G'day Christiano,
From: Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au G'day Christiano, What sort of thing? Edit warring over infoboxen?
There are circumstances where edit-war-like behaviour is justified. Reverting vandalism, for example. Not silly infoboxen. Heck, even if it's a banned user, rather than edit-war you're better off blocking the user (or getting someone else to block him).
What's the rush to get your version to the top? It's a bloody infobox, not tubgirl.
Now see ANI.
I've seen it. Okay, so the chap isn't a random IP but is in fact NewYork1956.
So, explain again why it's justified to deliberately engage in edit warring? Is it because you're the good guy and he's not? I think I've seen this reasoning before.
Actually, there are possibly more problems with this particular infobox than I thought, let alone wider issues. For starters, the time given for when he was active contradicts the article, and Grove, when I check that. Then again we have redundany: if you're going to describe him as an opera singer, then obviously he sang opera, you don't need to state that twice.
Assume for the moment that I agree with you that the infobox is
a) crap b) inappropriate
How does this agreement make one iota of difference?
Then the image is fair use, which I'm just a bit iffy about. Can someone advise me as to the copyright status of that?
The image is iffy, though no iffier than many others we've happily ignored (for now). A source would be nice. I'd prefer to see it gone.
Someone with more (much more) knowledge of copyright issues could give you a better answer. Greg?