User talk:Pereza

Welcome!

Hello, Pereza, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me or a helper Commander Keane on our talk page. Again, welcome!

If you want to tell me something or if you just want to say hi, leave your message under the Talk Section of | My Talk Page

Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 23:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this for all your kick-ass work on martial-arts related articles! Andeh 13:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Theory and Technique[edit]

I'm not so sure that listing a book's contents (or even listing a book without reference to it's significance) is appropriate content for wikipedia, perhaps you should reconsider the content of this article. Senordingdong 21:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See The Canon Of Judo to see where I'm headed on this article. To me, it's primarily a "Judo List", just like List of Kodokan Judo techniques or Lists of Danzan Ryu. If you take out the description of each technique in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Theory and Technique, there is only 30 pages of actual text. As for the significance of a book published in 2001 :-?? A search of www.amazon.com and www.bn.com shows it to be the earliest book on BJJ available, at least at those sites. Try to create a BJJ list of techniques, you'll run into the problem I ran into, the reason I then did Kodokan first, and how I may try to integrate everything toguether. If there's anything else you want to say about the book, go ahead. Maybe I should tack on "stub"?

Disputed fair use images[edit]

I am writing to dispute the fair use rationale that you have provided for a lot of martial arts related images that you have uploaded, taken from one or more copyrighted films.

Fair use covers only the use of the images for identification and critical analysis of the film itself, not using them to demonstrate martial arts techniques. This might include at most one or two images in an article about the film itself, if it is notable enough to warrant one. I think the places where this can be most clearly seen is in Wikipedia:Fair Use#Counterexamples, as well as in the text of the {{Film-screenshot}} template that you have added to them.

This notice relates to the images listed below. You will notice that I have already tagged them as disputed fair use on the description pages, although in one case the image had already been tagged by another user. [1]

Please note that under the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, section I7 (images and media, rule 7):

Media that fail any part of the fair use criteria and were uploaded after 13 July 2006 may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader.

and all these media were uploaded after 13 July 2006 (the earliest was on 8 August 2006). This therefore gives you 48 hours from date of this message until the images may be deleted by an administrator. If they can justifiably be retagged with a free license, then please could you do so within this time, providing appropriate justification on the image description pages.

Many thanks, Arbitrary username 08:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents" in {{Film-screenshot}} includes identification and critical commentary of the techniques covered by the film, its contents. BTW, we are talking about a freely available/dowloadable MP4 file providing content that is not easily replaceable. --Pereza 14:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple comments about this.

Firstly, no it does have to be about the film. Have you looked at Wikipedia:Fair use? In particular, in the "Acceptable Use" section, images subsection, you'll see Film and television screen shots. For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television, and also the counterexamples section which I already linked to is full of examples showing how exactly the sort of use we have here does not come under Fair Use.
You referred to the "its contents" bit of "the film and its contents" in {{Film-screenshot}}. But it is not talking about "its contents" in isolation from the film itself, and this becomes obvious if you understand the tag in the context of the policy (which in turn will have been written with the ultimate aim of ensuring that users and the Wikimedia Foundation don't get successfully sued). With this in mind, let me try to explain with further examples of what "its contents" could and could not include. Suppose that you were writing an article about the film, and that (totally hypothetically) you had a quote from the IJF President endorsing or criticizing the demonstration of o-uchi-gari as contained in the film, which you wanted to include in the article. You might then under fair use be able to include alongside it the relevant screenshot from the film. You would be using it for critical commentary on the film and its contents. But you couldn't use it in a separate article on o-uchi-gari which wasn't really about the film at all.
You refer to the file as "freely available/downloadable", but I think all you actually mean by that is that it has been published on the web. The default status for material published on the web is that it is copyrighted. There is no legal freedom to copy and redistribute that content, even though you may download it and copying it is physically possible. If, on the other hand, the site where it was published included terms and conditions which licensed copying and redistribution under terms which are compatible with the license used on Wikipedia, e.g. public domain or GFDL, (and had the authority to do so), then we'd be in a position to retag the images and use them on that basis rather than relying on Fair Use. But I don't see anything that says this, and if it does then it's up to you, the uploader, to provide evidence of this.
You refer to "content which is not easily replaceable". I take your point on this, and you'll see in the Fair Use policy that the lack of a free equivalent is a necessary condition, but it isn't a sufficient condition.

Sorry to put a dampener on this because I see you've put a lot of work into splicing the film into sections to demonstrate the different techniques, but unfortunately we really can't just take whatever material we feel like from the web, use it however want on Wikipedia, and have it stand up in court. Regards,Arbitrary username 17:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pics are obvious fair use as I explain in Image_talk:Ej_km_morote-gari_11313-11375.gif, well based on the four pillars. The link to Wikipedia:Fair use is a lot better than a link to the the Library Of Congress, but can you be more specific? Your tag complains the articles are not about the film, and now you are saying it does not have to be about the film. To me, your verbosity seems more an exercise in arguing "Black is White". --Pereza 14:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have said what I want to already, and will now leave the decision to whichever administrators choose to review CSD nominations (which I intend to make after the 48 hours elapses if the images are still tagged as fair use by then), or failing 'speedy' deletions then to the community consensus in an IFD debate. Arbitrary username 22:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you for not saying more, since I'm not chasing arguments around. --Pereza 17:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged these for speedy deletion, and you will see that an admin has agreed with me and deleted the images now. I seriously considered putting in their place links to the video on Google Video, with accompanying text telling people what time offset to look at for each technique, as in principle we can still link to copyrighted material. However, this is on the important condition that the site that we link to is not violating someone else's copyright (see WP:C#Linking to copyrighted works). In the case of the video as it appears on Google Video, I am not convinced of this. The last few frames of the video display the message "All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, public performance and broadcasting of these DVD programs prohibited. QUEST" (and the preceding frames give a web address http://www.queststation.com/.) Also the video is sold commercially for US$50, not just the distribution costs. The Google Videos content has every appearance of being an unauthorized copy that someone has just ripped off a DVD, and I think that before we create any links to it we would need good reason to believe that it is properly authorized. Arbitrary username 10:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No point arguing about fair use since power as spoken (regardless of my opinion of the logic). Before I uploaded the pics, I contacted judoinfo.com, and they seem to think the film's copyright is expired. I tried contacting Quest, queststation.com, which is a Japanese firm, and got no response.

Ooops, just noticed I misread "Firstly, no it does have to be about the film." I can be dislexic in speed reading. Sorry about that, you were not waffling.

Well, if material is actually out of copyright, then it can be uploaded as public domain, and the material is then usable at will without having to satisfy fair use criteria. But in this case, it appears to still be in copyright. Japan copyright law#Length of protection says that cinematograhic works are protected for 70 years, and this page says that it was filmed in 1948. Arbitrary username 22:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Gjb rg elbow-escape 89103-89443.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Gjb rg elbow-escape 89103-89443.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judo Techniques[edit]

Hi there, I've been going through the unassessed martial arts project articles, and noticed that many of them are judo technique articles that could only really be classified as stubs since many don't really describe the technique at all - and many originally created by yourself. So I thought I'd contact you with a broad idea for improvement. I think that many of these articles could be combined together into broader articles for example "Judo Hip Throws" allowing the definition of what makes a throw a "hip throw" can be done once, then if a technique has enough material to justify a separate article then that could be done. Drop me a line if you want to discuss this further and we'll bring the rest of the MA wikiproject community in for opinions. -- Medains 09:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now brought this up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_Arts, so pop your opinion there if you see this before any action is taken. Medains 18:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the technique stubs are virtually worthless without illustrations. I don't think I have anythinkg else to offer. I'm out. --Pereza 16:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Seoi otoshi[edit]

The article Seoi otoshi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article cites no sources and is not written like an article. Has two links to sites without much context, one of which is dead.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. bop34 • talk • contribs 18:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]