User talk:Δ/20110601

I update the list several times a day, once its fixed it should drop off the next update. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 10:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

For those who are interested, and those who are on IRC, see #NFCCCompliance / #NFCCBackup on IRC - monitoring of edits to pages which contain non-free media, and/or where non-free media gets included. Works pretty nice with the removal tools from ∆ (you'll also note when images get re-included there). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ummmmm.... and File:Sask.jpg is free? 117Avenue (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on the licensing given for Sask.jpg, it says it is free as it is coming from Commons. That said, it looks like that is wrong, given that all images on Coins of the Canadian dollar, but that one, are non-free. I'm opening a request at Commons to review this image since I think it should be non-free. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, it appears that the speed of your editing may fail one of your editing restrictions. Specifically:

• Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

From 2011-06-20 16:42-16:29, your rate of edits exceeded the allowed limit. 64.217.182.58 (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up, Delta, I'm counting like 43 edits from 16:32 to 16:41 in said period. May want to check whatever throttle you have on your edits... --MASEM (t) 06:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with your removing nonfree images, but please at least make sure you don't do thing like leave contentless tables or columns, or stray captions in infoboxes. It just makes a mess for other people to have to clean up; cf. [11], [12]. Pais (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Im not going to touch table syntax, I always seem to screw it up and cannot figure out how to get it to work again. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Also note, not in all cases all images are removed, and in some cases alternatives or other solutions can be found - then you have one editor spending time removing the column, and another who has to add it again. And in both of the examples you gave, there was still information (albeit commented) in some of the columns. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure you understand the claim of fair use on low resolution logos. Perhaps you should check Commons before wantonly deleting images from articles that have taken a great deal of work to create and the use of logos within them which are quite legitimate. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 11:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The files that I am removing are not on commons, they are non-free logos that are here on wikipedia, and you are using them without proper

WP:NFCC#10 ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

11:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

See my talk page for my response. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 11:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah .. well .. it had a rationale for All Our Yesterdays - this is again one of the 'reasonably easy cases' to repair (though there could be some confusion on the disambig - there is a song and an album). It has since been solved. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly sir. You are a gent!

stoned

10:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Δ. You have new messages at Dapi89's talk page.
Message added 09:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

[13] on the new edit summary, far more detailed, clear and a lot less dismissive.--

Like I said Im always open to suggestions. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Stupid question, Delta: do you have enough space left in the edit summary to possible point to a FAQ (essentially what you have as your talk page edit notice, but maybe like at "WP:Δ/F" (10 more characters with brackets) as further no-worries guides to your NFC patrolling? (eg: it could be a page that starts : "If I have removed image(s) from your page, it is likely for one of the following reasons...")--MASEM (t) 14:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

As the old saying goes there are no stupid questions, except the one you do not ask. Ive got 0000000000000000000000 left in my edit summary. If you write the FAQ Im sure I can fit it in. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes Δ, thanks for adopting it. I realized I left behind another slight grammatical error: "must have valid and specific rationale" -> "must have a valid and specific rationale". Alternatively, you could add (s)to "rationale". –xeno^talk 14:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh man, there's a template for Delta's name? Learn something new every day...--MASEM (t) 14:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Added to TfD; only four transclusions. Obviously useless! ;) To the point of the FAQ; you can lead a horse to water.. So many people don't read anymore. Say, 40%. Of the remaining 60%, let's say 15% say "That's an essay, not policy!" (and that is not a rare comeback). Of the 45% left, another 20% will disagree with it and revert anyway. For various other unsundry purposes, the FAQ will not have an effect on 10-15% of the remainder, leaving us with about 1 in 10 actually benefiting from its existence. Let's get writing. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• My concern is that what's going to happen is that people will go to WP:NFC (which he's linked) see walls of text, blank out, and then go and still complain at Delta for something they don't want to be bothered to understand. If the FAQ I'm thinking of is as simple as his edit editor (eg "Check for typos in the rationale!") that may defuse any additional comments towards his page. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

{{

substed}} ;> –xeno^talk

15:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)::

This is better. A good step in the right direction. One other thought is a simple how to page that actually shows what we mean by having a rationale for each article and example of what constitute good examples of template use since that's important too.Mattnad (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

THERE IS a rationale for the use in

It was not a valid rationale until I just fixed it. The rational was for

Amelia, Italy, If you re-insert non-free content prior to fixing the problem (and doing so repeatedly) you may be blocked for violating our non-free content policies. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

19:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)For the first one, yes, that would be, but it is sometimes quite a task for someone not familiar with the article to find that.

For the second, I have removed the other fields for now (hopefully the rationale can be fixed so the edits can be undone). I would call this more a problem of the template, it should not display anything if the filename is not given for some obscure reason. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• The image description page contained a (rather weak, and still weak) rationale for the article "Anywhere". That article is a disambig page noting the existence of four different songs/albums under that title. That image description page does not have any indication as to which album/song the image belongs. Δ acted properly; the image must have a rationale for each use of the item under
  WP:FURG when adding non-free content to articles. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 16:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Arguably, the NFUR on that .ogg was fine -- the only thing it was lacking was an explicit link to the article, but the Featured Article it was used in was clearly indentified. And yes, he made a mess -- the template he pulled the file out of rendered improperly with the file removed but the description fields left in. He should have gotten everything out, not just the file link. In any case, NFUR template added and info restored to the FA.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not "sometimes quite a task", you just click on the image to go to the file and look at 'File links'. memphisto 16:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Its not always that simple, Ive seen some complete clusterfucks that took me hours to sort out. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• And as clearly stated in
  WP:NFCC, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". Δ is not required to go about trying to find where the image should be used and crafting/fixing a rationale for that use. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 16:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, this all would not happen if editors would fix the cases in this list. I would not know for most what the correct rationale is, but I hear that fixing them must be simple .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the article had a valid rationale that was broken by an article move. And also recent edits to Alive (Sonique song) and 21 (Adele album) - both good faith uses of the rationale that fail due to a mistake in linking to the article. memphisto 16:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed it is a problem. However, it is not a problem that Δ is required to fix. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, Δ doesn't have to fix it, but he could also spend more time trying to fix things rather than just removing them all without any consideration. Consider FIRST that people

  added the image in good faith and made a mistake, then consider removing the image. There's no need to apply a sledgehammer approach to something that could easily be handled with a simple typo fix. — BQZip01 — ^talk

  02:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• We have tried nicer approaches and they dont work, Also Please dont bring AGF into this. I am making no assumptions on the actions of the user, I just locate and fix problematic non-free content. If you know of an easier way to fix this large scale problem (besides ignoring it) Im all ears, Ive never seen a feasible solution that works practically except the mass removal approach. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Again, Memphisto, the list is here: http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/nfcc/rationale_missing.log.old - Delta, you, Hammersoft, I, no-one is required to fix the rationales. Everyone who can may of course do it. And as I said, you are right, there are many that are easy to fix. But I am sure that you will in the process of going through that list find many, many, which will take you at least 10 minutes to fix, or you might even find out that you can not fix it yourself. You might even run into cases which you fix, and then someone else figures out you did it wrongly. I'm not sure if it is better having pages without fair-use rationale (basically, a violation of copyright), to have some pages without images which could maybe have been fixed (a pity, sure), or images with wrong fair-use rationales (again, basically a violation of copyright). I know, having the proper rationale there does not exclude problems with copyright, but not having it there or having a wrong one certainly will not help. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify a point - A malformed template does not a copyvio make (despite Beestra's suggestion above). Even if a fair use rationale is incomplete or inadequately formed or even "wrong" according to the editors who frequent this page, the fair use of photo does not depend on the filling out of a form, but where and how it was used. When is the last time you saw fair use templates on the

Daily Show when Jon Stewart is commenting on video taken from some place. Mattnad (talk

) 23:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

We do not use fair use, our policy is

about non-free content which is much stricter and has more limits than fair use. Which is why you do not see it being called fair use. NFCC is crystal clear, it must have a rationale in place or be removed. The burden is on those who wish to include the copyrighted content to provide said rationales. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

23:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. So take everything I wrote, and substitute "fair use" with "non-free" and the conclusion is the same. A malformed template does not a copyvio make.Mattnad (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It isnt a copyvio but it is a clear violation of our non-free content policies. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please tell that to Dirk. Regards. Mattnad (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Dirk used the phrase basically a violation which it is, whether its on wikipedia or on the Daily show, there must me a fair use rationale. Its not always a template it could be much much less, (sometimes like the Daily show its implied) however wikipedia policies require our rationales to be clearly stated and defined for each use. If you use non-free content without a valid rationale (whether its on wikipedia or the Daily Show) you can get sued for violations of copyright. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No, Dirk uses that phrase regualrly, either as a scare tactic or reflective of a deep misundertanding of law. And you yourself, if you wish to be active in the area, should understand that the presence or absence of a written FUR has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not an owning party brings suit. FUR's are solely to prove due dilgence on the part of the volunteer editors here, acting en masse. They will never prevent the WMF (or individual editors) being sued, nor will they prevent a finding of culpability if the FU rationale (written or not) is found deficient. Franamax (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fran, using any copyrighted material (under fair use or any other claim) is a copyright violation, however the law (fair use) gives use the right to violate their copyright under specific grounds. Neither I nor Dirk have ever stated that NFURs are the end all, they are just one part of the bigger picture here, and under

policy they are required. I am probably one of the top 10 users on this wiki with the most knowledge about non-free content, and our polices in regard to them, so please take your herrings somewhere else. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

01:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That's great news that you are one of the 10 editors here with most expertise in these matters. Perhaps you can explain to me then, preferably citing case law or learned opinion, how fair use of a copyrighted work constitutes a violation of copyright? 'Cause it seems to me that by definitionm it does not. Let's leave aside the way the "copyvio" claims only come out when a written FUR is missing, let's just go with your self-proclaimed expertise in this area: if reuse of a copyrighted image is permitted under fair-use, and would be found by a court of law as non-violative of such laws and statutes, then how exactly would it be a "copyright violation"? I'm glad you've serlf-identified as such an expert and I await your informed commentary, failing which, could you identify the other nine experts here? Franamax (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Simple fair use is the defense of the copyright violation and the grounds for violating it are defended with a rationale. I could go out and get case law and facts that defend my point of view, however our

policy goes far above and beyond what fair use is, and thus case law would not really apply too well because our policy is far far more strict than the law. Please take a few moments before posting to run your comments through a spell checker please. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

02:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use: An affirmative defense to copyright infringement set forth in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 107) that allows certain persons or entities to use, access, copy, distribute, remix, publicly perform, or publicly display limited portions of protected material for certain purposes

Quoted from Yale's library. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks. I think what you're getting at there is the "affirmative" part of "defense", as in if there is no written FUR, then the defense is not affirmative but rather passive (i.e. could be proved later) and thus invalid? I dispute that interpretation, but thanks for finally drawing it out. Usage of a copyrighted image is either protected as fair-use (in which case, by my reading, the defense will inevitably be affirmative and there is no copyvio) or it is not (in which case, as in a purely decorative image, like a photo of the Grateful Dead on drugs taken by a Rolling Stone photog, it has no justification and violates reproduction rights). My whole point here is and has always been that it is not correct to label any image use which lacks a written rationale as "basically a copyright violation". That's simply not true, it depends absolutely on the case at hand. (Unless of course you want to label any and all NF images as copyvios) I really think the various discussions would best be served by reference to actual facts (like your quoting of text) rther than heated rhetoric, and we should be avoiding this copyvio monster when we could be instead discussing application of our own interpretation of WMF policy. I'll still likely be arguing with you about that too, but much less so than when "copyvio" gets tossed into the argument. Franamax (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(multi-e/c, this is to DB) Beetstra, here you are again trotting out that "violation of copyright" meme. Can you please explain to me (or can anyone else here please explain) how an image which clearly shows that it is the property of a rights-holder, used without a project-mandated fair-use rationale, is in any way a copyright violation? Your wild-eyed rhetoric does a huge disservice those genuinely interested in adhering to minimal non-free content. I'm willing to stand corrected, otherwise I really think you should drop your use of such drivel. Franamax (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Franamax; refering to anyone as having "wild-eyed rhetoric" is rather
  uncivil. If you can't engage Dirk or Δ in a civil manner, please refrain from commenting at all. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 02:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find Franamax's comments on the claims of both DB and Δ quite accurate. The Fair Use Rationale is a Wikipedia thing. It is not a requirement in any law in any country. Too many people are taking that rule and using it as a sledgehammer to figuratively club people who make an honest mistake. Overall, they fix lots of small problems, but create a smaller number (but still a significant quantity) of more major problems! This incident here is a perfect example. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We dont have fair use rationales. We have non-free use rationales which are different. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. How are they different? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The first one explains how a given use is in accordance to Fair use law, the second explain how it is in accordance to Wikipedia's non-free content policy. --damiens.rf 01:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hammersoft, I'm not setting out to be uncivil, I'm just trying to nail down the wording. "Copyright violation" has a very specific meaning, not least right here at English Wikipedia where it wakes my admin instincts (and my editor instincts from long before I became an admin) to remove on sight. I've asked for clarification on this before, apparently none is forthcoming. Discussions of image use without a written FUR invariably get cluttered up with "then it's a copyvio OMG!!". I don't believe that to be true and I can't get anyone to actually show me why it is. If all usage of copyrighted images are ipso facto copyvios, then please show me why that's true, that's all I'm asking. I'll shut up after that, I just want some authority other than the random opinions of Wikipedia editors. In other areas of copyright, I know a very very good editor who backs up her opinions with cited and cogent arguments, but I'm not going to ask her to get involved in this. I really think this "copyvio" argument should be put to rest. I'll reiterate, raising the spectre of copyvio when the problem is lack of a policy-mandated FUR is a mis-statement of the actual situation. It doesn't mean any image should be kept or not, it means that I dispute the language used by editors involved in this topic. Franamax (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

See above: Fair use, is the defense for specific cases of copyright violates that have been deemed acceptable under the law. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Franamax, the point is not the direct legal problem, or whatever. These images are copyrighted, they are non-free. Just displaying or using them would be disallowed per copyright laws. However, there is such a thing as fair-use - if you can make a case that the image is used under those fair-use rules, then you are allowed to use them. If that case is not made, you are not allowed to use them. The point is not that we 'OMG we are sued by someone', the point is, that the foundation has specifically told us to make sure that for every use of a non-free image we need to have a fair-use rationale (actually, the Foundation says it stronger - the foundation excludes the use of non-free material completely, but the individual projects can write an excemption, but with strict rules - have a fair-use rationale in place - see the Resolution:Licensing policy of the Foundation). You are right in a way that the legal risk is minimal, chances of it being a legal problem are minimal etc. etc. - but it is one of the few things that have been put onto us by the Foundation, something where

So simply, if there is an image, and one wants to re-include it, get the rationale there. Do not edit-war to keep the image there without rationale - that rationale is a requirement, whether or not it is obvious fair-use or not, the burden is on the one who wants to include. Still, all these discussions here on ∆'s talkpage or mine go the same way, we have to write the rationale, if it is 'obvious' fair-use then we should not remove it - the requirement is that it needs a fair-use rationale, so if you want to (re-)include the image, get the rationale correct first. I can point editors again and again to this list and ask them to solve the problems (if it is that easy), editors can be warned that there will be in due time a process of image removal on 'their' set of articles and ask them to get the required fair-use rationales in place (and check the ones that are there in the same go, there may be invalid ones), but nothing is going to happen there. So it would come down to ∆, and maybe 3 or 4 other volunteers to go through the 250k+ articles to check and write all rationales. While a) a significant part of it is just in plain violation of copyright, b) it takes for some up to 15 minutes per image to get the fair-use rationale correct .. the work is now pretty slow, images are removed on a relative slow rate, and the tens of thousands of editors (who were pre-warned in some cases) all have to do 1-2 pages every now and then. The other solution would be to give every active editor 25-30 pages to solve, if they do 5 a day we are ready in a week. But asking the public never helped, yelling at the messenger also does not help, and still there are violations of copyright, and even more where the images do not fulfill the required points as given by the Foundation. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The rationale was being added to the image while you were in the process of impatiently reverting the article and leaving a newbie template message on my page. Next time, please try to exercise a little bit of patience. You might also check up on the other user's history to see if they're an experienced editor; If they're a veteran editor of over 51,000 edits since 2005, and an administrator since 2007, that might mean that they're addressing the very matter brought up by the original removal of the image, which was the case here. Leaving a non-customized template message on their talk page that mentions images of living people (which the image in question is not) and block warnings under a month-and-year heading (which is typically only used on anonymous IP users' talk pages, and not those with username accounts) is slightly overkill. Nightscream (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ive seen administrators completely screw up with regards to non-free content, I treat all users equally. Also you should have a valid rationale prior to adding the file. Whether you have 1, 100, 1000 or 100,000 edits it really doesnt make too much of a difference. Everyone gets treated equally, I too have been around since 2006 and I have over 120,000 edits but that really doesnt matter. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

PS example of a major admin fuckup and the lashing they got for it [14] ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Nightscream, if you have a different suggestion for a template to use in these cases, or would like to create one, please feel free to suggest or create one. As is, that's the one we use. I concur with Δ's comments regarding experience. All users in good standing are equal, and there is no idea of some being more equal than others simply because they have more time and/or edits on the project. The Foundation has been trying to come up with ways to encourage new users to stick around. Treating 'experienced' editors as somehow more deserving of a higher status here is antithetical to new users. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in suggesting different templates, since the ones in use now are perfectly fine, and since that is completely irrelevant to this matter. If you or anyone else wants to change them, that's your area of interest, not mine. For my part, the Attribution 3.0 template that I used when uploading my photos of the November 2008 Big Apple Con--including the one of Frank Lucas that Δ deleted without just cause, under the mendacious claim that it was a "copyright violation"--a matter he has still not explained--is the same template I'm using today. I leave the nature and evolution of the templates to others such as yourself. I simply use what is mandated.

As for "treating all editors equally", using non-customized template messages when contacting experienced editors is considered inappropriate among members of the community. That is not my point of view, it's the point of view of others. I've simply conformed to it. If you two are unaware of this practice, then that's your ignorance, not mine.

Thus, your use of a non-customized template that mentioned photos of living persons when the image in question was not one (unless you think Mr. Adams is really hirsuite), and a block warning (when I merely reverted the photo right before fixing the rationale), combined with the indication by Kate's Tool that you accumulated 25,000 edits since July of last year (not 120,000 since 2006), led me to conclude that you were a newbie. But if you really have accumulated 120,000 edits since 2006, then that makes your behavior all the more inexcusable. If you have a legitimate concern over copyright, you don't outright delete a file using a false rationale of copyright infringement, you leave a message on the uploader's page inquiring about it first, and then delete it if no response is given after some time. You did not do this, nor have you yet explained why you did this.

But don't believe me. Continue unilateral deletion of files using false copyright infringement accusations, without notifying the uploader first, and then leave uncustomized template messages onto veteran editors' pages, and see how they react. Feel free to ignore the advice I've just given you. Keep it up, and in time, others will let you know about it as well. Nightscream (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• WP:NFCC #10c. If you believe images should be retained without there being a rationale for that use present, you may wish to approach the Foundation to request they change their stance as expressed at #4 of Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. In any case, casting aspersions like this is unhelpful. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 18:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"...you may wish to approach the Foundation to request they change their stance as expressed at #4 of Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy." That item has no bearing on the image in question, since it's free-content, and not a copyright violation that requires any sort of exemption.

"n any case, casting aspersions like this is unhelpful." I made the edit summary that I thought was appropriate, as I'm quite tired of obnoxious deletionists like Triangle who make false accusations and no attempt to communicate with others, as well as persistent liars like yourself who think repeatedly putting words in other people's mouths constitutes "discussion". If you don't like my edit summaries, then tough shit. Nightscream (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Churlish? Illiterate? Lazy? I note that you've now been blocked for incivility. I'm happy to discuss issues with you if you remain civil. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I am still new with some wikipedia issues but I believe the logo used was within the means described above. If you could please state why it does not meet the above guidelines I would be glad to make sure that the image passes wikipedia tests. In addition, this is not the first article that this image is used on. I obtained it from another wikipedia website. Thanks. --Johndheathcote (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• As per the edit summary, the file
  WP:FURG. Thanks for asking! If you have other questions please ask. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 19:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Not knowing about these issues when I placed it I took no time to make sure it was legal as it was already on another page. Now that I look at the file it appears to have a Non-free media use rationale of about 15 lines. Speciffically it states, "Because it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary. Does it need a specific rational for each page? Is a new discription page made for each place the image is located? Other schools who have simular rational are File:BYU Medallion Logo.svg and File:Harvard Wreath Logo 1.svg. It is noted that Harvard has the approval of the school (which is significant) but yet, if I understand correctly not required (as in the example of BYU). Apart from these issues our logo appears the same.

I will be quite stuck on this issue until it is resolved yet I am willing to learn. I am however convinced that it can be made correct according to wikipedia standards and... It would be hard to convince me otherwise. What do you think? Thanks! --Johndheathcote (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• As
  WP:NFCC #10c notes, you need to have a separate, specific rationale for each use. File:BYU Medallion Logo.svg is a good demonstration of that. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 22:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Great explanation. Thanks! It would be nice if next time it were flagged rather than deleted (I dont know if there is a way of doing that). Thanks for keeping the wiki world in order! --186.207.153.88 (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• It should be good now. I will replace the image. Let me know if anything is incorrect.--186.207.153.88 (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you removed this image from the Alaska Air Group page on the basis that it did not have a rationale for being used on this page. What "rationale" do you need? I tried reading the non-free use rationale guidelines and I still don't understand why you removed it from the page. If it doesn't have a valid non-free use rationale, well then why didn't you remove it from the Horizon Air page too? (Horizon Air is a subsidiary of Alaska Air Group, btw) Please explain, I'm confused.

Thanks,
Compdude123 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Because it had a rationale for Horizon Air, but not for Alaska Air Group. Non-free content must have a separate rationale explaining why it can be used in each article it's used in.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Would the following be a good explanation for why it should be on the Alaska Air Group page? Alaska Air Group is Horizon Air's parent company, and therefore should contain this image as well I've never encountered this issue before, so I'm unsure what would be a good Non-free use rationale. —Compdude123 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you need a separate non-free use rationale for each article is not explained on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, so I didn't know. Kinda figured this was the issue, though. —Compdude123 (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to get much clearer than "A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article. The name of the article the image is used in must be included in the rationale.", which is the fourth paragraph in the article....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and, Could you please explain how to add another rationale for use on Alaska Air Group's page? As I've said already, I'm new to this kind of issue. —Compdude123 (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

{{Non-free image rationale |Article = <EXACT NAME OF THE ARTICLE> |Purpose = <WHY MUST THIS PAGE HAVE THIS EXACT FILE> |Replaceability = <YES/NO CAN THIS FILE EVER BE REPLACED WITH A FREE FILE?> }}

Just fill out the above removing everything in <>. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think the image is necessary at all...anywhere...the livery scheme is in fact in use [15]. This makes it replaceable. I'm going to mark it as such. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, we need to keep it here until someone takes a picture of the new livery. A search doesn't bring up any pictures besides this one. And of course, we can't just just steal the image from that article, either. We need to wait until we get a new image before deleting the one there. If anyone could take a picture of the plane in the new livery, that would be great. —Compdude123 (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• As per
  WP:NFCC #1 where it says "...or could be created", we do not retain non-free content waiting for someone to create the free content if the free content CAN be created. Since one or more planes now exist in this livery, we can create free content imagery of it. I'm sorry, but the image has to go. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 22:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up! This should probably be linked into edit summaries when doing 10c enforcement. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks! I've seen it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

already added :) ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I was commenting on the issue - that the actions degrade the article , and that in any case just removing the image and not restoring the words is vandalistic and lazy. I t is a careless approach to the encyclopedia which you share I guess, but I don't. is that ok sir? Sayerslle (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

you lazy tosser is a clear personal attack, any further comments that are personal attacks will result in you being blocked. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why the image on

• Article = Thomas Clarkson
• Purpose = Used under fair use rationale to depict Thomas Clarkson.
• Replaceability = No known free use images are known to exist. Photograph is not replaceable Thomas Clarkson died in the 20th century.

... is not a valid and specific rationale? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You wrote a rationale for

Thomas Clarkson (rugby league) a different article. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

13:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Clarkson (rugby league) .. it may be that you linked to the wrong article (but as I don't know for sure how either of them looks like (maybe Δ does), ...)? I hope that this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C}

13:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That should be clear then.  :-) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Delta. Wait a minute !I am working on this right now. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Then please do not re-add the file until the issues are fixed. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfixable, this image is replaceable. It should be deleted. I am sorry. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Some automatic script seems to have gone wrong, I fixed it. --Muhandes (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

wasnt automatic, just wasnt careful enough with the removal. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Δ. You have new messages at Beetstra's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• Note on the section title; the "incorrect file deletion" was an entirely accurate file removal. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings - methinks you are perhaps a tad overzealous in jumping in right now given that I am adding information as we speak (something someone above has also pointed out) and that many other images are far less likely to pass muster. I did not upload this image, and am simply trying to fix it. Many missing details have since been added. If wishing to assist, can you advise as to what is still missing, as I'm only going by the guidelines? No animosity here - I can see you've already got your hands full with another editor. Just trying to get these articles up to scratch! Regards

Hello, could you be so kind to tell me how can I change the non free use rationale for The Sopranos picture in order to use it in

Neither image is really needed and would thus fail

WP:NFCC#8 ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

11:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the templating about an image that does have a complete FUR.

If you feel the FUR falls short, please discuss it on the article's talk page in line with

Please do not resort to deletion through orphaning at this point as that can be seen as disruptive.

Thanks.

- J Greb (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that your image did not have a FUR for "Star Sapphire (comics)", it had one for "Star Sapphire" (a disamb. page). I've fixed that for you, but the rationale has to include the exact article name for use. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. I though I had copied the full article title over after Beetstra's run. Sorry about that. - J Greb (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi - you removed the image from this article because I had forgotten the rationale - I have now included a rationale but please let me know if it is insufficient in any way. Mark^Dask 10:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The rationale refers to the wrong article, so please correct it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Corrected - although you could just have quickly corrected it yourself. If you have any other issues please let me know. Mark^Dask 16:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I could have, however remember the old parable about giving a fish and teaching a man to fish. --ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well said and yes I did learn from the exercise - thanks. Mark^Dask 05:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello!

You removed ESA's logo from here Talk:Mars_rover

Reason: ESA logo: remove files per WP:NFCC#9 using AWB

Why didn't you removed the logo from here European Space Agency?

I used that logo fairly.

Regards Csendesmark (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nonfree content cannot be used on talk pages, it can only be used in articles. Talk:Mars_rover is not an article and thus it was removed from there. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ... some CopyRights are just dumb... Thanx for the info --Csendesmark (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I didnt add the images to the pages of Azeal. I reverted the additions of the images to the page. — Preceding

you are mistaken you reverted my removal [16] without fixing the problem. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_.CE.94_.2F_Betacommand_violating_community_imposed_sanctions 64.217.182.58 (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

On the same token, I've proposed removal of the edit rate sanction. Same thread as above. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there some particular reason you cannot simply clarify what the problem is with a given image, and why instead, you simply say the same thing over and over again? Did you not see my edit summary, in which I stated that the photo has a rationale for article in question? If this is wrong on my part, why not respond to explain why? Why do you make no attempt at clear communication with image uploaders? Can't you see how this can be seen as non-collaborative, and possibly disruptive? Nightscream (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That is where you are wrong, it does not have a rationale for where it is being used on. --ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does. It says "Breen (Star Trek)" where it says "article". Do you not see this? Again, if this is wrong, why can you not explain how it's wrong? Why do you refuse to communicate clearly in discussion.

As for your edit warring accusation, edit warring does not refer to good-faith reversions of unambiguous policy violations, such as content deletion without a valid rationale by a user who refuses to communicate with others, a point J Greb himself has made.

Can you please clarify so that we can work together to make sure the image has the right rationale? Nightscream (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As Masem states below at the time of my removal the file did not have a valid rationale, which is why it was removed. Not sure how much clearer my edit summary can be, it clearly stated the reason for removal. As for edit warring it does cover your actions, Three reverts without fixing the problem is edit warring, it may not be blockable, but it is edit warring (good faith or bad faith, I make no assumptions either way). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

At the time that Delta had removed and reremoved the image, the image file did not say "Breen (Star Trek)" [17]. SOmeone, after Delta's removal, your revert, and his rerevert, fixed the image to make it say "Breen (Star Trek)" correctly. So Delta did what was correct at the time. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why all this happened? Because the wikilink was wrong? Why couldn't he just say that? Why do others have respond for him? Because a wikilink was outdated due to a page move, he has the gall to accuse others of 3RR violations? I'm reporting this at 3RR. Nightscream (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Go right head, NFCC enforcement is exempt from 3RR. At the time the rationale was for a different article than where the file was being used. Thus it had no rationale for the article where it was being used. If needed We can take this to AN/3RR and prove it with another {{trout}} being handed to you. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

3RR requires that the user in question discuss the matter with others. You refused to do so. Even now you only chimed in to make an uncivil comment, but refused up until to explain what was wrong with the rationale, when you very well could have. How can I "fix the problem" if I don't know where it is, and if you refuse to tell me? It's obvious that you just wanted to sit back and watch the image get deleted so that you can have the self-righteous satisfaction of someone else's work being deleted, when you could have made a genuine, good-faith effort to fix yourself, or at least work with me by telling me what the problem was. Nightscream (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I provided two links explaining the problem in my edit summary and provide details in my edit notice, if you refuse to read the information that I give you do I need to make it in XXXXL font, red and blinking so that you see it? because its fairly clear in all three places. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Those links do not explain the problem, and you know it. They link to policy pages, which are filled with the various criteria for rationales, and do not make any mention of that specific image, or its rationale. Explaining what the general criteria are and what's wrong with the rationale on a specific image are not the same thing. I am well aware of the general criteria for rationales, which you can surmise from my history with images. But you did not explain what was wrong with the specific criteria on that image's page, even though I flat-out asked you. You could've avoided this entire prolonged conflict by simply fixing the wikilink yourself, or at least telling me that it now led to a disambiguation page, yet you refused to do so. Can you tell me why this is? Nightscream (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If you actually read the links provided you would have seen

WP:FIXNF#LINKCORRECT and related sections, You have shown a repeated failure to follow NFC so having you familiarize yourself with policy seemed to be a good idea. My /edit notice says the same thing, yet you again seem not to have read that either. With at least three different points, you failed to ask what the problem was, instead you blindly re-inserted ignoring the problem, and violating NFCC. Do I need to make it large, red, blinking text next time? As I have provided plenty of explanation for my actions, it just seems you see a TL;DR and move on, which is not acceptable, especially from an administrator. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

23:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that have prevented this conflict, and been more in the spirit of collaboration and helpfulness? Or do you not care? Nightscream (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Nightscream, Im already just about at the maximum length for an edit summary, I linked to

WP:NFCC the burden of inclusion falls on those who wish to add/maintain NFC in articles. I know you are spreading lies about this being personal but its not, Im working though a list alphabetically removing all files without a valid rationales, there is nothing personal about that at all. Our paths have just crossed several times and you have yet to get the point about NFC. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

00:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

While the burden is on the uploader, an argument for common courtesy would be to include the specific issue on removal. Especially when asked directly. This isn't an issue under

WP:CIVILITY

(ignoring a request or refusing to provide info are not breaches of that) but a basic part a collaborative process. You know, helping other editors to get it right.

As a frank suggestion, used the shorthand links of WP:FIXNF#Whichever if there is a singular issue. It at least points to the most immediate problem. If there are multiple issues, use the general link to FIXNF, but offer the nut shell problems if asked.

- J Greb (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I really dont have the room in the summary, and the more people become familiar with our non-free content the fewer problems we will have later. Reading

the FAQ is a good idea regardless, (Hell Ive read it several times and made a few suggestions on the talk page) If users cannot be bothered take a few minutes to familiarize themselves with NFC policy, should they really be involved in such a complex issue in the first place? ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

00:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I literally have 3 characters left before I reach the max summary length. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a sec. I'm not suggesting you add but rather substitute. Currently you have:

All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page; please see [[Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline]] for more information; one or more files removed due to missing rationale [[WP:FIXNF|FAQ]]

(Yes, I'm assuming the shorthand). Wouldn't the following work in most cases?

All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page; please see [[Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline]] for more information; specifically [[WP:FIXNF#LINKCORRECT|on article links]]

- J Greb (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That assumes that every time Delta is removing an image for lacking a rational, it is because the rationale is not pointing to the exact right article name. There are other cases where the same warning applies where the image has been added (a second use, perhaps) to a different article. The link you give doesn't apply to that. Between what Delta does link , his own talk page edit warning, and everyhting else, there's little more that can be done short of telling editors to RTFM before they try to do anything NFC related. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ive really tried to avoid the term RTFM, but goddammit more people need to do it. Too many people see the manual, TL;DR say fuck it, and blindly revert. That behavior needs to be adjusted, and it is being adjusted, Im seeing more and more blocks being handed out because users dont RTFM. Like I have said, I provide about as much information as I can to help users shy of getting a ray gun with mind control functionality and using it on them. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Masem, you may want to look back a post or two. I prefaced this with "If there is only 1 issue..." This doesn't work if there are multiple issues.

As for RTFM...

1. This really isn't a "professional" environment where every one is on a deadline. Asking for help shouldn't be creating a detrimental time sink.
2. This project relies on volunteer effort and treating editors like new hires does not make for a "happy" editing environment.
3. It is at times a shotgun approach where a mountain of information is pointed to when only a specific and small section applies.
4. It is in some ways contrary to the collaborative spirit most try to foster. "Go figure it out yourself" isn't the best way to work with others.
5. It also assumes that the manual is crystal clear and easily understood and the editor is conversant with English at the level the manual is written at. Given how the "manual" has been arrived at and the make up of the editing population, neither assumption is a lead pipe cinch.

- J Greb (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A shotgun approach is the only one that works. We have tried very thing else, Telling someone to read up on policies before uploading non-free content would be preferable, but not possible via the software. Right now I am just checking one part of a valid rationale, and not the whole rationale. So pointing them to the rationale guidelines will help prevent further issues when I start this process over with the next part of the enforcement sweeps. NFC isnt what new hires should be doing, NFC should be left to those who have spent the time to familiarize themselves with policy prior to uploading, (and at that point they become fairly experienced editors). There have been several removals that I have preformed for 10c requirements that upon further examinations fail other parts of NFC. However my focus is 10c and I am not giving a file a clean pass, it just may meet what Im looking for at the moment. If next time around I find that it fails on two or three other points the users will be pissed that I didnt tell them about it the first time around, but I wasnt looking into those issues at the time. So pointing them to the guide(s) that are designed to fix all issues is a better solution that focusing just on the 10c issues that Im currently working through. Teaching more and more users how to properly work with non-free content is far far more effective than spoon feeding them the solution, because over time those users then get in the habit of checking NFC files that they come across and information and knowledge spreads. It is a perfect example of an old Chinese proverb Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. lets teach them how to work with NFC instead of fixing it for them. Then maybe one day the student can become a teacher and the message spreads even further. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nightscream, what have you got to gain from this? This is hardly the first time you've been picked up on your lack of respect for the NFCC; in this issue, you've been told again and again that you're in the wrong, and it's got to the point that your complaint is about how people were not specific enough in explaining why your edits were wrong. Just let it drop. J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a minimal issue here, very minimal for how it is being handled though. See my previous ost fo the long and short of it. Beyond that (shrug) I'm at a loss. - J Greb (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, admin cannot see issue so reverts, ignoring problem, problem pointed out again, admin ignores again. Short of XXXXXL, red, blinking text Ive done just about as much as I can. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You just plain don't get it. I understand the NFCC policy, and you've haven't established otherwise much less that I've been "picked upon" for "lack of respect" for it. If someone tag or remove an image as having a bad or incomplete rationale, and you say, "It appear to be in order, can you point out to me what's wrong it?", and all they do is point to a policy page that lists all the different criteria for rationales, without simply answering you as to which criterion is incomplete or incorrect, how is that person supposed to fix it? How does my asking you repeatedly what was wrong with the rationale constitute "ignoring" the issue? I didn't ignore anything, it was you that kept ignoring my queries as to what was wrong with the rationale.

What do I have to gain? I'm trying to understand what this guy won't work with editors instead of against them, and try to help them fix rationales when they flat-out ask them about them. I'm trying to understand why he provoked yet another needless conflict with his overzealous hall monitor attitude, his mendacious comments, the logical fallacies he employes, and his outright stonewalling, or why, for that matter, people like you not only act as turnkeys for people like him, but egg him on with inane comments like yours above.

Linking to the policy page does not indicate what is wrong with the rationale in the specific image. What good does reviewing a policy I'm already familiar with do when it doesn't tell me what's wrong with that particular rationale? Does it not occur to you that a misdirected wikilink is not always apparent, even when you're looking right at it, even for someone like me who is completely familiar with the NFCC policy? Why can't you comprehend this?

You go on and on and on about the length of your edit summary, when all you had to do was say, "The wikilink is outdated". There. How long would that edit summary have been? Why do you assume that you would've had to include this in addition to that long boilerplate summary, when it would've sufficed by itself? For that matter, if you discovered an outdated wikilink, why couldn't you just fix it yourself? And barring that, why couldn't you just say that the wikilink was outdated here on this talk page when I flat-out asked you? Again, wouldn't that have precluded all this? I've asked you this above, and you still haven't answered it.

How does my being unaware that someone having changed the name of the Breen article, made the wikilink in the rationale on the image's page constitute lack of familiarity with the NFCC policy, much less "lack of respect" it? What do you have against answering a simple question when someone asks you it? Nightscream (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Nightscream, with all respect and calmness, referring to someone as having a "overzealous hall monitor attitude", and referring to people's comments as "inane" is not civil. I am not out to get you blocked or anything the like. But please, can you tone down the incivility? Please? To "fixing it yourself"; some people think the NFCC patrollers should be made to do so. Others feel the opposite. There's no agreement to do so, and no requirement under policy to do so. In fact, the opposite is true. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Nightscream - Delta did not know either that the pointer was changed - for him that would have taken research, which Breen is depicted there (not much change here to make a mistake, though there were two possibilities, and it was depicted on one of them, likely the correct one - but never sure without someone knowledgeable in the subject). All Delta sees is that there is a non-free image without rationale for that use. I can see that editors revert that once, when they think all is fine, but if it then gets re-removed, then a bell should start ringing that there is something wrong. Now, here it is minor (it was indeed fair-use, just that there is no rationale) - but it also involves cases where the use is not fair-use. If an editor removes something twice citing policies and guidelines - why then re-insert it again and not first try to understand what is wrong. You start here the thread with "Is there some particular reason you cannot simply clarify what the problem is with a given image" (I believe that "one or more files removed due to missing rationale" does suggest strongly that there is a missing rationale, maybe it is just not obvious that it is missing, or it is not obvious that it is there) - why not start with "I am sorry, I am looking at it, you say that there is no rationale, but I think there is. Am I missing something?" - You would likely have gotten the answer "the image is displayed on Breen (Star Trek), but there is no rationale pointing to that specific article on the image description.". If Delta would understand what is wrong, they would probably have solved it themselves already. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think this is a very serious problem. If a file links to "Character" instead of "Character (series)", then fix it. You have to visit all 3 pages anyways(file, intended article, linked article). I think with some common sense, you can figure out easily which article people mean. It would take less effort to just fix the link then to remove the image, and it would do less damage. You would be improving Wikipedia instead of destroying it. I understand that you remove these images at the speed of light, and don't have time to think about what the heck you are doing, but try slowing down and fixing the problem instead of removing it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• It's not as simple as you suggest. Further, there's a presumption that removing NFCC violating content is somehow "destroying" the project. Further, you seem to be upset at a person who is removing NFCC violating content as a result of a page move shifting an image to a different location. Are you as equally upset at people who conduct page moves and commit the error of not fixing the associated rationales? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am not really "upset". I realize the people removing the images are not "wrong", but removing images because there is no rationale, when there is, but there is an error causing the article link to be incorrect is not helping. You can take the same time to fix the link then to remove the image, and like I said, you would be helping instead of hurting. This just causes other people to try and figure out what is wrong, when most of the time, they don't think anything is wrong, because they see a link pointing to their subject. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Actually I am less "upset" now that I see that by not fixing these things, you cause other editors to actually learn the rules of it and be able to fix more of them themselves. In fact, if you look at my contributions, I just fixed a few images myself before coming here to argue. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• You define "not helping" as removing an image lacking a rationale. Perhaps you could address the Foundation with this issue? They stated in their licensing resolution (#4) this requirement. I suppose then that the Foundation is also destroying the project? Someone figuring out what was wrong and fixing it themselves results in a person better educated about NFCC problems. That's not a bad thing. That's a good thing. ...and now I just read your second (16:17) comment :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• No, I define "not helping" as removing an image which DOES have a rationale, but has a slight error. Removing the image when there is a clear attempt at having a rationale makes little sense. Although it has also been brought to my attention that it is possible they do not read the image page, and instead look at this page, and simply remove the image from the article. So if this is what they do, they don't see that there is a rationale which is only listed for the wrong page on accident. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• You are certainly welcome to your opinion. Vive la différence. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hammersoft: "Nightscream, with all respect and calmness, referring to someone as having a "overzealous hall monitor attitude", and referring to people's comments as "inane" is not civil." Wrong. That is my opinion of his behavior, and constitutes a legitimate criticism. Just because you don't like the criticism does not make it uncivil. If I said that the comments were "silly" or "lacking sense", would that be any better, given that that's the definition of inane? I'm not going to be straightjacketed into using PC speech codes just because you don't like the message. The fact remains that J Milburn's comment that I've been criticized for "lack of respect for the NFCC" (I haven't) is indeed inane, as is his ridiculous remark that "people were not specific enough in explaining why your edits my wrong". The issue is that I could not see what was wrong with the rationale, and politely asked Triangle what it was, and Triangle refused to do so, and has repeatedly engaged in the condescending bait-and-switch of telling me that I need to "familiarize" myself with the policy, when I am already familiar with it. Not being familiar with NFCC and being well-familiar with it but not being able to see that a wikilink is outdated are not the same thing. Pretending that they are is inane, and I'm not backing down from that, whether you like it or not. Responding to this by saying that using the word "inane" is uncivil, rather than Triangle's conduct here, is just plain backwards, and shows that both you and J Milburn lack the ability to form reasoned, objective assessments.

Hammersoft: "To "fixing it yourself"; some people think the NFCC patrollers should be made to do so. Others feel the opposite. There's no agreement to do so, and no requirement under policy to do so. In fact, the opposite is true." Um, nope, wrong answer. We are all required to work together on this project, and that includes talking things over when conflicts arise. Triangle refused to do this. I offered examples of what he could've done that would've been better than this ridiculous argument, and it is perfectly reasonable that fixing itself was one of my suggestions. Another was that he simply tell me what was wrong with it, so that I could fix it. He refused to do either, and this led to a needless edit conflict, and accusations of 3RR, which he could've avoided if he really wanted to.

Dirk Beetstra: "Nightscream - Delta did not know either that the pointer was changed..." Then how did he know that the rationale was incomplete? His remark about limited edit summary space above would seem to indicate that he did, but just didn't want to answer my question (despite the fact that I never specified his edit summaries, as he could've told me on my talk page, or right here on his). For that matter, if he didn't know, why didn't he just say so? The bottom line is that he refused to give a clear answer to my questions.

Dirk Beetstra: "Why not start with "I am sorry, I am looking at it, you say that there is no rationale, but I think there is. Am I missing something?" I indicated as much in my edit summaries when I reverted it, which is a clear indication that I reviewed the rationale. Your assumption that I re-inserted it without trying to understand what was wrong with it at first is wrong. The question I asked at the top of this thread was clear enough in its question, even if you prefer a more euphemistic tone. (Nonetheless, although I disagree with you, I appreciate your friendly attempt at helping out by participating here.)

Hammersoft: "It's not as simple as you suggest. Further, there's a presumption that removing NFCC violating content is somehow "destroying" the project." See

Oh my goodness, Nightscream - 'how did he know that the rationale was incomplete' - You take the image description page, you see that it is displayed on

DSM

?' It may be clear, since the logo is displayed on one of them, but the people who are the most likely to know for sure are the ones who know about the article (something that can not be expected of ∆ or whoever), and there is the risk that the original inclusion was a mistake (which would be propagated by also adapting the rationale). And this is all in combination with "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created".

No, of course you tried to understand, I hope everyone does that when an image is removed - and very often editors just re-insert. What I try to understand is the second re-insertion of the image. Someone removes it with an edit summary, one does not understand, and does their best to understand - then it gets re-removed. Again with the same 'one or more files removed due to missing rationale' - why do editors then still re-insert? Does that not ring a bell of 'hmm .. maybe there is something wrong with the rationale or that file or something. Maybe I do miss something?'. Still, editors keep on re-inserting - they keep on pushing an edit war. I don't know, I am at a loss here, Nightscream

Regarding other points, let me bring this again to your attention, example: diff by you or diff by you. Your edit summary here is way less informative than ∆, how is the editor who added that supposed to know what unsourced here means - you do not link specifically to that. You plainly remove a piece of information, you do not discuss that with the editor, you do not tag it for 'citation needed'. Why do you not search for the citation, why do you not repair it. How does this look in the line of

WP:PRESERVE

??

Nightscream, you, as anyone else complaining here has a massive double standard. We are talking here about WP:NFCC, something that is written with a Foundation Resolution as a base "Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users." - the file that Delta here removed from display did not have that. While in the two diffs I show you ([18], [19]), you plainly do exactly the same. You remove, undiscussed, information which maybe could be preserved.

So the only point you have is, that you (repeatedly) re-insert material in violation of a Resolution of the Foundation, because you did not understand why it was removed. OK, Delta was not forthcoming in explaining exactly why (though 'one or more files removed due to missing rationale' is in line with 'Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.'), you do not have the patience (like many, many editors) to wait and see what was actually wrong and collaboratively work to a solution - you just revert because you do not see what is wrong, re-instate a violation of a Resolution of the Foundation because you do not understand what is going on, and now try to blame Delta for not preserving the image, and not explaining appropriately what exactly what was wrong.

I do hope that on next occasions where you (and others) run into a removal by ∆ (or me, or whoever), that you then think 'Oh, maybe there is something wrong, let me see if I can repair it', or ask Delta if he can help, in stead of saying: it must be correct because I don't see, nor understand, what is wrong. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Δ, I'm working on the replacement article above, which is intended to replace the original copy-paste article 415 Records, currently being investigated at Copyright problems at my request. I noticed your removal of the image (which was in the original article). Thanks for calling my attention to the policy on mainspace-only use of non-free images, as I was not aware of that & will remember. I replaced the text you deleted (the image filename) in a hidden editorial note (which does not display), and clearly stated that point & that it is not to be used until/unless the article does get moved to mainspace, following the copyright problem investigation with the text. I had looked at the details on that image, but without the background to follow up properly on it, other than to make a mental note that the submitter's userpage is fraught with deleted non-free images, I was not clear on what the next move with it was. I hadn't gotten to it yet, as I just started working on the article last night & posted the temp today, but I had hoped that before the new article went to mainspace, someone might be able to confirm one way or the other whether the non-free use rationale is good with this image or not. Can you confirm or do we need to source another image? Further, you also deleted my hidden editorial notes in a lower section of the article, regarding a band noted in the original article, which apparently no longer has a page. There was nothing in your edit summary about it, so perhaps you won't mind explaining the reason for that deletion. I restored it, again, as a hidden editorial note (which it was when you deleted it), because it contains important information that I want to follow up on at some point. If there's some policy that discourages this, please point me there. Thanks very much for your work. duff 00:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. The matter was settled yesterday. The original article has been restored, with proper copyrights, and is now in mainspace with the image. Thanks for the pause. If there's any other trouble with that image, or anything else that needs to be done about the proposed deletion, or about the photo itself, please advise duff 15:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Δ. I'm here to inform you that the above image did have fair-use rationales for three of the articles it is used in. It just so happens that an IP removed all the rationales when adding personal commentary. Did you not see this? And if you did, how come you didn't simply revert the IP?

In any case, I restored the rationales and reverted your removal of the image from the

I actually missed that, Im sorry. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Because he apparently deletes all images that fall into a certain category without bothering to look at them or their edit historys.XavierGreen (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No I remove all files tagged as non-free that fail our

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

02:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)