Talk:AK1200

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

Untitled[edit]

I should probably disambiguate Aphrodite in this article--yet I notice that the article Madonna deals with the musician as well as the religious figure. Any suggestions on how to proceed? --KQ 11:27 Sep 4, 2002 (PDT)

They probably both need disambiguation. Eclecticology

Ok this is stating my intention to remove these photographs, apparently i'm not following rad man's procedure by removing obviously TERRIBLE pictures that INCLUDE THE PERSON WHO'S POSTING THEM posing with "celebrities".

please give your arguments here for not removing them. otherwise, they will be removed. Themindset 02:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

updated pic with OFFICIAL promo shot. Themindset 19:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not unilaterally remove photographs[edit]

If you disagree with the pics of notable DJs and musicians contributed by Alkivar, please refer to the talk page and discuss your proposed changes. Do not unilaterally remove photographs from articles. —RaD Man (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have, and I've gotten a third opinion, which is clearly in favor of me. Not only that, but I have NO DOUBT that the broad majority of wikipedians would agree with my assessment of those pics. They are awful. Themindset 22:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your "third opinion" would sure hold more weight if it came from someone with more than 4 edits to Wikipedia. Sorry. The reason that these photographs are beneficial is that they depict a musician at a musical festival and are released as GFDL or Public Domain by the author. There are no rights issues for Wikipedia to be concerned about down the road with these photos; the same cannot be said for something which might better suit your personal tastes pulled off the internet as "fair use". Move along. —RaD Man (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have the right to unilaterally judge someone's "worthiness" to give a third opinion. I have followed procedure. Additionally, I have contacts with most of these artists from my days as a promoter and have contacted them for pics to be released for use on Wikipedia. You cannot unilaterally decide to go against THIRD OPINION. You need to make an RFC. Themindset 17:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the picture issue, Alkivar has mentioned that he wouldn't be averse to you photoshopping him out of the picture. Other people have done it in other pictures and he was fine with it. CryptoDerk 00:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Although the presence of the poster in the pics is the worst part, there's also the significant fact that the pics themselves are terrible, not "encyclopedic" quality by any stretch. Themindset 04:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To compromise, I am leaving some of your changes as-is, with the exception (for now) of AK1200. Generally speaking, it is much better to use images from the Public Domain rather than something copyrighted, especially when baring in mind that there may/will be an English Wikipedia DVD released soon (just as hard copies of the German Wikipedia [1] are already available on Amazon.de), giving special consideration to potential licensing issues. I hope you understand. —RaD Man (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i receive those pics from their respective agents. we have permission. i'm changing AK1200 back, it is more appropriate. i don't understand you, i really really don't. Themindset 06:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
additionally, i find your entire attitude distinctly distasteful. you indirectly insult me with terms like "sockpuppet", and you use passive aggressive phrasing like "I am leaving some of your changes as-is"... the changes i have made are all clearly better pictures, pictures that both fans and the artists would prefer to see. why oh why, mr radman, do you insist so consistently on promoting mediocrity? Themindset 06:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That the AK1200 image you've uploaded is "clearly better" is a matter of personal opinion, one which I disagree with. The one you have uploaded is fuzzy, the one that Alkivar uploaded is crisp and sharp in detail. The one that you uploaded is verifiably copyrighted, the one that Alkivar uploaded is released into the public domain. The choice is pretty clear. —RaD Man (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe this is a disagreement. We have a wikipedian who has put a picture of himself in at least a dozen articles (incidentily, mostly articles that relate to a style of music and community that I'm affiliated with) - this is not acceptable. But not only that, but you've insisted in the past that I find better pics. WELL I GOT THESE PICS FROM THE ARTISTS AND THEIR AGENTS. The copyright has been released for promotional purposes! Do you think that other wikipedians in other styles of music, or even other areas of interest, would tolerate someone putting themselves in all kinds of pictures? Why don't I go take a picture of myself standing in front of the eifel tower and put that on the Eiffel Tower page? Why don't I take a picture of myself next to Céline Dion and put that on the Céline Dion page? Those pics wouldn't last long - for the same reasons why these pics of Alkivar with all these drum n bass DJs have to go. They are not in the spirit of Wiki. Themindset 15:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Although I do not know any of the users involved in this dispute, I would like to work to raise the quality of the drum and bass entries on the Wikipedia. Regarding the pictures, the frequent inclusion of one user in so many of the pictures looks like self-promotion, whether it is or not, and should therefore be jettisoned in favour of the promotional photos of the artists available from their websites.
Also, the quality of some of these articles reflects badly on the scene as a whole (this is not directed at any particular user) - Wikipedia does not function as a reference tool if articles on major musical figures omit biographical details in favour of assessment of their performances. The Grooverider article was lacking in this area.Will Lakeman 16:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For additional reasons why the perfectly fine public domain version of AK1200 should remain in lieu of the copyrighted one, please refer to Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0. —RaD Man (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For reasons why the Alkivar shot is not fine for wikipedia, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox , specifically item 6 of the soapbox section. Themindset 04:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, promotional shots are released to be used in magazines (also sold for profit), I don't see this as controverting the ideals of the wiki. How is this different to the plethora of fan pages which feature promotional shots? Perhaps we can find another photo of AK1200 which doesn't feature a wikipedian? Also, are they not going to just remove the bulk of teh hots for the dvd release? Thanks illWill 20:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that comment wasn't very clear. What I mean is, I don't understand the problem with the AK1200 promotional shot - there are many page to do with creative works (Star wars for example) which carry stills from the products in question. illWill 21:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand what you are saying. My point is that in the interest of the DVD production a public domain photograph is (obviously) better than one which is clearly copyrighted. —RaD Man (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see that, although if this is so important I can't see why it hasn't been applied to most other musical artists - most sites contain similar promotional shots, and big artists are more likely to be litigious than Drum and Bass DJs. Also, the problem is the same user appearing in so many shots - people have been talking about it outside Wikipedia, and negatively. Althought the effort of a user uploading so many shots is certiainly appreciated, it will be seen as self-promotion. illWill 02:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is no longer an issue as User:Themindset has systematically and unilaterally removed any and all photographs of celebrities where Alkivar appears in the frame. In the case of the AK1200 photo, the shot taken by Alkivar is of superior quality, hence the reason why it stays. —RaD Man (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If a single user inserts so many photos of themself in articles across a single genre, then this may become an issue for fans of this genre. Other, larger, musical genres do not have similar issues as the photos would be edited either to remove the user or removed very quickly - however the style of these shots makes them difficult to do so.
If there is a precedent in other musical genres for the removal of such photos, please link to it. Or a precedent for photos containing the user. Otherwise, if the user is not willing to crop himself out of the shot, there should be no photo at all. illWill 02:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did not unilaterally remove the photographs. I made a request for third opinion as well as an RFC on the subject. Several users have commented at this point, and consensus has been clear. On this talk page, as well as my talk page. And once that was done, I replaced the photographs with superior fair use promo shots. Themindset 03:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't feel that the Alkivar/AK1200 shot is superior. AK1200's hand is blocking the view of his own face, the lighting is brightest on said hand, and he has his tongue out. Although the promo shot is intentionally slightly fuzzy, it is clearly a professionally framed shot (as opposed to a camera being held by someone in the shot). Themindset 03:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Radman1 please stop reverting the picture. At this point several people have spoken out, you are disregarding the opinions given in this talk page by continuing to revert the picture. Themindset 15:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

radman1 & Alkivar conflict of interst[edit]

this quote is taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/RaD_Man :

Keep RaD Man was one of the most influential artists of the text art scene. Not only is ACiD Productions the oldest ASCII/ANSI group still around, it is the best known. RaD Man FOUNDED this group. Reason enough in my mind anyway for him to remain. Alkivar 01:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe this shows at least some conflict of interest. Combined with a general consensus expressed here against the Alkivar photo, I would ask that radman1 please respect the decision here reached, and stop reverting the photo. Themindset 15:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This has no baring on the validity of my argument that a perfectly fine *public domain* photograph which is of better quality than the copyrighted one you keep reverting to is better suited for this article. —RaD Man (talk) 02:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't all the opinions expressed have any baring? Themindset 03:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Surely. But in the interest of Wikipedia, if a public domain photograph exists which can be used in lieu of a copyrighted one (especially a lower-quality copyrighted one), we should use it. —RaD Man (talk) 03:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Therefore, "in the interest of Wikipedia", you're allowed to over-rule everyone else? Themindset 03:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PROMOSHOT FROM http://www.planetofthedrums.com/[edit]

http://www.planetofthedrums.com/

Added, sharp, nice, and we have permission. Themindset 03:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) Looks good to me. Too bad it is copyrighted as well. —RaD Man (talk) 08:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

This article is not neutral. It contains peacock words like "prominent" and puffery phrases like "just about every". I also smell delusions of grandeur:"credited for helping to increase the popularity of".

Added {{neutrality}} template. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Johnvr4 (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AK1200&oldid=1197148201"