→Re: new section |
|||
(7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
Really? I mean really? You revert me once and warn me? DTTR ring a bell? I'm in the middle of drafting a response on the talk, and you hit me with that. Care to explain? [[User:Nolelover|'''<span style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover'''</span>]] [[User talk:Nolelover|'''<span style="color:Gold"><sup>Talk</sup>'''</span>]]<sup>·</sup>[[Special:Contributions/Nolelover|'''<span style="color:Gold"><sup>Contribs</sup>'''</span>]] 01:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
Really? I mean really? You revert me once and warn me? DTTR ring a bell? I'm in the middle of drafting a response on the talk, and you hit me with that. Care to explain? [[User:Nolelover|'''<span style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover'''</span>]] [[User talk:Nolelover|'''<span style="color:Gold"><sup>Talk</sup>'''</span>]]<sup>·</sup>[[Special:Contributions/Nolelover|'''<span style="color:Gold"><sup>Contribs</sup>'''</span>]] 01:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Yeah, do not re-insert files that fail [[WP:NFC]], until the issues with the files are fixed. Please see [[WP:NFURG]] you are missing rationales for the pages where files where removed. DTTR is an essay that I ignore, All users are equal. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 01:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm sorry, but this message you've just posted is the ''first'' non-template message I've received from you. Giving me two templated edit summaries and then a templated warning is downright rude. [[User:Nolelover|'''<span style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover'''</span>]] [[User talk:Nolelover|'''<span style="color:Gold"><sup>Talk</sup>'''</span>]]<sup>·</sup>[[Special:Contributions/Nolelover|'''<span style="color:Gold"><sup>Contribs</sup>'''</span>]] 01:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::If you actually read the edit summaries they are fairly detailed about the problem and how to solve it. I consider it rude to ignore the edit summary and blindly revert. However please ensure that files meet [[WP:NFC]] prior to (re)using them. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 01:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Templating a user is not rude, commonly repeated messages are what templates are. Their reason is to assist in giving information about specific situations to multiple users when a task is often repeated and there are common questions/responses that can be used. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 01:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::And yes, warning a user with absolutely ''no'' prior attempts at discussion is rude. [[User:Nolelover|'''<span style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover'''</span>]] [[User talk:Nolelover|'''<span style="color:Gold"><sup>Talk</sup>'''</span>]]<sup>·</sup>[[Special:Contributions/Nolelover|'''<span style="color:Gold"><sup>Contribs</sup>'''</span>]] 01:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ec}} Umm, hello? Your last ''500'' edit summaries (possibly more) are all the same thing, and it's extremely hard to trust a template that a user is simply putting for its own sake. There is absolutely ''no'' leeway given for each individual article, and I must ask you to be a bit more detailed about what exactly he problem is. For example, what is wrong with {{linked|File:FSU Seminoles.svg|this image}} in [[Florida State Seminoles football teams (1947 to 1975)|this article]]? The rationale specifies that it is used "to identify the organization". [[User:Nolelover|'''<span style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover'''</span>]] [[User talk:Nolelover|'''<span style="color:Gold"><sup>Talk</sup>'''</span>]]<sup>·</sup>[[Special:Contributions/Nolelover|'''<span style="color:Gold"><sup>Contribs</sup>'''</span>]] 01:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It only has rationales for [[Florida State Seminoles]] and [[Florida State Seminoles men's basketball]]. It does not have a rationale for [[Florida State Seminoles football teams (1947 to 1975)]] see [[WP:NFCC#10]] [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 01:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:25, 1 July 2011
Your wanton removal of images
Hello, though i understand why you are removing images from pages, you might want to tell users (such as myself) how to create a rational for an individual page since the policy is relatively new. I myself have no idea how to do it, ive never been asked to before. You should also be careful in removing images and double check them before you remove them. One that i reverted already had a pre-1923 public domain tag on it, and several others were obvioisly published before 1923 (several german world war 1 images).XavierGreen (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just a few points, I do tell users how to fix the issues, Ive got a link to a guide to writing rationales and a FAQ both linked in the edit summary and a fairly detailed edit notice. Second, This policy is not new, its been around for at least 4 years (probably longer). Third every image I remove is in Category:All non-free media which classifies it as non-free. If it is tagged under a free license please ensure that it does not have a non-free rationale, because most of those templates classify the file as non-free and will lead to it being removed again. ΔT The only constant 22:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- The one file you removed File:Corea-map.jpg, has a PD-1923 tag on it and is a free image. It shouldnt be in the category non free media in the first place.XavierGreen (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is tagged as non-free due to also including {{Non-free use rationale}}. Please adjust the file discription page so that that template is not used. ΔT The only constant 01:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- The one file you removed File:Corea-map.jpg, has a PD-1923 tag on it and is a free image. It shouldnt be in the category non free media in the first place.XavierGreen (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- You know, it would be nice if you posted a message on the talk page of the article(s) the image is being used on, explaining why you removed the image from the page. That would really help people a lot. —Compdude123 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I already contain that information in the edit summary. ΔT The only constant 02:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Edit counting
It would be interesting to give some of the dweebs that have the need to update AN/I on your EPM(edits per minute), some real stuby pencil math to work on. 50.94.116.132 (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean? ΔT The only constant 03:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just referring to the busy bodies that spend their day trying to find where you exceed your edit limit so they can hit the "New Section" button at the top of AN/I and be the 1st to report you. How in the F can someone be that hard pressed to find a violation, that they would poor over your edit history looking at timestamps and counting lines. 50.94.116.132 (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Quite simple, I piss a lot of people off enforcing NFC because they do not like the message, and prefer to shoot the messenger instead of the message. I remove/tag for deletion a lot of files, and people want to see WP:NFC die a quick death. However with users like myself pushing enforcement, thats not possible. Too many people want to see liberal usage NFC, regardless of what NFC says. (back in the day I removed over 500 non-free screenshots from a single article). ΔT The only constant 03:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, dude. It's because you're a rude SOB that annoys the hell out of people for the sake of getting high. Tiocfaidh bhúr lá! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.18.11 (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- If it matters, I checked Google Translate for the above gibberish, and it turns out to be Irish for "Your day will come". Unfortunately, now I'm hearing "Our Day Will Come" running through my head. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, dude. It's because you're a rude SOB that annoys the hell out of people for the sake of getting high. Tiocfaidh bhúr lá! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.18.11 (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- You should not have to9insert for clarity) be doing what you are doing. The burden should be on the editor to meet policy before he adds the NFC. For something looked at so strongly by the foundation/in policy, it is amazing that anyone can make the addition by taking a crap and pushing "save page". This would be a good area for a "pending changes" type of check to prevent the addition of a possible NFC until it can be verified as meeting policy. 50.94.116.132 (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Quite simple, I piss a lot of people off enforcing NFC because they do not like the message, and prefer to shoot the messenger instead of the message. I remove/tag for deletion a lot of files, and people want to see WP:NFC die a quick death. However with users like myself pushing enforcement, thats not possible. Too many people want to see liberal usage NFC, regardless of what NFC says. (back in the day I removed over 500 non-free screenshots from a single article). ΔT The only constant 03:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just referring to the busy bodies that spend their day trying to find where you exceed your edit limit so they can hit the "New Section" button at the top of AN/I and be the 1st to report you. How in the F can someone be that hard pressed to find a violation, that they would poor over your edit history looking at timestamps and counting lines. 50.94.116.132 (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hope to see some speed runs soon! 50.94.116.132 (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the ASU image
Would you care to explain exactly how I can make the rationale template workable? I've looked at the NFC criteria repeatedly and as the image is low-resolution and I don't feel like there's a sufficient free alternative that could replace it, I think it fits. I'd like to avoid a repeat of what happened the last time you and I had NFC issues, and I'm willing to explain exactly why the image fulfills each criteria. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 06:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I've gone ahead and replaced the NFU rationale with something much more detailed which I feel is sufficient. Please take a look and see what you think. If it's sufficient in your view, please give me time to replace the rationales on the other college football uniforms with the updated ones and don't remove the images. I will get to all of them ASAP. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 18:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- A little more context would be useful... ΔT The only constant 02:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- In the NFUR or the article? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 04:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Which image/article are you referring to? ΔT The only constant 11:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, whoops. I forgot how many images you deal with. It's this one. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 16:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I would use {{Non-free use rationale}} instead of {{logo fur}} because its not a logo, and ensure you fill out the purpose parameter and explain why that article needs that file. ΔT The only constant 16:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think the logo template actually applies, since it's the logos on the image that make it NFC. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 16:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I would use {{Non-free use rationale}} instead of {{logo fur}} because its not a logo, and ensure you fill out the purpose parameter and explain why that article needs that file. ΔT The only constant 16:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, whoops. I forgot how many images you deal with. It's this one. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 16:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Which image/article are you referring to? ΔT The only constant 11:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- In the NFUR or the article? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 04:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- A little more context would be useful... ΔT The only constant 02:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
About Images
I did not upload any images. I think, Someone has removed these images and after that I changed the article. So, You may think that I added these images. But I did not95.15.167.177 (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- A little more context is needed for me to respond. --ΔT The only constant 20:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Stop editing the Advanced Academy of Georgia
Hello - You keep removing the image used on the Advanced Academy of Georgia's entry, which is the seal of the University of West Georgia. The Advanced Academy of Georgia is - as is very clearly stated in the article - a program run by the University of West Georgia, under the Honors College. Please stop vandalizing the page by unnecessarily removing the image. I'm not an uploader, so it's not my responsibility to maintain "valid NFURs", whatever the hell that is. Instead, as you're the one that's initiating the changes, it seems like it's your responsibility to actually fix the article instead of repeatedly vandalizing it. Thanks. Bantam1983 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I went ahead and did the NFUR thing, because I actually give a shit about taking the time to make Wikipedia better. Maybe you could do that in the future. Bantam1983 (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- As responded to many people with a similar complaint, you have your opinion on what improves the project, other people have their opinions. You are welcome to yours. That does not make it any more right or wrong. What is wrong is claiming that people whose opinions disagree with yours are therefore wrong and destroying the project. Please don't. Also, insisting that media complies with WP:NFCC is not vandalism. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
please stop
You are obviously not checking your work or looking for the best solution. here you removed an image when the image had a FUR, however the content had been moved from one article to a daughter article. And here you remove a logo which could be moved to commons. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Removal is a valid method for fixing it. It is far far easier for someone involved in the article to fix issues than it is for outsiders. It probably took you just a few seconds to fix the problems, however it would have involved quite a bit of research for me to do come to the same conclusions. Also the burden of ensuring that files meet WP:NFC falls on those who use the files. Removal until fixed is a valid solution. As for the free logo, its not something that I would have may that call, without quite a bit of research (30+ minutes). Getting those involved in the articles to fix problems is the easiest solution, so I will continue to do so. ΔT The only constant 13:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- The need for Delta to review and try to fix "trivial" NFC errors has been debated endlessly at ANI and here over the last several years. The end point is always that Delta is not required - though certainly would go a long way in courtesy and good faith - to fix such problems as it is the responsibility of the uploader or those desiring to use the non-free content to have met the objective aspects of NFC. Also, arguably, on the second image, I'm not sure if that falls into the PD, at least based on the PD-ukraine template, while PD applies to government works, this is a political party and that's not necessarily a government agency. At minimal, there's no clear way without someone researching it to know that it may apply for PD over NFC. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- (IANAL) seems John was referring to (d) ... symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations. –xenotalk 13:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- If he is not going to inspect each edit he is making, he is essentially operating a bot under his account because there is no human element. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC) (and xeno is right about the UK logo)
- There are various degrees of "inspection"; Delta (as he's said in the past) inspects to make sure the image removals don't break the page, but you're expecting his inspections to go deeper, which isn't a requirement of any of his sanctions or on anyone else in NFC. I could argue that Delta needs to inspect and make an NFC#3/NFC#8 determination as well if you're asking him fix broken rationales at the same time, which would be even more disastrous for various reasons. The way the community restrictions are set up are to make sure Delta's edits are blindly breaking pages left and right, not to ensure complete NFC compliance with every image he touches. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- And yes, you're both right on the logo -- but unless you know about the PD-Ukraine tag, there would be no way of knowing without research that the image could fall under that. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- John Vandenberg - that is not 'inspect each edit he is making', that is essentially 'investigate whether each rationale could be written, or why it got broken' - that is not Delta's task, however, it is every editors task to make sure our articles are in line with our policies and guidelines (which includes WP:NFC. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree. The two examples I give above are cases where the wrong edit was made. They are sub-optimal edit, and he is doing sub-optimal edits en-mass. The logic behind his bot should be subjected to WP:BAG. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Im not a bot, and the logic is simple, Its used on X, is there a rationale for X on the file discription page? If not remove the file until it does. ΔT The only constant 13:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree. The two examples I give above are cases where the wrong edit was made. They are sub-optimal edit, and he is doing sub-optimal edits en-mass. The logic behind his bot should be subjected to WP:BAG. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Bot, John? Which Bot? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- If he is not using his brain for each edit, and only clicking save when he is making a competent edit, he is operating a bot. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
another one [1]
- John, you seem awfully agitated that Δ didn't fix the rationale of the image to point to where the image had been moved to. Are you equally agitated with the person who made the move and created the error in the first place? Or, is Δ a convenient target since he was enforcing policy and the editor who made the move was ignoring policy? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, since doing this work is apparently operating a bot, I think you need to report me as operating an unauthorized bot. I've performed more than
20003000 of exactly this kind of edit. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- The mover didnt degrade our content, and push the media into the pile of images which are then deleted en-mass. A bot could just as easily be identifying broken FURs and asking the uploader to rectify the problem. With a bit more smarts, semi-automated bots can be fixing these broken FURs. btw, another one John Vandenberg (chat) 13:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, so the mover, who ignored our NFCC policy, did nothing wrong then? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- We used to have a bot that did this (BCB) and people bitched and moaned about the number of messages they were getting on their talk page about it. (and that's before Beta/Delta got involved personally to communicate). That wasn't the reason BCB was nuked, but it is a fact that why we'll likely never see another NFC patrolling bot in place. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm guessing you're referring to user:BetacommandBot (user:BCB is someone else). I can't see an approved bot task for this. The closed I could find is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Follower, which was rejected because it was to be a band-aid on his other bot task. I'd like to see the community discussion rejecting a bot which identifies and fixes FURs after page moves. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- John, that bot would be practically useless - most moves would result in the creation of a redirect, and that is what is already checked for. Most cases are more complicated. Not that this could not be done, and it would indeed take out a couple of obvious mistakes. Note, none of the rationales you have exemplified here would have been caught by a bot, none are plain page-moves. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I can see a lot of value in a bot that identifies that the FUR is for "DA!" but the image is used on "DA! (band)". It could notify the uploader with instructions on how to fix this. It could list these on a central page with similar cases so humans can work through the list to fix them. As a result, I am interested in reading about the community rejecting this previously. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- And another question for you John; When you "fixed" [2] a rationale for an image use that Δ removed for failing WP:NFCC #10c, it appears you used very simple logic and ignored some serious issues with the rationale. In particular, all you did was re-point the rationale from DA! to DA! (band) without paying any heed to how the image was used and updating the purpose of use appropriately. This seems you weren't using your brain for the edit, and just clicked save when you made your competent edit. Are you operating a bot? Or maybe perhaps you're fixing things that you can, and nudging the project forward just like the rest of us? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why thank you for reviewing my work. Perhaps you may have noticed I nominated one of the files for deletion, and mentioned the other at the same time. Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 30. --John Vandenberg (chat) 14:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Happy to be of service. Still, you left a badly broken rationale in place. You are obviously not checking your work or looking for the best solution. Please stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I similarly pointed John Vandenberg to this edit. Should we also ask this editor to stop, as they obviously did not check their work either. John Vandenberg, can we please drop double standards - maybe you should work on finding the editor whose edit resulted in breakage of the FURs (or who blatantly ignored adding a FUR) and ask all those editors to stop. In that case, ∆'s work would be totally superfluous. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
[3] image removed from article 30 minutes after it was created by a user with 174 edits. Please avoid new articles so that the friendly folk at WP:NPP have the first chance at fixing any errors. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Should we also then stop bots that tag articles after 40 minutes of creation with maintenance tags then? [4] Again, we're talking a double standard that you want Delta to follow that is not required of anyone else, humans or editors, that is outlined in policy. Yes, I completely agree that I personally likely wouldn't do anything for a day or so after creation, but I know that there are long-standing attempts to get an "incubation" system in place to help newer articles than never gets off the ground as people believe, as soon as you hit "submit", its fair tag to correct, tag, and/or delete; same applies to files. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Bots that add maintenance tags do not remove content. Delta is removing content. I would be supporting a maintenance tag that said "this page contains non-free media which will be removed after x days." or similar. Surely you can appreciate that Delta is begging for trouble by enforcing NFCC within 30 minutes of new pages being created by newbies. If you wouldnt do it, why are you defending Delta (not our most newbie friendly editor) doing it? John Vandenberg (chat) 15:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- The reason I'm defending him is that there is nothing in policy presently or his sanctions that requires waiting X hours to correct problematic issues with an article. Should I think Delta should wait? Yes, but that's personally how I'd handle it. The reason I support Delta here is that he is a target of people that just don't like or don't understand NFC policy, and have found Delta to be a target in lieu of trying to garner support for potentially positive changes to the policy, or even coming to understand the history of the policy. I appreciate that it is not a simple policy and it is one that feels counter to the goals of an encyclopedia in a country which allows fair use, but it is something that we have been tasked with, and taking out frustrations on one editor is not the solution. Civility issues notwithstanding, of course. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- As you insist on policy to prevent Delta from biting newbies, I've requested this at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#enforcement. --John Vandenberg (chat) 15:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- The reason I'm defending him is that there is nothing in policy presently or his sanctions that requires waiting X hours to correct problematic issues with an article. Should I think Delta should wait? Yes, but that's personally how I'd handle it. The reason I support Delta here is that he is a target of people that just don't like or don't understand NFC policy, and have found Delta to be a target in lieu of trying to garner support for potentially positive changes to the policy, or even coming to understand the history of the policy. I appreciate that it is not a simple policy and it is one that feels counter to the goals of an encyclopedia in a country which allows fair use, but it is something that we have been tasked with, and taking out frustrations on one editor is not the solution. Civility issues notwithstanding, of course. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Bots that add maintenance tags do not remove content. Delta is removing content. I would be supporting a maintenance tag that said "this page contains non-free media which will be removed after x days." or similar. Surely you can appreciate that Delta is begging for trouble by enforcing NFCC within 30 minutes of new pages being created by newbies. If you wouldnt do it, why are you defending Delta (not our most newbie friendly editor) doing it? John Vandenberg (chat) 15:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The story so far
Let's see, the story so far. John Vandenberg, administrator, oversight, checkuser, and member of ArbCom is stating of you, Δ:
- Not checking your work
- Not finding the best solution
- Running an unauthorized bot,
- Making wrong edits
- Making sub-optimal edits
- Doing edits en masse
- Your edits should be subjected to WP:BAG
- Degrading content
- Not using your brain
- Biting newbies
- Begging for trouble
I would not be surprised to see this coming from a new editor who does not understand our ways. For a person of John's experience here, it's unconscionable. John, I think you need to take a step back. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- While what he is doing is essentially "right", he does it in a way where he does not check to see if a simple fix could be in order. Such as the case were the image rationale links to Ditto, but is being used on Ditto (Pokémon). Any person who would willingly spend 5 seconds to think about this would change the rationale to Ditto (Pokémon). Instead, he removes the image causing 3 edits to be done by himself and another user instead of 1 by himself. This is the case that causes 90% of the people to be on this page arguing. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- And in doing so I hopefuly teach users that there may be issues with their files and that they may want to check their other uploads/articles to ensure that they all comply with policy. Or they too may have files removed. ΔT The only constant 17:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- @Blake: And this has been refuted a zillion times. Everybody jumps on Δ's case because he's a convenient punching bag. I've done over 3000 of these edits, and I don't get 1/100th the heat he does. There's a reason why a lot of people want the restrictions dropped, and reading the comments a lot of it is because people are sick to death of people using the restrictions to bludgeon him and routinely attack him. To see John, an ArbCom member do this? Highly, highly disappointing. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- (ECx2)For a person of John's experience, I would advocate the opposite. Take a look around and realize that you are a polarizing figure when you don't have to be and lots of other people concur with his assessment. Consider that, even though some agree with you, others clearly don't...to obviously include some people who have the trust/respect of the vast majority of WPians. Buffs (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not here because Delta is a convenient punching bag. I'm here because it is his edits that are appearing all over my watchlist. You're edits have not; if they had, I would be investigating them and asking you to stop if I saw as many silly edits as I have seen tonight from Delta. As neither Delta nor any of his defenders here appear to see the problem, I am quite happy to take you all to RFC. IMO his defenders are twice as culpable, as they have responded by attacking, and are preventing a reasonable discussion between myself and Delta. The only reason not to is that there are already RFCs all over the place about similar problems; its a lot to get my head around in order to work out where to start. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- John, We have tried everything we can think to get editors involved in addressing the issues with rationales and have gotten nowhere, The best tactic is removal, and informing. It forces editors to become involved in the solution, otherwise warnings/notices fall on deaf ears. In my most recent push I have successfully ensured that all articles starting with either a #,A,B, or C that use non-free content comply with the very very basics of a rationale. We have spent 3+ years trying other approaches without any viable results. <Im going to ignore the attacks and just assume you got a little hot under the collar > ΔT The only constant 18:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Your marched out 11 different accusations/demands on Δ, starting off with "You are obviously not checking your work or looking for the best solution." and are surprised at the outcome? You could have approached Δ in a more civil and collaborative way. Instead, you chose to immediately jump on him and make accusations against him before he even had a chance to discuss this issue with you. You of all people should have known better, yet actively chose to engage him in an uncivil and combative way. If you feel his response here and the responses of those of us here to your unprovoked attack on him warrant an RfC, be my guest. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- As a comment from a point before, you're seeing all these edits that Delta's doing appearing on your watchlist (I see them do on articles I watch, I'm sure many others do). When BetaCommandbot was running before, people would be seeing all these messages at the same frequency on their talk pages and complain in exactly the same manner. We're required to do NFC maintenance but those that do manage it are handled in a damned-if-you, damned-if-you-dont manner. It is annoying that 90% of these changes are easily fixable, but that type of management would require a large group of editors working in volunteer time to actually enforce. If NFC was understood better, maybe we'd have more editors to help clean it up, or that we wouldn't have editors making mistakes when they upload, move, or add images as they go along. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Crying Time
Why do you warn me? Can you explain why File:Crying Time.jpg is non-free?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 14:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- See File:Crying Time.jpg#Licensing it is a non-free album cover, The rationale you gave for the file is for Crying Time and you are using it on Crying Time (album), which is a different article. ΔT The only constant 14:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, how about now?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 14:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good, Next time double check the rationale before using any non-free content. A guide on how to write them is located at WP:NFURG ΔT The only constant 14:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, how about now?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 14:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Δ, what the heck?! You knowingly realized you could have fixed this all yourself by adding 8 characters and instead you make others jump through hoops? Why? You could have corrected all of this with a whole lot less effort on EVERYONE'S part byt just fixing it yourself! This is the kind of bureaucratic nonsense that is being addressed above; it's exactly the kind of WP:BITEY attitude that got you blocked in the first place. Buffs (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually its about informing others about our non-free content policy. It is a perfect example of a old Chinese proverb Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Informing, and teaching others to fix their own problems is a far more effective method. ΔT The only constant 15:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then teach him to fish by showing him how to fish, not smacking him upside the head with the proverbial fishpole. Just don't create unnecessary work. Buffs (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- In this case removing the image is the best way to teach, otherwise people ignore everything else (I know Ive tried too many other methods to keep count.) ΔT The only constant 17:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- How about making the 8-character change and send a friendly note that you fixed it and to you'd be happy to help if they have any other problems/questions. You could also add the warning to emphasize the point. You'd come off a LOT less bureaucratic than you are right now. Buffs (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- But tracking down who I need to send it to, would take 10-15 minutes per file, because most of the time someone other than the uploader re-used the file without writing a rationale or the uploader is long gone, and a note does nothing. ΔT The only constant 19:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Understood, you value quantity over quality. Buffs (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not place words in my mouth. This is the most effective way because most talk page notes are ignored. this actually forces them to solve the problem and not just ignore it. ΔT The only constant 20:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- The quality is that the Foundation wants to have an encyclopedia built on free content and has tasked each Foundation project to delete non-free content that is fails to meet each project's exception doctrine policy (en.wiki's NFC in this case). We at en.wiki at least allow for a reasonable time for the correction to occur before it is deleted. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- So Masem, you advocate nominating images that have a simple typo for deletion just to get someone's attention and "force them to solve the problem" just to keep the image? Buffs (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nope. I'm advocating trying to get the uploader or re-user's attention to correct the error before we have to take the steps of deletion. Several different ways have been proposed before, but as Delta has stated, the only seemingly sufficient way to make editors take notice is the removal of the image from the article, giving the image at minimum a 7 day timeline for correction (assuming that orphans the image) before it is only then deleted. The Foundation requires rationales to be machine-readable meaning that even a typo is a failure. It would great if editors were to fix it, or those that are concerned patrol the orphaned non-free image category for fixes, but everyone's trying to point the finger at the one user that is following the Foundation and policy as it stands now. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- So Masem, you advocate nominating images that have a simple typo for deletion just to get someone's attention and "force them to solve the problem" just to keep the image? Buffs (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- The quality is that the Foundation wants to have an encyclopedia built on free content and has tasked each Foundation project to delete non-free content that is fails to meet each project's exception doctrine policy (en.wiki's NFC in this case). We at en.wiki at least allow for a reasonable time for the correction to occur before it is deleted. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not place words in my mouth. This is the most effective way because most talk page notes are ignored. this actually forces them to solve the problem and not just ignore it. ΔT The only constant 20:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Understood, you value quantity over quality. Buffs (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- But tracking down who I need to send it to, would take 10-15 minutes per file, because most of the time someone other than the uploader re-used the file without writing a rationale or the uploader is long gone, and a note does nothing. ΔT The only constant 19:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- How about making the 8-character change and send a friendly note that you fixed it and to you'd be happy to help if they have any other problems/questions. You could also add the warning to emphasize the point. You'd come off a LOT less bureaucratic than you are right now. Buffs (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- In this case removing the image is the best way to teach, otherwise people ignore everything else (I know Ive tried too many other methods to keep count.) ΔT The only constant 17:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then teach him to fish by showing him how to fish, not smacking him upside the head with the proverbial fishpole. Just don't create unnecessary work. Buffs (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Images
Please stop removing images without "appropriate rationale". If you think this is the case, fix the rationale yourself, don't just remove it. GSorby - Talk! 17:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please see User talk:Δ/Editnotice#NFUR ΔT The only constant 17:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC requires there be a rationale, and as the policy notes the burden is on those wishing to include non-free content to provide a rationale. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not gonna even bother with you. Sorry to say I don't edit war. See Wikipedia:Edit_warring if you're that interested in policies. GSorby - Talk! 17:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
You have just removed this particularly fine image [File:Thomasportrait.jpg] from Edward Thomas (poet) (one of only two images there, and arguably one of the best things about the article) without leaving a very clear indication of why. Could you at least suggest what would satisfy fair use rationale for that image? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Take a read though the guide to writing rationales. ΔT The only constant 19:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes thanks I have. I have added a note at User talk:Jb3ddd who was the editor who uploaded the image and added it to the article. I think that you might have done the same, instead of, or at least as well as, simply deleting the image with no warning. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Or perhaps you could just fix the image (again). The guy died in 1917, so the photo predates the standard 1923 cutoff quite easily. Buffs (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Um, so who fixed it (before)? Assuming this photopraph was not taken by Thomas himself, doesn't the copyright remain for the life of the author plus 70 years? So without knowing the author, how can we know? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Or perhaps you could just fix the image (again). The guy died in 1917, so the photo predates the standard 1923 cutoff quite easily. Buffs (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes thanks I have. I have added a note at User talk:Jb3ddd who was the editor who uploaded the image and added it to the article. I think that you might have done the same, instead of, or at least as well as, simply deleting the image with no warning. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
A brownie for you!
With lots of brownie love! That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 19:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
Embedded (album) image
Sorry, but from my reading of the policy, an inclusion of an album cover in the infobox on an album article meets the policies. You have asked for "a valid and specific rationale for use on this page". The image has both a fair use template (Non-free media use rationale – non-free album cover), and the appropriate licensing section (non-free album cover) filled out. It was specifically and exclusively uploaded for the article on that album. What else does it need? BlackCab (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- The rationale on the file discription page does not specify the correct article. ΔT The only constant 23:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Re
Really? I mean really? You revert me once and warn me? DTTR ring a bell? I'm in the middle of drafting a response on the talk, and you hit me with that. Care to explain? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, do not re-insert files that fail WP:NFC, until the issues with the files are fixed. Please see WP:NFURG you are missing rationales for the pages where files where removed. DTTR is an essay that I ignore, All users are equal. ΔT The only constant 01:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but this message you've just posted is the first non-template message I've received from you. Giving me two templated edit summaries and then a templated warning is downright rude. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you actually read the edit summaries they are fairly detailed about the problem and how to solve it. I consider it rude to ignore the edit summary and blindly revert. However please ensure that files meet WP:NFC prior to (re)using them. ΔT The only constant 01:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Templating a user is not rude, commonly repeated messages are what templates are. Their reason is to assist in giving information about specific situations to multiple users when a task is often repeated and there are common questions/responses that can be used. ΔT The only constant 01:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Umm, hello? Your last 500 edit summaries (possibly more) are all the same thing, and it's extremely hard to trust a template that a user is simply putting for its own sake. There is absolutely no leeway given for each individual article, and I must ask you to be a bit more detailed about what exactly he problem is. For example, what is wrong with this image in this article? The rationale specifies that it is used "to identify the organization". Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- It only has rationales for Florida State Seminoles and Florida State Seminoles men's basketball. It does not have a rationale for Florida State Seminoles football teams (1947 to 1975) see WP:NFCC#10 ΔT The only constant 01:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you actually read the edit summaries they are fairly detailed about the problem and how to solve it. I consider it rude to ignore the edit summary and blindly revert. However please ensure that files meet WP:NFC prior to (re)using them. ΔT The only constant 01:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but this message you've just posted is the first non-template message I've received from you. Giving me two templated edit summaries and then a templated warning is downright rude. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)