First Id like to thank you for discussing this issue with me  You could just have told me to take a hike or something  Anyway lets take a look at ImageEsquire Jennifer Connelly 1991 8jpg 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  Thats 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 fairuse 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 fairuse 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 fairuse case is obvious  Its 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 likeNow Ive been using the fairusedisputed tag for quite some time but recently people have been correcting that to the missingrationale 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 copyandpaste official warning template which can be used and is specifically designed to warn the person who uploaded the imageI 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 fairuse rationale  In all honesty Im quite happy with any reasonable attempt at a fairuse 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 fairuse 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 thisNow that I have stated my point and you have stated your point theres a very good chance that we arent going to agree  Im happy to request additional help perhaps from the admin noticeboard policies page if you think this would be productive    JenniferConnelly 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 noteThis message has been sent to all recent registered editors of the article less vandal fighters   Talk  Reversions Hey every place Ive 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 theres no basis of reverting it This stuff Im 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 cant 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 Ive basically wasted a lot of time here because of all the reversions on top of being accused of bei

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
First Id like to thank you for discussing this issue with me  You could just have told me to take a hike or something  Anyway lets take a look at ImageEsquire Jennifer Connelly 1991 8jpg 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  Thats 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 fairuse 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 fairuse 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 fairuse case is obvious  Its 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 likeNow Ive been using the fairusedisputed tag for quite some time but recently people have been correcting that to the missingrationale 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 copyandpaste official warning template which can be used and is specifically designed to warn the person who uploaded the imageI 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 fairuse rationale  In all honesty Im quite happy with any reasonable attempt at a fairuse 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 fairuse 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 thisNow that I have stated my point and you have stated your point theres a very good chance that we arent going to agree  Im happy to request additional help perhaps from the admin noticeboard policies page if you think this would be productive    JenniferConnelly 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 noteThis message has been sent to all recent registered editors of the article less vandal fighters   Talk  Reversions Hey every place Ive 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 theres no basis of reverting it This stuff Im 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 cant 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 Ive basically wasted a lot of time here because of all the reversions on top of being accused of bei

