User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions/archive/2011

(Resolved) - Fair use png files

Resolved - The format of an image (jpg/gif/png etc...) is never, by itself, a reason to list a file for deletion.

I Love Lucy titlecard Threes Company Title Page Terri Alden 1982 Plus eight others. All tags have been reverted by Fastily. George, why on earth do you think non-free images cannot be .png frmat. Point me at the bit of WP:NFCC that says that they cannot be .png format. This seems to be a genuine misunderstanding on your part, so I'm keen to find out what you read that made you think that .png format is not OK. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC) See WP:Image use policy#Format. There is no proof that they are "software screenshots". They are merely non-free publicity photos of Three's Company, and, according to policy, they should be jpeg format. Also, these photos do not meet #6 of WP:Non-free content criteria. --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Almost forgot I Love Lucy screenshot: png is not allowed for screenshots and photos. If deleted, I must add the image in jpeg format. --George Ho (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC) George, that section contains recommendations for the most appropriate file formats given the nature of the material. Incorrect format is NOT EVER a reason to list a file for deletion, let alone speedy deletion. At most, and only if it is a problem, you might suggest to the creator that they upload in a different format, or even change the format yourself if you have the right image editing program. Read Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload to understand why one file format might be preferred over another file format. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC) ...I assumed or misread it incorrectly. So, according to policy, I can have any images in any format, although one format is preferred. --George Ho (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC) You misunderstood it I guess. .png is a bad format for photographic images, jpeg is better. With the right image utility, it is relatively easy to convert from .png (which is a lossless format) to jpeg, so it is never a reason to delete, only to convert. There's probably a tag somewhere that says "This file would do better as a jpeg".Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC) {{ShouldBeJPEG}} was gone per TfD. Is there any othe similar template? --George Ho (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

(Resolved) - File:Stanley Roper 1982.png

Resolved - Discussion unnecessary.

To Fastily: How was File:Stanley Roper 1982.png violating non-free policy? I mean, I have tagged all of these images; I assumed they violated non-free policy. --George Ho (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC) You tagged that one as lacking a fair use rationale. If you want to talk to Fastily, you need to do it on his talkpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC) ...I forgot... I guess, I don't need to discuss this further. --George Ho (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

(Resolved) - Non-free image of Ann Wedgeworth

Resolved - Image removed from article per no FUR. Action explained on Article talk page.

Why did you add back the non-free image? She is a living person, and WP:nfc (not WP:BLP; I must have used the wrong link) does not allow copyrighted images of living persons. --George Ho (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC) It's not an image of Ann Wedgeworth. It's an image of Ann Wedgeworth playing a character in a soap opera. Wikipedia fair use policy allows images of the characters played by actors in certain circumstances (eg see the image of Robin Williams in the Mork and Mindy article), it also allows it in the case of "retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." The use on that basis in this article may be debated - Ann Wedgeworth is now 76 years old, so she definitely doesn't look like the picture any more, but is this her best known visual appearance. However, as it may be debated, the correct course of action is to debate it on the talkpage, not just to remove it - and especially not just to remove it with the edit summary "rm non-free image per WP:BLP", as the only thing BLP has to say on images is WP:MUG, which is hardly relevant.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC) ...That was of Three's Company, not a soap opera but a sitcom. Anyway, there is no evidence that she retired; IMDB is unreliable. Also, the image description failed to rationalize use of this image. --George Ho (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC) That third point is a good one. The caption or something in the article text should explain why this image is particularly associated with her - as in the article on Leonard Nimoy. It doesn't - indeed, doesn't the article say that she left the show after only half a season. That would make a very good argument to remove the image from the article. You could certainly remove it on that basis, and post on the article talkpage to explain why you did so. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC) On this (one) occasion, George might actually have a point. We almost never allow fair use images for living people to go in their infoboxes. Maybe, further down in the article if they're further explained. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Yes, I didn't realise until a little after the revert that the image was in the infobox. He's deleted it again as it also didn't have a FUR for use in that article, and I am 50/50 as to whether you could create a valid FUR. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC) I have added value in "Other information" field of File:Lana Shields 1979.png. I hope: I have corrected further use, haven't I? If so, resolved? --George Ho (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC) In the "Other information" field, you added the following sentence: " If living in any other way, otherwise, this image shall not be added to a biography of Ann Wedgeworth.". What does that mean? Begoon talk 01:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I think he means living any other way but in the "living and retired" state. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you for clarifying the statement for me. That is exactly what I meant. --George Ho (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC) That's what I was guessing it meant. Maybe better to say "If the subject of the image is not retired or deceased, this image shall not..." - or even omit the last sentence entirely, since the conditions are already defined? No big thing - maybe just less confusing. Begoon talk 02:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I have copy edited per your request. --George Ho (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) You are very welcome George. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(Resolved) - Recommending a user's talk archives be deleted

Resolved - Archiving assistance is being given/offered with permission of User.

What the heck are you thinking? Why don't you let users speak for themselves? It's not your business to ask someone if they should want their pages deleted, not to mention it's the dire opposite of policy. You're off to a very bad start. Do you understand why this is a problem? If you're trying your very hardest to troll your way into another block in minimum time, then you are being spectacularly successful. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Hey, hey, hey. I asked because User:we hope has blanked the page; I did my efforts to archive his page by configurations, and he allowed me to edit them, as I asked for his permission. How am I a troll to you? Why am I scolded for this, although I understand now that deleting archives is against policy? --George Ho (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Oh if you were helping him with archiving his pages then nevermind. I thought you were asking out of the blue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Helping out with archiving (User and Article Talk) is one of the things I have seen George do many times in the past - so no worries here - however, now that it's been mentioned, while I think of it - your talk page itself could probably do with a bit of archiving, George, after all the recent discussions. It's getting a bit tedious to load it all, now. Begoon talk 00:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(Resolved) - File:RuthMartin.jpg

Resolved - BLP is not a copyright criterion for images.

Why is this image added back? Well, I should have used WP:NFC#UUI instead of WP:BLP as a reason to remove it from a biography of the living person, Lee Meriwether. However, how is WP:BLP not relevant? --George Ho (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC) BLP is not a copyright criterion for images. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC) I have already discussed lack of reference to NFC#UUI in Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. --George Ho (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC) You make a good point. But my advice would be to not pursue it. Changing policy is always difficult and people might start criticising you if the discussion becomes complicated. Better leave it alone for the time being until you get a little more experience. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC) George, go back up the page and read what was said previously. The only thing WP:BLP has to say about images is about the use of things like prison mugshots. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Do early police mugshots of people apply to either currently imprisoned people, such as Charles Manson, or formerly imprisoned with an active job, such as Martha Stewart? Are currently imprisoned qualified as living and retired? --George Ho (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Right now this image is removed from that article. Therefore, if you have objections to those edits, discuss it further, although I did not remove the image from BLP. Otherwise, resolve it as soon as possible. --George Ho (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Deep breath George. You are having trouble here because you are not separating things out, and it's overloading your circuits. The only thing WP:BLP says about images is not to prominently use one that conveys an undue (as in WP:UNDUE) negative image. So don't use a mugshot of someone who was later released without charge, a still from the blooper reel that makes them look completely daft etc. Charles Manson's mugshot would be fine even in the infobox - the guy is only known for murdering people and is plainly going to die in prison. Martha Stewart did time, so a picture somewhere in the article associated with that would be OK. Naomi Campbell on the catwalk, falling off those ridiculous shoes might be OK, because the incident was very famous, but a random shot of Ms Campbell falling over in the street having caught her heel down a grating would be gratuitously making her look idiotic. So only use WP:BLP as a reason for removing an image if it is unreasonably (ie WP:UNDUE) negative. Now on the NFC thing, sometimes an actor gets very well known for playing a role - like Leonard Nimoy playing Spock - and more people would recognise them as that character than the way they normally look, say shopping in a supermarket. The reason it refers to a retired actor is that you usually have to wait until they are coming to the end of their career because if they are still working, they might get famous again for playing someone different. They don't have to be actually in the retirement home. Leonard Nimoy is still working, but he's played Spock for nearly 50 years now, so there's no doubt way more people would recognise Spock than they would Nimoy if he passed them in the street without the ears and green makeup. Patrick Stewart on the other hand is a Shakespearian stage actor, and has many famous roles in films and tv. You couldn't argue that he is only recognisable as Captain Picard, or Professor Xavier or Karla or Ebenezer Scrooge or.... Have I explained well enough. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC) And to answer your question about the Ruth Martin image - no it shouldn't have been included in Lee Meriwether's article, as it's very dubious that it passes the test as to her being best known as this character. I note its currently up for deletion as orphaned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

(Resolved) - Non-free images in BLP

Resolved - Don't worry about "retirement" - concentrate on what actors are "best known" for.

Sometimes, I don't know what retired is anymore. Is Shelley Long retired? Is George Maharis retired? Shelley Long is well-known for Cheers; George Maharis is well-known for Route 66. Long has frequently appeared in news, television, such as Sabrina the Teenage Witch and Modern Family. Maharis, on the other hand, has not done acting since 1993; however, he has done painting and singing recently. What can I do? --George Ho (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Forget about 'retired'. Actors never retire. The question is - is this actor best known for playing a certain character? Best known for how he looked when he was young? A Google image search for George Maharis suggests a spread of roles, also his picture appears on his albums, also there are some notorious photos including the Playgirl shoot with the horse. So I don't think you could pick one and say he's 'best known' for it. Same with Shelley Long. She has appeared in a lot of things, and isn't known for just one. To use a non-free image, whether a publicity shot of them or a screenshot of them in character, you really are looking for characters that they played for lots of years, in a soap opera, long running series or multiple films, where everything else they have done has been low key; or else for them being a famous face 40 years ago having spent the rest of their career doing voiceovers and radio work. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(Resolved) - 68.147.236.21

Resolved - WP:RBI

This IP called me "unprofessional" and wants me banned. I wanted to report him, but I cannot find the right Noticeboard. I did show this person my history of block before I go any further. If I cannot report this person, then what else can I do? --George Ho (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC) They are probably just trolling. It is best is to ignore them. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC) For now, I will ignore them. However, I'll wait to see a comeback. --George Ho (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC) If they come back try to talk to the IP to see if they can behave in non-trolling ways. If they cannot, give them a couple of NPA warnings and then report to AIV or ANI. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(Resolved) - Soap opera character articles

Resolved - Discussion continued elsewhere.

Hello, I know that George Ho was recently unblocked and is improving. I'm commenting here because his editing of soap opera character articles and/or their actors and writers was also a concern of his past problematic editing...and I want to make sure that this aspect is being addressed as well. There is a current discussion titled Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#Requests for comment where we are addressing George Ho's editing regarding soap opera character articles and what he can and/or should do. Any comments from his mentors there would be most appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Thanks Flyer. That looked like a very sensible discussion. I've added a few comments, based on what we've been discussing here with George. If there are specific areas you think need more discussion, please post over here and we'll see what we can do. If you guys can bear with George, he is doing things in complete good faith, but he's been very upfront about some problems that mean that he does take things very literally. This sometimes has unexpected results (like the thing with the png files that's the first thread on this page). If this happens, he has agreed that he'll stop an action if you just post "Stop!" here or on his talkpage, and explain here what the problem is.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Thanks a lot, Elen. Feel free to comment at the project any time. You're very experienced, and that is always a good thing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(Resolved) - Removing "Copyright status" of Storm in a Teacup (film)?

Resolved - Re-visit if necessary - seems ok for now.

Why did you remove it as irrelevant? How irrelevant? I was going to add references to Uruguay Round Agreements Act, but I had trouble with computer. --George Ho (talk) 09:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC) What seems to be the problem here? -FASTILY (TALK) 20:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Elen of the Roads claimed that "copyright status" is irrelevant to this topic, so it is removed rather than discussed. Should "copyright status" section of It's a Wonderful Life be removed because it is "irrelevant"? --George Ho (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC) There is a big difference between the copyright problems of the two films. In the Storm in a Teacup you did your own research by comparing the copyright act of 1909 and the copyright registration in 1936 to report that there was a problem. This is called original research WP:OR because only you found and reported the problem. In the movie It's a Wonderful Life other people, publications and books reported the copyright problems, so this makes these problems notable and suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC) A little off-topic, but, if this is the case, can the "copyright status" of Blackmail (1929 film) be removed by me or someone else? I must have done OR there. --George Ho (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Well done. You spotted it correctly. I agree that it is OR. Go ahead and remove it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC) George, sorry I didn't come back and leave you a note to explain why I removed it. It's useful information, and is now on the talkpage, because someone wondered if the link to a downloadable version at the internet film archive was a link to a copyvio, and you've demonstrated that it isn't. However, as people have explained above, it's never been mentioned in other sources, you found it by looking in the primary data so it's original research and doesn't belong in the article. In a similar vein to It's a Wonderful Life, where there was much to-ing and fro-ing in courtrooms because of a flaw in the paperwork, you'll find there's a piece in the article on The Lord of the Rings, where Houghton Mifflin failed to complete their paperwork properly, there was a pirate US version, a revolt by the fans, and an out of court settlement, all of which is written up by people who studied Tolkien's history.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately, US copyright of Storm in a Teacup was automatically restored in 1996 by Uruguay Round Agreements Act. The Notice of Intent to Enforce a Copyright was filed twice under doc. #V8007P611 and #V8007P572. May I add back the {{copyvio link}}, please? --George Ho (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Here's the source: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38b.pdf. Due to failures to comply with US laws in the past and first publication in the US more than 30 days after first publication abroad, this film is eligible for URAA. --George Ho (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC) I'd misunderstood what you'd said in that case. So the film archive download probably is a copyvio. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Right now, I'm working on this article; I have added back the section with some more references. Still under construction. --George Ho (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Now as to this, it is still not relevant in the article. You are still conducting your own research to establish - I'm sure quite accurately - the copyright status of the film. But UNLESS you have a WP:SECONDARY source that records this information, it is still original research WP:OR. Also, the article is about the film - not about it's copyright status, and you're swamping it with all these reference to copyright law, the uruguay round etc. As I and others have said, if for some reason the copyright status became prominent - perhaps through a court case - then it would be OK to add it to the article. But as no third party source ever seems to have bothered with it, it is not necessary to refer to it in the article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC) ...Right now, you have a point. I guess: Copyright.gov is not a secondary or third-party or independent; it's primary. To be honest, I haven't found court-related sources. I found only sources relating plots and performances. --George Ho (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC) I think it's just not something that anyone has ever bothered about. It might suddenly turn up as an issue if some film festival wants to show it and can't work out who to send the fees to. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

(Resolved) - WP:Non-free content review

Resolved

George, I've noticed you've added a few requests here in the last day or two. Whilst I think it's admirable that you want feedback on images you add, and I've been the keenest here to suggest you do so, the noticeboard does say "Include reason(s) for nominating (references to specific WP:NFC criteria are helpful) and the article(s) for which fair use is to be evaluated." (my bold), so perhaps you might add specific areas or concerns about your uploads which you want the volunteer reviewers there to look at when you add a request there, rather than just saying "Would this pass all criteria of non-free content?". Hopefully you know which areas you are enquiring about. Just an idea that might save some time for volunteers on a busy noticeboard. Begoon talk 12:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved) - Pauline/Arthur Fowler pictures - discussion [1]

Resolved - images no longer exist - reopen discussion if necessary.

I don't know why the second image is used over mine. Mine acknowledges both fictional and factual people as same, unless it goes against "fair use". Now the second image replaced my image. I still do not know why. --George Ho (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Is it maybe a consideration that the other pic also contains "Arthur Fowler", whereas the shot of just "Pauline"/"Wendy" might be more appropriate for an article which is about "Pauline"/"Wendy"? Begoon talk 03:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Sorry, wrong file. Here's the correct one with no strokes. --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Umm... it is also discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas, User talk:GSorby, and Talk:Pauline Fowler. I was asking your advice about two files of the same image; the "Arthur/Pauline" one can be ignored. --George Ho (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Ah, ok. Well, they are both the same shot, so it doesn't really make any difference which one is used. The second one for source says "Personally acquired by GSorby." which doesn't tell us much, but the first one says "Image from Guardian.co.uk.", so that's a better source description IMO. But at the end of the day, which one is used is not important as long as its licensing/source details are correct. Begoon talk 03:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC) How about image descriptions themselves besides sources? --George Ho (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Well, personally I'd keep using the earliest uploaded version, since there was no real need to upload a 2nd shot. With fair use images, the idea is to keep them to a minimum, not have multiple copies. Keeping 2 copies of the shot means one will be orphaned anyway (and using one on each article would be silly). The thing to do if the descriptions needed updating would be to update the original description, not upload a new file with a new description. Begoon talk 04:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Fortunately, I have preserved all history of File:Pauline Fowler.jpg into my own file page. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Moreover, my image was uploaded earlier than the other, yet the other had higher resolution. --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC) George - File:Wendy_Richard_Pauline_Fowler_BBC_2006.jpg was created on 29 Dec. The other file was created years ago. What's confusing the issue is that different images have been used during the life of the file page. I don't personally see a problem with either resolution for fair use - it is a promotional shot. Really, nothing is 100% "right" or "wrong" here, but I'd still stick with the file page with the long history. Would it be too difficult for you to add the descriptions and rationales you want to the older file page, which it seems would make everyone else happy? Begoon talk 04:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC) One other thing - old orphaned versions (revisions) of non free (fair use) files get deleted anyway (they are running through thousands of them right now) - so uploading files into the version history just to have them in the history is pointless. Begoon talk 04:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Done copying my own description to replace the other file's description. --George Ho (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Make sure that what you add complies with the other discussions you've been having and mentioned above, with regards to Soap Opera images and standard formats etc, and that should be fine, then, I hope. You could ask them at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas to check what you've done if you wanted confirmation that they are happy too. Begoon talk 05:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(Resolved) - Pauline/Arthur Fowler pictures - discussion [2]

Resolved - images no longer exist - reopen discussion if necessary.

Would this image work overall for either articles, or are they merely identifying two characters as a couple who should have had their own articles as a couple? --George Ho (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC) There's a "Marriage to Arthur" section in the Pauline Article that it might be relevant to. The Arthur Article already has a pic of the couple (Pauline hits Arthur with a frying pan), so probably not needed there. Begoon talk 08:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Why would the user in Talk:Pauline Fowler#File:Wendy Richard Bill Treacher Pauline Fowler Arthur Fowler BBC.jpg say that this image does not meet NFCC#8 and is not suitable for Pauline Fowler article? --George Ho (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Well, the argument is that the file is not free, therefore it should only be added to an article if it significantly adds to the reader's understanding, and that understanding would be reduced if the image was not present. It's a question of judgement whether it meets NFCC#8. If it's objected to on these grounds you can either argue it at the NFCC noticeboard, or try to find a free image that you could use instead. In this case, I think it's borderline, and you could possibly make a case for inclusion (if a reader isn't familiar with the character, then seeing his image might jog their memory into remembering the face - that significantly increases understanding in that case), but the sensible thing to do is probably to accept the norms for Soap Opera articles as outlined in that discussion, and in the examples they give. The reality is that often these are judgement calls, but once you have an objection like this, IMO better to omit the image or find a free alternative. They do make a fair point that "decorating" articles with images should be by way of free files, with fair use reserved for only essential pictures. Begoon talk 10:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)