User talk:Mosmof/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mosmof. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have none - and have no vested interest in LoHo, Loho realty, etc. What I find deceptive is being anonymous and claiming advocacy.Juda S. Engelmayer 20:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote one article in 2004 - did not get paid for it, it was voluntary. Grand Street News happens to be privately owned, edited and published by Yori Yanover and Nancy Kramer and not Loho Realty - Loho is an advertsier - nothing else. It was never owned by loho, but loho used to have a different ad arrangement. Check facts pleaseJuda S. Engelmayer 20:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

One article does not make for a conflict. One article in May 2004 about a humanitarian trip to Haiti does not make a conflict about a neighborhood name. I don't mean to be mean either, just accepting the fact that a significant population (comprised of people from all walks) do refer to it as LoHo - and some even among those who don't approve of the realtor in question. Just because it began as his marketing strategy, does not remove the impact it has had. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Judae1 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

An ad arrangment does not mean editorial policy, and that ad arrangement has been over for a year or so already. I can get that in writing from Yanover if needed.Juda S. Engelmayer 20:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Care to divulge your name and affiliation?Juda S. Engelmayer 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Is an organization with an interest in the LES spearheading this effort? Juda S. Engelmayer 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not Stalkerish, unless you're looking to start a rumor. I think its fair that as you wish to point out what you deem a conflict for me, no one gets to know why you've gone through the trouble of signing up just to edit out or delete Loho. I find it odd that just about all of your edits have been to LoHo or Lower east Side related sites. That could speak readily of a vested interest in seeing it deleted.Juda S. Engelmayer 21:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not cool. What will you do if Wikipedia opts in LoHo's favor?Juda S. Engelmayer 20:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep your comments on the proper side of the Delete and Keep aisle Just an FYI Juda S. Engelmayer 23:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The other Wiki editor Petri lables it a "vote". It is called a vote, and fine. Whatever. It does not matter to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Judae1 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

At least be honest about whom you work for so the playing field is level.Juda S. Engelmayer 01:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you were trying to do to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LoHo, I wish you hadn't done it. Wikipedia is not a democracy and Afd is not a vote. Please restore the formatting to the way it was. Thanks. Mosmof 11:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I will not. The mess you (and your opponent) had created is NOT the way to have an AfD discussion on Wikipedia! If you want to have a long discussion, do it in the "Discussion" section. You only need to mark one of your comments in bold. This way we can keep track of the recomendations and the editors who haved expressed an oppinion. -- Petri Krohn 11:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You are right, this is not a simple "vote". I have renamed the "Votes" section to "Recomendations". Do not however think that the force of your arguments (in this case "wall of arguments") has any relevance on the outcome of the AfD. They may influence or convince other commentators, but not the closing administrator. -- Petri Krohn 11:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks! Pepso 15:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is... The music video pictures are representing the video, the Superbowl picture is representing an event. The articles Madonna (entertainer), Mariah Carey, and Janet Jackson all have articles full of pictures from their music videos. Those images are also listed as fair use. --Thankyoubaby 23:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think you can activate your e-mail? Thanks, Yanksox 16:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about the screencaps in music videos, just remove them from the main article. I admit, I should have done the same. I do agree with you in regards to a living person having an article (except in cases like JD Salinger, where if you did, you most likely would have legal issues regarding getting said picture). I have to disagree with you, however, on photos and pictures in regards to events that have passed (i.e. Derek Lowe pumping his fist), this is when he had the winning strike out in the 2003 ALDS. You could make the argument that anything in any "historical" photograph is something that could be skewed to be decorative. Defining this is purely subjective and difficult, if you look at the pictures on V-Day, you can say it is historical. I don't believe that any editor on the English or any language of Wikipedia has an discretion to decide what exactly is historical or relevant enough to show in our articles. Usually, the only people that get upset about fairuse, are Wikipedians themselves. The people that we provide this service to, really don't care about it and just desire to know more, and a picture is a helpful indicator at times of contextualizing and expressing what mere words can't. I hope we can agree to disagree and find a compromise. Best, Yanksox 15:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Easily and quickly deletable, I think. It was uploaded long ago, when I was much less experienced and knowledgable about fair use criteria and so forth. Angmering 20:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice about the two images I uploaded I'll get an admin to look them over and see what course of action they decide. I'll notify you when I do. Don't worry, no hard feelings. Quadzilla99 05:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are only allowed to have one I'd rather have the second so could you move your remarks from the second pic to the first? I'd appreciate that a lot. Quadzilla99 05:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also I asked the flickr user directly whether he took the Horry pic or not on the image's flickr page. Quadzilla99 05:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I responded to your latest comments on my talk page. Quadzilla99 06:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The following images are used to describe living, public people, and are thus don't fall under Wikipedia's fair use policies.

• Image:Jeffjones-mug.PNG
• Image:Seansigletary.PNG
• Image:Daveleitao-mug.PNG

Remember that the criteria isn't whether you can find free alternatives, but whether it's reasonably possible to create free alternatives. And since athletes and coaches regularly appear in public, with printed schedules, Wikipedia considers it reasonably possible to create non-restricted alternatives. -- Mosmof 16:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see what you are getting at as all these pictures were parts of media schedules and promotional materials. They are designed to promote and get the view of these individuals out to the public. As a matter of fact all the ones mentioned were out of printed media schedules.Jazznutuva 16:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am all for changing the picture if it does not follow the rules. It is obviously impossible to "create" (take) a picture of Laettner in that same situation, but if a picture that shows that same shot (the buzzer-beater over U. of Kentucky in the 1992 NCAA Tournament) and is permissible can be found, please use that one instead.

appzter 21:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I presume you are a sock of Badali... have you nothing better to do? Surely you can find something more constructive to do on Wikipedia. Notice how Wikipedia advises against copyright paranoia and stalking users? - Deathrocker 07:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You can stop Wiki-stalking me around Wikipedia and leaving crap on my talkpage[1] now Badali. - Deathrocker 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You are in danger of stalking and copyright paranoia on Wikipedia. Please cease further such action or you may be blocked from editing - Deathrocker 14:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask you a question. If I take an image of a photograph myself does this qualify as fair use on wikipedia as its created by the uploader? E.g if I took a shot of Lineker promotional image edited it a bit and stated created by uploader from original source does this qulaify then as fair use? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I know what fair use is and I agree tha photogrpahs of living people that can be freely created cannot really qualify as fair use. Its a shame that because the person is living that an image cannot really qualify only uder exceptional circumstances. I only asked about the photo because I saw your wording "or by taking a picture of it yourself" and was questioning what you meant. You can delete Lineker I felt it might help wikipedia thats all Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for your concern I will delete the link

-Mrsanitazier 9:39 AM Eastern Time

I notice you have been reverting many of my writeups from New Zealand articles. While I may have not included any cited sources these are things that most people in New Zealand would know so stop editing changes that are true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.169.220.108 (talk • contribs) or —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhowden (talk • contribs)

Please do not revert my Iverson content again. You may dislike that his team's career winning record is ~.500 and that Philadelphia improved its record following his departure but those are the facts. Readers can draw their own conclusions from this data.

Looking over this section, it appears that you have a history of generating conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.199.58 (talk • contribs)

What the hell do you have against me there are hundreds upon hundreds of the same type of pictures from other users that I have not posted. You do have something against me personally, why don't you go bust their balls about it and stop harassing me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Em0909153 (talk • contribs)

Since you are not an admin why would you even care about looking at images. Do you not have anything better to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Em0909153 (talk • contribs)

Some of these so called images that are going to get deleted sooner or later have been up on these certain pages for TWO PLUS years, where were all the times that they were deleted. Thats what I thought. You seriously have no life if your whole life is siting wikipedia policies and living on this site and putting in changes that anyone with a life wouldn't give two hoots about. How about all those people over the past two years for some of the pictures to be deleted. Hmmm, they weren't, seems like your the only one who gives a hoot. You must be pretty lonely to dedicate your life to this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Em0909153 (talk • contribs)

Can you explain why this photo is covered by fairuse? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:262218%7EParis-Hilton-Posters.jpg

SERSeanCrane 07:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

Images are a grey area for me, hope you don't mind if I run this question by you: Would a screen shot of a baseball player taken from live-television be usable on wiki? SERSeanCrane 08:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Oh, and great call with the Buckner ref...made me smile before it made me frown.

All the best, SERSeanCrane 08:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at my talk page (User_talk:SERSeanCrane). It seems I'm being harrased by the same fellow you dealt with above. How do you deal with such things? SERSeanCrane 23:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mosmof. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.