Hammersoft (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
: That was an obviously provocative response, linking me to 50 archived documents after I have already told you I have no interest in being batted off onto articles you claim justify your edits when infact they do nothing of the sort. Since you aren't willing to discuss this in any depth will you answer simple questions - Where is the document in which policy explicity states that 2 images is THE unquestionable acceptable limit. Because so far as I can see this is a limit which you alone have decided upon as being acceptable, and have promoted yourself to judge, jury and executioner of your own policy. [[Special:Contributions/80.176.136.41|80.176.136.41]] ([[User talk:80.176.136.41|talk]]) 15:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
: That was an obviously provocative response, linking me to 50 archived documents after I have already told you I have no interest in being batted off onto articles you claim justify your edits when infact they do nothing of the sort. Since you aren't willing to discuss this in any depth will you answer simple questions - Where is the document in which policy explicity states that 2 images is THE unquestionable acceptable limit. Because so far as I can see this is a limit which you alone have decided upon as being acceptable, and have promoted yourself to judge, jury and executioner of your own policy. [[Special:Contributions/80.176.136.41|80.176.136.41]] ([[User talk:80.176.136.41|talk]]) 15:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
::I have never stated that two images are the limit. Example: [[Mario (series)]] contains 5 non-free images, which I dont see their usage as an issue. The reason that NFC does not give exact numbers is because you cannot set exact numbers on such a subjective issue. Policy states minimal usage. Which means use as few, and as little NFC as possible. It has been deemed that NFC in lists is extremely limited if allowed at all. The consensus that was reached was that one (possibly two if absolutely needed) where acceptable for list of.. style articles. Lets take a list of characters example, lets say you have 15 characters, None of them have their own article because they are not notable enough for it to exist. Why then would you need individual pictures of each if they are not notable enough for their own article, normally a group shot is sufficient, per NFCC#3 minimal usage. How would you define it? [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 15:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
::I have never stated that two images are the limit. Example: [[Mario (series)]] contains 5 non-free images, which I dont see their usage as an issue. The reason that NFC does not give exact numbers is because you cannot set exact numbers on such a subjective issue. Policy states minimal usage. Which means use as few, and as little NFC as possible. It has been deemed that NFC in lists is extremely limited if allowed at all. The consensus that was reached was that one (possibly two if absolutely needed) where acceptable for list of.. style articles. Lets take a list of characters example, lets say you have 15 characters, None of them have their own article because they are not notable enough for it to exist. Why then would you need individual pictures of each if they are not notable enough for their own article, normally a group shot is sufficient, per NFCC#3 minimal usage. How would you define it? [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 15:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:*@80.176.136.41; If you're not willing to educate yourself on the underlying discussions supporting our policies and guidelines on this issue, yet are willing to find fault with them, you place yourself in a situation that is untenable. Δ happens to be right. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 15:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:49, 6 May 2011
New Zealand dollar images
Can you please explain why you deleted all the coin and banknote images from the New Zealand dollar articles? They are all compliant, and no other currency images have the problem (the NFUR is required to say that we comply with the Reserve Bank's guidelines). Lcmortensen (mailbox) 21:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- The same question is about military ranks and coins image of worldwide countries in their specific pages. It seems you had not read the specific file page where is specifically written where they can be used. --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NFLISTS WP:NFCC#3
WP:NFCC#9WP:NFCC#8 and WP:FUEXPLAIN, such overuse is a violation of our non-free content policy. ΔT The only constant 21:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry but this is absolutely not overuse, is written on their specific (file)pages were use is permitted, you are deleting everything without reading their specific rationale use! ...Next time will be useful to open a discuss before to use this massive deleting system. And it seem also that I'm not the only one to telling you so, now I'm going to rollback. This is not a collaborative editing. --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- if you rollback you will be blocked from editing for inserting copyvios. Rationales do not give you carte blanche to use NFC. they are just one part needed to defend the usage of NFC in articles. ΔT The only constant 21:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I do not see consensus first, then you are also making an a edit-war and last but not least, as already told to you on their specific file page there is the rationale use were use is permitted if you not agree, I'm sorry but you had to discuss before doing this kind of a massive/disrupting editing without a previous consensus. --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Consensus means nothing, WP:NFCC trumps your statement, and just because you have a rationale does not mean the usage is valid, see WP:FUEXPLAIN ΔT The only constant 21:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but consensus (one of Wikipedia Pillars) means nothing is just your personal opinion, especially when you are removing rank insignia like the British Army ones from the same British Army rank insignia page e.g. even in presence of a rationale use for a British Army ranks on a Brithish Army ranks page! You are proceding in a massive disruptive editing, this is called vandalism. --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- You need to review what WP:VAND states, you are talking to an editor with over 115,000 edits, and former administrator. My actions are no where NEAR vandalism. I am enforcing our non-free content policy and our m:Mission. Just because a group of users thinks its OK to rob a bank does not make it legal. ΔT The only constant 21:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry but this is not an answer, I'm an editor too, and if on the file page is written that British Army ranks are just for a rationale use on British Army rank page this means that British Army rank have a rationale use like an educational purpose to explain on the British Army rank page wich ranks are currently in use, is not so difficult to understand. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just I could write a rationale for anything. That does not make the usage valid. Please read the links that I have provided. ΔT The only constant 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- You need to review what WP:VAND states, you are talking to an editor with over 115,000 edits, and former administrator. My actions are no where NEAR vandalism. I am enforcing our non-free content policy and our m:Mission. Just because a group of users thinks its OK to rob a bank does not make it legal. ΔT The only constant 21:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but consensus (one of Wikipedia Pillars) means nothing is just your personal opinion, especially when you are removing rank insignia like the British Army ones from the same British Army rank insignia page e.g. even in presence of a rationale use for a British Army ranks on a Brithish Army ranks page! You are proceding in a massive disruptive editing, this is called vandalism. --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- The images on the New Zealand Dollar articles are all compliant with all policies
- WP:NFLISTS applies to list articles - the articles you deleted the images from are not list articles.
- WP:NFCC#3: An image of a 10c coin cannot can convey equivalent significant information for all five coins, so is compliant
- WP:NFCC#9: The images are displayed in article namespace, so are compliant
- WP:FUEXPLAIN: Meets WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8 (Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.). No specific mention of coins or banknotes.
- It is uncalled for and non-consensus removal of content, so unfortunately rules are rules, regardless of who you claim to be, and I do have to give you a vandalism warning. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- that should have been WP:NFCC#8 not 9. Using 10+ non-free images are not needed. you do not have to include every image. ΔT The only constant 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just because the work "List" is not in the title it may still be a list, which is what the currency articles are. ΔT The only constant 22:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Consensus means nothing, WP:NFCC trumps your statement, and just because you have a rationale does not mean the usage is valid, see WP:FUEXPLAIN ΔT The only constant 21:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Lcmortensen, because you are removing everything from everywhere, the purpose of a rationale use is an educational purpose, this is called "playing with rules" misleading the free rationale use for coins and ranks. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Take a read at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics#Usage_of_non-free_images this usage violates our non-free content policy. ΔT The only constant 22:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Lcmortensen, because you are removing everything from everywhere, the purpose of a rationale use is an educational purpose, this is called "playing with rules" misleading the free rationale use for coins and ranks. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- And an editor of your experience should know NEVER to remove vandalism template. Any more reverts on the articles will result in breaking WP:3RR so please stop and get consensus first! Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Read WP:DTTR, your "warnings" are incorrect and thus can be removed as invalid. you need to read WP:VAND NONE of my edits can be considered vandalism. ΔT The only constant 22:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, reverting violations of NFCC is specifically exempted from WP:3RR. [stwalkerster|talk] 22:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I Agree with this and your answer is not valid about military ranks on military rank page! this is called "playing with rules" and you are not searching consensus, just reverting vandalizing! --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Enforcing WP:NFCC not vandalism, Im not playing with the rules, they are fairly clear. such over usage of non-free content is not allowed. ΔT The only constant 22:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- No man sorry, you are amking disruptive editing, edit war, and playing with rules avoiding to find any sort of consensus, military ranks fell on WP:NFCC#1. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- NFCC#3 is minimal which you are failing. the ranks also fall into WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFLISTS does apply here. NFC must meet ALL 10 criteria ΔT The only constant 22:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- No man sorry, you are amking disruptive editing, edit war, and playing with rules avoiding to find any sort of consensus, military ranks fell on WP:NFCC#1. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Enforcing WP:NFCC not vandalism, Im not playing with the rules, they are fairly clear. such over usage of non-free content is not allowed. ΔT The only constant 22:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've reverted New Zealand dollar with only 10 NF images (the 5 backs of the coins and 5 fronts of the notes). Happy now? Or do I have to continue to sing Cee Lo Green? Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hang on, why did you revert the ten-image version? It was compliant according to your rules - only ten images that showed the basics of the currency! Can you please follow your own rules! Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I never stated that 10 was acceptable. On some articles 1 is too much. See WP:NFLISTS and WP:OVERUSE. ΔT The only constant 23:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Using 10+ non-free images are not needed" is the same as saying "maximum of 10" Lcmortensen (mailbox) 02:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I never stated that 10 was acceptable. On some articles 1 is too much. See WP:NFLISTS and WP:OVERUSE. ΔT The only constant 23:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Adding onto that, why didn't you just trim the number of images rather than remove them all? We wouldn't have gotten into this discussion if you did the right thing in the first place. And your infringing WP:NFCC#7 (one article minimum) if you remove the images - not every note and coin has its own page. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 23:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hang on, why did you revert the ten-image version? It was compliant according to your rules - only ten images that showed the basics of the currency! Can you please follow your own rules! Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Outside opinion: "Trimming the number of images" gives rise to WP:NPOV debates, which are open to even more edit-warring and therefore inadvisable. There is no consistent rule on Wikipedia for images in lists, and even more so when each element in the list does not have its own article, and I've recently seen, although not contributed to, a recent similar debate in Deaths in 2011. My basis is that debates about interpretation of WP:NFCC and the sufficiency of a Fair use rationale should be referred to WP:IFD rather than being taken by one editor, however experienced. Only in that way can consensus be established, and precedent established, despite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, etc. Hengist Pod (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) There is a consistent rule for images in lists, namely WP:NFLISTS which states that there should not be a non-free image for each entry in a list. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't think that the rule is consistent, since we are talking about representative images in a list, rather than one image per entry- that, I would concede, would breach policy. It's perhaps difficult here, and elsewhere, since not every entry in a list might be independently notable, which raises the question of why it should be in the list to begin with. To avoid WP:NPOV concerns, I would think that lists should have either NO images, or ALL images, but to be honest, I consider that against that consideration, WP:NFCC would militate against the latter, and enthusiasm and creativity would militate against the former. Sometimes, I feel that we are bending the rules against creating a useful encyclopedia in favour of compliance with rules that are admittedly stricter than normal "fair-use" rules. Some slack would be welcome, because the reality is that we have very little trouble with images, which tells me that we are more than not getting it right. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NFLISTS is the rule, it does apply, and it is consistent. List articles routinely fail WP:NFCC requirements, specifically #8. Δ is absolutely right in his application of policy and guideline in trimming out the overuse of non-free images. Further, taking each individual image to IfD is tedious. List usages of non-free images are routinely removed. I've done tons of them myself. Occasionally some images can be used, but they are by far the exception rather than the rule. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't think that the rule is consistent, since we are talking about representative images in a list, rather than one image per entry- that, I would concede, would breach policy. It's perhaps difficult here, and elsewhere, since not every entry in a list might be independently notable, which raises the question of why it should be in the list to begin with. To avoid WP:NPOV concerns, I would think that lists should have either NO images, or ALL images, but to be honest, I consider that against that consideration, WP:NFCC would militate against the latter, and enthusiasm and creativity would militate against the former. Sometimes, I feel that we are bending the rules against creating a useful encyclopedia in favour of compliance with rules that are admittedly stricter than normal "fair-use" rules. Some slack would be welcome, because the reality is that we have very little trouble with images, which tells me that we are more than not getting it right. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) There is a consistent rule for images in lists, namely WP:NFLISTS which states that there should not be a non-free image for each entry in a list. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Here's another thing - why target New Zealand notes and coins, when under New Zealand law, US notes and bills are required to comply with WP:NFCC (see [1]). Should I go ahead and remove all the US notes and bills?
It's money. It's freely available and easily reproduced (just needs $188.80 in cash to reproduce). The only problem is with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand's restriction on reproduction for fear of counterfeiting (although if you ever try to counterfeit a New Zealand banknote using Wikipedia, you're going to get caught - New Zealand banknotes are polymer and very difficult and expensive to counterfeit. The best even the most skilled counterfeiters can do is paper with clear adhesive tape for the transparencies!)
Can we please hold off the mass culling for the moment until we can find images compliant with WP:NFLISTS? After all, that's what WP:IAR (the fifth pillar) is all about! If you really want to help in this, please put NZD 188.80 in my ANZ bank account . Lcmortensen (mailbox) 02:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will not hold off, if you take a look at all of my previous comments you will see that I said using 1 NFC is normally acceptable, 2 or more the bar rises quickly, using 10+ without a dam good reason is a violation I never stated that 10 was acceptable. I stated that one image for a topic related to non-free content is normally acceptable (used for identification), the bar of acceptable usage rises quickly along with the number of images. If you read WP:OVERUSE which I have pointed to multiple times you will see where it states that even one non-free file may violate WP:NFCC. I am not just targeting NZ related money, I am an equal opportunity offender. I removed 100+ from euro related pages, and more from other places where the images of their currency is non-free. Take a read at commons:COM:MONEY#New Zealand which shows that NZ currency is non-free. However most United States currency is within the public domain (see commons:COM:MONEY#United States) and thus NFC does not apply. ΔT The only constant 07:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I worded that wrong - can we hold of the deleting EVERY SINGLE NON-FREE IMAGE. I would understand if the page had 114, but not six that complied with WP:NFCC (if you ignored the overuse part for the interim) and of which I could reproduce and replace in a week's time with a compliant NFC image (it actually took me 8 hours). And why is the US getting away with its hundreds of images despite New Zealand law saying they are copyrighted and comply with NFCC. I can go and wipe them because of RBNZ rules saying any foreign currency in New Zealand is subject to the same rules as local currency. We need one rule for money images, not two hundred.
- If you are so devoted to reducing the number of non-free images in an article, do something about it yourself, rather than just deleting them and letting other have to clean up the mess. Be bold - take a moment to assess the situation and remedy it. If you have problems with your girlfriend (I'm assuming you're male and straight - but according to you, I'm wrong - shesus, if you told me you were a girl in the first place, I would have gone easy!), you would sort the problems out with her and try to remedy them, rather than stab her 216 times with a pair of scissors and leave the mess to her mother (and yes, that has happened). Same goes for Wikipedia. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 08:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Per WP:NFCC there is no need for Δ "to do something about it himself". The use of non-free content on Wikipedia is not routinely permitted and the use of multiple non-free images in an article violates WP:NFCC#Policy#3. I don't see any good reason why there would be a pressing need in a currency article to have multiple non-free images. It is quite possible to create a single image carrying the same meaning. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have done that already with a single picture. All I'm saying is for Δ to be more CONstructive than DEstructive: sure there is NFCC, but that's only one part of the argument. We are supposed to be helping to construct a high-quality online encyclopedia, so Δ is expected to help towards that goal by helping to find suitable replacements before going through articles like a bull in a china shop. It's not like that NFCC compliance has to be done right there, right now - what's more important, complying with NFCC or eating dinner? We get a seven-day "death row" period for NFC deletion, so why can't he/she/they help.
- I did find a suitable replacement image for the coins, but none for the notes yet.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 10:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Per WP:NFCC there is no need for Δ "to do something about it himself". The use of non-free content on Wikipedia is not routinely permitted and the use of multiple non-free images in an article violates WP:NFCC#Policy#3. I don't see any good reason why there would be a pressing need in a currency article to have multiple non-free images. It is quite possible to create a single image carrying the same meaning. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:VEGAN might me a good read, its possible to create a good encyclopedia without any non-free content, just ask the Germans what you see as constructive, I see as destructive and against both our non-free content policy and our m:Mission. Take a look at the line below every page title, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Every usage of non-free material goes against that. However I agree that a limited usage is acceptable, however please always remember our mission is to create free content, not only free to read, but free to re-use and distribute as people want. ΔT The only constant 09:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, Wikipedia is not "free", as it is under CC-BY-SA 3.0, which means it is only free as long as you attribute and share-alike. You can't redistribute Wikipedia willy nilly!
- I have been a Wikipedian longer than you have (21 August 2005 vs. 12 July 2010), so I know a few more things than you. The first thing is all of five pillars and the m:Values have to be taken in whole and each part equally - you cannot focus on one part and expect everyone to do the rest. Wikipedia is "free" ("free" like local phone calls - there's a catch - CC-BY-SA in Wikipedia's case), but there is also Accessibility, Quality and Independence. It's like McDonald's - "Quality, Service, Cleanliness, Value" - they only work together and everyone is expected to support all four principles, not one.
- Why do we go to the cenotaph every 25 April? "For freedom, there is always a price." We need non-free content to keep Wikipedia alive, but of course, too much of it is actually ruining the Mission of Wikipedia.
- Take that all into account - NFCC is only a small part of the Freedom part - you need to work on the other parts as well.
- So, here's the thing. We have articles with multiple non-free content. Obviously you're not fully capable of balancing between Freedom and Quality, but there are millions of other Wikipedians out there that can help. That's the working together to achieve the goal part. Rather than going through each article and deleting the images, place a banner on the top of the article concerned warning about WP:OVERUSE (one may have to be made), let the people who know the article try to remedy the problem before taking action by removal of overused images (72 hours should be more than enough). It's not like the Mission of Wikipedia is so important that it must be followed to the letter at every second of the day or else!
- See, that's my bit on how you can be more constructive while helping to achieve the Mission of Wikipedia. This is a community, and people need to work together to achieve their goals.
- Sorry for the essay (I've been waiting ages to write one!). If you don't agree with me, then.... We'll come to that later (I don't mind the warning for what I would say)
- Lcmortensen (mailbox) 10:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- You need to check your facts and stop the personal attacks. Ive been editing since 7 November 2005, Im a former administrator and I have over 115,000 edits. So I really doubt you know more about non-free content or wikipedia as a whole. I was also flown to WMF headquarters back when they where in St Petersburg, FL for a conference with Danny and the board. I really do not like to brag but your disrespectful comments require a response. Wikipedia is free, Lets say I am mayor of town XYZ, and wikipedia has a really good article on my town, If I wanted I could print it up in brochure format and do what ever I wanted with it. The only requirement is that I include a note stating that it is from wikipedia and provide a link back to the article. People sell wikipedia articles on Amazon [2] it is 100% legal, (and quite crafty) even though I may not agree with it, it allowable. However if an article includes non-free content as mayor of town XYZ I cannot publish it. I would need to remove that material first, or I would be sued for violating the copyright of the owner of the NFCC. ΔT The only constant 11:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- PS there was a note left on Talk:Banknotes of the New Zealand dollar about the over use of NFC and it was ignored. ΔT The only constant 11:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- There was an note, but it was left over Easter Weekend - I was away with no internet so had no time to respond. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I make mistakes - I'm human, unlike you. Special:Contributions/Δ only go back as far as 12 July 2010. Anyway, 21 August beats 7 November, not to mention I was 14 when I started editing, way earlier than you.
- If you are not happy with the way I am talking to you, then fine: Get off your chair, go for a walk, have something to eat and a rest, and stay off Wikipedia for 24 hours. Some time to cool off for both of us would be best. This is the end of the discussion. No if, or buts. I will personally have the pleasure of removing any of your Liberal-borderline-Fascist NFCC rubbish. GOODNIGHT!!! (i need sleep) Lcmortensen (mailbox) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Whether Δ started editing first or you did Lcmortensen, it's completely irrelevant. It's equivalent to sandbox arguments about who threw the sand first. Enough. Further, reacting to Δ by saying "your Liberal-borderline-Fascist NFCC rubbish", especially in the context of asking him to cool off, is both ironic and out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I meat that for both of us - I worded that wrong, which means it is not ironic.
- And what part of "end of discussion" do you not understand? I do not want to continue this discussion anymore. Ka kite kaore ano. Lcmortensen (mailbox 22:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.189.240.194 (talk)
Approach
As you know, I do not agree with attempts by editors to force non-free content onto list articles and have conducted many removals myself ([3][4][5] for recent examples). It is unquestionable that Bahamut0013 abused his administrator privileges in his dispute with you. In this dispute specifically, I 100% agree with you that the images on List of characters of 8-Bit Theater were inappropriate. Further, they had laughably weak rationales that are blatant failures of WP:NFCC.
However, a rapid fire edit war which both you and Bahamut conducted is out of line in any case. Whether there is a special exclusion in 3RR for such a case is really irrelevant. An edit war, regardless of whether it is violating policy or not, fans flames and makes the situation hotter. This does no service to anyone. I've encountered such problems before with editors refusing to permit the removal of images. When faced with such a situation, I often report the situation to WT:NFC or WP:AN/I for assistance. I strongly, in the most animated terms, encourage you to do the same. You are too valuable here to fall victim to more sanctions on your editing, and make no mistake; if the edit warring continues across articles in support of image removals off of lists, somebody (or more likely multiple somebodies) will be coming after you with the Wikipedia version of pitchforks. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Every frickin time I try to do the right thing I get bitched at kinda of a boomerang effect where instead of focusing on the issues people attack me. If Im going to get bitched at either way whats the point? people need to stop the drama on AN/ANI and focus on the issues. ΔT The only constant 14:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just copy/paste the paragraph about NFCC and why the images you've removed are inappropriate on the article talk page of articles you remove images from. If they revert without discussion after that, do your thing and then report them to whatever noticeboard for editing or warring against policy, whichever. That way, you're editing within policy, doing the right thing, and your butt is covered! Lara 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Δ; believe me, I know damn well that the lynch mobs come after you almost every time there's even a mouse squeak of an issue with regards to you. That is why I sooooo frequently come to your defense when you are in the right. That, plus the fact the work you do here is invaluable. Nobody else has done what you've done here. Some people have developed tools to fill in some of what you've done, but not even a significant minority of all the work you've done here. Nobody does it. Just you. You are routinely taken to task over the silliest of things. So frequently people are abjectly wrong in their accusations of you, and/or have their facts completely wrong. Yet, those people get credence and support not because they are right but because they are commenting on _you_. I can and will defend you at every opportunity I have when you are right. I can't and won't defend you when you are wrong. I strongly encourage you to not violate 3RR, even if specifically exempted, and instead bring the issue to a noticeboard. The only time I've ever been blocked was because (a now defrocked) administrator decided to block me when I had exited a dispute and asked for assistance at the 3RR noticeboard. That's the kind of knee-jerk reaction that happens all too frequently around here. Unfortunately, with your history it's an order of magnitude more silly. If you don't want to take the time to report it to a noticeboard (I know you're not the most verbose person around), drop me a note on my talk page alerting me just to the name of the article in question and I'll investigate and happily instruct the editor who is reverting you, and make a report myself if need be. Just don't violate 3RR again, regardless of cause, ok? Please? Pretty please? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I guess its time for another try at that approach, I hope I get better responses this time around that what I did last time. If you can create a template style for adding to talk pages of articles about NFC over usage that would be appreciated, for the next time we need to do large scale enforcements. ΔT The only constant 00:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- For my part, I don't know what your past is, and I don't care to learn, because it's probably not relevant. I didn't know you changed your username, nor that you were an admin, or anything like that. This wasn't me acting in a lynch-mob mindset or anything, so please don't feel frustrated about your edits. I came along because Courcelles had tagged an image I uploaded, and investigating that, it seemed like there was a disruptive trend coming from you. I got trigger-happy, and for that, I apologize. Notwithstanding, I encourage you to soften your approach. This whole mess would have been diverted if you had sat down with me like I asked; I probably would have come around to your point of view if you had a lighter touch. I don't hold ill will toward you, and hope that you can see this a a way to work with other editors more effectively to fix those image problems. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, at least one editor may be using this incident as a vehicle. User_talk:Bahamut0013#User:Delta. This is exactly the kind of thing that can be avoided. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
template you asked for
Here's the template you asked for. Feel free to improve/correct/reword as you think appropriate. User:Hammersoft/3. Enjoy, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Image removals from articles
British army ranks are infact 'free' images - despite being listed as Non-Free since the original author (Pavel Močoch) and the site listed do not hold the copyright to the image, they are themselves reproducing a free image. The originals are copy-free works produced by the MOD - you can see an example of the original work here (which is part of a much larger set) - http://www.battlefield-site.co.uk/ranks.htm.
I don't know why you have embarked on such a destructive campaign of edits over such a petty matter - the images have been on here for years and never once has anyone complained that we are violating their copyright. You seem embroiled in a personal and emotionally charged thought-debate about the philosophical use of non-free images on Wikipedia. If you are going to make such sweeping and destructive edits I would suggest (and it is just a friendly suggestion) you explain in depth your rationale on your front page or somewhere similar. Simply throwing policy article URLs at anyone who questions your edits does not encourage constructive debate on the topic and will not help us in finding a mutually acceptable solution. It is all very well to say we are overusing non-free images (and I don't necessarily disagree), but without knowing specifically 'HOW' we are overusing the images in your opinion stifles any sort of progress on this matter. In essence I'm asking you to justify your edits - because I have just justified mine. 80.176.136.41 (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- take a read though WP:OVERUSE it should explain why I consider it overuse. The article in question uses 11 non-free images. IF source of the images are in fact released under a free license (we need proof of that) then Ill tag them as replaceable NFC. ΔT The only constant 23:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not keen on picking through policy articles trying to empathise with why you think it's a violation (as I mentioned). The only way to constructively talk about this is for you to spell out to the rest of us, comprehensively, why you think this is a violation. Heres an example situation (ignoring these particular images may be 'free'). We could merge those images into a single file, we could also reduce the dimensions of that file. Does it now constitute overuse? Who decides? Why is having 11 seperate files such an issue? Intrinsically it is the 'minimal' amount of files needed to comprehensively convey each of the ranks (ignoring the single file argument). It seems at the moment you have become judge, jury and executioner of non-free-content based on your own interpretation of our various and often-contradictory policy documents. I don't doubt your actions are sincere or necessarily wrong, but simply that as a relative bystander to all this you don't seem prepared to have much discussion about it, and when you do there is very much a "shoot-first, ask question later, assume everyone else doesnt have a clue" approach. 80.176.136.41 (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please read WP:OVERUSE it will answer your questions Wikipedia:Fair_use_overuse#Q:_Including_one_image_for_each_character_on_a_.22List_of_....22_type_article_IS_minimal_use.3B_it.27s_one_image_per_character.21 and Wikipedia:Fair_use_overuse#Q:_Would_creating_a_montage_image_of_all_the_disputed_images_together_clear_up_this_problem.3F ΔT The only constant 23:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- But in theory each of these images could be used as it's own article. As it stands we don't currently have national ranks on the rank pages (because so many nations use similar rank names linking to the same articles). That article isn't even a policy document, it's almost entirely the work of a single user (Durin) who... left wikipedia.... some time ago after receieving legal threats. This is precisely what I mean about simply quoting various essays and policy documents. At some stage there has to be some in depth discussion and justification on this subject between those of us that disagree with your edits and those of us that agree (including yourself), ideally spanning more than a sentence of links. 80.176.136.41 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- there have been megabytes and megabytes of discussion about this spanning WP:AN WP:ANI and WT:NFC. that essay is a nice summary of said discussions and a simple explanation of our current policy and practices. If you want to change the policy WT:NFC is the third door on your left. ΔT The only constant 23:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- There was an extensive discussion by one person... Durin... in 2007. Are you totally unprepared to discuss this? You seem to be using polic and essays as a sort of firewall to prevent any constructive discussion. I'm less concerend about whether your edits are 'right or wrong' and more concerned about finding a way that we can include this content is some form or at least ameliorate for its loss somehow. I hope other users will come to my defence on this, as it seems entirely unacceptable that you would make such drastic edits and be so avoidant when it comes to talking about them. I desperately hope your response is not another sentence populated with vague deflecting comments and links to essays and policy documents. 80.176.136.41 (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- You cannot decorate articles with non-free content just because you want to. Neither I nor Durin wrote the policy. There have been many many people involved in this over a long period of time, take a read though:Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 1 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 2 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 3 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 4 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 5 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 6 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 7 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 8 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 9 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 10 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 11 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 12 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 13 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 14 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 15 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 16 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 17 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 18 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 19 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 20 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 21 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 22 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 23 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 24 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 25 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 26 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 27 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 28 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 29 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 30 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 31 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 32 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 33 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 34 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 35 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 36 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 37 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 38 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 39 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 40 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 41 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 42 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 43 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 44 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 45 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 46 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 47 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 48 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 49 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 50 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 51 if you think that me and Durin are the only two. ΔT The only constant 00:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- There was an extensive discussion by one person... Durin... in 2007. Are you totally unprepared to discuss this? You seem to be using polic and essays as a sort of firewall to prevent any constructive discussion. I'm less concerend about whether your edits are 'right or wrong' and more concerned about finding a way that we can include this content is some form or at least ameliorate for its loss somehow. I hope other users will come to my defence on this, as it seems entirely unacceptable that you would make such drastic edits and be so avoidant when it comes to talking about them. I desperately hope your response is not another sentence populated with vague deflecting comments and links to essays and policy documents. 80.176.136.41 (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- there have been megabytes and megabytes of discussion about this spanning WP:AN WP:ANI and WT:NFC. that essay is a nice summary of said discussions and a simple explanation of our current policy and practices. If you want to change the policy WT:NFC is the third door on your left. ΔT The only constant 23:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- But in theory each of these images could be used as it's own article. As it stands we don't currently have national ranks on the rank pages (because so many nations use similar rank names linking to the same articles). That article isn't even a policy document, it's almost entirely the work of a single user (Durin) who... left wikipedia.... some time ago after receieving legal threats. This is precisely what I mean about simply quoting various essays and policy documents. At some stage there has to be some in depth discussion and justification on this subject between those of us that disagree with your edits and those of us that agree (including yourself), ideally spanning more than a sentence of links. 80.176.136.41 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please read WP:OVERUSE it will answer your questions Wikipedia:Fair_use_overuse#Q:_Including_one_image_for_each_character_on_a_.22List_of_....22_type_article_IS_minimal_use.3B_it.27s_one_image_per_character.21 and Wikipedia:Fair_use_overuse#Q:_Would_creating_a_montage_image_of_all_the_disputed_images_together_clear_up_this_problem.3F ΔT The only constant 23:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not keen on picking through policy articles trying to empathise with why you think it's a violation (as I mentioned). The only way to constructively talk about this is for you to spell out to the rest of us, comprehensively, why you think this is a violation. Heres an example situation (ignoring these particular images may be 'free'). We could merge those images into a single file, we could also reduce the dimensions of that file. Does it now constitute overuse? Who decides? Why is having 11 seperate files such an issue? Intrinsically it is the 'minimal' amount of files needed to comprehensively convey each of the ranks (ignoring the single file argument). It seems at the moment you have become judge, jury and executioner of non-free-content based on your own interpretation of our various and often-contradictory policy documents. I don't doubt your actions are sincere or necessarily wrong, but simply that as a relative bystander to all this you don't seem prepared to have much discussion about it, and when you do there is very much a "shoot-first, ask question later, assume everyone else doesnt have a clue" approach. 80.176.136.41 (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- That was an obviously provocative response, linking me to 50 archived documents after I have already told you I have no interest in being batted off onto articles you claim justify your edits when infact they do nothing of the sort. Since you aren't willing to discuss this in any depth will you answer simple questions - Where is the document in which policy explicity states that 2 images is THE unquestionable acceptable limit. Because so far as I can see this is a limit which you alone have decided upon as being acceptable, and have promoted yourself to judge, jury and executioner of your own policy. 80.176.136.41 (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have never stated that two images are the limit. Example: Mario (series) contains 5 non-free images, which I dont see their usage as an issue. The reason that NFC does not give exact numbers is because you cannot set exact numbers on such a subjective issue. Policy states minimal usage. Which means use as few, and as little NFC as possible. It has been deemed that NFC in lists is extremely limited if allowed at all. The consensus that was reached was that one (possibly two if absolutely needed) where acceptable for list of.. style articles. Lets take a list of characters example, lets say you have 15 characters, None of them have their own article because they are not notable enough for it to exist. Why then would you need individual pictures of each if they are not notable enough for their own article, normally a group shot is sufficient, per NFCC#3 minimal usage. How would you define it? ΔT The only constant 15:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- @80.176.136.41; If you're not willing to educate yourself on the underlying discussions supporting our policies and guidelines on this issue, yet are willing to find fault with them, you place yourself in a situation that is untenable. Δ happens to be right. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)