User talk:Propol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Propol (talk | contribs) at 21:54, 20 March 2007 (Yes I will remove it as I please. First off you're an obvious sock of User:Joehazelton and you're about to blocked again. Besides the post was a personal attack and violated Wikipedia policy.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi.

Welcome

Hello Propol, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! Alphachimp talk 18:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting help
Getting along
Getting technical

roskam

Hi Propol,

I'm wondering why you oppose adding the Josh Marshall text to the Roskam article. Feel free to reply here — goethean ॐ 18:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Roskam

I was asked, as I set out, in a bit more detail, at Talk:Peter Roskam, to act as an advocate for Joehazelton relative to the Roskam article, and I have attempted to delineate precisely those issues about which Joe is concerned and to frame several questions rather clearly in order that a focused discussion might be undertaken. On Joe's behalf, and in view of my appreciation for the advancement of the project, I'd ask that, at your leisure, you offer your views at the Roskam talk page. Thanks very kindly in advance! Joe 05:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a response at Talk:Peter Roskam. Thanks. Propol 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my ill-made link. I have since learned how to do it correctly.Arcayne 08:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Arcayne, with your enthusiasm, I'm sure you'll become a very good editor. Propol 15:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your ANI posting

Propol, I've responded to your ANI posting. I hope both parties will be open to dispute resolution and that both of the articles will become balanced. — ERcheck (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reponse. I also provided an update there. Propol 15:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moving this conversation from ANI to your talk page. On blogs — Can you verify that the Zorn blog does have editorial oversight/fact checking? While I do agree that a Chicago Tribune columnist is likely a reliable source, the distinction between blogs may be a difficult argument to make when you are trying to convince other editors. — ERcheck (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

email

Propol, could you send your email address here? — goethean ॐ 20:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Salvi Roskam Maher.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Salvi Roskam Maher.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. rogerd 01:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a response on the talk page for image itself. I think there is a template already specified (newspapercover). It was used under fair use, with a copyright held by the Chicago Tribune. I also provided the original source link. Please help me retain this image. I have attempted to follow all of the rules. Am I missing something? Thanks. Propol 04:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that an anonymous editor removed your tag the day after you uploaded it [1]. I have restored your original text and tag. However, I am not sure that this use qualifies under fair use criteria. Wikipedia is very strict about the use of fair use content, to avoid legal problems for the foundation. According to that criteria, fair use images can be allowed for various reasons, the applicable one for this case is likely: "Other promotional material. Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary." My understanding is that by critical commentary, it means that they are referring to criticism of the content of the ad itself. As I understanding it, your use of the image is to illustrate that one of the attorneys in the ad, who is also a politician, is a personal injury lawyer. I don't think that qualifies.
To give you an example of how strict this fair use policy is, the Peyton Manning article is not allowed to show a Sports Illustrated cover that features Manning's photo, because it not used for critical commentary of the image itself. I know it sounds silly, but that is apparently how it works.
Another thing that I noticed, is that the link you provided is no longer active, so it is no longer verifiable. Perhaps you can see if the Chicago Tribune moved the image to another URL, or perhaps they removed it because they considered it to be a copyright violation. I hope this helps. --rogerd 05:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rogerd, thanks for your response, and I understand your point. However, I do still think the picture qualifies under fair use. The advertisement itself (not just Roskam) was the subject of an article in the Chicago Tribune. Here's a link to the article, including the picture in question. Thanks. Propol 16:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<indent reset>
Actually, that is a different version of an ad for the same law firm. In this situation, I believe, the copyright is not held by the newspaper, but the law firm that paid the newspaper to publish the ad. And you must state the fair use criteria you are using:

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

You must state the fair use rationale for each article you include, i.e.:

== Fair use for [[ARTICLE NAME]] ==
# rationale #1
# rationale #2
# etc....

Again, I apologize if this seems like a lot of hoops to jump through, but wikipedia has a rather strict interpretation of the fair use laws. --rogerd 17:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Greetings, in reviewing the Peter Roskam article, I saw the ad for Mr. Roskams Law firm and wonder if Propol has recived permission to put it up in wikipedia by either the Chicago Tribune and Roskams Law Firm. If said permission is not obtained, and since this ad seems not to fall under fair use, I feel that this Image, per stated Wikipedia policy regarding image copyright should be removed, forth with, from the Wikipedia image database. Thanks. 69.220.184.132 23:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image is listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 September 15/Images. I don't feel that I am enough of an authority on copyright and fair use issues to say whether or not this image is legitimate fair use and who holds the copyright, but perhaps someone more experienced can help clarify this. --rogerd 01:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rios-montt-weller.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Rios-montt-weller.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok ☠ 00:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

Your user page seems to get vandalized a lot. Would you like me (or any other admin) to semi-protect it for you? It would stop anonymous (IP) and new (user id's less than 4 days old) from editing your user page. We can do it to your user talk page also, if you like, but it would keep anon and new users from communicating with you. --rogerd 03:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rogerd, I would appreciate it if you would semi-protect my user page and my talk page. It has gotten out of hand lately. Thanks. Propol 04:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done --rogerd 15:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Propol 00:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roskam Part Deux

What a mess, eh?  :-( --BenBurch 05:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an indefinitely banned user Joehazelton that has used so many sock puppets on the article that I can't even count. You should take a look at his user page. I wonder if this Dino is a friend / meatpuppet. I honestly want a high qaulity article for Peter Roskam, that means adding the positive and negative as long as there are reliable sources. It's obviously not easy with some people. Propol 06:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reverts

You have separately reverted all four of my edits to Peter Roskam in a 30 minute period. I would appreciate it if you self-reverted back. Thanks! --Tbeatty 05:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit we have been butting heads a bit today, but my edits have been made in good faith. I assume yours have too. Also, I have not reverted all of your edits. I agreed with your deletion of Bob Kerrey's quote about the VFW endorsement. I have also tried to explain my thinking in the edit summaries. I promise that I will work with you if you cooperate with me. Thanks. Propol 05:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I put my concerns on the talk page as the edit summaries are a bit small to make good justifications. Please read through them and comment. thanks! --Tbeatty 05:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Government Source

Hello Propol! I noticed you have reverted my edit in Jan Schakowsky, the reason you stated was "personal site, not reliable information. However, the fact is Govtrack is indeed a reliable source on tracking Congressional record, and is even featured here in US Department of Labor. Please reconsider your deletion of legitimate materials. Thank you! Wooyi 17:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the Govtrack website:
This site was created by Joshua Tauberer in 2004. I'm a graduate student studying linguistics. GovTrack isn't affiliated with the government or any other group. It's just a pet project of mine.
After having reviewed the site, I believe there is some interesting information there, but I remain uncomfortable that it qualifies as a reliable source. As best as I can tell, there is no editorial review, peer review, or fact checking. Also, the information you included would qualify as original research until it is published elsewhere. Propol 04:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Propol&oldid=116631477"