tag off of the Shannon Hommerbocker article. Would you please just delete that all together? It has a protection template on it...but isn't protected. The protection template was added by User:TheM62Manchester who doesn't have the ability to protect articles. The article was deleted once as A7, so I don't see why it would need to be protected unless there's some controversy I'm missing. Metros232 22:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. I was sure I sw it'd been recreated once before, but I've deleted so much crap tonight... The JPS^{talk to me} 22:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletedpage

Thanks for the advice!

TheM62Manchester has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

--TheM62Manchester 22:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one is telling me what im doing wrong? The content i've left is correct and i don't think i've done anything wrong. It was a serious contribution. I know he must be a valid artist as many of his comrades are on there philip absolon, billy childish, wolf howard etc. I think i must have messed up somewhere?