User talk:Δ/20110101

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Apologies for reverting those first two, I didn't realise you'd been making other changes until the third article.

However, it would help if:

1. You actually described everything you were doing in the edit summary, rather than just some of it, otherwise you are just setting up the perfect situation for someone to miss what you've done.
2. You did something more helpful and added added the FURs, rather than just taking the logos off articles which clearly need them, and just creating work for everybody else. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 15:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually most of those usages are not really needed and are decorative, but Im not going to go into that fight. As for writing a non-free rationale, without knowing the article its fairly time consuming to do it right. No article needs non-free material period. if you think it does take a look at the German wikipedia, they dont allow any non-free images period. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I realise that, but we do allow non-free images, so it seems silly not to make the most of it. Where do you draw the line on company articles that have logos and would be daft not to, such as

Sprite (soft drink), and companies that don't? Arriva436^{talk/contribs}

15:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not what Im saying, however

WP:NFCC#3 about minimal usage, I do not have a clue how using the same image 25+ times could be considered minimal. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

15:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

But the same logo is used by all of the separate companies. NFCC#3: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." I don't think one item can convey equivalent significant information, because if you are reading about, say First Hampshire & Dorset, you'd be unlikely to visit the FirstGroup article about the parent company, so having the logo on just that article would not convey the image to the Hampshire & Dorset article. Plus, I take "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information," to mean more like having two similar logos where one will do, rather than necessarily using the one logo in different places. Anyway, let's stop talking about something neither of us are actually going to do anything about!! Arriva436talk/contribs 16:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• I often see people taking meaning from NFCC policy and NFC guideline that supports non-free image usage. The correct way to view these policies and guidelines isn't from the perspective of "What can I derive from this that supports my usage?" but rather "Is there anything written here that could be interpreted as not supporting the usage". We are a free content encyclopedia. In as much as possible, we limit the use of non-free material to that which is absolutely necessary. We don't look for exceptions to the rule to remove content, we look for exceptions where we MUST have the content in order to be encyclopedic. The difference in perspectives is an absolute chasm across which editors stare at each other. There's been thousands upon thousands of arguments over the NFCC/NFC material, all across the project. The chasm is no more narrow now than ever. Yet, NFCC and NFC remain largely unchanged over the years. That should be a very, very telling testament to what the true nature of this project is. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Δ, if I've asked this before, please forgive me. I'm wondering how difficult/possible it would be to create a daily or weekly report that showed the number of articles on the project that contain at least one non-free file? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

trivial, Ill see about getting one setup. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

tools:~betacommand/reports/pages_with_nfcc_count.log ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks! Wow. ~10% of the project. Ouch! --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What is it you see wrong with the sample of Danny Boy on Floater's Glyph page? You cite NFCC#10 without being specific. The page even describes the song being used as a single. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Please review all of the requirements of the

non-free content policy, especially #10 and the guide to what a non-free image rationale needs to be. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

18:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Delta. You still aren't being specific. You are trying very hard not to point out the exact problem so I can fix it. It's like your trying to get me to decipher legalese, when you could simply just explain to me in simple terms the exact thing you find to be in error. Please point it out and stop being vague about the rule.Leitmotiv (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If you take a look at my original edit summary and all of those following you will note that the audio sample does not have a rationale for that page. Take a look at

WP:NFCC#10 and the rest of the non-free content policies, you should be familiar with them if you are going to use non-free content on wikipedia. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

18:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Again you are not being specific. I have reviewed it. I have spoken to others in the past. And where they are helpful to point out what is going on, you just cite Rule #10. Yeah, I get that much. But what I don't see here, is your eagerness to help a fellow wikipedean to improve the article.

By rationale for the page, do you mean the page on which the sample appears? Or do you mean the file description page. Because you originally edited the Glyph page first, and only latter (after the fact) did you edit the rationale of the file description page. And only after I touched it up, I might add. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I see it, the song is declared as rational usage, because it is the quintessential song of Floater's repertoire. It is declared in the lede that is was the song that broke them out, and even cites a reference. This is the song that made Floater notable, and I feel it requires inclusion in the Wikipedia. If you cannot go into further detail about the problem, than I will fail to see why there is one. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File:14 - The Sad Ballad Of Danny Boy.ogg has never had a rationale for its usage on Glyph (album). Every usage of non-free media requires a rationale explaining why it needs to be used and why it needs to be used on that exact page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can see you're stuck on proper rules, but I hope you understand that I may not be up to speed like you think you are, and so do appreciate all the encouragement and perspective you can give me to correct the problem. I added fair use rational for the album Glyph for that song on the description page. Is that what you meant? Leitmotiv (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps now you can see why I am totally confused! You deleted the rational I added for that exact page, like you described. Now it's gone. Do you have a personal interest in being an obstructionist?Leitmotiv (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop reverting when you have no clue what your doing. Please re-read

WP:NFCC#10 as it provides a link to a guide to writing rationales. One rule of thumb for writing a rationale and especially when you are re-using non-free media on multiple articles is to explain why that particular page needs that particular piece of non-free media. What you copy/pasted is not a rationale. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

19:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, and interpret the rationale, it is valid. I've seen many gold star articles use the same rationale, but only this page is the target. The criteria is valid for Floater (band) page why not the Glyph (album) page?Leitmotiv (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free content requires both minimal usage, (using it on as few articles as possible) and it also requires the material add significantly to the article where its being used. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so is the problem with the sample, is that it appears twice on any wikipedia page, in relation to the minimal usage requirement? As for adding to the article significantly, I would argue that's a matter of perspective. Being able to hear a pivotal song in an artists career... you know... as in aurally on an encyclopedia is significant in my opinion.Leitmotiv (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

its a two part problem:

1) why does the sample need to be used on both pages? why cannot the first page be referred to and linked so that they can follow it to listen? that does not take away from the media but also maintains minimal usage.

2) why must that sample be used on that specific page? (see critical commentary of the non-free policy)

ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer your two points: Some people only visit specific pages, such as an album page. I would think that less navigating makes it much easier for the viewer, especially concerning a song which is directly related to the album it comes from. Why not have audio on the album page? In the physical world, this song came from that album, so it would follow to include a sample of this song on the album page. In my eyes, it is minimal usage as the song both applies to the album and the artist, and I don't see it as being excessive or beyond minimal.Leitmotiv (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay you must be busy. But it appears to me that if I address those two specifics in the Danny boy file description page clearly identifying rational for usage on the Glyph (album) page, it will pass. And specifically if I add my previous comment from 19:46 to such a page, it may address the dispute as well. Unfortunately, what is not addressed is an interpretation of minimal usage and where on wikipedia it is outlined that usage of a sample on an album page exceeds that description. (see comments about wikipedia not being intuitive).

Okay I'm going to make some edits to the fair use rational of the description page. Please give me one hour to flesh it out before you make changes. Thanks.Leitmotiv (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

see also Wikipedia:FurMe. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant by that link. Is that to help me? Or are you citing more reasons for removal?Leitmotiv (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You mentioned blocking me, my edits, or possibly something else in relation to the Glyph (album) page. What do you mean specifically intend to do? And who gives you the authority? I see no description in your user page declaring who you are or your right to do such a thing. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You would be blocked for violations of the non-free content policy and copyright violations. I never said that I would block you only that you would be block, as with any situation where a user refuses to follow policy, (example vandalism) any user may warn a vandal (these warnings include notices about being blocked also), continued violations of policy almost always result in the user being blocked. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Then I recommend you act more responsible in your pronouncements that an individual will be blocked. That is threatening behavior and does not accomplish anything. Only education does. And that is why I am here. And for the record, I am still a little in the dark. Please help.Leitmotiv (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am trying but you are hell bent on blindly reverting, and the notice about blocking tends to be the only way to get my point across in cases like this. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course I am reverting. Because so far you have failed in educating me. That's why I'm still here asking you questions. I'm not stubborn, just ignorant. But it takes a good teacher and communicator, or we both look like the rear end of a donkey.Leitmotiv (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have no fucking clue what your doing dont revert others edits, the odds are they know a hell of a lot more than you so ask questions and become informed before you think about reverting. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Delta, especially in so far as above that if you don't know what you're doing with non-free content you shouldn't be involved in trying to force it into places where its usage violates policy. You're on thin ice, Leitmotiv. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why I'm here chatting it up with you. So I can fix the problem. But so far the people claiming to have all the experience, fail very hard in communicating me the exact nature of the problem and justification behind it. I'm willing to learn.Leitmotiv (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

And I don't appreciate the swearing. It's belies your true intent. Perhaps this is personal for you? Please take the higher road and educate me so I can correct the page. We do want to correct the page right?Leitmotiv (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me state this for the fifth or six time so maybe this time it sinks in, the problem is that the image you are trying to add does not have a valid rationale for that usage. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A lesson to be learned, when there is a miscommunication and misunderstanding, repeating yourself does not help. Try a new approach or a new set of words, or go into more detail. By the way your last response here adds nothing to the conversation and was more appropriate for the other thread if at all.Leitmotiv (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv; swearing? No one is swearing at you that I can see. Maybe I'm missing something. Anyway,

Hammersoft, he said I have "no fucking clue." By the way I have read that stuff over, but a lot it is like digesting concrete. Not easy, and very hard to glean anything from it unless you are very familiar with it. I am getting more familiar with it by just being here talking to you two. And I copy/pasted and edited which so far is the only way I know how to do things. I changed the fair use rational on that page, but it wasn't good enough I guess. So here I am working through it with Mr. Delta.

• If you aren't willing to digest it, then you have no business adding non-free content to any article. You need to comply with our policy, not ignore it because you can't make it out. Thousands of editors before you have been able to work their way through
  WP:FURG just fine. My or Δ's efforts to educate you are already provided by that fine guide and anything we could do to attempt to educate you would be a pale shadow. If you're not willing to read and digest what's there, then our attempts will fail too. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 19:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have tried digesting it. Are you saying that stuff is easy reading? And even then, it takes a lot of past experience to know what its all talking about. For the record, Wikipedia is not a very intuitive site when it comes to finding rules on how to do things here.Leitmotiv (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• WP:FURG is less than 10k long. I'm hard pressed to understand how it could be distilled down further. It tells you what is necessary, how to do it, and even provides helpful templates. If you're not willing to read that and follow it, we're at an impasse. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 19:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• BTW, I think I should make edits if I can't understand the legalese of some pages. Wikipedia recommends I edit boldly. And anything that I do wrong, I hope the wikipedia community encourages me by educating me. So far I've run into some interefence here. A good way of learning is by making mistakes.

I find it funny that you think it's easy reading and easy to interpret it and apply it to a page. I'm not the smartest cookie of the bunch, but I'm also not below average either. If I'm having a problem, I'm sure many folks are too. I find it disappointing that you fail to see this possibility.Leitmotiv (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• And thus we're at an impasse. Where thousands of editors have gone before you and added reasonable rationales, you so far haven't been willing to follow, but are willing to edit war in violation of policy. We have close to 400,000 non-free files on this project. Yet, you can't figure out how to write a rationale? Even with a well written guideline??? And are willing to edit war because you can't figure it out? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to ignore my earlier statements just to prematurely arrive at an impasse an give up? I told you before that I have read the very thing that Delta told me too. It is much harder reading, I grant you that, than the link you supplied. But your link does not go into specifics either, which is what Delta is having a problem with. I have wrote the very rational on the disputed page. I will rewrite it for the disputed page, but I fear that it will get deleted again. I will go now and rewrite the disputed rational for the danny boy song per the Glyph (album) page. I will directly include reasons for adding it to the Glyph page, but I think ultimately the real dispute here, is not the rules, but the interpretation of them and one specific user's perspective on what is minimal usage. Is minimal usage defined somewhere, specifically regarding song samples?Leitmotiv (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well, the continued insistence that the policy and rationale guidelines are hard to read, interpret, implement, etc.; that's just a non-starter and isn't going to get us anywhere. As I've said before, thousands of editors have gone before you and performed just fine. If you can't or are unwilling to follow these policies and guidelines, you shouldn't be adding non-free content to articles. With no insult, competence is required is a good read. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

None taken. But a reminder is order about statistic sampling: collecting your "thousands of editors" data from select users, specifically veteran wikipedia users is severely unbalanced and biased. A real sampling would involve non-wikipedians and beginning users as well. Not just those who learned the ropes and decided to stick around on Wikipedia.Leitmotiv (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• WP:FURG isn't written for the experienced. It's written for people who don't know what they're doing. It can't cover all corner cases. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 20:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

As I stated previously, (twice now, you are reading my comments right?), I'm not talking about

WP:FURG, I'm talking about Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria

.

The section that I pointed you to links to that section for further reading. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What part of "The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use." is unclear? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I did edit the file description to address "specific fair-use rational for each use of the item" and Delta deleted it, saying it was copy/paste crap. It addressed the usage despite his opinion of it being crap.Leitmotiv (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Did you read
  WP:FURG? --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 20:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I did. Most it applies to images and not song samples. But as far as I can tell, the rationale I included, addressed both of the two main points.Leitmotiv (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This was my edit that got deleted as crap. It addresses rational for useage at the Glyph (ablum) page:

"Fair use rationale for "The Sad Ballad of Danny Boy" for Glyph (album)"

It is believed that publishing part of the song in the article of said song falls under fair use considering:

• it is used for informational purposes only.
• it gives the reader a better understanding of which song brought the most popularity to Floater in contrast to their nature as being unsigned to a major or minor label.
• it is of drastically reduced quality and length, rendering it useless for any commercial use.
• it adds significantly to the biographical narrative of the artist, as this is the artist's biggest hit that was played on national radio despite the band being unsigned to a major or even minor label.

• And how do you feel this rationale you added meets all ten points of
  Wikipedia:SAMPLE#Guidelines #1. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 21:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that it meets all of them. The 30 second rule, I see on FURG, but not on the fair use rational link. I can see that it does violate that one, and for that I apologize. I spoke with who I thought was an expert on the subject and he/she said it can be no longer than a minute. But I also based my samples on a gold star article which has a :47 second sample and even a :32 second sample. I thought Restrictions on location may be in violation, but more reading seems to support the useage in the infobox as it is apart of the namespace. I see nothing mentioned about replaceability in any of the links you made.

• Both
  WP:FURG discuss replaceability. Please read them again, carefully. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 21:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like I actually skipped FURG for replaceability. I see it there. But NFCC does not specifically use the word. It only uses the word "replace" once and "replaced" twice. I assume replaceability means using a link to another site for a sample? It doesn't say as much, only infers. I don't know of any sites and I'm not versed in such things. Especially nowadays. Also, why should I be following the rules of FURG, when NFCC is what is in dispute. Why are we consulting two separate pages for rules on how to do things? Perhaps you can see more of my confusion on my original comment of the site being unintuitive.Leitmotiv (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking further into the 30 second rule, I see that it is a

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music samples)

and it doesn't directly restrict samples over 30 seconds. It says, "not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation."

So with this new light, I don't see any conflict except for Delta's hangup with #10 of NFCC, which I have addressed. Replaceability on the NFCC page does not adequately clarify what is needed or if it's even necessary. It says something about free content being created. A 56 second sample of inferior quality seems to match the need for free content being created. If there is another sample available I am not aware of it. And if it doesn't exist, then the sample still qualifies.Leitmotiv (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• The clip is still too long. You're looking for exceptions you read into policy/guideline to allow a 56 second clip. That's the wrong way to look at it. 30 seconds is far more than enough necessary to convey any meaning. Cut the clip to 30 seconds (or less). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hammersoft, if the rules are ambiguous they're ambiguous and there's more than one way too look at it. Wikipedia has many examples of this with samples alone. I know that's the horn you toot, I've been reading up on your stance. But the rules are NOT STRICT, as it clearly says with the definition of Rule of Thumb. I could see trimming 10 seconds off, but I'm not the one who made those samples, only the one that uploaded them. So fixing them won't be easy. But I'll pass it along.Leitmotiv (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• You do NOT need 56 seconds to convey meaning. Either shorten it, or it very likely will be deleted. I don't particularly care that
  other stuff exists. It's irrelevant. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 17:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. In this instance I think the juxtaposition of verse to chorus needs slightly more than 30 seconds to accurately identify the song. But that's a point of view that is allowed within the UNSTRICTNESS of the RULE OF THUMB. I also beg to differ about the other samples being irrelevant, because if you personally choose to submit this sample for deletion and not others, you're being very biased and getting personal.Leitmotiv (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I read the rules AGAIN like you wanted me too, and I read up on the Rule of Thumb which says its not to be strictly enforced. Now I'm holding you to it. I did as you asked. And I found something that contradicts your personal desire to have this sample deleted "or else."Leitmotiv (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but if you do personally choose to submit this, I will see it for nothing more than a personal biased edit against me, which is in essence and EDIT WAR. Something I see you pride yourself on not being apart, as noted on your user page.Leitmotiv (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• So now it's a personal vendetta? You get upset when you don't get advice. You get upset when you get advice. When you're told again how it fails, you bring it to the level of personal vendetta? Do you have any idea how this sounds? I'm telling you the clip is too long, per our guidelines. If you don't want to fix it, fine, but don't be surprised if it comes up for deletion and if you claim it's a personal vendetta against you, you will find your opinions rather casually disregarded by many. That's what I've seen on this project. But, you haven't listened to me so far. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You are the first to say a vendetta. I'm not upset about the advice I got, but I am disappointed that "per our guidelines" it says enforcement is unstrict. But you are treating it just the opposite with your blatant threats (i.e. "or else"). Seriously. I read the guidelines and I see where there's an exception and you can't admit to see it either. That's my problem. I'm not claiming that Wikipedia has a "vendetta" against me. You are the only one making threats. Or am I to intepret the phrase "or else" as something innocent? ha. Vendetta, perhaps, on your end.Leitmotiv (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• <banging head on desk> --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free content is strongly enforced on WP, because it does represent a legal liability to the Foundation if we abuse US Fair Use law. We have the "30s/10%" rule in place because that is reasonable assurance we won't have a problem with Fair Use - it's likely far smaller than what Fair Use could allow, but we are playing it safe. Now, yes, it is a rule of thumb, but that means, ok, if I have to justify a 35s sample because all 35s are necessary per the article discussion to understand what the sound sample is in relation to the text, so be it. But a sample that is double the rule of thumb is far far unlikely to be needed. Unless you can justify why all 56 seconds of the sample are needed (or anymore than 20 s (10%) if I understand the full length of the song correctly), that sample will be deleted - not necessarily by delta or hammersoft here, but other NFC patrolers. From what I see, no way could I justify that long of a sample, but then , I don't know the core material myself, but as I see it, there's nothing in the articles to indicate why a sound sample is even needed in the first place. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand everything you said. An unfortunately, I cannot look at the escalation of this as anything more than a personal edit war on the behalf of Hammersoft to have someone else do his dirty work. Like I said before, the sample is used to identify the band as it's their most popular hit. The song is rather unique in that it contains two distinctly different parts, the verse and chorus. They contrast one another greatly. Because this song is the band's biggest hit, and to most, their only hit, it may be the key for someone doing research to identify the song, the album, or band. Masem, at least you admit to their being a possibility of flexibility, whereas I was getting frustrated with Hammersoft's stubborn and strict enforcement of the rule without even considering the rule of thumb.Leitmotiv (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That, and I was tired of seeing pointed threats, which is not constructive and to me getting too personal.Leitmotiv (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Masem. There's not much call for the clip as is. Your assertions about the nature of the piece, without secondary sources to support the assertion, is

(ec)But while there is some flexibility, we still need justification, and just because its the group's most popular hit doesn't justify the use of a song sample to begin with. We need to have discussion of what their music sounds like. If a key element of that song is the two different tones, then we need sources that talk to that effect, and then we are a place where we can start talking about a sample that is used to compare and contrast that (that still doesn't justify 56 seconds, but maybe two separate samples that are like 10-12 sec to sample each of the two tones). Right now, the only text in relationship to that song simply says "it's their most well-known hit", which a sound sample is not needed for. That needs to be addressed first and foremost before continuing about any flexibility. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hammersoft, I will agree to drop it, if you admit that you were a little overt in your choice of words. I find it peculiar that you didn't raise the original research topic point earlier. That I think is valid. Which segues into Masem's point. I can find the references to back up the nature of the song which will illustrate the need for a sample. That will take time, and I'm not going to do it amidst a discussion like this.Leitmotiv (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• There's nothing for me to admit. I told you the consequences of failing to act to fix the problem. That's reality here on this project. Telling you what reality is does not constitute any sort of apology worthy act on my part. If you don't like our policies and guidelines, that's fine. You're certainly welcome to your opinion. But when others tell you what the consequences of failing to abide by those policies and guidelines are, taking offense is your problem, not mine. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you're infallible. I stick to my original opinion that your choice of words regarding the deletion: "OR ELSE" sounds like it's personal and that it came straight out of a bad B movie. My recommendation is to not draw such close parallels.Leitmotiv (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• That makes four times you have now accused me of saying "or else". I never said "or else". My recommendation is to read what I said. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap you're right, and I admit my mistake. I apologize. I read (or less) as (or else). My fricken BAD! Sorry. Must be the dyslexia again. I wish you had brought that up much sooner so we didn't have to go into all of this.Leitmotiv (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• :) It's ok. I AM a certified idiot, after all. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor request...

Regarding this edit: [1], it took me like 5 minutes of searching to find the image you removed for failing fair use requirements. It was a fine removal, but when you bury something like that in with like 100 minor style changes, it is almost impossible to check what you are doing. In the future, could you seperate edits which make substantive changes, like tagging or removing images, from those that are routine or gnomish style changes, so that it can more easily be reviewed? As I said, this removal was perfectly great, but there may be other situations where the file is mislabeled or mistagged, and could be corrected and returned, and when you bury the edit like this, it is hard to find and keep track of? Thanks! --Jayron32 05:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

2009 in aviation

I've reverted this edit for a number of reasons. Firstly, your edit summary did not mention anything about reformatting of refs and wikilinks, neither of which were necessary. There is no need for "s in ref names, it works just fine without them. [[Douglas DC-3|Douglas DC-3C]] produces Douglas DC-3C, whereas [[Douglas DC-3]]C produces Douglas DC-3C, which is not the desired effect. Although I said in my summary that I couldn't see anything wrong with an image, on checking them I found one without a NFUR. I've fixed this by adding a NFUR to the image. Mjroots (talk)

That is odd, normally [[fff]]ff is converted to fffff. As for the non-free image, im not sure it should be used on that page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea why certain links such as windmills work, and others such as 0-4-2T don't, but that's the way it is. Not sure why you say the image should not be used, but it's now covered by the NFUR so should be OK. Am heading up to bed, will check back tomoz. Mjroots (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It only works with lowercase letters a-z. No uppercase, no punctuation, no letters with diacritics. Anomie⚔ 00:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

2014 FIFA World Cup

As quickly as you remove images for lack of fair use rationale, I add a fair use rationale and restore the image. May I suggest you avoid the middle-man and add the fair use rationale yourself instead of removing the image? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Because your "rationales" are not valid, and those images should be deleted. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how you can give me a final warning. I'm not doing anything wrong and you haven't given me a first warning let alone a second or third. That's fairly uncivil. I suggest you stop attempting to bully me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The rationales are the same as those already present. Explain how that's not valid? Ask for the images to be deleted then, but until they're gone, we can continue to use them provided that we have provided fair use rationale. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please review the

non-free content polcies specifically numbers 1 and 8. Also you actually dont need any warnings to be blocked for copyright violations. I was just being nice and giving you a clear warning before I had to escalate the situation. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

00:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have. Please take this up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football‎ as this follows a long-standing policy. see 2010 FIFA World Cup#Venues, 2006 FIFA World Cup#Venues, etc. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In 2006 FIFA World Cup#Venues and 2010 FIFA World Cup#Venues every single image is acceptable due to the fact that none of them are copyrighted. Yet on the page that you are adding those images are non-free. There are almost no restrictions with free images, but to use copyrighted material on wikipedia there are a lot of restrictions. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to make your case at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#2014 FIFA World Cup venue images rather than carrying-on this discussion here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ive responded there and removed the images again, if you re-add them you will be blocked. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

My mistake

I just reverted an edit you made without proper research of the image. Now, I must conclude that you were right and are doing a good, though undoubtfully unpopular, job here.Magafuzula (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop giving final warnings without giving any prior warnings

It is not appropriate to give final warnings to established editors without discussing the issue at hand and without giving prior warnings. It's uncivil. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ive tried multiple times to explain our non-free content policy but you dont seem to understand it and insist on blindly reverting my edits, and in doing so you violate the non-free content policy. further violations will result in an escalation and a probable block on you. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Concur with Δ. Also, referring to Δ's comments on your talk page as "vandalism" [2], when it clearly isn't, is both misleading and insulting. The heat between the two of you needs to ratchet down, to be sure, but Walter, you're on thin ice on the
  WP:NFCC issues. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 15:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Forces Land Force Command

[3] "image does not have a rationale for this usage". Which image? There are a lot on this page - I'm not certain that I have identified the one you are referring to. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I am in the process of reviewing all non-free media for rationales. I also dont think that that page should include any, due to the lack of meeting all ten points of the

non-free content policy, if you continue to blindly revert my actions you will be blocked for violating the non-free content policy and for copyright violations. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

13:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

To the contrary! A FUR now exists, and it took me all of, oh, 15 seconds to create it.

Now, get off your high horse, and answer my very polite question please.

Otherwise it will be YOU at ANI facing disruptive editing statements.

Also, I deeply resent your attitude. Please re-read

WP:AGF

- you seem to have forgotten what it says.

Also, I deeply resent your statement "if you continue to blindly revert my actions you will be blocked for violating the non-free content policy and for copyright violations" because it is bullshit. I have not reverted ANY of your edits BEFORE I have put a FUR in place.

Watch it sunshine, you are on VERY thin ice. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Having had my whinge:

I am in the process of reviewing all non-free media for rationales. - Thank you. Someone needs to do it, and it's not my idea of "entertainment".
I also dont think that that page should include any, due to the lack of meeting all ten points of the

non-free content policy

, - I agree. Completely.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Then why are you reverting my edits? you are just re-adding images to a gallery, which is not allowed via policy, and just because an image has a non-free rationale does not mean that that the usage is acceptable. In this particular article the whole insignia section should have every single non-free image removed due to failure to meet all of the

WP:NFCC. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

14:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Then why are you reverting my edits?" - Because I have added the FUR

"you are just re-adding images to a gallery" - a) Please re-read

WP:AGF

b) No, I'm NOT "just re-adding images to a gallery". I am placing a FUR on the image pages.

"just because an image has a non-free rationale does not mean that that the usage is acceptable" - Also, just because an image has a non-free rationale does not mean that that the usage is NOT acceptable". It depends on the FUR.

"In this particular article the whole insignia section should have every single non-free image removed due to failure to meet all of the

WP:NFCC

." - False statement. As I said, it depends on the FUR.

Now, I have to admit that some of those FURs are indeed inadequate, and need expansion, which I will do tomorrow, because it is past midnight here. Whilst I am sleeping, (for the third time): Could you please supply the names of those that do NOT have adequate licenses so that I can fix them.

I will assume good faith that you will continue to discuss the matter BEFORE you remove any more links.

Good night, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken, a FUR does not mean that a non-free image has a free pass for usage. I have nuked the whole gallery of non-free content, for failure to comply with the non-free content policies specifically numbers 3 and 8. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sine you cannot understand policy I have take this to ANI. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Result of the 3RR complaint

Please see

WP:AN3#User:Δ and User:Pdfpdf reported by User:Lerdthenerd (Result: No action for now). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk

) 20:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Abdul Majid Zabuli for deletion

The article Abdul Majid Zabuli is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majid Zabuli until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. David in DC (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

2004 in Canada

Was it your intention to remove this category sort? 117Avenue (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

3 Words / Cheryl Cole song

Hi Δ (interesting username!), I was confused with your edit to

WP:Music sample, it is correctly uploaded and tagged at a low quality as recommended. Equally it is used in the article with a description and alongside commentary which justifies its use. The song is non-conventional in its structure, as noted by critics, and thus the use of the sound sample is justified. If you made an error fair enough but if there is a genuine rational concern I'd appreciated if if you could explain exactly why you think its a concern rather than simply removing it from the article leaving the rest of that particular section in a bit of a state. (as seen here). If there is a genuine concern or reason for removal of the file I would be happy to try and address that but currently I really don't see an issue. As an experienced editor myself I would expect one to be notified of such matters especially when it boils down to a GA/FA article. The removal of images/files can alter the quality of an article and thus its appreciation if others could be notified when such actions are taken. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk]

22:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It was caused by an invalid non-free rationale, I have since fixed it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So this error warranted the removal of the sample? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Per the

Non-free content policy if an image does not meet all 10 criteria (in this case 10c) the image either needs removed/deleted or brought into compliance with policy. In this case the rationale did not specify the correct article where it was being used, so I removed it. Due to the size of the task the easiest thing to do is to remove the image and let those involved in the article review the validity of the non-free content and fix the issues before they either re-add or have the image deleted. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

23:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand. Either way thank you for helping to resolve the issue (and for the explanation). -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Li Ang - (image)

Hi - you deleted the image of the book cover - "The Butcher's Wife" from this article. I dont understand why but I've reworded my rationale just in case. You could have let me know you were challanging it, but whatever. Please tell me exactly what is missing about this book cover and I will do my best to satisfy your expectations. Mark^Dask 02:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ive removed the image again due to it failing to meet the non-free inclusion criteria, specifically

WP:NFCC#8 ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

03:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

But Contextual Significance would seem to apply in the case of all book covers - I dont understand why this book cover is different from any other displayed on wikipedia but I'll try again. bear with me here - I'm trying to learn. Mark^Dask 03:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is not about the book, thus does not apply. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Aaah - I understand - thank you for explaining. Mark^Dask 04:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

article name variations causing FAIR rationale issues

I have noticed that twice today you have ended up removing copyright images from film articles [4] [5] where the only actual issue is that for various resons the article name has slightly changed since the FAIR rationale was posted. Is there are way that you can check for those types of issues so that we do not lose the images? Active Banana (^bananaphone 05:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationales must specify the article it is being used for, all Im doing is removing non-free content from articles which do not have a valid rationale for its usage, I remove it. It can be very time consuming for someone not familiar with particular non-free image to write a valid rationale for it. Often a image has a vague article title which could refer to a half dozen or more articles. The responsibility for maintaining and using non-free content falls on those who want to use it, unlike article content the burden is on those who wish to include the materiel. Its far easier to remove a usage and have those involved in an article address the issues about non-free content. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 05:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked, though, you do still follow redirects? --MASEM (t) 05:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, its just often the rationales point to the wrong page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 05:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK - thanks for your work on keeping proper copyright notifications. Active Banana (^bananaphone 06:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Bhagavan 2009 poster.jpg

I have restored this image in the article Bhagavan (film). Please put a note to me first if you are reverting back my edit. I would like to know why you are removing the image repeatedly from the article space.--Sreejith K (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If you took a look at my original edit summary, you would see exactly why I removed it, it did not have a valid rationale for that usage, the rationale was pointing to the wrong page, it was pointing to Bhagavan and not Bhagavan (film). You need to review your usage of twinkle and rollback, your usage in this case is inappropriate, continued misuse will result in them being removed from you. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Image:Going, Going, Gone.jpg

Hello, could you explain this edit please? There is quite clearly a non-free use rationale on the file page; if there's a problem with it that edit summary wasn't very helpful in indicating what it is. Mahalo, Skomorokh 14:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The rationale in question was not for the article in question, I have since fixed the rationale. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see, the article had been moved; thanks for fixing that. It might be a good idea to check the file page first in future to avoid wasting your time removing the image ("this article" might be clearer than "this usage" in the summary also). On an unrelated issue, can I ask why you prefer the long-form ISBNs (i.e. 978-) to short-form? I am curious, as I have been advised to use short-form in the past. Best, Skomorokh 15:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

ISBN 13 is the new standard, Im not sure when you where advised otherwise, but WP:ISBN recommends using the -13 over the older -10. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Image justification

Going by Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, File:Diocese of Salford.png does has justification for its usage, but apparently not for the Bishop of Salford page. Under which justification can the image be used? Scrivener-uki (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It can be used on Roman Catholic Diocese of Salford because it is the subject of the article, while Bishop of Salford just refers to a specific person who is employed by the first. There is no real justification/rationale for its usage on any other article than Roman Catholic Diocese of Salford. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining things clearer. I'd been better to explain it specifically than the generalised "image does not have a rationale for this article" edit summary message for all the images you removed. Scrivener-uki (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

15 (Buckcherry album), 15 (album) and File:Buckcherry - 15.jpg

This image was not an orphan, you orphaned it yourself. I advise next time, to read the fair use rationale given, and update the article name. The image was clearly and concisely rationaled for the 15 (album) article, which was moved to a disambiguation page and in turn the article about the album moved to 15 (Buckcherry album). Actually reading the rationale and a quick search could have remedied the situation with renaming the article given in the rationale rather than having to orphan the image, tag it and warn the uploader. — Moe ε 17:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

All Im doing is removing the nfc violation, it is up to those involved in the article to either fix the issues with the image or let it be deleted. The burden of maintaining rationales falls on those who want to use the media, not those who remove it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Δ. I do lots and lots of these removals. It's up to people wanting to retain non-free content to provide acceptable rationales. See #4 of Δ's edit notice on this page. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

1914 in Canada

Ummm... you did it again. 117Avenue (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

127 Hours (soundtrack)

The image

talk

) 02:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It does not have a valid rationale for that article, no discussion is needed. take a good look at

WP:NFCC#10c ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

02:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Conservatism

No idea what you are doing here. If you believe that the images do not belong on Wikipedia, then you should remove them from Wikipedia, not articles that link to the images. Very doubtful anyway that these images cannot be copied. TFD (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Those images are copyrighted and their use on that page is decorative, and thus those images do not meed the

criteria for usage of non-free media on wikipedia ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

02:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not upload the images, I linked to them. They are here. If they should not be here, then delete them, not the links. By the way, please do not stick templates on my talkj page, it is extemely insulting. TFD (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you read the message it was for either uploading or usage of non-free media. Just because a piece of media is on wikipedia does not give you the ability to use it wherever you want, usage of non-free media is very restricted, please review our

non-free content policy ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

02:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You are confused. You have not eliminated images, but rather the links to them. Also, please do not place insulting templates on my talk page. TFD (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not confused. The usage of those images in that specific article does not meet the required polices. Lets take a look at

Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams, and only that article. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

03:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk about it on the ANI noticeboard. TFD (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

/facepalm Ill wait for someone to repeat what I'm trying to explain, and prove that I am correct. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I may be over 18 years old and not live in California. Cou;d you please explain yourself in non-ideomatic language. TFD (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Each use of a non-free image (in this case logos) must meet our requirements for usage (

non-free content policy and familiarize yourself with the policies that restrict usage of non-free media on wikipedia. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

03:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Heya

talk

)

good point, but let me expand that a little, just because one article has a prescription for

WP:NFCC#3) ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

19:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Old talk page thread

I was going over old talk page threads, and I remembered this one here. Paul Siebert left me a note here. I've worked on historical images before, and I'm probably going to work with him at some point to see if there is any way to make the situation with non-free historical images clearer. I'm leaving you this note in case you intended to reply to that earlier talk page thread, and I'll ask Paul Siebert for links to the old discussions, though if you have those handy, that would help. Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

reports/CATCSD.html

reports/CATCSD.html fell over on Who is the president of sebastian lee? failing to encode the question mark as %3F. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ill take a look. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Animal (Kesha album)

I didn't upload the image but my guess is you've deleted because of an inappropriate source? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 18:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It was removed (not deleted) due to a lack of a

rationale for its usage. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

18:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not meaning to be rude, but it appears to be correctly uploaded. It has a description which explains where and why it is being used, that acknowledges its a non-free item of work and thus acknowledges that credit for the image goes to the artist, label and graphic designers. I don't know how you can say its rationale for use is not given... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

take a look at the rationale and double check that it specifies the exact article its being used in (as required per

WP:NFCC#10c) ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

19:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

BBC Alba

You're being cryptic... what exactly is your bone with that image? And please more than a single word answer, the page you're pointed at offers any number of possible gripes. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I haven't edited that page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it was

BBC Alba (TV channel). Having reread your comments and that page several times, I think I'm beginning to get what you mean. You're objecting to the picture due to the license it's released under, not the picture per se? If that's the case a slightly different wording might have avoided this discussion; perhaps if you'd stated that the license is not in line with Wiki guidelines. If you say the pic has no rationale, to someone not as aux fait with Wiki guidelines as you apparantly are that suggests you're objecting to the picture on the basis it has no reason to be on that page (like a hamster on a page on Gordon Brown or something). Akerbeltz (talk

) 21:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you take a look at the edit summary I linked the work rationale to our

WP:NFCC ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

21:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You're still not getting it. Your summary said image does not have a rationale for this article. My brain goes "no rationale, you got to be kidding, it's highly relevant". I then looked at the page you had linked to and at a quick glance, none of it seemed to apply to someone who was complaining about the "rationale" of an image. Now I got what you mean, I'm trying to make the point that image does not have a rationale for this article is both meaningless, misleading and NOT what the page actually says. The page is about Non-free content criteria and to explain what the policy exists, there is a rationale for the policy, so the issue is (still) not the rationale for the picture but the fact it's released under a license that is contrary to the policies on free content. Reading through your talk page I'm not the only one who's falling foul of your phraseology, which is why I was trying to be helpful and suggest you word your edit summaries differently for everybody's sake. Something like image contrary to non-free content criteria. THAT is clear. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please under stand why I removed the image, take a look at the exact section I linked to specifically 10c:

The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.

which is why I removed it regardless of the other factors that may warrant removal. Because it lack a non-free use rationale. I will tweak my edit summary from now on so that should help. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please change your tactics

Please don't treat established articles the way you are. You are indicating "image does not have a Non-free use rationale for this article" when you don't really mean it. If you mean, images are not acceptable in lists like this then say so. You're team is annoying a lot of people based on your comments over the past few days. I think your team had better step back and start communicating. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please check your facts, the images that where removed do not have rationales for the usage on that article. just like the edit summary states. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To address your point: the first image was given Fair-use rationale. The other two have them now. We are not copyright experts. If that is not sufficient, discussing what is needed, if it can be provided, is a better position than deleting them. They have been in-place for months, a few additional days will not be injurious to the copyright holders.

Now if you didn't understand my point, please explain what you're doing. We had a similar battle on The Chronicles of Narnia article. You wrote "image does not have a rationale for this usage" when what you meant was "User created montage, requiring 7 rationales for each single use of the item. Per WP:NFC, user created montages are strongly discouraged. Independent cover images already exist, such as File:TheLionWitchWardrobe(1stEd).jpg". So you caused a lot of needless back-and-forth when a simple explanation to rational editors would have sufficed. Please take this approach not only for the Whitecaps History article, but all articles going forward. Assume good faith on the part of editors and discuss. Your group is angering a lot of Wikipedia editors. That is evidenced by the comments on your page and the others on this current sweep. While what you're doing is worthwhile, the way you're doing it is confrontational, and at many time, imprecise to the point of being a lie. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(

non-free content policy. Right now all I am doing is checking criteria 10c. If/When you use non-free content you need to ensure it meets all criteria, because whether or not its me or someone else, whether it is today or a year from now someone will be reviewing non-free content usage to ensure it meets all requirements. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

03:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The images do not have rationals for the article History of Vancouver Whitecaps FC. They have rationales for other articles, but 10c requires each use to have a separate image. Now, once that's addressed there's the second question is if they rationals are sufficient to be appropriate on this article (a different issue altogether, and one I'm 99% sure can be answered "no") but that's not why Delta's removing them. --MASEM (t) 03:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oz generals insignia

• (cur | prev) 10:56, 9 January 2011 Δ (Talk | contribs) (88,996 bytes) (image does not have a Non-free use rationale for this article) (rollback | undo)
• (cur | prev) 04:09, 9 January 2011 Δ (Talk | contribs) (89,088 bytes) (image does not have a rationale for this usage) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 02:38, 9 January 2011 Δ (Talk | contribs) (89,171 bytes) (image does not have a rationale for this usage) (undo)

Thanks. Other than the brigadier general, I see that none of them do. (I've removed the remaining ones.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Australian generals and brigadiers

It looks like this edit was probably "automated". Which software did you use? Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

its simi-auto and its a custom script Ive been working on for a while. In full swing it finds dead links, looks for archived copies and adds those, and also archives all current active links via webcitation.org along with several other functions, right now with regards to NFCC removal I have most of the advanced features disabled to prevent overloading webcitation's servers. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks very useful! (And effective.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

its also a nightmare, right now its somewhere over 110 pages of code......... ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL! (No pain, no gain?) Pdfpdf (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: your edit page notice

Re your edit page notice: Good idea! (I wish it had been there when I originally posted to your page.)
FYI:

• It doesn't always seem to appear. I've done some experiments, but haven't yet been able to determine what causes it not to appear.
• When it does appear, the numbering doesn't work. i.e.

If you are here to register a complaint or have questions regarding my edits, before doing so please note:

1.There is a very clear policy regarding the use of non-free images. This policy is located at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria

1.Read the policy

1.Check and make sure the image has a valid source

1.Make sure that the image has a valid Fair use Rationale ...

etc.

• I think you should add a few items to the list mentioning things like: "Please note that even if an image does have a valid FUR, sections x & y of NFCC state that use of non-free images shold be kept to a minimum blah blah blah etc."

Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to tweak it, and see if you can figure out why its not always appearing. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be behaving itself now. Whether that's entirely due to the things I've done, I can't say! And BTW, I did a bit more than just "tweak it" - I hope you don't mind. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies . . .

Sorry, but I inadvertently did a rollback in

talk

) 05:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Image removal

I'm fucked if I do and Im fucked if I dont, so Im just going to continue doing it my way. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(You have to admit that your talk page is never boring!! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC))

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This was a little careless. You were literally correct, but the article had been recently moved, so the only (easily fixable) problem was that the FUR was for the old title, not the current one. This was painfully evident not only from the image description page, but also from the article's edit history which showed the page move only two edits before your image removal. And the fact that this was an album cover image for an article on that album should have been a signal too. postdlf (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

it was not careless, the image did not have a rationale and was thus removed, its as simple as 1+1. If an image does not have a rationale it will be removed, please review my edit notice, it is the responsibility of those wishing to use non-free content to ensure that it meets all requirements. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 05:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It had a rationale. The rationale simply had an out-of-date disambiguator in the article title because the article was just renamed and the old title redirected to a disambiguation page. Did you see that rationale? postdlf (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Technically, this is doing the same job that BCBot did; 10c does require the article title to be machine readable in the rationale. As delta seems to be doing this on a semi-auto basis, I don't think he is required to try to make judgement calls even on simple cases, because a bot would have done exactly the same (note that he does follow redirects, but the bot did this too). While the fixes are "easy", the number of images to check is quite large and easily fixed by other editors. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the important differences between allowed script-assisted editing and disallowed running of an unapproved bot is that in the former a human reviews and approves each edit. But that "human review" must really be a review, if the human is just blindly clicking the 'approve' button you just have

a bot that happens to be partially made of meat. I'm not going to try to figure out whether that line is being crossed here or not, but running a little slower to avoid obvious cases like this won't cause the end of the encyclopedia. Anomie⚔

14:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well said. Particularly here, where the image use is so obviously standard and uncontroversial, and the problem so obvious when you actually look at it. And there seem to be some implied attempts to blame the uploader (not me) for the image not having the right title listed, but he had a valid rationale posted years ago, which was only "invalidated" because someone else changed the article title a couple months ago. It took me a brief glance at the image description page to figure that out. postdlf (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see one case that should be easy to catch by a script, in which the image has only one rational for one article, but is only used in a second article. That doesn't mean the rationale is necessary valid for the second article, but very likely indicates the original article was moved without a redirect. (Particularly if the article names are clearly similar). Any other case, where there are multiple rationales or multiple reuses, I don't think we can except easy clarity. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly why human review of each edit is needed: they can figure out things that scripts cannot. Although I think cases like this should be quite easy for the script to flag for extra-close human attention: a FUR points to a dab or a redirect to a dab, which is either against

WP:NFCC#9 or (as here) the real article was moved and the FUR link needs updating. Anomie⚔

15:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe something he can do is to have his script review the page log and find out what pages it has been moved from, and update the rationales with a quick human check based on that. For example, "A" is moved to "A (disamb)" but with no redirect (maybe to make way for a proper "A" article). An image B was used on A and has a rationale there, but doesn't for "A (disamb)" even though it is used there now. As long as the move from "A" to "A (disamb)" it should be readily obvious that the image should have been updated. Now, if it is the case that we have B used on "A" and "A (disamb)" but only with a rationale for "A", that type of situation I don't expect an easy resolution and thus the use of B on "A (disamb)" should be removed without question. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And maybe he should also double-check what his script produces? Because that's the point Anomie made above: that people are not bots even if they try to pretend that they are by eschewing judgment and accountability. Kudos if he improves his script, but if he's not actually paying attention to what it does in each instance—or doesn't care to—then he still fails. If a bot makes a mistake, we complain to its owner or block it, because unlike a human user, the bot mindlessly adheres to its script and cannot converse to understand what it has done. Δ still has not acknowledged that his system failed in this instance, and instead tried to blame the uploader (when it wasn't his fault) and point to his "edit notice", which basically states that he just obeys the output of his script so he exercises no judgment and thus is not accountable. If the article title didn't match because it had a simple typo, or had been altered by a vandal, presumably he wouldn't notice that either, and apparently has no interest in trying? Perhaps a human user that acts like a bot and even insists on being judged like a bot should be treated like a bot. postdlf (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary breakpoint

I must be missing something. What's the big deal that requires so much discussion? For whatever reason, good or bad, (yes, in this case, not a bad reason), the image didn't have a current NFUR. (I don't think anyone is disputing that, are they?) So why not just fix it? Why spend so much time bickering over it? What am I missing? Pdfpdf (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If the case is obvious (one use, one rationale, off by one page move, for example), yes, I agree. Nearly any other case is going to be more complex, particularly if we're asking for a new rationale, and that's not something that Delta should be expected to extrapolate. --MASEM (t) 02:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@Masem: I don't think anyone here is asking Δ to write a new rationale, just to notice if there is an existing rationale that obviously applies even though the claimed article title doesn't exactly match (e.g. because of an article move or obvious vandalism).

@Pdfpdf: That's the point of this discussion. Δ thinks he shouldn't have to "just fix" even the most obvious cases while others think he should. Anomie⚔ 02:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Anomie. Yes, I think that is indeed what I was missing. Personally, I don't see why it should be delta's responsibility, but yes, I think you've "hit the nail on the head". Again, thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If we don't set a bright line of what we do expect Delta to fix, but expect him to do some fixes, people will still complain at edge cases, and eventually leading to where Delta's back at ANI again. If we are concerned that he is removing images that are missing what should be obvious rationales, lets list those out so there are no questions. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I overlooked your comment above until now: "one use, one rationale, off by one page move" is an obvious case that anyone tagging/removing images should be on the watch for; similarly if the article title simply has a typo in the NFUR. "Not my problem" should not be an acceptable answer; if you're choosing to take the responsibility of determining whether an image is compliant, then identifying when such an obvious case is the problem should be reasonably viewed as part of that task, and removing the image from the article should not be an acceptable solution to that problem because it completely misses what the problem is: not that the image is lacking an NFUR for the article, but that there is an NFUR that is mistaken as to what the article title presently is. So I'm glad we agree that that's an easy bright line "obvious problem." Are there other "obvious problems"? Perhaps, but this is the one that brought me here; I was not meaning to suggest that image tagger/removers should feel compelled to either fix everything or do nothing. postdlf (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not know how Delta's code is set up, or if the capacity to do what I described is there, but in the worst case, would tagging this images (specifically: they have exactly one rationale, and exactly one image use, but otherwise those two don't match up) be something that could be dropped into a maintenance category and/or page whereas the image otherwise would not be removed? That eliminates the likely case that seems to be at issue where Delta's not correcting, tagging the image as still a problem and needing to be fixed but allowing human intervention to do that? --MASEM (t) 19:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be one solution. I wish it were Delta himself who were caring enough to propose these. I also wish he would actually look at the article and the image page before he edits anything instead of (apparently) just reading one variable output by a script. If he's not supposed to be running a bot to do these edits, then how is it any different if he's not manually checking more than what the script outputs? postdlf (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

While I would contest that what Delta's doing isn't a problem I do recognize that from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2 (Which best as i can tell are still in effect) Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect. I'd have to argue that not fixing the 1 use-1 rationale case might be considered a problem of the latter but this is something that clearly can be fixed. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, I do fix some rationales that I come across (but not all), but I am required to fix nothing, it is the responsibility for those wishing to use non-free media to ensure that it has a valid rationale. My stance is simple, and is 100% within policy, does it have a valid non-free use for a given page, (yes/no) if no, remove image. I may fix the rationale depending on the issue and my mood but I am not required to do so. If I do not stick to those same standards consistently people will complain that I am not fixing every bad rationale that I come across (something I never intend to do). I follow

K.I.S.S., remove the media if it does not have a valid rationale. Again, the burden to fix issues with the rationales and usage of non-free media falls onto the shoulders of those who wish to use the media, not those who are enforcing policy. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

03:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeez mate, lighten up! If you take that sort of attitude, you can guarantee you're going to get responses similar to the following. I don't think anyone is complaining about what you are doing. I think they are complaining about the way you are expressing yourself.

T'ain't What You Do (It's the Way That You Do It). Pdfpdf (talk

) 11:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You're not "required" to do a damn thing on here. When you do choose to act, you are responsible for how you act and it's no defense that you have chosen to ignore everything that falls outside of your self-selected blinders. You did not do what was best here. And your explanation seems to be that the bot-like way you choose to edit doesn't allow you to even be aware of that. And that's an unacceptable attitude to have here, if you think the whole point of editing on Wikipedia is mindless, literal-minded policy enforcement without regard to the spirit of the policy and the bottom line for article content. It wasn't hard for me to identify the technical problem with the FUR, which wasn't the uploader's fault at all, and to fix it. But how easy it was to do that is part of the point, and if this is your SOP then there's a greater concern than just your treatment of this one image. The image belonged in the article by all standards and policies, and I also acted "100% within policy" by fixing the FUR and reverting your removal of the image. Whose action was more productive, and better for the article? If your system fails to produce the best result (a "system" of only checking one fact out of context, apparently), merely repeating that it's the system you follow is a rather empty justification.

There is no group of privileged editors "enforcing policy" nor are "those who wish to use the media" looking for something that privileges them. There are a lot of invalid image uses, but those who find images, write valid NFURs for them, and add them to articles in compliance with policy are taking valuable time and effort to improve articles. We're all a single mass of volunteers hopefully prioritizing the improvement of articles over earning our Junior G-Man badge by seeing how many violations we can rack up. postdlf (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Postdlf, you're way out of line. Taking him to task for enforcing policy isn't the way through this. Δ's identified problems, and fixes them by way of removing violations. If you don't want the images removed from whatever page they are missing a rationale for, then add the rationale. Shirking your responsibilities onto the shoulders of people attempting to comply with policy, and then blaming them for not doing your work is beyond the pale. Don't like the policy? Get it changed. You can plead your case at
  WT:NFC. But, stop taking Δ to task over it. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 14:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  How's this for an analogy: If someone rewrites a well-sourced section of an article into an unsourced POV screed, is it better to delete the section as being against policy or to take a minute and revert to the good version? Anomie⚔ 14:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• The analogy of course fails. That's not what Δ is doing. If someone fails to write appropriate rationales, or do the work necessary to complete an appropriate article renaming, untangling that mess isn't the work of people coming along attempting to enforce policy. Time and time again I've seen this sort of attitude from others.
  WP:NFCC is hard work. It takes a LOT of time and effort. Adding on the requirement of "No, you can't enforce policy unless you work your ass of trying to fix other people's screw ups" would make NFCC enforcement essentially impossible. Again we get to the core problem; if you're not willing to fix the problems, don't complain when someone comes along and marks the problem with a deletion tag. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 14:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  I rather suspected that your reply would be such a screed rather than a reasonable consideration of the opposing viewpoint.

  But I had to try. Have a nice day. Anomie⚔

  15:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for the compliment! --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• What if your POV change happened 20 edits ago, but in the meantime all other edits were legit, so you come by the article, see this POV section... what would be your inclination to do ? Unless you want to spend the time search the history to find the change, most would delete it. I've suggested some automatic tests that Delta can do in limited cases to reduce some of the false positives, but you're asking him to infer what the intent is of other editors, which is just impossible to do unless he spends a lot of time digging around, something that is not required of others. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  My inclination would be to pull out a little program I have that resembles wikiblame and give it a sentence from the POV screed. But then again I'm more concerned with quality than with blasting through as many as I can as quickly as I can.

  We're not asking Δ to do much here. What we are asking him to do is to see "Hmm, there is no rationale for

  request to do so. Anomie⚔

  15:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Which goes to the false positives point. But still, if the editors who make the screw up in the first place aren't willing to fix their problems, they shouldn't be screaming bloody murder when someone else marks it as having a problem. This is why we have things like {{
  di-no fair use rationale-notice}}, to give editors who are unaware of the problem an opportunity to fix them. If instead editors policing NFCC were required to fix these problems, we wouldn't HAVE these notice templates. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 15:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

reports/CATCSD.html again

reports/CATCSD.html fell over on Ron_"Raven"_Richards. In this case it boiled it down to a link to Ron_. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ill take a look, probably related to the previous issue about non-properly html encoded data. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Everything should now be fixed, if you are still having issues let me know. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

• News and notes: Anniversary preparations, new Community fellow, brief news

• In the news: Anniversary coverage begins; Wikipedia as new layer of information authority; inclusionist project

• WikiProject report: Her Majesty's Waterways

• Features and admins: Featured topic of the year

• Arbitration report: World War II case comes to a close; ban appeal, motions, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk

) 04:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Space Odyssey

First of all, the image you deleted DOES have a free use rationale for that SPECIFIC article. (There are two different space odyssey match cut images online in Wikipedia- the other is used for the article on "match cut". I think you confused the two images!!!!!)

Secondly, your removal of it was sloppy as you left in the second half of the image-accompanying text in the article- a dangling second half of a sentence with no opening, just an incomplete clause "...spanning a million years" at the beginning of the section "Dawn of Man".

Thirdly, you made a whole bunch of other unwise changes to the article- getting rid of mdash's for dash when we have a good reason for wanting them, changing ISBN numbers, removing titles to links which we want then in the article, etc. etc. etc..

This is just plain amateurism. If you still have a problem with the image, please talk to a third party, but don't come in waving a meat-cleaver slashing and hacking all over the place.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say the "amateurism" and "meat-cleaver" comments also apply to Yankee Stadium (1923), in which not once, but twice, Beta/Delta failed to even bother to look at what was going on with the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll be bringing this latest development to

WP:ANI shortly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

→ 15:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hold off, please. I'm writing an AN report at the moment, as we need clarification, not action, to correct this. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I already wrote it, but I can move it if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's up now,

WP:Administrators' Noticeboard#Trying to defuse a problem with User:Δ and NFCC#10c removals. --MASEM (t

) 15:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFCC #10c enforcement

Δ, looking over the contributions that the lynch mob is complaining about, I see the images were properly removed for failing to have a rationale for the specific use. I would have taken the same action of removal for this failure (and have done over 1500 of these myself). But, I have to agree with some comments made earlier here on your talk page (now archived) that burying the removals in a looong edit such as this makes it difficult to track, and certainly subject to greater likelihood of being reverted if not protested against. The removal was technically accurate;

2001: A Space Odyssey (film)

. I also find the purpose on the rationale to be exceptionally weak; "Illustrate most famous match cut in film history", a claim not supported with cites in the article nor even discussed in the article. I.e., a completely POV claim. . The removal should still be done. However, it shouldn't be done as part of a considerably larger edit.

As noted, I've done a rather large number of these removals, but have received far fewer complaints. I know much of the complaining comes from your 'fan club' and are without grounds. But, I think it would be wise to separate out the edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad Hammersoft mentioned this; I had noticed it as well, that it is extremely difficult to locate what images were removed and where in such long edits.

Another concern I had was with the automated removal of all comment tags within articles, as in this edit and this edit. I don't know about the Wikiproject comment tag in the second edit, but the removal of the ones indicating that an archive link or ref title was "bot generated" concern me. I would assume that those should remain in an article at least until someone manually checks that the bot filled in the right information. But maybe there's something I'm not aware of there? postdlf (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Nickel's worth of free advice

I don't know if you will listen, but you probably need to slow your roll on that AN/I discussion. Regardless of whether or not you are in the right, the attitude that you are in the right and therefore above reproach (in some sense) is probably 75% of the reason you got into trouble in the past. Slow down, step back, consider the value of contrition, please. I know you are right that few people patrol the non-free image queue partially because any debate turns into a giant shitstorm about deletionism but that doesn't mean that the remaining editors should stand above potential or active debates on the basis of their being shitstorms. It is enough to say that you make an effort to make sure you are right and when someone raises a stink of this magnitude you will make an effort to correct past problems. Don't interpret this as a threat or an attempt to lecture you. I'm just an admin who understands the character of the debate and hopes you don't become (or make yourself) a casualty. Protonk (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not how I intended to come off, and why for the most part I have stayed out of these dramafests. If anyone wants to jump on IRC and discuss this in real time, (vs the two to three hours+ needed for an onwiki discussion) about this and options, please let me know. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's just the impression I'm getting from the short responses to the various comments. the original large post was largely unobjectionable. I don't have a dog in the fight, so I don't know how helpful or unhelpful a complete discussion would be, but email works for me (marginally easier than IRC). Just be careful that your comments could be interpreted as evincing some desire to ignore complaints wholesale if they conflict with what you see policy as. Legitimate (or necessary) or not, I think such an image will pretty much cause this to end poorly. Protonk (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents

A quick glance and I see that we have some parties arriving just so they can see their comments posted on an admin board. Not sure what the correct reply is to these "Net Negative" editors, but I thought I would give you a heads up to put their comments in perspective. Apologies on the dramafest, there are those out there that do realize your value to the project. 173.124.194.219 (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free content use

Please see the US Presidents on US postage stamps

discussion page

.

Removal of External Links

Hi Δ, it seems you have removed a number of links to external pages that I had put in (e.g. this edit. All it says (as far as I can see, I haven't checked them all) is (Removing external link: *.photodharma.net -- per external link guidelines), but isn't more specific, so it's hard to see which guideline has been violated.

The links are to pages that contain high quality images of the subjects of the pages, and other links to similar pages have been left unaffected, which seems a little arbitary. Maybe you can explain it better for me. Anandajoti (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick question, are you affiliated with that site in any way? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 05:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am. I see now that might disqualify me. However, the COI document says: COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. 'Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.'

Of course this leaves it open as to what promoting one's own interests are, but I presume it might mean some sort of financial gain. But there is no financial gain for anyone at all (no advertsising, no sales, nothing of the sort), and in producing the site in the first place my only thought has been benefitting others.

All the photographs are released under a Creative Commons license, and in fact I was thinking of getting many of them uploaded to Wikimedia commons (not all as there are thousands).

If this is still not satisfactory, or if you still feel it breaches guidelines, what would the case be if I asked someone not connected with the site if they thought it might be worthwhile linking and left it to their best judgement - I mean this must happen all the time!

This is not because I in any way gain from it, but I truly believe readers might. Anandajoti (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your mass insertion of a COI link triggered the removal, please do not insert links nor suggest that others do so. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I was really trying to help, and not myself but others. I will not do it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandajoti (talk • contribs) 23:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Go and check the article again please (

More than a Woman (Aaliyah song)). You pretty much destroyed it. That's why I reverted it--GhostFace1234 (talk

) 13:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I fixed that, sorry about that I nuked one too many sets of }}, next time an edit summary would be useful. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Narnia

In the course of deleting some images from the Narnia article, you also damaged three of the URL links in the article, changing "pages=" to "page=" when the original was correct. Here they are

{{cite book |title=Through the Wardrobe: Your Favorite Authors on C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia |last=Brennan |first= Herbie |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2010 |publisher= BenBella Books|location= |isbn=1935251686, 9781935251682 |page=6 |page=200 |url= |accessdate=}}

{{cite book |title=Raised by wolves: the story of Christian rock & roll |last=Thompson |first=John Joseph |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2000 |publisher=ECW Press |location= |isbn= |page=64 |page=262 |url= |accessdate=}}

{{cite book |title=The Phish companion: a guide to the band and their music |last= |first=Mockingbird Foundation |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2000 |publisher=Hal Leonard Corporation |location= |isbn=0879306319, 9780879306311 |page=157 |page=915 |url= |accessdate=}}

If you're trying to enforce the image rules, it's really inconsiderate to bury the edit along with a lot of other ones, which are problematic. It creates unnecessary work for other editors. --WickerGuy (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Delta, I completely agree. I think it would probably be best that if you're removing some images, you do just that in that edit. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ive already minimized the other stuff I do durring NFC removal. these shouldnt occur again. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Caribbean Airlines-Air Jamaica Transition Limited

Please note that the image used does not violate Wikipedia's fair usage policy. The new merged company Caribbean Airlines-Air Jamaica transition Limited has exlusive rights to the name 'Air Jamaica' as well as its corporate identity, logo etc. Please refrain from removing the image on the page, especially without any valid reason and data as to why. Saltprune416

Please review our

rationale it cannot be re-added. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

15:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Audio in Music of Madagascar article

Hello Delta, Thank you for so diligently working to ensure copyright laws are respected here on Wikipedia. I'm interested in conforming to the rules, and being a new author/editor here I'm learning as I go. You have removed the audio on the Music of Madagascar article a couple of times now due to inadequate fair use rationale, so to correct the issue I sought out several articles that have attained Featured Article status and include audio clips. I copied the code for their licensing/fair use rationales and applied it to each of the files in the Music of Madagascar article, modified of course to suit each particular clip. Nonetheless, you again removed one of the files. I read the information at the links you provide and the only way my licensing/fair use rationales did not meet the standards was in not citing the name of the article they are associated with, so I made that correction tonight to all of them. If you do wind up removing them again, I will not know why. Since my intention is to learn and contribute (legally!) to high-quality articles on the site, if you do see a reason to remove these clips again I would appreciate an indication of the reason so I may adequately address it. Thank you in advance. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The article name was required per NFCC#10c. With your fix of it, the sound file should be ok now (barring other less objective measures of the NFCC). --MASEM (t) 05:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary

Just to say there's probably something wrong with your script which generates edit summaries: this edit was very helpful, but completely irrelevant to what the edit summary says. --Deryck C. 23:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that the edit removed this image File:C.s.lewis3.JPG which, as the edit summary says, lacks a rationale to allow it to be used on the College page (it's got one for the CS Lewis page, but each use needs a new rationale). The rest of the editors were just cleanup. --MASEM (t) 23:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Link request

Per your edit restrictions [6] you are required to post to VPR and get consensus before you begin any task of more than 25 edits. Could you please give me a link to this discussion for the recent NFCC image removals? I'd like to read the discussion there, since it's relevant to the recent ANI thread. Thanks, — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 05:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of file from List of Desperate Housewives page

file link

file history

(cur | prev) 15:29, 16 January 2011 We hope (talk | contribs) (562 bytes) (file has rationale) (rollback | undo)

(cur | prev) 03:56, 16 January 2011 Courcelles (talk | contribs) (507 bytes) (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 02:38, 20 October 2010 Firestorm566 (talk | contribs) (461 bytes) ({{Non-free use rationale |Article = List_of_Desperate_Housewives_characters |Description = Lyndsy Fonseca, Nathan Fillion and Dana Delany as The Mayfair family |Source = ABC |Portion = |Low_resolution)

{{Non-free use rationale
 |Article           = List_of_Desperate_Housewives_characters
 |Description       = [[Lyndsy Fonseca]], [[Nathan Fillion]] and [[Dana Delany]] as The Mayfair family
 |Source            = ABC
 |Portion           = 
 |Low_resolution    = 
 |Purpose           = Acquaintances of Katherine Mayfair section
 |Replaceability    = 
 |other_information = Promotional phot circa Season 4
}}

File had rationale since its upload. We hope (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that that was my mistake, it shouldn't happen again. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the underlines in the article name in the rationale is throwing off the check here, which it shouldn't. The images check out ok (though, as a side comment, we don't usually allow images in lists, per

WP:NFLISTS, but that's not what they were removed for). Δ, you should probably check this condition. --MASEM (t

) 15:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: The publicity photos without fair use rationale category--there are many, many of them which do have rationales but are tagged as not. Have found images I have uploaded and had done the rationales before finishing the upload-yet they were in this category. It looks like all new publicity photos wind up there even if they do have rationales, as I've seen some newly uploaded ones with rationales in the backlog list too. We hope (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair use of images

Hello. I noticed you had removed many images for not having a complete fair use rationale for use on certain articles. I have noted your page notice, however, could you not make changes to the rationales? I see your statement that maintaining rationales is the responsibility of uploaders but unfortunately this will never guarantee rationales will be completed adequately. Changes come and go, as do uploaders, so we can end up with files with missing rationales due to new uses. I've been working through the backlogs of categories for files without a specified purpose in rationales. None of these files are mine, but I've made the necessary changes. I expect many of the files you have removed could be added back along with a copy and paste of existing fair use rationales. Hugahoody (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Copy-paste rationales are, more often than not, a very bad thing. If there are "new uses", it is the responsibility of those adding the image to the new page to make sure that it is compliant with policy. I've seen people blocked for failing to do that. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. But the common sense approach would also be to make necessary changes. Hugahoody (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• What is common sense varies from perspective to perspective. Trying to discern what the uploader or users of an image intended with a non-free image, how they wanted to tie it to the text, what secondary source they're using regarding the image's importance, etc. It's black magic to climb into someone else's head to do that. Further, trying to untangle it when you are not familiar with the subject is likely doomed to fail. So, if you're a follower of N topic you might automatically know why X image is necessary, and can provide secondary sources tying it all in. Someone else coming along who is unfamiliar with N? Not so much. Now, that is not an argument that only people familiar with N should be touching anything to do with N. As the
  WP:NFCC policy notes, it's incumbent on those wanting to use non-free content to provide a valid rationale. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 19:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I do feel you're slightly over-complicating things a little but never mind. Hugahoody (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit restriction - only note

You did not respond to my query above, but your series of edits with summary "repair dab link in rationale" today involved 26 articles. This is the only note I will leave here: any series of edits you make that affects more than 25 articles must be posted to VPR first, with a 24 hour delay, per your edit restrictions. This applies even if the edit summary is not the same for the edits. Therefore the edits to repair dab links today violate your edit restriction. I will block this account if you violate the edit restriction again. It is not the sort of thing that can be accidentally violated, so you should take care to follow it. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 02:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I did not realize it was that high, I was testing something prior to my post on AN, so it can be something easily violated, I dont really give a flying fuck about edit counts, I quit counting after I hit 50k edits, and Im somewhere over 100k now so unlike most people I dont count my edits so its fairly easy to make a mistake. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

• News and notes: Anniversary celebrations; Foundation reports; local language problems; brief news

• In the news: Anniversary coverage continues; Thai government translates Wikipedia; brief news

• Sister projects: Upcoming steward elections, and a retrospective on stewards' work in 2010

• WikiProject report: Talking wicket with WikiProject Cricket

• Features and admins: First featured picture from the legally disputed NPG images; two Chicago icons

• Arbitration report: New case: Shakespeare authorship question; lack of recent input in Longevity case

• Technology report: January Engineering Update; Dutch Hack-a-ton; brief news

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk

) 18:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Jeanbartpolish.jpg

Hi. Please stop reverting edits to this image. It was mistakenly tagged as having no rationale. It has a rationale, so I have removed the CSD template. Please do not tag it again. fish&karate 14:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please review the

rationale guideline because it does not have a valid rationale. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

14:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It does not have a templated rationale. This does not mean it does not have a valid rationale. However, as the guideline says, Please consider, as an alternative to deletion, fixing the description page, if possible. I would welcome your fixing the description page for me, as you are clearly knowledgable about rationales. fish&karate 14:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

But I am not familiar with the topic, which makes writing a rationale very difficult. One simple question a good rationale must answer is: Why must that article have that specific image? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As the existing rationale says, it is illustrative of the historical link between historical characters and the advertising of shoe polish, and the use of Jean Bart to advertise Cirage shoe polish is mentioned in the article text. fish&karate 14:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That appears decorative then, and unneeded. Just because something is mentioned does not mean it needs a image. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinion, which is not a valid rationale for deletion. fish&karate 14:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Check your facts,

WP:NFCC#8 is a reason for deletion. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

14:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• I concur with Δ. The use here is decorative. The brand is barely even mentioned, much less the advertising that was used for the brand. There's no cited discussion regarding the notability of the design, and no connection between the image and the text, other than the mention of the brand. That's a blatant fail of
  WP:NFCC #8, which IS a reason for deletion. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 14:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  Neither of you are right, but it doesn't matter, as the image was published in 1930 and has no copyright notice, so it's public domain, and has been tagged as such. fish&karate 14:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  We are correct, please review the non-free policy before you place your foot in your mouth again. Failure to meet any of the

  non-free criteria is grounds for deletion. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

  14:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  The image is very likely unfree; I've found that it was drawn by a Henri Le Monnier, a popular deco artist in the 1930s in Franch, (see [7]). Given there are works from him at least as late as 1937, I don't think we can call the image in the PD, but I haven't affirmed the year of death yet. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a public domain ad here from a 1915 Saturday Evening Post issue for 2 in 1 Shoe Polishes, which also shows the racism sometimes used in advertisements. I also found a 1920 public domain ad here for Bixby's brand. Bottom line, if the point is to illustrate advertising from that period, there are plenty of public domain examples available, which means you can't use a non-free one unless the article points it out as special in some way. A little more searching will no doubt turn up more image options if the two I found aren't suitable. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

• News and notes: Wikimedia fellow working on cultural collaborations; video animation about Wikipedia; brief news

• In the news: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited; Wikipedia still failing to fail; brief news

• WikiXDC: Wikipedians celebrate anniversary with US National Archives in Washington, D.C.

• WikiProject report: Life Inside the Beltway

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: 23 editors submit evidence in 'Shakespeare' case, Longevity case awaits proposed decision, and more

• Technology report: File licensing metadata; Multimedia Usability project; brief news

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk

) 00:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Nadirim

Hello, I am here to ask about the pictures deleted from one of my edits Nadirim. The pictures that were removed have a clear source, the fan package of the game, which are clearly free to use. So I am a bit confused, thank you for your reply.(Manwith1plan (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

If you take a look at the version that I saw: [8] the images where deleted from commons, one example is File:Nadirim logo.jpg Dschwen (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Nadirim logo.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation: provided to you for your personal use only and may not be used, edited, copied, reproduced publicly, distributed, transmitted, broadcast, displayed, sold, licensed, or otherwise exploited for any other purposes ) All I was doing was removing links to the deleted files. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Indian Wars Medal of Honor recipients lists

Yes we need to discuss. All you are doing is changing the casing on templates (Cite web to cite web) which is something that has caused a lot of arguments in the past for other editors (namely Rich Farmborough) and replacing direct links with redirects. The only benefit is reducing the page size very slightly. These are unnecessary changes. --

talk

) 03:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Im also cleaning up deleted/missing images, my other edits reduced the full page size by a little over one percent. When pages become as large as this one every byte can count. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The image issue is fine and completely understandable. Its the other changes I have a problem with. --

talk

) 03:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)