User talk:Δ/20110701

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


Your wanton removal of images[edit]

Hello, though i understand why you are removing images from pages, you might want to tell users (such as myself) how to create a rational for an individual page since the policy is relatively new. I myself have no idea how to do it, ive never been asked to before. You should also be careful in removing images and double check them before you remove them. One that i reverted already had a pre-1923 public domain tag on it, and several others were obvioisly published before 1923 (several german world war 1 images).XavierGreen (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few points, I do tell users how to fix the issues, Ive got a link to a guide to writing rationales and a FAQ both linked in the edit summary and a fairly detailed edit notice. Second, This policy is not new, its been around for at least 4 years (probably longer). Third every image I remove is in Category:All non-free media which classifies it as non-free. If it is tagged under a free license please ensure that it does not have a non-free rationale, because most of those templates classify the file as non-free and will lead to it being removed again. ΔT The only constant 22:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The one file you removed File:Corea-map.jpg, has a PD-1923 tag on it and is a free image. It shouldnt be in the category non free media in the first place.XavierGreen (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is tagged as non-free due to also including {{Non-free use rationale}}. Please adjust the file discription page so that that template is not used. ΔT The only constant 01:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, it would be nice if you posted a message on the talk page of the article(s) the image is being used on, explaining why you removed the image from the page. That would really help people a lot. —Compdude123 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I already contain that information in the edit summary. ΔT The only constant 02:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Edit counting[edit]

It would be interesting to give some of the dweebs that have the need to update AN/I on your EPM(edits per minute), some real stuby pencil math to work on. 50.94.116.132 (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? ΔT The only constant 03:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just referring to the busy bodies that spend their day trying to find where you exceed your edit limit so they can hit the "New Section" button at the top of AN/I and be the 1st to report you. How in the F can someone be that hard pressed to find a violation, that they would poor over your edit history looking at timestamps and counting lines. 50.94.116.132 (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite simple, I piss a lot of people off enforcing NFC because they do not like the message, and prefer to shoot the messenger instead of the message. I remove/tag for deletion a lot of files, and people want to see WP:NFC die a quick death. However with users like myself pushing enforcement, thats not possible. Too many people want to see liberal usage NFC, regardless of what NFC says. (back in the day I removed over 500 non-free screenshots from a single article). ΔT The only constant 03:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, dude. It's because you're a rude SOB that annoys the hell out of people for the sake of getting high. Tiocfaidh bhúr lá! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.18.11 (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it matters, I checked Google Translate for the above gibberish, and it turns out to be Irish for "Your day will come". Unfortunately, now I'm hearing "Our Day Will Come" running through my head. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should not have to9insert for clarity) be doing what you are doing. The burden should be on the editor to meet policy before he adds the NFC. For something looked at so strongly by the foundation/in policy, it is amazing that anyone can make the addition by taking a crap and pushing "save page". This would be a good area for a "pending changes" type of check to prevent the addition of a possible NFC until it can be verified as meeting policy. 50.94.116.132 (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope to see some speed runs soon! 50.94.116.132 (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding the ASU image[edit]

Would you care to explain exactly how I can make the rationale template workable? I've looked at the NFC criteria repeatedly and as the image is low-resolution and I don't feel like there's a sufficient free alternative that could replace it, I think it fits. I'd like to avoid a repeat of what happened the last time you and I had NFC issues, and I'm willing to explain exactly why the image fulfills each criteria. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 06:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've gone ahead and replaced the NFU rationale with something much more detailed which I feel is sufficient. Please take a look and see what you think. If it's sufficient in your view, please give me time to replace the rationales on the other college football uniforms with the updated ones and don't remove the images. I will get to all of them ASAP. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 18:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A little more context would be useful... ΔT The only constant 02:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the NFUR or the article? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 04:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which image/article are you referring to? ΔT The only constant 11:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, whoops. I forgot how many images you deal with. It's this one. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 16:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would use {{Non-free use rationale}} instead of {{logo fur}} because its not a logo, and ensure you fill out the purpose parameter and explain why that article needs that file. ΔT The only constant 16:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the logo template actually applies, since it's the logos on the image that make it NFC. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 16:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


About Images[edit]

I did not upload any images. I think, Someone has removed these images and after that I changed the article. So, You may think that I added these images. But I did not95.15.167.177 (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little more context is needed for me to respond. --ΔT The only constant 20:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Stop editing the Advanced Academy of Georgia[edit]

Hello - You keep removing the image used on the Advanced Academy of Georgia's entry, which is the seal of the University of West Georgia. The Advanced Academy of Georgia is - as is very clearly stated in the article - a program run by the University of West Georgia, under the Honors College. Please stop vandalizing the page by unnecessarily removing the image. I'm not an uploader, so it's not my responsibility to maintain "valid NFURs", whatever the hell that is. Instead, as you're the one that's initiating the changes, it seems like it's your responsibility to actually fix the article instead of repeatedly vandalizing it. Thanks. Bantam1983 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I went ahead and did the NFUR thing, because I actually give a shit about taking the time to make Wikipedia better. Maybe you could do that in the future. Bantam1983 (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As responded to many people with a similar complaint, you have your opinion on what improves the project, other people have their opinions. You are welcome to yours. That does not make it any more right or wrong. What is wrong is claiming that people whose opinions disagree with yours are therefore wrong and destroying the project. Please don't. Also, insisting that media complies with WP:NFCC is not vandalism. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


A brownie for you![edit]

With lots of brownie love! That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 19:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please stop[edit]

You are obviously not checking your work or looking for the best solution. here you removed an image when the image had a FUR, however the content had been moved from one article to a daughter article. And here you remove a logo which could be moved to commons. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Removal is a valid method for fixing it. It is far far easier for someone involved in the article to fix issues than it is for outsiders. It probably took you just a few seconds to fix the problems, however it would have involved quite a bit of research for me to do come to the same conclusions. Also the burden of ensuring that files meet WP:NFC falls on those who use the files. Removal until fixed is a valid solution. As for the free logo, its not something that I would have may that call, without quite a bit of research (30+ minutes). Getting those involved in the articles to fix problems is the easiest solution, so I will continue to do so. ΔT The only constant 13:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The need for Delta to review and try to fix "trivial" NFC errors has been debated endlessly at ANI and here over the last several years. The end point is always that Delta is not required - though certainly would go a long way in courtesy and good faith - to fix such problems as it is the responsibility of the uploader or those desiring to use the non-free content to have met the objective aspects of NFC. Also, arguably, on the second image, I'm not sure if that falls into the PD, at least based on the PD-ukraine template, while PD applies to government works, this is a political party and that's not necessarily a government agency. At minimal, there's no clear way without someone researching it to know that it may apply for PD over NFC. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(IANAL) seems John was referring to (d) ... symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations. –xenotalk 13:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If he is not going to inspect each edit he is making, he is essentially operating a bot under his account because there is no human element. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC) (and xeno is right about the UK logo)[reply]
There are various degrees of "inspection"; Delta (as he's said in the past) inspects to make sure the image removals don't break the page, but you're expecting his inspections to go deeper, which isn't a requirement of any of his sanctions or on anyone else in NFC. I could argue that Delta needs to inspect and make an NFC#3/NFC#8 determination as well if you're asking him fix broken rationales at the same time, which would be even more disastrous for various reasons. The way the community restrictions are set up are to make sure Delta's edits are blindly breaking pages left and right, not to ensure complete NFC compliance with every image he touches. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, you're both right on the logo -- but unless you know about the PD-Ukraine tag, there would be no way of knowing without research that the image could fall under that. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg - that is not 'inspect each edit he is making', that is essentially 'investigate whether each rationale could be written, or why it got broken' - that is not Delta's task, however, it is every editors task to make sure our articles are in line with our policies and guidelines (which includes WP:NFC. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The two examples I give above are cases where the wrong edit was made. They are sub-optimal edit, and he is doing sub-optimal edits en-mass. The logic behind his bot should be subjected to WP:BAG. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im not a bot, and the logic is simple, Its used on X, is there a rationale for X on the file discription page? If not remove the file until it does. ΔT The only constant 13:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bot, John? Which Bot? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If he is not using his brain for each edit, and only clicking save when he is making a competent edit, he is operating a bot. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

another one [1]

  • John, you seem awfully agitated that Δ didn't fix the rationale of the image to point to where the image had been moved to. Are you equally agitated with the person who made the move and created the error in the first place? Or, is Δ a convenient target since he was enforcing policy and the editor who made the move was ignoring policy? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, since doing this work is apparently operating a bot, I think you need to report me as operating an unauthorized bot. I've performed more than 2000 3000 of exactly this kind of edit. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The mover didnt degrade our content, and push the media into the pile of images which are then deleted en-mass. A bot could just as easily be identifying broken FURs and asking the uploader to rectify the problem. With a bit more smarts, semi-automated bots can be fixing these broken FURs. btw, another one John Vandenberg (chat) 13:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, so the mover, who ignored our NFCC policy, did nothing wrong then? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We used to have a bot that did this (BCB) and people bitched and moaned about the number of messages they were getting on their talk page about it. (and that's before Beta/Delta got involved personally to communicate). That wasn't the reason BCB was nuked, but it is a fact that why we'll likely never see another NFC patrolling bot in place. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, that bot would be practically useless - most moves would result in the creation of a redirect, and that is what is already checked for. Most cases are more complicated. Not that this could not be done, and it would indeed take out a couple of obvious mistakes. Note, none of the rationales you have exemplified here would have been caught by a bot, none are plain page-moves. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see a lot of value in a bot that identifies that the FUR is for "DA!" but the image is used on "DA! (band)". It could notify the uploader with instructions on how to fix this. It could list these on a central page with similar cases so humans can work through the list to fix them. As a result, I am interested in reading about the community rejecting this previously. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be mistaken, but I believe that BetacommandBot was created before we had a formal BAG process. I see notes back in the block log referring to the BN (so Bureaucrats Noticeboard?), which was the old approval process? Syrthiss (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And another question for you John; When you "fixed" [2] a rationale for an image use that Δ removed for failing WP:NFCC #10c, it appears you used very simple logic and ignored some serious issues with the rationale. In particular, all you did was re-point the rationale from DA! to DA! (band) without paying any heed to how the image was used and updating the purpose of use appropriately. This seems you weren't using your brain for the edit, and just clicked save when you made your competent edit. Are you operating a bot? Or maybe perhaps you're fixing things that you can, and nudging the project forward just like the rest of us? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why thank you for reviewing my work. Perhaps you may have noticed I nominated one of the files for deletion, and mentioned the other at the same time. Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 30. --John Vandenberg (chat) 14:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to be of service. Still, you left a badly broken rationale in place. You are obviously not checking your work or looking for the best solution. Please stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I similarly pointed John Vandenberg to this edit. Should we also ask this editor to stop, as they obviously did not check their work either. John Vandenberg, can we please drop double standards - maybe you should work on finding the editor whose edit resulted in breakage of the FURs (or who blatantly ignored adding a FUR) and ask all those editors to stop. In that case, ∆'s work would be totally superfluous. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[3] image removed from article 30 minutes after it was created by a user with 174 edits. Please avoid new articles so that the friendly folk at WP:NPP have the first chance at fixing any errors. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we also then stop bots that tag articles after 40 minutes of creation with maintenance tags then? [4] Again, we're talking a double standard that you want Delta to follow that is not required of anyone else, humans or editors, that is outlined in policy. Yes, I completely agree that I personally likely wouldn't do anything for a day or so after creation, but I know that there are long-standing attempts to get an "incubation" system in place to help newer articles than never gets off the ground as people believe, as soon as you hit "submit", its fair tag to correct, tag, and/or delete; same applies to files. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bots that add maintenance tags do not remove content. Delta is removing content. I would be supporting a maintenance tag that said "this page contains non-free media which will be removed after x days." or similar. Surely you can appreciate that Delta is begging for trouble by enforcing NFCC within 30 minutes of new pages being created by newbies. If you wouldnt do it, why are you defending Delta (not our most newbie friendly editor) doing it? John Vandenberg (chat) 15:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'm defending him is that there is nothing in policy presently or his sanctions that requires waiting X hours to correct problematic issues with an article. Should I think Delta should wait? Yes, but that's personally how I'd handle it. The reason I support Delta here is that he is a target of people that just don't like or don't understand NFC policy, and have found Delta to be a target in lieu of trying to garner support for potentially positive changes to the policy, or even coming to understand the history of the policy. I appreciate that it is not a simple policy and it is one that feels counter to the goals of an encyclopedia in a country which allows fair use, but it is something that we have been tasked with, and taking out frustrations on one editor is not the solution. Civility issues notwithstanding, of course. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you insist on policy to prevent Delta from biting newbies, I've requested this at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#enforcement. --John Vandenberg (chat) 15:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a policy that Δ is regularly breaking with his modus operandi. Everytime he removes images from an article created by a new user, he's required by WP:DONTBITE to introduce himself with a greeting on the user's talk page, let newcomers know that their work is never lost and can always be retrieved from the history, telling them to be bold, and make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome. None of this is done by his succinct comment in the edit summary, particularly the last requirement. We experienced Wikipedians can live with this rude approach, but at least he should take a different approach to articles created by newcomers. Diego Moya (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BITE is a guideline; its desired practice, not required. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, because it's a guideline instead of a policy, it is OK to break it at massive levels (instead of just inducing in the allowed occasional exception)? That makes it massively not-desired, then. Diego Moya (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only if we're going to have the same levels of enforcement on everyone that breaks it, then yes. I've yet to see an editor reprimanded for not introducing themselves to a new editor after making the first warning or revision on that editor's edits - I'm not saying this hasn't happened, but I would consider it very rare, and thus not enforced to a degree that you're asking Delta to be enforced to. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The story so far[edit]

Let's see, the story so far. John Vandenberg, administrator, oversight, checkuser, and member of ArbCom is stating of you, Δ:

  • Not checking your work
  • Not finding the best solution
  • Running an unauthorized bot,
  • Making wrong edits
  • Making sub-optimal edits
  • Doing edits en masse
  • Your edits should be subjected to WP:BAG
  • Degrading content
  • Not using your brain
  • Biting newbies
  • Begging for trouble

I would not be surprised to see this coming from a new editor who does not understand our ways. For a person of John's experience here, it's unconscionable. John, I think you need to take a step back. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While what he is doing is essentially "right", he does it in a way where he does not check to see if a simple fix could be in order. Such as the case were the image rationale links to Ditto, but is being used on Ditto (Pokémon). Any person who would willingly spend 5 seconds to think about this would change the rationale to Ditto (Pokémon). Instead, he removes the image causing 3 edits to be done by himself and another user instead of 1 by himself. This is the case that causes 90% of the people to be on this page arguing. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And in doing so I hopefuly teach users that there may be issues with their files and that they may want to check their other uploads/articles to ensure that they all comply with policy. Or they too may have files removed. ΔT The only constant 17:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Blake: And this has been refuted a zillion times. Everybody jumps on Δ's case because he's a convenient punching bag. I've done over 3000 of these edits, and I don't get 1/100th the heat he does. There's a reason why a lot of people want the restrictions dropped, and reading the comments a lot of it is because people are sick to death of people using the restrictions to bludgeon him and routinely attack him. To see John, an ArbCom member do this? Highly, highly disappointing. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ECx2)For a person of John's experience, I would advocate the opposite. Take a look around and realize that you are a polarizing figure when you don't have to be and lots of other people concur with his assessment. Consider that, even though some agree with you, others clearly don't...to obviously include some people who have the trust/respect of the vast majority of WPians. Buffs (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here because Delta is a convenient punching bag. I'm here because it is his edits that are appearing all over my watchlist. You're edits have not; if they had, I would be investigating them and asking you to stop if I saw as many silly edits as I have seen tonight from Delta. As neither Delta nor any of his defenders here appear to see the problem, I am quite happy to take you all to RFC. IMO his defenders are twice as culpable, as they have responded by attacking, and are preventing a reasonable discussion between myself and Delta. The only reason not to is that there are already RFCs all over the place about similar problems; its a lot to get my head around in order to work out where to start. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John, We have tried everything we can think to get editors involved in addressing the issues with rationales and have gotten nowhere, The best tactic is removal, and informing. It forces editors to become involved in the solution, otherwise warnings/notices fall on deaf ears. In my most recent push I have successfully ensured that all articles starting with either a #,A,B, or C that use non-free content comply with the very very basics of a rationale. We have spent 3+ years trying other approaches without any viable results. <Im going to ignore the attacks and just assume you got a little hot under the collar > ΔT The only constant 18:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your marched out 11 different accusations/demands on Δ, starting off with "You are obviously not checking your work or looking for the best solution." and are surprised at the outcome? You could have approached Δ in a more civil and collaborative way. Instead, you chose to immediately jump on him and make accusations against him before he even had a chance to discuss this issue with you. You of all people should have known better, yet actively chose to engage him in an uncivil and combative way. If you feel his response here and the responses of those of us here to your unprovoked attack on him warrant an RfC, be my guest. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a comment from a point before, you're seeing all these edits that Delta's doing appearing on your watchlist (I see them do on articles I watch, I'm sure many others do). When BetaCommandbot was running before, people would be seeing all these messages at the same frequency on their talk pages and complain in exactly the same manner. We're required to do NFC maintenance but those that do manage it are handled in a damned-if-you, damned-if-you-dont manner. It is annoying that 90% of these changes are easily fixable, but that type of management would require a large group of editors working in volunteer time to actually enforce. If NFC was understood better, maybe we'd have more editors to help clean it up, or that we wouldn't have editors making mistakes when they upload, move, or add images as they go along. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Crying Time[edit]

Why do you warn me? Can you explain why File:Crying Time.jpg is non-free?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 14:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See File:Crying Time.jpg#Licensing it is a non-free album cover, The rationale you gave for the file is for Crying Time and you are using it on Crying Time (album), which is a different article. ΔT The only constant 14:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how about now?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 14:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, Next time double check the rationale before using any non-free content. A guide on how to write them is located at WP:NFURG ΔT The only constant 14:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Δ, what the heck?! You knowingly realized you could have fixed this all yourself by adding 8 characters and instead you make others jump through hoops? Why? You could have corrected all of this with a whole lot less effort on EVERYONE'S part byt just fixing it yourself! This is the kind of bureaucratic nonsense that is being addressed above; it's exactly the kind of WP:BITEY attitude that got you blocked in the first place. Buffs (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its about informing others about our non-free content policy. It is a perfect example of a old Chinese proverb Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Informing, and teaching others to fix their own problems is a far more effective method. ΔT The only constant 15:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then teach him to fish by showing him how to fish, not smacking him upside the head with the proverbial fishpole. Just don't create unnecessary work. Buffs (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case removing the image is the best way to teach, otherwise people ignore everything else (I know Ive tried too many other methods to keep count.) ΔT The only constant 17:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about making the 8-character change and send a friendly note that you fixed it and to you'd be happy to help if they have any other problems/questions. You could also add the warning to emphasize the point. You'd come off a LOT less bureaucratic than you are right now. Buffs (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But tracking down who I need to send it to, would take 10-15 minutes per file, because most of the time someone other than the uploader re-used the file without writing a rationale or the uploader is long gone, and a note does nothing. ΔT The only constant 19:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, you value quantity over quality. Buffs (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not place words in my mouth. This is the most effective way because most talk page notes are ignored. this actually forces them to solve the problem and not just ignore it. ΔT The only constant 20:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The quality is that the Foundation wants to have an encyclopedia built on free content and has tasked each Foundation project to delete non-free content that is fails to meet each project's exception doctrine policy (en.wiki's NFC in this case). We at en.wiki at least allow for a reasonable time for the correction to occur before it is deleted. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So Masem, you advocate nominating images that have a simple typo for deletion just to get someone's attention and "force them to solve the problem" just to keep the image? Buffs (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I'm advocating trying to get the uploader or re-user's attention to correct the error before we have to take the steps of deletion. Several different ways have been proposed before, but as Delta has stated, the only seemingly sufficient way to make editors take notice is the removal of the image from the article, giving the image at minimum a 7 day timeline for correction (assuming that orphans the image) before it is only then deleted. The Foundation requires rationales to be machine-readable meaning that even a typo is a failure. It would great if editors were to fix it, or those that are concerned patrol the orphaned non-free image category for fixes, but everyone's trying to point the finger at the one user that is following the Foundation and policy as it stands now. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beta, please note you are required to carefully and manually review every edit you make. That includes looking for typos and errors such as this. A careful editor could be expected to notice that the obvious error with File:Crying Time.jpg (the wrong article was linked) and fix it. Normally editors are not required to review their edits with this level of care, but you are explicitly required by the community sanctions to do so. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do review the edits, if it fails WP:NFCC#10c I remove the file. Its fairly straight forward. Please dont try to twist my restrictions into something that they are not. ΔT The only constant 02:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your restriction says you must carefully and manually examine each edit. In this case, a careful editor would at the article which the FUR referred to (Crying Time), notice it is not an album article, notice that the image is used at Crying Time (album), notice the glaring similarity there, and fix the obvious issue with the FUR. Because this is what any reasonably careful editor would do, it is what you were required to do here. If you establish a pattern of this sort of flawed edit, it will lead to a block under your sanction. The fact that careful editing takes longer is irrelevant; your restrictions are not intended to help you edit quickly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try but you cannot re-write policy. The burden to fix the problem is on those who want to include it, not those who remove it. If you want to change that or think about blocking me for enforcing policy, get the policy changed first, dont try an end run around policy. So please take your wikilawyering somewhere else. ΔT The only constant 02:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is on you to manually and carefully review every edit: the standrds for your edits are higher than for others. As I said, a pattern of this sort of careless editing will lead to a block under your sanctions. I don't think it's necessary to discuss the matter further, this is simply a warning. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. your "warning" is without grounds. So please either change the policy, or drop it. ΔT The only constant 03:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I described before, there is a huge range of what can be called "reviewing ones edits": making sure removal doesn't break the page, reviewing to fix broken rationales, reviewing to decide the worthiness of the NFC in the first place. I'm pretty sure we don't want Delta engaging en masse in the final realm. The issue that that restriction was put down was because when Delta was running bots/semi-auto tools, his edits would break pages, which was met with considerable resentment (more than now). He is now (presumably, under AGF per his claims) verifying his edits don't screw up pages, and has gone to fix and repair those that are broken on accident. That's "review and checking his work". If you want something stronger that is not required of any other person partoling NFC, propose a tighter editing restriction, as no NFC patroler is required to fix broken rationales. It's common courtsey to do so, but not required. --MASEM (t) 03:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This [5] describes a similar edit. A careful editor would be expected to notice that the page the FUR refers to was moved to the page that the image is used at. If I see these reported in the future, I will warn one more time before blocking. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it will be overturned, I do that for a reason. So please take you complaints elsewhere. If you try to block on such invalid grounds it will be overturned and I will be taking you to arbcom. I am not required to fix any rationale. You trying to say I am is laughable. ΔT The only constant 03:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Embedded (album) image[edit]

Sorry, but from my reading of the policy, an inclusion of an album cover in the infobox on an album article meets the policies. You have asked for "a valid and specific rationale for use on this page". The image has both a fair use template (Non-free media use rationale – non-free album cover), and the appropriate licensing section (non-free album cover) filled out. It was specifically and exclusively uploaded for the article on that album. What else does it need? BlackCab (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale on the file discription page does not specify the correct article. ΔT The only constant 23:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that. Thank you. Now fixed. BlackCab (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Δ, may I ask why you didn't fix the link rather than making the change blindly? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Re[edit]

Really? I mean really? You revert me once and warn me? DTTR ring a bell? I'm in the middle of drafting a response on the talk, and you hit me with that. Care to explain? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, do not re-insert files that fail WP:NFC, until the issues with the files are fixed. Please see WP:NFURG you are missing rationales for the pages where files where removed. DTTR is an essay that I ignore, All users are equal. ΔT The only constant 01:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but this message you've just posted is the first non-template message I've received from you. Giving me two templated edit summaries and then a templated warning is downright rude. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read the edit summaries they are fairly detailed about the problem and how to solve it. I consider it rude to ignore the edit summary and blindly revert. However please ensure that files meet WP:NFC prior to (re)using them. ΔT The only constant 01:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Templating a user is not rude, commonly repeated messages are what templates are. Their reason is to assist in giving information about specific situations to multiple users when a task is often repeated and there are common questions/responses that can be used. ΔT The only constant 01:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, warning a user with absolutely no prior attempts at discussion is rude. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No discussion is really needed, you just need to fix the problem. ΔT The only constant 01:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So assuming I didn't know how? You really think that just warning is going to solve the problem? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Umm, hello? Your last 500 edit summaries (possibly more) are all the same thing, and it's extremely hard to trust a template that a user is simply putting for its own sake. There is absolutely no leeway given for each individual article, and I must ask you to be a bit more detailed about what exactly he problem is. For example, what is wrong with this image in this article? The rationale specifies that it is used "to identify the organization". Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It only has rationales for Florida State Seminoles and Florida State Seminoles men's basketball. It does not have a rationale for Florida State Seminoles football teams (1947 to 1975) see WP:NFCC#10 ΔT The only constant 01:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. Duly fixed. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


A barnstar for you![edit]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
To hell with the haters, keep up your good work. Noformation Talk 02:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


FURs[edit]

In which way are they not valid? In each case it shows exactly why the image was on the page. This is the purpose of a Free Use Rationale. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

each purpose is unique to each use. Lets take a look at Copa del Rey de Baloncesto 2008–09 and File:TAU Ceramica.png the article about the club is Saski Baskonia so that rationale is valid, however the two other uses are decoritive and not about the club but rather about a particular season. Thus the rationale will be different. ΔT The only constant 02:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps those ones are. However, I assumed you were referring to ALL the ones I have done thus far. The majority have been national hockey federations and their various national teams which thus have no difference between one and another. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Bit.Trip images[edit]

The images only need to be modified to have their target article be that of the articles that they are utilized in. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they should be deleted just by the virtue of having watermarks, and being poorly sourced (to which they clearly are not from that website). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


re: Elmwood Park High School (Illinois)[edit]

Greetings D, I have restored your deletion of the image on this article. Normally, these are no brainers: these images have no justification, they have obviously falsified sources, etc .... but this one looks like it has a fully completed justification and source. I have momentarily restored the image to avoid having it automatically deleted. Can you give me some information regarding what this image was missing? LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does however the rationale points to the wrong article, it point to Elmwood Park High School but the file was actually being used on Elmwood Park High School (Illinois). Once you correct that, the rationale will be correct. In the future you might just want to double check the files you work with to ensure it meets policy :) ΔT The only constant 03:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. For the record, I dropped a warning on CBM's talk page asking him not to antagonize you. Having said that, the level of condescension that you direct toward other editors when they have done nothing toward you, and when, at best, they don't completely understand sometimes complex nuances of copyright expectations, etc may not by Hoyle examples breaking WP:CIVIL, but it comes across as just plain jerkishness. I salute you for helping keep images out that are not properly labeled, but ... in no way do I support your attitude. In some ways I don't doubt you are a fine editor, but you have a lot of growing up to do. BoL. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry that it came off that way, I was actually trying to be nice and joke with you. Guess thats one thing the that gets lost too easily over the internet. :( ΔT The only constant 05:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Steam trawler image[edit]

  • In page Fishing trawler I have restored the link to image File:HMT Amethyst.jpg. This boat was sunk in 1940, which is 71 years ago, so the photograph must have been made before that. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, however it still needs a rationale for that use. see WP:NFURG ΔT The only constant 04:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This boat was sunk in 1940, which is 71 years ago, so the photograph must have been made before that; and probably before she was was renamed Amethyst in 1935, as the image shows her old name, which makes the image at least 76 years old, and thus too old for copyright. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    According to what law? in the US its 1923, in others is authors life +70. ΔT The only constant 04:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was sunk well out of USA waters. The "fair use" claim that no good image of a coal-fired steam trawler in action is available and in author's life + 70 years, seems sensible to me, given that the image is so old. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Im not disputing that a rationale can be created, just that as it stands there isnt one. Feel free to write one, add it to the file discription page and then re-add the file to the article, ΔT The only constant 04:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See page File:HMT Amethyst.jpg again. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still no go, take read through WP:NFURG. ΔT The only constant 04:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply:
    • If applicable, has the resolution been reduced from the original? ...
      The above claim says so.
    • What purpose does the image serve in the article? If applicable:
      • Is it used for commentary on a particular topic? How?
        It shows an old-type steam trawler in action, and they were an important stage in trawler development. Steam trawlers were replaced by diesel long ago and there are no more in use to be photographed.
    • To what degree is the image replaceable by a free content image? If, on the other hand, the image is a photograph, the image is more easily replaced, even if Wikipedians may lack the resources to create a replacement.
      Find a preserved coal-fired steam trawler (if any still exist), hope that its boiler is still safe and its mechanism is not rust-eaten after so many years, call the boiler inspector, expensively coal it up and re-axle-grease it and and fill its boiler water tank, sail it, photograph it. That expense and difficulty and risk of that is quite enough to warrant "fair use" for the image when the current date is likely fairly near its author's death + 70 years: its current copyright holder is likely an unknown 3rd-or-so-generation heir of some unknown 1930's waterfront man, unless copyright was passed to a 1930's periodical that it was published in, and if (as likeliest) that periodical closed down long ago :: a long rigmarole of legal chase-up. See De minimis non curat lex.
    • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need a separate rationale to use the image on Fishing trawler, which is why it was removed in the first place. Some aspects will be the same as the one for the boat article itself, but you should tailer it to that specific article. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale for page HMT Amethyst is fair use as an image of the commercial trawler Phyllis Rosalie (later renamed HMT Amethyst), to show what she looked like; the rationale for page Fishing trawler is fair use as an image of what old-type coal-fired steam trawlers in general looked like. The above arguments apply for both. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you can practically copy the fair-use rationale, and adapt the name of the article (so that there are two independent, though similar, FURs on that page). If needed, slightly adapt the wording of the reason as you indicated here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done: see page File:HMT Amethyst.jpg. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, the image is used on a third article as well, and I find the reasoning (for both) a bit simple, you may want to expand on all of them. I hope this helps! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I did, because there was no rationale for the usage there and no adequate rationale can be made for it's usage in a table (see WP:NFTABLE) or in a list in this case (see WP:NFLISTS). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


AN/I[edit]

I've been following the AN/I discussions closely, but haven't commented yet. I think you have an opportunity here to neutralize a great deal of the opposition to your NFCC work by offering a compromise. Specifically, if you were to propose generating a list of images whose rationales were invalid because of an article's rename/move, and publicize that list a few days in advance before removing the images, that would give a chance for people to fix the "trivial/technical/etc." problem first. And if they don't act, they wouldn't have grounds for complaining when you removed the images. What do you think? 28bytes (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ive made the list of affected articles fairly public already tools:~betacommand/nfcc/rationale_missing.log.old. There was a suggestion about notifying wiki projects, which I would do, I just need some help figuring out the different projects and how to identify articles within their scope. If I had some help I could get that going ASAP and then wait a week, before removal. ΔT The only constant 12:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that list covers all missing/invalid rationales, no? I was thinking of a more targeted list that generated from a scan of the article's move history. I could write a bot to do that myself, but I certainly wouldn't be able to get it up and running in time to calm down the pitchforks at AN/I. 28bytes (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At worst, can we create a maintenance category and get eyes on it? AWB would be useful to make the latter happen.... --MASEM (t) 12:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Identifying the rename/move issue is difficult. Creating a system of dated categories with a deadline would work well. ΔT The only constant 12:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question on that list then: is that formatted "article name file is used on<tab>filename that lacks rationale<tab>checksum"? --MASEM (t) 12:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. ΔT The only constant 12:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can create a list of "X is used on page Y, but doesn't have a rationale for page Y", it seems to be equally possible to create a list of "X has a rationale for page Y, but isn't used on page Y". This would include all pages where the image is removed, but also all pages that were moved but still have the image. If this list was still too long, you could combine the two: a significant number of the files that appear in both lists would be the ones we are looking for, those where the page is moved or the rationale erroneously gives a wrong page (e.g. a general disambiguation page instead of a more specific disambiguated page). Fram (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am still thinking about a bot-run-blast putting a template on all talkpages where there are images which have a missing or broken rationale - then smart categorisation from that, could put it into maintenance categories. Have a script update the talkpages when rationales are fixed .. now it is a list on toolserver, which gets updated every so many hours/days. If two people are going through the list fixing, they will very likely hit the same article twice.
I know this is going to be frowned at, but if Delta could (in a short blast) on every talkpage with that problem put {{<some template>|image1.jpg|image2.jpg}}, where the parameters are the names of the images with a broken/missing rationale, and run a script to update all those templates on a very regular basis, then that would help immensely in attempts to fix the problem.
Note, I don't think so many of the rationales are broken due to page-moves. Most of those moves leave a redirect behind, and that is detected. Most problems come out of page merges / splits, or plain typos. The rest is mainly a genuinly missing rationale. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tossing up the idea of making it a community effort to fix the list via category (in lieu of a bot to actually catch and tag these), suggestion is at ANI. I'm proposing that if this action is done, that there would be a period (set by a deadline) where you, Delta, would leave those images alone and let the community take the corrective measures, after which you then should be free to restart without concern, since what it appears to be the issue is the lack of warning and notification before removal.--MASEM (t) 13:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(which is actually not true in all cases - sometimes whole wikiprojects were warned, and talkpage tags were placed .. to no avail). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I'm adding the idea of a cleanup category, as regardless of what talkpages and projects were notified, everyone can see what work still needs to be done and correct. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing, again, to donate User:NFCCheckBot for that task as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

28bytes and anyone else reading and contributing to this thread on this talk page. It's over. Δ's haters are finally winning the day. Just when it looked like we could finally get out from under some of this entire mess with the edit throttle lifted, Δ is now going to be forced out of NFCC enforcement entirely. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hutton image on Chief of Army (Australia)[edit]

Hello. Regarding this change [6], as I stated when I first reverted your original edit the image appears to me to be PD (as stated in the file infomation). As such could you please explain why you have removed it again? Anotherclown (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is still tagged as non-free. You should convert {{Non-free use rationale}} to {{information}} ΔT The only constant 12:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged, done now. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Thomas (poet)[edit]

You have just removed this particularly fine image [File:Thomasportrait.jpg] from Edward Thomas (poet) (one of only two images there, and arguably one of the best things about the article) without leaving a very clear indication of why. Could you at least suggest what would satisfy fair use rationale for that image? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a read though the guide to writing rationales. ΔT The only constant 19:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks I have. I have added a note at User talk:Jb3ddd who was the editor who uploaded the image and added it to the article. I think that you might have done the same, instead of, or at least as well as, simply deleting the image with no warning. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps you could just fix the image (again). The guy died in 1917, so the photo predates the standard 1923 cutoff quite easily. Buffs (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, so who fixed it (before)? Assuming this photopraph was not taken by Thomas himself, doesn't the copyright remain for the life of the author plus 70 years? So without knowing the author, how can we know? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this correct? Or are you just too busy deleting images to respond? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to write a non-free use rationale before re-adding it. A guide can be found here ΔT The only constant 12:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.. and a question could simply be answered, here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. If a work was made by 1917, then the US copyright would have expired by 1973, before the US considered the Berne Convention in 1978. PD is right. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.. well, he's not in his army uniform, so I'd guess this photo was taken before July 1915. The Guardian, in this article gives an attribution of: Hulton Archive/Getty. And I now see from here that it was in fact taken in 1905. But the Getty 'License type' is "Rights-managed" and the 'Release information' is "Not released". This doesn't sound very promising? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just write up a good rationale defending your use and make sure it meets the requirements and everything should be good. ΔT The only constant 17:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have now added. Is it ok? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have adequate justification for a {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. I have no objection to a FUR template, except that, if not allowed, the image might be deleted even though it is PD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. You've an appropriate PD template. As Getty doesn't seem to know the photographer, it falls into 70 years from creation under UK law, hence fell out of copyright in the UK in 1975, so is also out of copyright in the US (per the caveat). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking. In 1905 Thomas was literary critic for the Daily Chronicle in London, so I imagine this was probably a publicity photo published by them. Anyway I'll re-add the image. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

For your recent contributions of fixing links instead of removing images :)

Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • MmmmM! Tasty! --Hammersoft (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The other other white meat...
    ...in all seriousness, this is a step in the right direction. Buffs (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing aviation group tags[edit]

Why are you removing the invisible tag: (This article is a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content for recommended layout.)? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

its just clutter that the wikiproject tags on the talkpage serves the same purpose. The edit window is already cluttered with too many useless comments. ΔT The only constant 21:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? The reason for putting that notation stems from an effort to direct newbies to the aviation group and its style guide. It is invisible so how could it be "clutter" as it only affects the editing process. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Proposal[edit]

I propose that we list the "Proposal to ban Δ/Delta/Betacommand from [whatever]" in the WP:PEREN section. Alas, I fear there may not be enough torches & pitchforks, tar & feathers, voodoo dolls & stick pins, there to satisfy the masses. Have a good weekend (and holiday as well if you're in the US) Delta. trusting that you realize this is posted with all good humor intended, and not [another] slam at you — Ched :  ?  03:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance[edit]

This isn't up my alley, but it may be up your alley. File:Relient K 2009 Press Pic.jpg was uploaded and I believe that the copyrights were incorrectly applied. It's a press release photo which is likely the property of the record label. Care to tag it since I don't know where to start aside from removing it from the articles it was inserted into. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Modify the XHJUB-TV's article[edit]

Sr. You're Blocked in the future if you modify the article XHJUB-TV. This article can have 2 or more logos. The past and current version. --Jonathanquiroz62 (talk) 04:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, wont happen. Please ensure that your files meet our WP:NFCC policy. ΔT The only constant 04:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's bad news and good news here. The bad news is that Delta is right, particularly in this situation: the two logos marked as NFCC are exceedingly similar that there's zero need to use the older logo alongside the newer one, that's a blatant violation of our NFC policy. The good news is that I believe there is a good chance for those logos to qualify as uncopyrightable under the Threshold of originality (simply geometric shapes and lettering). If this is the case, then the logos should be moved to Commons using their "PD-textlogo" license tag to mark it as public domain. When you do this, then, then there is no restriction to the usage of free images. --MASEM (t) 05:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come on guys. A circle and a number aren't copyrightable and they are clearly PD-textlogo. Delta, I know that you know enough to fix that sort of thing quite easily. Just fix the damn image. Buffs (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Your edits of images I personally created.[edit]

The images that you removed - again - were personally created by me and are not subject to copyright under any interpretation I am aware of. The images are simple blocks of color that do not associate themselves with any copyrighted logo or picture. As a matter of fact the actual breast bars - made of metal and enamel are utilized for variou purposes by different departments. They do not have a consistent use or meaning. As utilized in the article New York City Police Department Auxiliary Police they are representation of items worn by public officials to impart a specific message to the general public. It is entirely approriate that they are used in the article.

After your original complaint, I realized that User:MOOOOOPS, the original uploader of the images to Wikipedia, used a non-free use template. When I improved the images, I did not modify the rational, perhaps I should have. Because of this, you appeared to have a point. In response, I uploaded MY images to Commons - clearly identifying them as made by me and releasing all rights to their use. This has removed any reason you may have for not liking the use of these images.

Kindly replace the new images that I provide for the article, or I will put them back shortly. These images are no longer "non-free" by Wikipedia's own criteria. You have made your point.

Just because you re-drew them does not give you the copyright of those files. ΔT The only constant 14:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, It wouldn't if they were a copyrighted image. But I created representations, not duplicates and they meet the Wikipedia criteria. Identify the specific rule being violated, please, because I can't find one. SGT141 (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see commons:Commons:Derivative works it is a derivative of a non-free file and thus is still non-free. ΔT The only constant 14:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delta's correct here: if the original work qualifies for copyright, your recreations of them are derivative works of that copyright, and thus they are copyrighted by their owner, and thus most likely have to be treated as non-free files. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That said, looking at the images themselves, I believe several of them qualify as uncopyrightable under Threshold of Originality (certainly not the last one, the 50th anniversary), because they are simple shapes and text. I see what's happening is that SGT141 is replacing the non-frees on en.wiki with commons "fails ToO" replacements, so I think in this case keeping the free images is certainly appropriate. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further notice[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Residential colleges of Rice University. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Isn't it humorous how if Δ warns someone of editing in violation of policy and noting the possibility of being blocked if they continue, Δ gets taken to WP:AN/I for violating sanctions, insulted, threatened, and repeatedly told what a bad presence on the project he is. Yet, if the same damn thing happens in reverse, nothing happens at all or the person doing the warning is upheld as a defender of the project. Ever so nice. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it aint humorous - and you dont think it is either. If Δ engaged in an edit war then someone should pull him up. I've seen edit-warring - nasty business.MarkDask 19:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Δ is used to opposition when doing the fair use cleanup, which is a useful job. It is that Δ approaches this with aggression and does not know when to stop when consensus is against his opinion. This aggression is illustrated by the large hand on the edit notice seen when editing this page! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that if he warns someone with a warning like yours, he's castigated for it. Meanwhile, if someone does it against him, it's all fine and dandy. The dichotomy is sickening. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it's sooooooooooo similar: a single template versus 20 or more in response to you disagreeing with him on some unrelated topic and he scours all your contributions as retribution. Yeah...that's similar... Buffs (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dash bot was left to do all the warnings, so I am not complaining about warnings from Δ. Perhaps other people have had negative experience with that. My last whinge was about the unfriendly appearance of User talk:Δ/Editnotice . Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) What exactly is unfriendly about the edit notice? It seems to me like an effort by Δ to get more people to familiarize themselves with NFC policy before dealing with NFC. Since a lot of people use NFC without much knowledge about the correct procedures, I think this notice can be helpful, because it gives a rough overview on how to handle NFC. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is the big red octagon with the white hand. The text is fine. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its one of the few images that I know will get a users attention and hopefully get them to read the message. ΔT The only constant 21:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


What is going on?[edit]

Let's have a conversation. You're just following me around and deleting something based on your interperetation. If there is something else that needs to be done, why no help me get that done, rather than vengance-edit? There are plenty of season NFl articles with uniform graphics . . . so, why are you picking on me?24.49.140.207 (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When using non-free files they need to meet WP:NFC, you are mass adding the same non-free file across multiple articles without rationales and it probably fails WP:NFC#3 and #8 too. ΔT The only constant 15:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doing that. I am doing the same things as has been done on scores of other articles and if there is "paperwork" that needs to be done, I ask for your help. Not your mass editing and wiki-stalking.RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are doing that. All non-free images must have a general rationale, and a specific rationale for each article which they support. I don't think your general rationale is adequate, but the specific rationales are missing entirely. I lean toward believing you may satisfy WP:NFCC#3, but clearly fail WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. And based on your actions that did not assume good faith, I am filing a complaing against you. You may end up being correct, but your rudeness is unsurpassed. I have asked for HELP and have been ignored. I think this is a tag-team effort of admins that are bullies and not helpful. Happy 4th of July. RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made no assumption of any faith (good or bad). The file failed WP:NFCC#10c and thus needed removed. ΔT The only constant 16:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You acted like you were the boss and like a bully. You attacked only me and not other NFL teams editors. You did not assume good faith. I have made a complaint to AN/I. [7] and have been notified. RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im not just focusing on you, [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] any file without a valid non-free rationale is fair game for removal. ΔT The only constant 16:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposed ban on you doing this type of editing for a while. It seems you are out of control, based on the number of complaints against you.RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And again, another permutation of "I don't like what you're doing (even though it's perfectly in line with policy) so I'm going to report you to WP:AN/I and I agree you should be banned from the site". When the hell is this madness going to stop? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And Ive asked several times trying to figure ways to improve my message because he said he didnt understand why I was removing files, and he refuses to answer. Yet another example of the witch hunt. ΔT The only constant 14:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I, at least for one, have tried to give you that advice Beta. How do other editors in the area successfully handle these situations? I can think of Masem and JHeald at least as potential role models. They seem more able to vary the wording to address what the other editor is having a problem with, whereas you seem much more to just repeat the same thing. If someone is having trouble understanding, you can help by changing your wording, or sometimes, yes, just make the easy fix and ask the person to look at what you have done so they understand it themselves next time. Most of what I've learned on Wikipedia has been from following other people's good examples. Franamax (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fran the issue in this case, I tried to ask about what the user didnt understand, but the user refused to engage in discussion and instead ran off to ANI and screamed bloody murder. If a user is not willing to discuss the issue, how can I start to figure out how to adjust my approach to assist them if they are not willing discuss what/why they dont understand the notes/messages that Im leaving them? ΔT The only constant 21:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Δ's archives are replete with a number of people who walk away satisfied with the answers he gives without there being some mass controversy. Since he does more of these edits than anyone, he bumps into more intractable people. That doesn't mean he is any less capable of adequately explaining the situation. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know Hammersoft, I like and respect you, and I hope you've noticed that I support your own efforts where I think I can help. But my other piece of advice to Beta would be to stop listening to Hammersoft for a little while. From your standpoint that may seem like a mean thing to say, but I think your stridency on this is not always helpful to creating a productive editing environment. Your consistent advice is that Beta is always right, no matter what, and several other editors with no particular dog in the fight (of which I include myself) seem to be disagreeing. Franamax (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a mean thing to say, and I don't take it that way in any respect. As a point of fact, I have disagreed with Δ from time to time and have remonstrated him on several points. However, you are quite correct that I am very strident in opposition to a number of people who are constantly sharpening their pitchforks over Δ. Everytime there's a new thread at WP:AN/I about Δ, a predictable deluge of "Hang him! Hang him!" from a vocal group against Δ comes out. Yes, it's true, I do fight against that and hard. I will continue to do so on points where I feel he is right. The point I was trying to make in my last response here is that the scale of his edits means we see more people complaining about his edits than the average editor. I get a lot of complaints from people over exactly the same issue. But, due to scale, I don't seem so bad by comparison. Scale, resulting in more complaints, != bad. If you do a thousand edits, and 1% complain you'll get 10 complaints. If you do a hundred you'll get 1. I'm not going to say Δ is the best communicator. Far from it. But, a number of people have been working on his standard communications to reduce the amount of drama that pops up. Δ has been very willing to listen to this advice and adjust his standard means of contact to accommodate those suggestions. Yet, we still have people complaining about his behavior. And, since we have a very vocal group that want his head on a pike, every instance of this turns into a major drama session. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, I just skimmed my talk page and found at least 7 threads started there in protest to my actions that are essentially identical to Δ's. Lots of the same sort of disagreements with my edits. To me, a chief difference in this is that I'm not dragged to WP:AN/I over it with the resultant pitchfork gang out to stick my head on a pike. The problem seems starkly apparent to me, which is why I defend Δ. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Rurouni Kenshin[edit]

Hi! I would like to revert the mass removal of images done here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Rurouni_Kenshin_characters&diff=437794211&oldid=432828187

I am aware that you are saying it's "overuse" - Problem is, there was already an extensive discussion about the use of nonfree fair use images, and it was determined that having that number was okay for that article

See: Talk:List_of_Rurouni_Kenshin_characters#Fair_use_images_and_this_article

And the user who raised the "too many nonfree images" complaint removed the banner after it was down to six images. We already made a consensus that six images is okay nonfree usage: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Rurouni_Kenshin_characters&diff=384643795&oldid=384643328 WhisperToMe (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 4 July 2011[edit]

Civility warning[edit]

Without regards to the underlying FUR / NFCC issues - Your warning to Wikidemon violated the civility restrictions terms of your community edit restrictions. You both assumed bad faith and were borderline uncivil. Yes, he made two mistakes, but he also fixed a bunch of other mistakes you'd made.

This type of thing is a large part of why your behavior is so controversial.

Please don't do that again.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, check your facts. I have not made any mistakes. The files that I removed where tagged as non-free and they did not have a rationale for the use where I removed them. Wikidemon re-added several files and caught my attention I spot checked 3 or four and found a large percent that where not fixed, to I left him a note/warning. That is not uncivil, that is factual. With regards to other files I am not comfortable making the non-free/pd-text call, and thus do not make it. I just treat all files tagged with a non-free tag equally. Your comment here is uncivil, you make assumptions about my actions that are completely wrong, you ignore the reasons for my message to him, and the follow up discussion. Just so that you know, Ill repeat myself, every single one of my non-free removals that cite a rationale issue where correct with the removals. They failed at minimum 10c. So I either expect an apology for your groundless claims and assumptions about my actions without bothering to check, or for you to leave the discussions related to me because you dont bother to do the your research. And if you think my note to Wikidemon was uncivil I think you should go re-read the policy. I made a completely factual statement about the issues revolving around another users edits. You should know I rarely make any assumptions about an editor's faith whether its good faith or bad I really dont care most of the time, I just tend to look at the facts of the case and let them speak for themselves ΔT The only constant 05:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are under community sanction for doing this. I find it nigh-on incomprehensible that you still don't feel that you have a problem with incivility.
It's not the NFCC issue. It's engaging in uncivil warnings or discussion with people.
This has to stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to review WP:CIVIL, my warning was not uncivil. Since you cannot be bothered to see the whole picture, the third door down on the left is the exit, please see yourself out. ΔT The only constant 06:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reported this incident to WP:ANI and requested an uninvolved administrator to block you for unrepentant civility parole violation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again read civil, my actions do not come close to violating it. Stop harassing me. ΔT The only constant 06:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I rarely make any assumptions about an editor's faith whether its good faith or bad". Perhaps you should re-read WP:CIVIL. The assumption of good faith is a requirement (especially for noobs), not an option. Buffs (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again please look at the all the facts. When you assume you make an ass out of u and me, I prefer the more pragmatic approach of reviewing the evidence and basing my actions off of that. If I make no assumptions I cannot assume that the editor is going good or bad, I approach the situation the same way, and typically make inquiries to the user about the reasons for their actions, and if their actions are violating policy I give them a note about what may happen, if they continue their current behavior. I would say that making no assumption either way is exactly what CIVIL is meant to be, it states that you shouldnt assume that the user is out to arm wp. Which I dont. So please dont try and twist my works to mean something that they do not. ΔT The only constant 06:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. What you "prefer" is irrelevant. Again, you are required to assume good faith. Whether it makes "an ass out of u or me" is quite immaterial. It's policy and you are obligated to follow it. Buffs (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Δ: Yet another damned if you do, damned if you don't case. If you leave a template message regarding this issue, you're taken out behind the woodshed because you violated the essay WP:DTTR and you violated WP:CIVIL because you left a template warning. If you leave a non-template message, nevermind that it was entirely accurate, you're taken out behind the woodshed because you left a warning message. I'm at least happy to see this proposal to have you blocked got as far as a lead duck. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Geomerics use of NFUR image[edit]

Delta, Added Rationale in hidden text next to image. You had this image removed from the page citing poor rationale. Image on page meets all 10 points for NFUR. Let me know in detail if you have further issues. MichaelJPierce (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The rationale has to go on the image description page, not in the article itself. Please correct it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you indicate where on the image description page I would add rationale in use for the Geomerics page? I did not create nor upload the image.MichaelJPierce (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be readily apparent from the image description page at File:Battlefield 3 trailer still.jpg. Please follow the instructions at WP:FURG. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically, I think you posting the image here violates WP:FURG. Furthermore, is it so hard to say which section of the page the rationale comments should be applied?MichaelJPierce (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mistake fixed. I did tell you. I'm not sure what isn't clear here. You add it to the image description page, as I've said. What isn't clear? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the image page. I do not see what section I would had a new rationale or is the template listed in WP:FURG place on the article page? I need clarification since I did not create the image page, I do not know where additional rationale should be added.MichaelJPierce (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, after reading through all of WP:FURG The speedy deletion that occured earlier today was against the policy as you must give the contributor notice + 7 days before deletion of image.MichaelJPierce (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image wasn't deleted. It was removed from an article where it violated WP:NFCC #10c. There's a difference here on Wikipedia between "remove" and "delete". Nothing was deleted. The rationale you added was added properly. That said, the rationale and in fact its inclusion on this article is rather weak. There's no secondary sourced commentary regarding what the image depicts. It appears to be decorative; there's no tie to the text. Can you elaborate? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That current questioning makes Geomerics rationale for use stronger than the Battlefield 3 articles use. The Section in which the image appears in Geomerics clearly discusses the Enlighten technology being incorporated in the Frostbite 2 engine, which is used in Battlefield 3. The image is a demonstration of the technology is action. Why would this need to be spelled out anymore than it already is? In the Battlefield 3 article the image is not directly discussed, but its presence in the "Gameplay" section makes it relevant. Likewise, its inclusion on the Geomerics article is presented in context to the comments regarding the game.MichaelJPierce (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you re-read the policy you will see that if you remove an image from the article, although the original is still else where on Wikipedia, it is still considered a deletion and requires notification be given to contributors and a 7 day interval for them to bring article into compliance.MichaelJPierce (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to notification I found the following under the Enforcment section in WP:NFCC - A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. I this case 7 days in not required, however notification and a 2 day interval are still required. Immediate removal of an image from an article is not part of the power of the policy.MichaelJPierce (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are mistaken. That section only refers to deleting the image entirely, not to removing a particular use of it from an article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: usage of the image; the text of the article says nothing about the image itself. All it says is that it can be seen in Battlefield 3. What about the image is significant? Right now, I could use any screenshot from the game to fill the same role. That's an obvious WP:NFCC #1 failure. There needs to be a connection between a non-free image's use and the text in which it is located because of our WP:NFCC policy. Else, we could use as many non-free images as we'd like from the game and never be in violation of WP:NFCC #1. As to deletion vs. removal, I am sorry but you are quite mistaken. Deletion refers to an administrator physically removing a file or page from the public Wikipedia servers. Non-administrators do not have that ability. If you dispute this definition, I welcome you to raise the issue at WT:NFC. The idea that the policy you are quoting is applicable to removing images is, while highly inaccurate, rather novel and you may find such a discussion interesting. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • MJP, I often find myself less than in whole-hearted agreement with Hammersoft and Delta, but on this I'm afraid they're right -- removal is different from deletion; and images can be removed from articles at will. See for example this current thread at WP:VPP, where the policy consensus is quite clear.
  • As for the image itself, Geomeric's product is a lighting engine, so a still showing the effect of that lighting engine -- preferably in comparison to a competitor engine given the same number of clock cycles -- would be appropriate. But the reader needs to have explained to them exactly what in the image is so characteristic of Geomeric's technology, that distinguishes it from what might be seen using other code. Jheald (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jheald, although that is very insightful it does not mean that the current image is inappropriate. If you are able to find resources that show the comparison I invite you to contribute.MichaelJPierce (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hammer, Please indicate by what policy then an image can be removed immediately. I see no clear policy that allows you to do this. You are mistaken that this is a WP:NFCC #1 as there is still no free equivalent for the image of the game or use of the Lighting technology in another game, you have cited this in order to push forward your argument , but has no basis in fact. Any screenshot from the game would still be the property of EA and fall under Non-Free use polices. I would gladly use an alternate if a free use one was available. But any screenshot would be a derivative work of the original game and therefore copyrighted by the original copyright holder.MichaelJPierce (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As pointed to several times now, the image was removed under WP:NFCC #10c. You are welcome to disagree with the policy, but it is policy. The point of WP:NFCC #1 is replaceability with text. If the image isn't tied to the text, there's really not much argument that it needs to be in the article. I could add anything, say a screenshot from a 1950s TV show, for all the relevance it has. Tie the image to the text with secondary sourced discussion. Else, the image is superfluous. I think you really need to take these issues up at WT:NFC, because you're not believing what is being told to you by multiple people now. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone from the VG community, it is almost never needed to have a screenshot of a developer's game on their own page, simply because a screenshot says nothing from the developer - it looks cool, but it adds nothing to the reader about who the developer is. There may be a rare exception for a developer known for a specific style that is attributed to that developer, but the only possible one off the top of my head would id (w.r.t to Doom/Quake and the like). The only place where screenshots from published works are appropriate are on game or series articles and in several cases of talking about genres and gameplay elements. So I'd strongly recommend reconsidering the use of this screenshot in this scenario. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hammersoft how come whenever ΔT The only constant finds a disputed image your right there in his defense? It's a like a bulling tactic, it seems like you two are working concert to make sure whatever (Image)YOU think doesn't make the grade should be deleted. And when all else fails you have a bunch of you Admin buddies kick in to over whelm the consensus, and put down any opposition to your POV. Yes I have read over WP:NFCC and you don't alway have a clear cut case on some of your disputes! Jetijonez (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no "admin buddies" here. In fact, I have no buddies here whatsoever. I don't care who hates me or likes me here, as I've frequently stated. Are you accusing me of bullying? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, key word is it's "like", but getting back to real questions how is it, your here on his page everytime there is a disputed image? Coincidence? Jetijonez (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its called Special:Watchlist, we both use it and have each others talk page on it. ΔT The only constant 22:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Kudos[edit]

Just wanted to compliment you on your fantastic additions of archival backups to so many links at The Avengers (2012 film). I find it an uphill battle to get fellow editors to add WebCitation or Archive.org links routinely, and I'm bowled over by the comprehensiveness of your efforts at that article. Do you do it all manually, or is there a bot that helps? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use an assisted script, to make a request see tools:~betacommand/webcite.html, which is where a request was made for that page. ΔT The only constant 23:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks[edit]

WebCite
Hey, thanks for archiving the citations in the Singapore Exchange article. You rock. :) Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
np I'm working through the complete webcite backlog. ΔT The only constant 23:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for archiving
Great job working through the backlog, your work ensures the preservation of Wikipedia!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed partial solution to NFCC enforcement[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Request exemption of restrictions ΔT The only constant 02:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Your edit to List of Jiggy McCue books[edit]

You keep removing the images on List of Jiggy McCue books. It's only the book covers, so why is it overuse? Rcsprinter (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see the talk page, for more details, but NFC is not allowed in lists. ΔT The only constant 14:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I just saw the message you left on my talk page, it was very nice of you. :) I did not reliaze this and agreed with Rcsprinter123, though have now looked at the talk page as you suggested and reliazed my mistake, i am sorry but you could have just told me. ;) MayhemMario 15:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did, in my edit summary and the talk page note. ΔT The only constant 15:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, okay. My intentions werent vandalism though. ;) MayhemMario 15:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not warn you about vandalism, I gave you a warning about non-free content usage. ΔT The only constant 15:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh never mind... MayhemMario 15:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Triangle[edit]

Triangle
Puffin Let's talk! 15:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Notification of WP:AN/EW report[edit]

Hello Δ,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 23:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)[reply]


History of CBS: mea culpa[edit]

My apologies. Another editor extracted a big chunk of the CBS article and attempted to make this new, second article out of it. The NFURs for the photos are complete for the first article, not for this offshoot attempt. Again, my apologies. I reverted my own reversion. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Re WP:ANEW[edit]

Although I haven't (yet) seen anyone willing to stand up and say that they think the image-heavy version of the article is NFCC compliant, I'm sure you're aware that going to 4RR, 5RR, etc., on these, even if you're right, will have a detrimental effect on the efforts of those of us who would prefer you not be topic-banned. There are people who are on a crusade to ban you, and there are people who will defend you no matter what, but there are also a great deal of people who are easily swayed by persuasive statements that you're unnecessarily stirring up drama, even if those persuasive statements are completely inaccurate. Just let Hammersoft or someone else do the 4th revert. 28bytes (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ill highlight another point, none of the editors except myself have engaged in discussion on the talk page..... ΔT The only constant 03:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#.CE.94. *shrug* I am really sorry it has come to this. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]


BeatlesLover (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to List of Rozen Maiden characters[edit]

Hello, Δ

I have contested your removal of images from List of Rozen Maiden characters. I encountered the article during my routine patrol and it seems to me that the use of non-free images in those article is well-justified, according to WP:NFC and WP:NFCC.

I hope you forgive me for saying this: Recently a lot Wikipedians and Commonists have started to have thug-of-war discussion of "Yes, it is - No, it isn't - Yes, it is, ..." with me (or an extended version of it). I know you are a good Wikipedian but I strongly advise that we take this issue to a multiple-image FfD, a third opinion, an RFC or wherever there is more than three input, if all that we have to tell each other is "I disagree, I think I am right". Again, I am sorry that I had to mention this unpleasant point.

Fleet Command (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im re-removing the files, see my note on the talk page. ΔT The only constant 11:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are about to violate The three-revert rule . Funny, I thought you are a good Wikipedian, not an edit warrior... Perhaps you should read and stick to WP:BRD. Fleet Command (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FleetCommand, note that removals due to failure of NFC are excempt to 3RR. Maybe the other editors should stick to WP:NFC and discuss on the talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only removals that unquestionably violate the non-free content policy (NFCC) are exempt (WP:3RRNO, emphasis original). It seems still to be disputed whether that is the case here. Better to discuss further on the talk page, than just hammer the revert button. Jheald (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They do, they can be replaced with one image showing the style, read WP:NFLISTS:
"An image that provides a representative visual reference for other elements in the article, such as what an alien race may look like on a science-fiction television show, is preferred over providing a picture of each element discussed.
How unquestionably do you want it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends what you see as the point of the images. As I understand it, the point was not to show the general style of the animation, the point was to show identifying images of the key characters where no group image was available, as for example images of selected particular characters might be shown in a list of characters in a live-action TV series. Jheald (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dirk, I'd appreciate if you stick with the reply formatting standard of message threads. Anyway, as for questionable status, Consensus refers to the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. When there is no consensus for removal, then it is not unquestionable. Actually, according to Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, the mere objection of me here means lack of consensus. 11:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
No, that is not the point of unquestionable here - this is an unquestionable violation of the policy. And, no, you mistake what is consensus here, see Wikipedia:OVERUSE#Disputed.3F. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That personal essay by a user who has since left the project was written well before the adoption of WP:NFLISTS which crystallised guidance in this area. Nobody here is disputing that WP:NFLISTS is the appropriate guidance, which has the consensus of the community behind it. What is disputed is whether these images fall foul of WP:NFLISTS. That, to my mind, depends on whether an official group shot can or can't be found of all these characters together. But on the evidence available so far at this stage, I see no proven case that there is an "unquestionable" violation of policy here. Jheald (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Jheald. It is an essay. But what you essentially say is, is that when you have consensus to upload a child-pornography image, that that trumps policy. Or if you have consensus to use a certain external link to a document (where the document linked to is a plain and unambiguous copyright violation) that that trumps policy. Or that if you have consensus to use a tinyurl.com link to link to some document, that that trumps policy. Or that you have consensus to write something negative and unsourced about a living subject, that that trumps policy. No, Jheald - consensus does not trump policy in that way. That type of consensus needs a change of policy. If the policy is changed, then one has the consensus needed. These images are unquestionably a violation of policy, they are clearly replaceable (you may not have it available, they are replaceable). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, this child pornography example is a strawman argument. You should properly read and understand the Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Consensus. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort; in Wikipedia, consensus can create, change, override or replace any policy (or [[[WP:IAR|even make exceptions]] in cases that it is found to be opposing the spirit of Wikipedia). But then, you come here and call something that is being actively questioned "unquestionable".

As for having consensus to upload a child-pornography image; prohibition of child pornography in Wikipedia is a Pillar not a policy. (And no, you cannot use the fifth Pillar to violate the first Pillar because you cannot betray Wikipedia's mission to help it in its mission!) Fleet Command (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well .. there you go, Fleetcommand. I am sorry, I should have been more specific: certain parts of policies can not be overridden, consensus does not trump it, WP:IAR is not getting there. This is one of those examples. This can be replaced, you may not have it at the moment, but that does not matter. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, I think you need to distinguish policy from guidelines from your personal interpretation of guidelines. Just because something falls foul of your personal interpretation of a guideline, it doesn't mean it falls foul of policy. Particularly if the established consensus understanding of what that guideline implies in accordance with policy is different from your understanding. FWIW, Wikidemon gave quite a good analysis of NFCLISTS in this discussion at 02:29.
As a bit of history, the cases Durin cites in Wikipedia:OVERUSE#Disputed.3F were early and, by the later standards of the cases addressed by WP:NFLISTS, extreme. They specifically were band discographies and series episode lists, when a thumbnail was used in a table for each and every episode or each and every album, with a link to the main article on that episode or album, and typically a one-line summary of it.
This is different to the kind of case you are persuing at Rozen Maiden, where there is a fair chunk of text about each character, each character does not have their own article, and the appearance of only selected characters is presented.
The guidance text WP:NFLISTS arose after considerable discussion about where the line should be drawn for more complicated cases like this, which is well worth reading in the archives of WT:NFC. The somewhat tentative way NFLISTS is couched reflects the diversity of views as to where the line should appropriately be drawn to be compatible with policy. There was a strong view at the time to include wording that identifying five or so images to present key characters should normally not be a problem; but this was eventually not included, because it was argued that there might be cases where such a suggested number might be unduly restrictive. Jheald (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jheald .. are the images replaceable by a single one, showing the main characters and style (seeing google search, [13] and taking into regard "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.")? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed the question, as I identified at 12:12 and 11:05 above, and on the article talk-page; that is where we need the input from somebody who knows the series, who can tell us whether a group of these main characters ever appeared together, and whether further characters, not in the hypothetical group image, should be identified. Jheald (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I point you to (zh:薔薇少女角色列表 for a single group image - there is not a requirement that all should be in there, this image e.g. shows the style and a set of the main characters. The images are replaceable by one single image. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirects being marked as free[edit]

Your "check files" script doesn't follow redirects on images, with the result being that it mistakenly identifies images transcluded via a redirect as free, whether free or not. Example; on Gail Platt the image File:The Platt Family.JPG is transcluded via a redirect from File:Hillman.JPG. The script identifies Hillman.jpg, a redirect, as being free. In reality of course the redirect transcludes a non-free file (which doesn't have a rationale for this use). Can this be fixed? Your edits like this one have gone a long way to rectifying the problem in general, but I'm hoping the script can take it into account too. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im running through the redirect backlog right now, it only got out of hand due to an error in my generation of used file redirects report. Once I get this backlog under control it wont be an issue. ΔT The only constant 11:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Harassment", "Stalking", "Bullying"[edit]

In relation to this rant, then per WP:NPA, you will immediately cease making these accusations against me without providing the proof you think would stand up and support your making them. You can claim all you want regarding my views on NFCC (which are as ever, wrong, certainly where my input & policy knowledge is concerned), but your allegations as regards me being the perpetrator of harassment, bullying, etc etc, against you, are as baseless and disgusting as they've always been. These are serious charges requiring bullet proof evidence there and then, you do not get a free pass to throw them around without any at all, just because you forever see yourself as a victim for enforcing NFCC the way you personally choose to, on a large scale and in a wholly disputed and disruptive manner. I should not have to remind you that in terms of behaviour that is just expressing simple personal animosity against another editor, in situations that have no relevance to NFCC at all and were not made in any community discussion about it or anything else, then I have cast iron diffs showing how it's you who has stalked and harassed me, not the other way around. And not just from all those years ago before your ban, but as recently as last month, as bold as brass. If you want to dispute any of this, then let's go, we can tack another Delta sanction violation report onto whichever noticeboard the current discussions about you have spilled over into by now. Or you can just strike it & say you won't do it again, as directed to by WP:NPA. Even though I do let a lot of shit slide as regards attempts at character assasination by editors who cannot handle what I have to say about their policy knowledge & edits, these sorts of accusations are not one of them. MickMacNee (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. As it's become clear that you intend to do nothing about this except ignore it, I've removed the editor's names from that post myself, to downgrade it from personal attacks to just basic gross incivility. I expect you not to revert this action. However, based on your behaviour of only last month in a similar situation, I feel obliged to tell you I'm not willing to go down the same path of GAMEplaying again. Should you choose to revert, or if I see you repeat these attacks in future, I will not be coming here again, I will/would give ANI one last chance to collectively show in a time limited & focussed manner that they can get appropriate assurances from you, or otherwise take the necessary action to prevent you doing this for a third time, and if they can't, I'll be turning Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 3 into a blue link. MickMacNee (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As promised MickMacNee (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you think may be a personal attack is not. He is not attacking you or the other named editors as persons, but in behavior towards him and his actions. He may not be assumed the best of good faith in their intentions, but that's far different than the cases that NPA deals with. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, you know full well that accusing someone of stalking or harassment is serious, and without evidence, is a straight up personal attack. If you don't, then I suggest you put yourself up for admin review to have your general competence re-assessed by the community who trust you to know these things. Do not let your obvious topic interest in NFCC enforcement cloud you to these basic facts, which are written in black and white in the policy. MickMacNee (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty clear that Delta's been harassed by several editors in the last few weeks with the number of AN, ANI, ANEW, talk pages, etc. It is not like it is out of the blue, nor it is difficult to tell who are Delta's more vocal naysayers. So while you're right that such claims can be personal attacks if unfounded, this is not the case here. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, this is tiresome. I don't for a minute think you really believe this is a remotely acceptable stance to take. You want to blame me for all the recent flak he's got, you want to allow him to make unfounded personal attacks against me just because it may or may not be true, you want to excuse whatever Delta does as merely the uncontrollable consequences of the general failure of Wikipedia to handle NFCC and something that's not in his control whatsoever, then fine, go right ahead. Just seriously consider whether you can still justifiably call yourself an admin here. MickMacNee (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicon usage[edit]

Please initiate a RFC or Village Pump discussion to resolve the issue of whether Flagicon or NFCC are the overriding case; your assertion that NFCC is runs contrary to many years worth of extensive Flagicon use of fair-use images in cases where free images aren't available.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a flag icon issue, it is an NFCC issue: there is no rationale for the use of the those images on those pages - and these appear to not be of the trivial type - they are flat out missing rationals. Eg: File:People's Mujahedeen of Iran logo.png is used 4 times but only has 1 rationale. This must be fixed before the image can be reused. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Georgewilliamherbert, Ive given you a final warning on your talk page for violating NFCC, by adding files to articles without valid rationales, if you continue to do to so to make a WP:POINT you will be blocked for violating our NFCC policy. ΔT The only constant 03:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See, here's the problem. You went and repeatedly edit warred with Wikidemon without once explaining the specific problem there. Which then confused me, too.
And, you have just failed AGF here as well.
If you had just once put in an edit summary that indicated that the flag needed FURs for those articles it would have been trivial for me to do that from the beginning.
I assume good faith that you didn't realize that you failed to communicate that. Your assumption could lead one to assume I was being POINTy. However, you could have assumed good faith with at least one clarifying comment first rather than jumping to assuming the worst immediately. You could also have checked my recent edits and noticed I was, in fact, adding FURs properly to images where it was appropriate, and consider that perhaps in this case I didn't notice or had forgotten to do that one.
This is the reason you come under criticism so much.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
again you must be reading with your eyes closed Because I did clearly state why I removed the files. ΔT The only constant 04:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of non-free flag icons is not wide spread. There isnt any single non-free flag except File:Nypd_flag.png that is being used in more than 4 places. So please take some time and do your research before placing your foot in your mouth. ΔT The only constant 04:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You always use that (or do recently). You failed to clarify the specifics with Wikidemon in approximately 8 edit warring opportunities where you reverted his reverts, not once actually saying "It hasn't got a FUR for this article".
Template or blank reverts which don't address the specific concerns don't help clarify the situation to the other party. I know this was always obvious to you, because you acted multiple times. The first time, it should have been clear that it wasn't evident to Wikidemon. He did not go around and revert everything you did today or anything, he had a specific content issue with the one set of articles (I think just that one set, without going back and rechecking everything). Again, you failed to AGF and slow down enough to identify that he hadn't followed you, and you failed to AGF with me when I made the same mistake he did.
You instead seem to have assumed we were both just being shits and being POINTy with you.
I understand how you could have come to believe that, but it requires lack of normally expected AGF and lattitude and willingness to communicate with people when something's wrong.
When I thought it was colliding policies, I came here and without prejudice asked you to go get a clarifying consensus. I didn't assume you'd specifically picked articles I watchlist and have been involved in to target me for our recent disputes, I didn't assume you'd made any technical mistakes. I didn't insult your intentions or give you a warning. I just asked you to go get a policy RFC going for what I (at the time) thought the policy issue was.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ive warned Wikidemon in the last few days for doing exactly what he did here again, re-adding files I removed without addressing the issue. Also no RFC is needed NFCC > flag MOS. NFCC is crystal clear with regards to usage of non-free content. You automatically loose the right to claim AGF when you are actively engaged in NFC related discussions, blindly join an edit war that violates NFC, re-insert large volumes of NFC without rationales. Instead of saying "Oh gosh, I dont know why he removed that file, I had better leave it the way it is and go ask" you choose to edit war, and violate NFCC policy. ΔT The only constant 04:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you're continuing to assume bad faith. That's ... quite amazing.
I went and fixed the problem as soon as it was clear to me what the problem was. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im not assuming anything, your actions speak for themselves. ΔT The only constant 04:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do. If you are clear with people all the time, most of them will go fix problems and not bite back. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was clear, or did you not bother to read my edit summaries? ΔT The only constant 04:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above - you failed to address the specific complaint Wikidemon raised, which if read indicates that he was confused about the rationale for deletion or problem with the image. You confused him, as his responses made evident. His responses and your lack of addressing his specific responses, only repeating either the same boilerplate again and again or reverting with no additional comment, did not resolve the situation.
I know what you think you were saying. But you failed to detect that not just one, but two other people had misunderstood, and assumed bad faith (that we were intentionally being shits) rather than pause and try and communicate in a more clear manner. Again - we expect editors and admins to try to communicate more clearly - and that includes situations where you're technically correct but the other party is confused about what's going on. You having been right - and I am not disputing that, as my having gone to fix it should demonstrate - does not excuse your communications style's role in the length of time that it took to untangle it all. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georgewilliamherbert, I hope you do understand, that editors, repeatedly, fail to assume good faith on Delta when re-inserting the image without first figuring out what the perceived problem is. Did you, or Wikidemon, consider that the removal is an unquestionable failure of WP:NFCC - which is generally true (even for cases where the rationale is just 'broken' due to a complicated move or a typo ..). Sure, it is fixable in another way, but many cases here are plain, unambiguous, unquestionable violations of WP:NFCC - exempt of 3RR (but, for the re-inserters, apparently also of WP:AGF). One may not understand why Delta is removing them, but blaming Delta for not assuming good faith when re-removing an image is a pot-kettle problem, and it does not help. Why not first ask Delta before reinserting. Maybe he is right (and for what I see, he generally is right). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the flags used as icons, as that's almost the very epitome of decorative non-free images. George, please see non-free content criterion 8- the flag, when used as as icon, clearly does not add significantly to reader understanding of the topic. If there's not a free flag for the organisation, that's fine, just use the name. As Delta said above, this is by no means as widespread as you'd like to make out, and if there are any other cases of it happening, they need fixing too. If the guidelines about the use of the flagicon template imply that using non-free images in this manner is acceptable (which I doubt...) then they probably need to be updated... J Milburn (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur with J Milburn; I've removed a number of similar violations example. In almost all cases they failed WP:NFCC #10c, but there's a larger issue in that they are a blatant failure of WP:NFCC #8 and #1. Using non-free images as icons isn't acceptable under WP:NFCC, and if there is some direction somewhere that {{flagicon}} should be used with non-free content, it needs to be corrected. Right now, I'm not seeing anything to support your position at either the documentation on the template page or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh eyes[edit]

Hi Δ. You may have noticed me around, I think we've bumped into each other on a user talk page or two. I, on the other hand, have been following your "case" for about a year or two. I've not commented on it, because I just don't do that much image work. But with about 2.2Mb of discussion on your work on AN/I archives alone, I think there is an indisputable problem. I'm not going to pretend I have a magic wand to fix everything, but I was wondering if you would take a little time to explain some things to me about the way you work (by email if you'd rather not give out such information publicly). Perhaps we can improve your "customer service" a little bit, to help reduce the amount of complaints. Just a thought. WormTT · (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ask. ΔT The only constant 11:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing first with removal of non-free images, you have a script which identifies where non-free images are being used without an associated rationale. You then run through those articles, removing all offending images from these articles, with a standard edit summary.
  1. Could the edit summary include the name of the image as a parameter?
  2. Is the script aware of how many images that have been removed from each article? And could that be included as a parameter?
  3. I've heard mention of a warning message placed on the talk page and removal to take place an arbitrary period afterwards if the rationale has not been fixed - could you please give your opinion on that concept?
  4. Rather than reverting multiple times yourself, would you consider reporting all NFC (again using the script) to a noticeboard, allowing multiple editors to help remove it.
Thanks for your time. WormTT · (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. my edit summary is 3 characters from maximum, so I really cant do that.
  2. it doesnt count the number that is removed and actually its normally just one or two files.
  3. I have a proposal for just such a task at Wikipedia:AN#Request for exemption
  4. No such notice board exists, Ive proposed one several times but as of right now it doesnt exist.
ΔT The only constant 11:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I was going to suggest rewriting to make it more personal, but was wondering it it was technically possible.
  2. I've seen that, would it be much work to count the number removed? Just checking feasibility of ideas.
  3. Thanks, I'll look into it.
  4. So, I take it that if such a noticeboard existed, you would be happy to use it as I suggested?
WormTT · (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wikipedia:Non-free content review ? –xenotalk 17:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with WP:NFCR is that it's lightly followed, almost always isn't binding, and really isn't used for this sort of thing. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But if people were made aware that Δ would not be reverting, and filling it up instead, it would become backlogged and editors should come to help out. At least that's the theory. Either way, it shouldn't be Δ's problem that the board is not being followed, if he's doing all he can that the community will allow him. As for "isn't used for this sort of thing" perhaps it should be ;)
Also Δ, is there a reason that 3) has to be done by a bot (which you'd require an exemption for). Could you not run it as scripts in the same way you are now? WormTT · (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Δ and unnecessarily impolite measures to make a point[edit]

Hello, Δ. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding your recent treatment of other Wikipedia users. Thank you. --Fleet Command (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:uw-nonfree vs. User:Hammersoft/10c[edit]

I note that you're using {{non-free}} to warn users when they restore non-free content to an article without providing an appropriate rationale. The problem I see is that this template really isn't appropriate to invalid 10c restorations. It's very generic, and if anything points to non-free images for depiction purposes on BLPs. User:Hammersoft/10c is more specific and has two flags, the first for the image that was restored and the second for the article where it was restored. It is a specific message that directly addresses the failure point on which the image was removed. Could I talk you into using the latter rather than the former? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRN notice[edit]

Since being an involved user, please do join in with the discussion on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_Rozen_Maiden_characters. Thank you. Island Monkey talk the talk 16:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN3 resolution[edit]

In response to the new edit war that's popped up, and in light of the recent threads across the noticeboards, it appears to me that neither you nor FleetCommand nor Island Monkey is acting in a collegial spirit of cooperation, nor that either of you has a desire to do anything but put your ideas through by brute force. This isn't acceptable, and my reading of WP:3RR doesn't support either of your actions. Remember, while a technical violation may not have been in place, the edit warring is still unacceptable. In my opinion, it is no longer relevant whether the images violate NFCC, you are not acting in a spirit of cooperation. As such, I've placed another block on your account in order to get you both to try to play nicely. If another admin undoes my action without my support, there's not much I can do about it; but IMHO you are both totally out of line and should consider yourselves lucky for only have a 24 hour block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of CBS[edit]

FYI -

What just happened with you, Wikidemon, and me is clearly now what's happening again on History of CBS with you and User:4twenty42o.

And, again, you're responding in the same manner, without clarifying it to him.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is so hard to understand? read the edit summary. ΔT The only constant 05:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understood it just fine, now that I know the context. But - and this is important - three people in a row have now misinterpreted you in exactly the same manner.
When that happens - there's something wrong with the way you are communicating in situations.
You need to understand that and adjust the way you're communicating to avoid that happening. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how much clear than files removed due to missing rationale I can get. ΔT The only constant 05:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A file or files on this page may have had FURs for other pages, but not for this one. They have been removed from this page because they do not have FURs for this one. If they meet valid non-fair use criteria for this page here, please add a FUR for this page in particular before readding them to the page. Thank you. "
Is that that hard? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that is generally not the case, Georgewilliamherbert. They often have FURs for other pages, but for other uses they generally have never existed (just sometimes they are broken, or have typos, but then they still do not point to the right place. I agree, they could be fixed before removal, but the same is true for fixing before re-inserting). The simple point is 'All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page' - if Delta is removing them, then first assume, that there is something, unquestionably, wrong - that they 'do not have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point too.
There's an onus on an administrator or editor doing cleanup (of any kind), that if people are misinterpreting the cleanup, they need to explain the cleanup better.
This is not a "don't do it", it's not even a "change your first notification template", but a "reuse of the first notification template after someone reverts is monumentally failing to explain to people what the actual problem is".
IF someone reverts the removal, then the explanation of what was wrong to that user has to be clear and unambiguous. Repeating it over and over again without actually explaining is the problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But Delta does, he leaves talkpage notices when removing after editors re-insert the image. That is a templated message, indeed, and maybe that message should be rewritten (but here is not the place, and note, except for some cleanup Delta did not write that template, that is done independently. And why does a {{uw-nonfree}} not have 4 warning levels, why does the base template already give such a strong warning? Maybe it was deemed in the past that it was that important?), but both in the removal edit-summary and in the message, there are links to the policies and guidelines, and to FAQs. And there is always the talkpage of Delta to ask a question. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. You're responsible for your communications. If a template doesn't work - and clear evidence is showing that these aren't - and you continue to use it, you're communicating badly in a way that's your own fault, and escalating what should be situations that can be calmly resolved.
Fix template (some suggestions were above), or ask for help to fix the template, or go do a personal message to the person. That doesn't take that long. Among other things, the number of users who actually do push back is minimal. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is, the messages clearly do work on the large majority of editors (see e.g. diff, diff). People are repairing the rationale and re-inserting. It is just a very minor group who revert because they do not understand NFC. I am sorry, not understanding why something is wrong has never been a reason to do it, and certainly should never be a reason to push it. Still we see edit warring here (and not just because of a broken rationale, or a plain missing rationale - we see extended edit wars on image use in articles which plainly fail WP:NFCC and will never be compliant with NFCC - those images should not be there). I am sorry, there may be improvements possible in the edit summary (but the one you suggest is more confusing and does not get to the point - the reason of not having a FUR is not what should be explained in the edit summary, it should explain what needs to be done, and that is IMHO quite clear in the edit summary).
All of this should not be here, editors should assist Delta when Delta gets reverted. When I am available I will re-revert, and will try to talk to the editor what the problem is . Most editors who come here with 'you are edit warring with Party C' should be on the talkpage of Party C explaining that there actually is something wrong, and assist in solving the problem and even considering to re-remove the images while the problem is there and not solved (especially since some of these problems are not solveable at all). And certainly more editors should be vigilant against any incivility directed at Delta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The non-free content use in that article was an absolute joke. I replaced four (!!) non-free images of people with free images of those people. The idea that someone thinks that adding a non-free image there instead of one of the free ones available boggles... J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That someone would replace, in an article about CBS, a publicity photo of Bing Crosby at a CBS microphone, with a newsphoto of Crosby squatting next to a box of golf balls (some ten years later when he no longer worked for CBS) boggles my mind. Same with Murrow and Shirer, with photos after they were dismissed from the network. It takes all minds to make a world, I guess. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored 3 of the 4 images on the CBS article (haven't looked at History of CBS yet) per HarringtonSmith's comment. These non-free images were used to illustrate the public association of certain iconic individuals with the network and, as such, photographs of them in other eras doing things unconnected with the network are not true replacements. The point isn't to identify who they are but to show their context with the network. The one I didn't replace, John Garfield, was a movie trailer picture grom Gentleman's Agreement, a film apparently unconnected with CBS. But the caption contained some text saying (without a source) that he would reprise his movie roles on CBS broadcasts. I couldn't quickly find that on google but I'll give the benefit of the doubt that this free image somehow shows the relationship between Garfield and CBS. It's not 100% clear that these photos are needed, which is a separate discussion. But if they are, they should illustrate what they're there to illustrate. Another thought, what's the likelihood that these publicity photos are in fact copyrighted? It seems unlikely that the studio would file a registration for them, in which case they're free images too. Is there any way to quickly check? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing some logic to the discussion, Wikidemon. The John Garfield photo and caption were not meant to single out John Garfield as notable unto himself; it said that "Stars like John Garfield often reprised a movie role" and there was a good publicity photo of Garfield acting at a CBS radio mic. Had it been Harpo Marx or Rin Tin Tin reprising a film role at a CBS mic, the point would have been the same. I don't know how to check for copyright renewals of photos of deceased persons after 70-some years, but I know that by displaying these promo photos, we're fulfilling the objective for which they were created. Anyway, thanks again for your logical thought. Regards — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiDemon, I have reverted you. That is point-blank unacceptable. You are showing a blatant misunderstanding of/disregard for the non-free content criteria. If you want to discuss this, we'll discuss this, but do not edit war with me. Now, let me explain this. We may use non-free content if and only if its use significantly increases reader understanding of the topic. None of those images did. For instance, we do not need to see a picture of Crosby with a microphone that says "CBS" to understand that at one stage he was affiliated with CBS. So, yes, maybe the images I used were less appropriate, but, frankly, I don't care, as, either way, the non-free images were not required. You're welcome to remove the images I added, or swap them around, or whatever, but do not replace the non-free images. I replaced them with the free images because, in my experience, people have been more receptive to that than the (equally policy compliant...) complete removal of unwarranted non-free images. If I was wasting my time, then so be it- either way, the non-free images need to stay out of the article, until you can demonstrate that the article cannot be fully understood without publicity photos of these people with CBS microphones... J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not edit warred here, I don't edit war. I made a single edit that reverted for the first time three of the four image swaps you proposed -- see WP:BRD. You have at this point, though. You felt that some images you added were more appropriate, I explained that they aren't. I understand WP:NFC, and assert that these images are within the allowable limits, they certainly satisfy the "no free equivalent" term that was the basis of their removal. You may have a reasonable argument that these images are not necessary for the reader's understanding of the relationship between CBS and these stars, but's not your place as an editor to give me commands in the imperative simply because you have a different interpretation than some other editors on this. It's up to you to discuss and otherwise gain consensus if you wish to remove them. I may just join in that consensus if the argument is strong enough, in which case I would be in favor of no images rather than unrelated ones. NFCC is not a license to join edit wars to get rid of non-free content, it's a guideline to allow reasonable editors to work together to make decisions. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm transcluding this discussion to the CBS article so anyone there can see what's going on. If we wear out our welcome there we should just copy the discusison.
"I understand WP:NFC, and assert that these images are within the allowable limits". Wow. And you do not have my permission to transclude my comments anywhere. J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need your permission but you're in luck - you can't transclude a partial page. But we should continue any discussion there, as Beta's talk page is not an appropriate place for an extended discussion of a specific article. Editors there won't find it, and we're filling up his page. I'll reference this discussion and post any further comments there. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you're yet to actually discuss the issue. All you're doing is blaming me for things, complaining, and moving the discussion around. If you want to discuss it, let's bloody discuss it. J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you![edit]

Thank you for all you do for NFCC enforcement. Hasteur (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions[edit]

By the way, since ArbCom's decided to start a motion about you, and neglected to bother to inform you of it, be aware they have done so with two proposals; a topic ban, and a site ban. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming over here to let you know about these motions. If you would like me to unblock you solely so that you can comment there, please just ask. I'll be watchlisting your talk page for the time being. NW (Talk) 22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its an obvious farce, run around the community, both of their motions have been proposed and failed to gain consensus. If arbcom actually had a backbone they would remove all current sanctions that are placed on me (except perhaps the CIVIL) and give me four months to get this issue fully under control. Wikidemon by his own words has a 28.57% error rate, I know for a fact that my error rate is less than a tenth of that (3%) with my NFCC#10c removals. If anyone wants to disprove that Ill get a full listing of every NFCC#10c removal that Ive made for them to review. If can find a higher error rate (and I mean actually errors where 10c was met and I still removed the file) Ill stop my 10c enforcement of my own will. However I know that my error rate is far less than that. But getting back to my main point in four months I can get 10c removals to a handful per day with plenty of notification, warnings, and a binding NFC review system for individual article/files that is as binding as FFD or any other XfD. This whole process could become a lot more streamlined and manageable and user friendly, however as it stands getting these implemented has a snow balls chance in hell due to all of the loopholes that I have to jump through. So my counter proposal is this, arbcom give me 4 months of free rain and let me implement everything that I want, stop the harassment and stalking against me, and lets get the whole issue addressed and under control (its been 4 years already, far too long). Otherwise ignore the community and ArbFuck™ me again. Ive proposed multiple solutions over a long period of time but due to the excessive hoops Ive had to jump through, unable to implement. ΔT The only constant 02:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, they've decided to cop out. You'll be topic banned, and possibly site banned since their burden to pass is >50%, apparently forever. I may yet raise this issue with Jimbo, which I would never do. The problem here is the community already voiced their disagreement with both of these motions and ArbCom's decided to ignore the community's wishes. So, moving forward; I do hope you continue to update reports such as this one. And to the Δ lynch mob, no this doesn't mean anything more than I'll be continuing the work I've been doing for years. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that it's inevitable, I am trying to get them to spell out what exactly they don't expect Delta to be blocked for in regards to NFC, since we all know how "broadly" will be interpreted if its not spelled out (and xeno suggests that Delta can still be involved as long as its not enforcement). I think Delta can still be productive here if the issue is that tag and warn appropriately, but not remove or the like. (and as I've noted, this also prevents Delta from fixing broken rationales...) --MASEM (t) 15:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHRF/WHRE[edit]

I've added non-free media rationales for the WHRV logo that apply to these articles; would that be enough for the logo to be re-added? WikiPuppies! (bark) 23:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I didn't know you were blocked! Sorry... WikiPuppies! (bark) 23:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked for you, and the basics seem to be there. As a comment if they are sharing the same logo, you may want to make that relationship clearer in the article bodies as I was having some difficulty understanding why four different stations would have that logo, but that's not a deterrent right now for you to reuse those images. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks! :) WikiPuppies! (bark) 00:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Script question 2[edit]

After a chat with Beetstra about NFCCheckBot, he told me that he has perl code and you have the python code. I hate perl with a passion, so is there any chance you can share your python code? John Vandenberg (chat) 22:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The code is a little bit of a mess, and Ill need some time to isolate it from the rest of my code, anything in particular you where interested in? ΔT The only constant 03:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mostly looking for logic which identifies which images are "fair use image used without applicable FUR". I am happy to help cleaning it up so it can be turned into a generator to be added to meta:pagegenerators.py. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the complexity of the issue, I do it in a two part process. I generate a list of all non-free image use article/use/checksums, then I process them. If everything is good I add the checksum to a file and ignore it in all future runs. (generating that list takes over 26 hours alone) so adding this as part of pywiki isnt feasible. Update runs can take as little as a few hours though. As for detection I use four primary functions. (get_images(),is_non_free(),has_rationale(), and getRedirects()). Give me a few days to straighten those out and isolate them and Ill see what I can do. ΔT The only constant 05:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011[edit]

Another questionable file[edit]

File:Trevor Mcnevan.jpg. I'm sorry that I don't know where to raise the concerns. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The file is hosted on Commons. Nothing could be done about it here on en.wikipedia. I've tagged the image as a copyright violation on Commons, and it should be deleted soon. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum[edit]

Please observe proper decorum and remain civil on the arbitration pages - it is not appropriate to tell other editors to "shut up". –xenotalk 05:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him to put up or shut up, either base his claims with fact and solid information or to quit lying, attacking, insulting, and miss-representing the truth. If he cannot back his outlandish, and derogatory claims with facts he needs to stop making them. The Put up, or Shut up is a fairly common expression, similar to put your money where your mouth is. If you can let such outlandish and plain wrong, miss-characterization, and negative claims go unchallenged I think you need to review CIVIL yourself. ΔT The only constant 12:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"You cant, so please shut up and stop making false claims."
It is possible to rebut someone's position without telling them to shut up. –xenotalk 12:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ive done that multiple times and they persist with false claims, since arbcom doesnt have the backbone to support NFCC and actually do something productive, and instead ignore the policy and the real issues I dont expect them to step in and do anything productive this time either, whether its to stop the harassment, support NFCC or anything else productive, instead Ill just be your whipping boy. ΔT The only constant 12:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xeno, I note your willingness to take Δ to task as above, but have no willingness to take to task people making direct and false accusations. Indeed, this is the very sort of thing that Δ's hate squad have been doing for some time now. You've become part of the problem by enabling those who attack him, and are now also part of that group. To see this from a member of ArbCom is highly disappointing. I expect better. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Telling someone to shut up is a direct violation of Wikipedia:Civility, one of the pillars. If I was xeno, my response would have been much more heavy-handed. Fleet Command (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And even more out of line for not considering the context, warning other parties, and perhaps meting out other corrective actions as necessary. I didn't say Δ shouldn't have been taken to task. I noted the disparity in treatment, which is at the very core of this dispute (and largely ignored by ArbCom). --Hammersoft (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for personal attack[edit]

I have been warned [14] for making personal attacks on you. I did not wish to make an attack on you as a person, just on your editing behaviour, but I accept that my note did not come across as civil, so I retract the uncivil parts. I hope you will nevertheless consider what I said. Please delete this post after reading as you wish, but please do not characterise it as trolling or vandalism, because that would be a misuse of those terms, as were your previous charcterisations. Have a nice day.

Please read WP:AGF. ΔT The only constant 03:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Script question[edit]

I was told you may have the script I am looking for? (see linked thread) PS. I enjoyed your userpage, but [15] is broken :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ive got some code I can dust off and take a look at, do you have a good test page to work with? ΔT The only constant 04:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what would be the criteria of a good test page. If you want a cleaned article which the script should pass through without any changes, try Constitution of 3rd May. For an article that I would like to run it on, with lot of citations that need to be moved, check Katyn massacre. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does this look? ΔT The only constant 11:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good, but I am not sure why certain other changes were carried out (is this part of the same script?), namely: 1) several ISBN's were changed, why? The script seems to be converting ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 (IIRC), which is nice, but are we sure it does so without any errors? 2) severa' &nbsp; were added, why? 3) I see that the script added name to and converted some refs, but not all. Why? For example in the diff you link, in the first para, <ref>[[Norman ref stayed as it was, but few paras down I see a new ref was (correctly) created for <ref name="Livre noir du Communisme: crimes, terreur, répression">. Could we get the script to convert and move those remaining references, too? Also, it would be nice if the script could detect duplicates and merge them (what I mean is to do what I did here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Its part of my general fixes that I apply, and the conversion is error proof.
2. with the MoS, it suggests using non-breaking spaces with time and units units.
3. It didnt name that ref because there isnt any good way to parse those types of manual refs and get a good title from it, and it does merge exact dupes.
ΔT The only constant 21:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was also told now that this script may be of interest: User:PleaseStand/References segregator. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think mines a little better, as it has more features. and flexibility ΔT The only constant 16:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, creating such an introduction page and advertising it may be a good idea, this seems like a quite useful script you've developed! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Until Ive done plenty of testing Im not making it public, so please feed me any pages you want converted so I can use them as test pages. ΔT The only constant 16:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[16] is a good example of what the script can do without moving refs. ΔT The only constant 21:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every page that doesn't have the refs moved is a good example, so I could link you few million pages :) Please let me know on my talk page when you feel like making the script public. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue there is a lot of people dont like LDR's and thus mass conversion is not appropriate, If you have particular articles you are working on and want them converted let me know. ΔT The only constant 15:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure we like them at WP:POLAND, so I'd like to be able to fix all Polish-related articles, at least. I similarly expect no objections form WP:SOCIOLOGY. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can get me a list Ill see what I can do. ΔT The only constant 16:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you fee like doing it yourself... [17]. Btw, I just checked WP:LDR and there is nothing there to indicate it is controversial anymore. Frankly, I see no reason why anybody would object to cleaning the code like this; if anybody does, please send them my way :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just dropped you an email, let me know what you think. ΔT The only constant 16:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I'll report any errors I run into. One thought - perhaps it would be (eventually) better to split components into separate, optional sections (so, fixing refs is one, dashes, another, html/table, yet another, and so on). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding User:Δ[edit]

Resolved by motion:
Pursuant to the provisions of Remedy 5.1, RfAr/Betacommand 2, and mindful of the recent and current disputes surrounding this user in many fora, the committee by motion indefinitely topic-bans Δ (formerly known as Betacommand) from making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed. User:Δ is also formally reminded of the civility restriction and other terms to which they are still subject as a condition of the provisional suspension of their community ban.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this
&delta, as far as I'm concerned , Arbcom is dead wrong on this. There is no evidence that you've made any edits regarding NFCC that were not supported by policy. Far as I'm concerned this is noting more than a bunch of Delta haters getting together to stop you from what you did well. (And that's from a guy who's had a conflict with you over one image already ! )

I'm sorry this happend to you. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 11:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is a classic case of being ArbFucked™. Instead of actually having a spine and addressing the issue arbcom just uses me as a whipping boy. ΔT The only constant 11:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is always easier to look for a goat than it is to fix the real problem. Night Ranger (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is obvious from the actions of many people that the "real problem" is the presence of Δ on the project. Since there's no consensus for that, harassment is a means to an end. Except, it isn't working. Therefore, anger. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is how we replace the useful elements (and for that matter, ArbCom's lack of a spinal column). Δ, how willing are you to release the parts of your code that don't have the ability to cause serious damage (I'm thinking more of the 10c stuff here). Black Kite (t) (c) 17:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would that be on The Cadre's listserv? (<facepalm> so you know I'm legit as I have the ultra secret hand signal). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Strange edit[edit]

You have changed a number of named refs to "autogenerated" refs here, thereby duplicating a number of identical refs and increasing the number of refs from 230 to 240. Having the same ref "named" twice with the same name is not an error, this works perfectly. You could improve this by changing one of the instances to a short named ref (same name, with the / at the end), or you could leave it alone, but what you did here wasn't an improvement at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)

The refs where renamed because you had multiple refs with the same name but different content. If the names are the same the content should be too. ΔT The only constant 11:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But they had the same content? The article now has these three named refs, where earlier they (correctly) had the same name:

"[1]" [2] [3] Fram (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a closer look, ref 1 is 250 characters long, ref 2 is 249, and ref 3 is 254 characters long. They have almost the same content but not quite. ΔT The only constant 11:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For a bot perhaps, a human would consider them to be the same. Please edit like a human, not like a bot. Fram (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BS. Yes, recognizing they are the same because there are a few characters different likely would be the activity of a human - but catching duplicate refs is not something that any editor does on average when they edit, not expected in any policy or guideline ("you must prevent the creation of duplicate refs") and typically part of a final step when preparing the article for a review process (GA, FA, etc.) It didn't break anything, it didn't lose any information, it didn't disrupt the page. And especially in an article that has 200+ refs, there is no community expectation that any random editor has to find and correct issues with duplicate references. You're making up "expectations" that you want Delta to meet that no normal editor using by-hand tools is expected to perform.
I'd also say that while you're right that in this specific case that the multiple named refs technically work because the cite inside is the same work, in practice, MediaWiki will only use one of those as the cite, so if they were different, that would have caused refs to be lost. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not expecting Delta to "find and correct issues with duplicate references.", I expect him to leave things which work perfectly allright alone. Masem, these names parameters were correct and did what they were supposed to do. Now, they have the beautiful "autogenerated" name instead of the descriptive one they had, and are scattered all over the place in the refs section. On such a long article, with that many references, confusing things by splitting previously grouped together references is not helpful in any way. Again, I don't ask him to correct any errors, I ask him not to make things worse, which actually is a "community expectation" for all editors. Fram (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it worked because there were two wrongs making a right. When you have two spelled-out named refs with the same name, only one of those will appear in the ref lists, and the other(s) will be footnoted to that. The fact that they were all the same ref means that there was no apparent damage within the article in this case. Yes, I am pretty sure that they could have been replaced with the short bookmark form <ref name="something"/>, but if that done here, only looking at the name of the refs and not what their content was, that could have lost to revisions the contents of two reference lines, or maybe intended placeholders for more specific references. With at least what Delta's doing, it adds duplicate refs but does not lose information. The fix to repair that is much easily (only have to go off the current version) than to traipse back through history to find the original content. Add that there are 200+ refs and a long article, and that's something that you pretty much have to use a bot or assisted tools for, and not something expected of human users. I would be more concerned if there were only 5 refs in a short article which can be easily scanned through to find, but not in most good-sized, well referenced articles. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at User:Δ/Sandbox 3 and run tools:~dispenser/view/Reflinks across that, you will get the same results with re-named refs, which was just a small part of that edit. ΔT The only constant 13:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blame it on the tool? Your edits are your responsability, as you should well know by now. Fram (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here comes the lynch mob again. Please understand, I'm not referring to anyone in particular. Just that I know where this is headed; it's going to be taken up as rallying cry with the hordes of Δ haters coming for his head on a pike again. Δ, the beatings will continue until your morale improves. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be devolving into baiting/goading, which is unfortunate. I'm getting the feeling that some of these "issues" are being grossly overblown by people who are doing just to hound someone they don't like. This is most unfortunate. Night Ranger (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Δ. You have new messages at Snottywong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Notification of arbitration request[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Δ and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, MickMacNee (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GAA flags redirects[edit]

Hi. I'm just wondering why you have adjusted all my redirects. The point of these redirects is that you don't have to go messing around to see which already uploaded flag matches the colours of the county required. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File redirects are messy and can be problematic due to issues with file links, bypassing them avoids those issues. ΔT The only constant 02:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2011[edit]

Ad:User:Δ[edit]

Ad:User:Δ

It is the best userpage on Wikipedia! Bulwersator (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes[edit]

I noticed you removed the reference I posted. I'm not surprised but the reason it was posted was to try to stop an edit war. There was in fact a sneak peak that air which contained pretty much the entire episode there are many pages that I have found that can prove that. The only problem is we can not find one that would be considered a reliable source to post so we have no idea what to do. And by we, I am talking about myself and Black Yoshi. So what can we do? JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 19:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About images wich are may be not under right licence[edit]

Hello! Please have look here. All these images had been uplouded to Wikipedia under licence {{PD-RusEmpire}}. But there is a big problem. The city of Hughesovka is not Russian city but is Ukrainian city. The modern name of the city is Donetsk. On the names of these fotos you can also notice text "Photo from the Museum of History of Donetsk metallurgical plant". This plant is not in Russia but it is in Ukraine. So I thing it is necessary to change licences of all these fotos to Ukrainian licence becouse they are not from Russia but they are belonging to Ukraine. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the language of the PD-RusEmpire license: if the territory (except for Finland) was part of the Russian Empire (as Ukraine was then), and the work published prior to 1917 (as was the cases of these 1911 images), then they fall under the old Russian Empire public domain. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 July 2011[edit]

Another copyright infringement[edit]

File:Laceyyyyyy.jpg Thanks --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Δ. You have new messages at Nathan2055's talk page.
Message added 15:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Could you please give us a hand? I'm confused as to whether this picture is fair use or a modification of a cc-by-nc. Nathan2055talk 15:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wario World[edit]

Hello, I'm french so sorry if I don't speak very well. This is about this. There is a dead link, but you have removed the template "dead link". Why ? Thank you for your answer, MicroCitron (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "All Time Big-12 Standings" (PDF). MackBrown-TexasFootball.com. University of Texas & Host Interactive. Retrieved 2006-06-26.
  2. ^ "All Time Big-12 Standings" (PDF). MackBrown-TexasFootball.com. University of Texas & Host Interactive. Retrieved 2006-06-26.
  3. ^ "All Time Big-12 Standings" (PDF). MackBrown-TexasFootball.com. University of Texas & Host Interactive. Retrieved 2006-06-26.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Δ/20110701&oldid=1145842649"