"

First, I'd like to thank you for discussing this issue with me.  You could just have told me to take a hike or something.  Anyway, let's take a look at Image:Esquire Jennifer Connelly 1991 8.jpg, the Jennifer Connelly picture that I tagged today.  The image was moved to the infobox this morning which means that it was not being used according to the license.  It was instead being used specifically to depict Connelly, not in context of discussing that particular issue of the magazine.  That's why I tagged that image.  With the image moved back to the paragraph concerning the issue of the magazine, a compelling argument could be made that the image is now being used in accord with the license.  This seems to be the consensus of the people on the discussion page as well, though the discussion just started.  So, whether or not this image is fair-use depends on how it is used in the article.  I am much happier if this is spelled out in a rationale on the image page.  That the license specifically states that a detailed fair-use rationale should be added seems, to me, to support this contention.  In this case, the rationale would be simple, something along the lines of, ""used to depict issue of magazine in question in paragraph which discusses this issue, not solely to depict Connelly.""  Now, I previously mentioned that the image description page specifically mentions that the dvdcover requires a detailed rationale.  In many cases, the fair-use case is obvious.  It's a DVD cover used to illustrate the particular DVD in question.  But the image description page and the license text both still indicate that the rationale is required.  Also, what often ends up happening is that the DVD image then gets used to depict something outside of the license.  A DVD of a movie starring Connelly, for example, used solely to illustrate what Connelly looks like.
Now, I've been using the fair-use-disputed tag for quite some time but recently, people have been correcting that to the missing-rationale tag, so I just started using that.  This has the added advantage of requiring that the issue be resolved in short order and providing a simple copy-and-paste official warning template which can be used (and is specifically designed) to warn the person who uploaded the image.
I am concerned that a great number of images on Wikipedia are used in blatant violation of copyright.  This is clear and I doubt anyone would debate it.  As a result, I personally do request that people who upload copyrighted images provide an accurate source, an accurate license, and a detailed fair-use rationale.  In all honesty, I'm quite happy with any reasonable attempt at a fair-use rationale and accept many that I believe fall far short of what Wikipedia officially requests.  I believe it is important to deal with images without sufficient information because continuing to accept images which may violate copyright put us at direct risk.  It may be obvious to the uploader why an image is fair-use but we may not be able to contact the uploader when we are sued.  And as I mentioned before, I believe both the license and image description help page specifically require this.
Now that I have stated my point and you have stated your point, there's a very good chance that we aren't going to agree.  I'm happy to request additional help, perhaps from the admin noticeboard policies page, if you think this would be productive.   

 Jennifer_Connelly 

There is a discussion of the fair use assertment of an image going on for this page.  Your comments on the talk page would be much appreciated. note:This message has been sent to all recent registered editors of the article, less vandal fighters —  Talk 

 Reversions 
Hey, every place I've contributed, everything reverted. I spent a lot of time making contributions and you went and reverted everything. A whole bunch of stuff. It looks like you may have just pressed an undo button of everything I did because there's no basis of reverting it. This stuff I'm looking at is not vandalism at all. Without getting all the information to figure out if I was a sockpuppet, you not only blocked me but reverted all of my edits to? I can't even go back and change it because I would be changing a lot of work other writers have done here at wikipedia too. And it would be like doing what you did to me, to others. No offense or anything, but a good administrator looks into a situation without taking sides. I've basically wasted a lot of time here because of all the reversions on top of being accused of bei