User talk:ELOJeff10538

September 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Egghead06. I noticed that you recently removed content from Rumer (musician) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Egghead06 (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rumer (musician), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Assertion that artist wants image removed would need some verification otherwise it is just your personal choice to delete. Egghead06 (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect the artists wishes and remove this photo. Please do not re-add it. You are causing upset.

Please please could you put the picture back that I uploaded.

I have amended its description to the best of my ability. Thanks. ELOJeff10538 (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should edit very carefully when doing so at the request of a subject[edit]

Hello, ELOJeff10538. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Rumer (musician), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please please can you use a different photo for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELOJeff10538 (talk • contribs)

Which free image are you suggesting we use? —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Rumer (musician), you may be blocked from editing. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not vandalism! It is about consideration and respect. This issue is is now to be addressed via other means. Thank you.

Meaning, you're going to suggest some acceptable free images at the article's talk page and see if other editors agree that they're good replacements? —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please C.Fred if that is what is required. Thanks for your help.

That is what is required, but you didn't do that. Instead you grabbed an image from your pintrest collection and uploaded it without any other information. I appreciate that you and the artist might prefer to see a different image but this has to be copyright free. At Commons they will need to see prove of origin to establish that it is free. This is the reason why it was removed. And note that when it is uploaded anyone can re-use it. Please discuss what images you have on the Talk page and I am sure editors are happy to help. However, do not add any further images without any discussion. Karst (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its my picture! I am happy for anyone to use it. I really don't understand what you are on about. I have edited my photo to say as much as I can. The artist hates the picture that is currently loaded and keeps being put up and asked me if I could help. All I did was load my own picture that I own is mine and is free for anyone to use, I don't mind. This nonsense about constantly removing my own picture and loading it with the one that should be deleted is causing stress and upset. How can I offer proof of origin. It has been on my own personal Facebook profile page for 2.5 years or more now since I took it at a concert on 23 Feb 2015, and also on my own Pinterest and Instagram profiles. I TOOK THIS PHOTOGRAPH, I edited afterwards and cropped it to produce the final image. What do you need a signed certificate from myself??? It was also used by the artist on her own official Facebook Page which has 68,000 approx followers. And credited to me. What sort of proof do you need. PLEASE HELP ME put it back!! I don't know how to discuss this on the Talk Page as I really don't know what this is. And I am going around in circles. All I wanted to do was put a nicer picture up that I know the artist likes. Please if you are an expert could you help load my picture back to the Rumer page as I am about to give up, and feel very unfairly treated by this crazy process and legalese that I do not understand and in my view is totally un-necessary. I am donating my picture for free, for all, I don't mind if anyone reuses it etc etc. Surely it is copyright free if I own it and am happy for it to be so. That's all I want to do. Thanks so much. ELOJeff10538 (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing. It would be very easy for somebody to create a new account, grab a picture from an artist's website, and say "He really doesn't like the image on his page; put this one up instead, it's mine." We have no way to verify your claims just based on you logging in. That's why the ticket systems exist: it gives a way to make contact via email, which is a little more secure, to verify the credentials of the uploader and the license terms of the image. Cumbersome? Yes, but necessary to prevent abuse. If you're really editing at the artist's request, you should appreciate the lengths we go through to guard against misuse of copyrighted materials, since musicians make their livings off of copyright. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes all points taken, just seems overly complex over a simple photo. The main thing here is removing the image that isn't wanted to be honest. Can this be done by yourself at all as you are an experienced editor? You know; based on all these copyright points being made it seemed easier to me to choose a simple photo that I own and thus I knew would not be subject to copyright and I that took that I know Rumer liked from the time, to replace one that I know she really doesn't. All this is great but it over rides her personal wishes to have the existing photo removed. Such a shame. Anyway. I have emailed wiki commons copyright to have my photo approved but how do I get to re-add it now after that assuming all goes well with that? Thanks again for your help with this apparent utter minefield. ELOJeff10538 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't wanted by whom? By some random editor? No, the image will not be changed by your whim but after the community reaches a consensus.

And if the artist really wanted the image changed, a simple solution is for her to release a new image under a free license. Then there'd be no question of provenance. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained this and made it clear, it is not my whim. It now seems to be your (equally random) whim to now be completely obstructive . Which is just adding insult to injury and is very sadly compounding an issue that elsewhere we seemed to be moving forward on. And yes, I am sure that releasing a "new image under a free license" would be very easy to do, but sadly amending Wikipedia to add such a thing is made impossible by others here. Such a terribly unfortunate way to carry on. ELOJeff10538 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Just provide a link to the official page containing both the new image and a statement that it is released under a free license such as CC BY-SA 4.0. If you get to that point, I can get the image uploaded and in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks C.Fred. I'd really appreciate that. Really kind of you if we get to that point, that's super, thanks. In the meantime while I wait for formal approval, as a reminder here is the link on Wiki Commons to my image that I was trying to use. Hope that helps. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rumer at the Warwick Arts Centre, 23 February 2015.jpg ELOJeff10538 (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Rumer (musician).

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. The original image stays until the consensus is resolved - FlightTime (open channel) 00:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you are mistaken, having gained permission to use this photograph via editor Guanaco I am not in dispute with anyone. I also have clearance now from a copyright perspective to use this photo via wiki commons case Ticket#2017092410012304 . With ref to your advice about poor quality image I can try and higher res version of the same one ELOJeff10538 (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you have copyright clearance does not mean that a consensus exists to change the image. You must discuss the image at the article's talk page, and the image will only be changed after a consensus emerges that the new image is better than the old. —C.Fred (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doing that now. It seems that new Image A may now at last be getting a green light - can this be swapped yet? ELOJeff10538 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]