User talk:Seresin/Archive 26

I don't agree with your deletion of this image. There was no consensus to delete it and the arguments of the pro-delete people are flawed. They keep repeating the same questions when it is already answered. There is no free image available and mugshots provided by the police are in the public domain. - DonCalo (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is Public Domain? Then why did you append a fair use rationale? ÷seresin 23:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, than we can restore it and give at PD tag. - DonCalo (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's not how it works. You can't just retcon it into being PD. ÷seresin 20:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This question of original research, if your saying wikipedia is a copy of something written elsewhere then Film and TV becomes very difficult when being a visual medium sometimes it is not written down but can only be cited from youtube or somewhere else. Do other websites count such as IMDB or as in QoS it's defunct official website or a website that has transcrpits of episodes? How would you cite [1] as an example? The whole popular culture section on Zorro and other Film and TV pages would be original resaerch. The QoS and Zorro are inextricably linked, more so than any other item in that section, but it is difficult to find written proof to cite. How is Texas Tech and his image justified when the official Zorro site ignores him [2]? please have a look at the links as I edit mainly in TV programs and on some pretty obscure/old ones at that and tell me how to do it better.REVUpminster (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I have no idea what you just wrote. Please re-phrase. ÷seresin 23:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have the casting vote re the deletion of File:Queen of Swords.jpg as the paragraph it alludes to is original research. I only contributed part of the paragraph but what is original research? If I want to write an article on George Washington and go to the library and copy from a book, but cite it as a reference, is that original research?

An example from TV would be the recent Torchwood series shown over 5 nights in the UK and US. Within hours of each episode being aired there was a plot synopsis that could have only been written by someone watching it and then writing it up. Is that original research?

My problem is how do you cite youtube or another website when it is the only source and not be accused of original research?

How does Texas Tech image survive on the Popular culture section or any of the numerous paragraphs? I justified the image by the fact that the official Zorro website used the wikpedia section, but not Texas Tech, on their own site[3].

Do you believe wikiepedia should have no images?REVUpminster (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations of reliable, third-party observers noting the similarities are required to be not original research. ÷seresin 20:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed any of my questions. what do you consider not original research. The whole of wikipedia is original research if no original thought is allowed.REVUpminster (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I told you what does not constitute original research in this context. If you require further explanation, we have a policy page about it. ÷seresin 00:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that you removed from this article an image from the film ET, which constitutes probably the best-known silhouette image from any modern movie. It is the perfect example of the use of silhouette in motion pictures. How do you justify its removal, and with what do you propose replacing it? Amandajm (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image was absolutely not required to understand a silhouette. Per our Nonfree content policy, if that is the case, no FU images are justified. So I do not intend to replace it. ÷seresin 20:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The username policy applies equally to signatures; "These criteria apply to both usernames and signatures. Remember that the purpose of your username and your signature is to identify you as a contributor. If your username or signature is unnecessarily confusing, editors may request that you change it." Why did you remove my RFC/Username for Evosoho? Gigs (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of RFC/Username is narrow: to provide feedback on whether a username violates our username policy. It is not for discussing signatures. It is as simple as that. ÷seresin 19:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that reflects consensus. I've brought it up here Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Scope_of_RFC.2FUsername. Gigs (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Seresin. The changes had been discussed briefly before, but nothing had come of them. Earlier today Ragesoss gave the go-ahead to move the Planning Room to the Newsroom and build everything internal around that central page. You caught me halfway through the changes, so things are still slightly up in the air. The only page I've added is to split off the article resources; could you link me to the pages with overlapping roles? Thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 01:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand your concerns now. Thanks! Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom has been effectively relocated to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom, as it was the hub of activity anyway. I've now set the old Planning Room to redirect there. Is there anything else you think would be worth updating/fixing at the moment? Pretzels^Talk! 02:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why it is beneficial to move the resources to another page, since the page isn't crowded. I don't use them, however, so it's not that big of a deal. ÷seresin 02:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]