Misplaced Pages

User talk:Δ/20110401

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Δ
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Δ. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Help please

I just saw you removed a screen shot I took in this edit. I have not added many images so I am betting I formatted the fair use wrong. I took the screen shot and it is on software I use at work (developed by my boss) so any further permissions should be easy to obtain. What do I need to do to make it right? Thanks, --Gene Hobbs (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

that image does not meet our non-free content criteria and cannot be used on that page. ΔT 22:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I get that but can ask for the proper permission and don't mind doing the follow-up. I am just not sure what to do. WP:NFCC is great reading but does nothing for my understanding. Sorry to bother… --Gene Hobbs (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I talked to the boss and we are trying to get the department to give us a space where we could just release a few images under CC Attribution-Sharealike 3.0. Once have them released there, I'll update the images here to reflect their status. I think this method will be easy for everyone. Thanks again! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

It might help in the future if you checked the history of the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

  • So you're suggesting NFCC patrollers should review every revision of an image's description page to see if a valid rationale for a given article use was ever present on the page? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • No, thats a strawman arguement and you know it. Ryulong is refering to just recent revisions, I don't think that is at ALL unreasonable for an image that has been there for 3 whole months without being removed so obviously there was a free use rational on it at one point or a rather else it would have been tagged for deletion by a bot a long time ago. (Dances around playing a trumpet) «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • actually you are obviously wrong in several ways. It is not my responsibility to find out why an image does not have a rationale, If it was removed from an article for NFCC reasons and had its rationale removed at the same time, and was later re-added to the article, or never had a rationale. The Burden of Proof lies with those who want to include it. Aso if this was free media (like you implied via was a free use rational ) we would not be having this discussion. Also most bots are not that smart and may or may not check for everything that is needed for every usage. Most bots are "stupid" and cannot check for what is needed, and since I stopped BCBot several years ago, bot enforcement for NFCC has disappeared. ΔT 11:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • @Promethean, No, it isn't a strawman argument. Barring clarification, Ryulong asked Δ to check the history of the page. This is presumably for rationales that were deleted from the image description page. Setting that aside and focusing on your comments, how does an NFCC patroller determine an image has been there for three months? Check the revision history is the only answer to that. Second, there is no bot at this time that tags an image for deletion based on not having a rationale. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • @Hammersoft On the image page right below where a rationale template should be is the name of the uploader and when it was uploaded and the description at the time of the upload, if you havn't noticed this please quit doing NFCC work now. (*Continues playing trumpet*) «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Wp-screenshot.png

  • As you can see, the image page tells you when it was uploaded and what the licence was at the time of upload. You dont need to even go into the history hence the strawman. "how does an NFCC patroller determine an image has been there for three months? Check the revision history is the only answer to that." Dont bother apologising, I put up with blond people every day. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That doesn't tell delta or hammersoft or anyone else how long it had been used in a specific article. Nor does that information supply anything for the non-free rationale. (Also, as the thumbnail is still non-free, that's a non-free image). --MASEM (t) 14:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed and how long can be implied by the fact it had a rationale at the time of upload and was on the article until it was removed by betacommand today. You do the math, if it was on the page from day one and removed today how long has it been there? Thats right kids, 3 whole months. This fact should have warrented a little more care but it seems BetaCommand couldnt be arsed checking (or even writing a rationale) and just cut corners. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This discussion has jumped the shark. It's completely unreasonable to expect an NFCC patroller to review the page history of an article and the history of the image description page (not everything is in the file upload history, Promethean) in order to determine if there ever was a valid rationale for the image's use in question before removing it for failing WP:NFCC #10c. Δ is absolutely correct. The burden of providing a valid rationale lies squarely on the shoulders of those wishing to use non-free media. If you don't like that fact, then get that element of policy removed by starting a discussion to have it removed at WT:NFC. Continuing to protest removals of images failing #10c here based on having to review article/image histories is a non-starter. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Beta would have had to check the image page in the first place to see if there was a rationale, he could have EASILY checked the description at the time upload just by scrolling to inches below where a rationale should have been. However, failing this you should be checking for vandalism / unexplained blankings before removing images from an article or otherwise. No article ever got deleted without a through revision check to make sure someone hasnt just blanked and marked it for CSD and this is much the same principle. The image didnt fail 10c. What did fail was your inability to read the upload description which would have taken 5 seconds to do. The fact you are peddling this tells me that one is lazy, blond or both. Rathor than fixing the issue its just easier to shit on an article you have nothing to do with isnt it? Dont bother with the WP:CIVIL warning, I'll take it as implied. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Also is his god awful username Delta or Beta? Since one of you is even wrong in that instance. Masem reckons its Delta and Hammersoft reckons its Beta. Thats the only confussing thing in this whole conversation, for me at least. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • well let me point out something my username is Δ which is the capital Greek letter Delta. As for your ideas, you need a reality check. I am not tagging files for deletion (for the most part), rather just removing images that lack correct rationales. Its similar to many many other maintenance related article tags. The NFCC policy is crystal clear, if it does not have a valid rationale, it will either be removed from said article or deleted. Hammersoft is referring to my old username ΔT 15:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • But..... I changed usernames, its Delta, or Δ now. Take a look at my sig, ΔT is a joke take a look at Δ it is a good read. ΔT 16:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you crazy

Didn't I mention that no editing on my page. Don't worry, I'll fix them. Just leave it to me.ThisguyYEAH (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well stop putting the American flag in Missisauga, it is a Canadian city...ThisguyYEAH (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, is File:Flag_of_Mississauga.svg not public domain, or am I misreading/understanding? - Kingpin (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

PD-self cannot apply to that image and I have fixed the license to reflect that. ΔT 13:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for that. And are you still under these sanctions? - Kingpin (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
In any case, my suggestion would be that you use AWB's show preview feature before saving edits in the future, to avoid the kinds of problem like having that template defaulting to the US flag. - Kingpin (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks alot, now how am I going to show those flags. Make my own?ThisguyYEAH (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You cannot show those flags on your userpage due to them being copyrighted. You also cannot create a free version of a copyrighted work either. ΔT 14:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you crazy!!!, What on Earth am I supposed to do now!! ThisguyYEAH (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not crazy, please review Copyright and our policy on non-free content aka copyrighted material. The only option you have in this case is to not use those flags. ΔT 14:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Not if I have anything to say about it, I have to use the flags, no othere way around. I will recreate the flags however with alterations. Why should the flags be posted by irresponsible users, it doesn't belong to them. You'll see. ThisguyYEAH (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
that would be considered a derivative work and still subject to the original copyright. Thus you cannot do that. ΔT 14:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked him for a day, hopefully he should change his mind. - Kingpin (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
/facepalm I was trying to explain non-free content and related material, (which a lot of people do not understand) and he was not actively causing problems, just trying to figure out a way to abide by policy and still get his way. Which most people try to do, so I see no reason for the block at this point. Had it continued or had he actually uploaded that content I would agree with the block, however when working with NFC and most users they have a thick skull and it takes a while for the point to sink in, however it does normally sink in. I always try that route before asking/having a user blocked. ΔT 14:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It appears to me that the user is clearly being disruptive. Maybe I have less patience than most, but looking through this users talk page, I see ample need for a block. Maybe you haven't inspected some of his other work? In addition, his personal attacks here are not acceptable, and it shouldn't need to be said 6 times before the user gets the point (or not necessarily "get the point" as in understanding our copyright policies, which are indeed complex, but at least understand that he should not continue taking action in this area when he clearly does not understand it). I commend you on your patience, but frankly I feel you're wasting your time. - Kingpin (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing Personal album cover

Hello, I had a question regarding File:29qgzlx.jpg. You removed it from Nothing Personal (album), since it didn't have a NFUR for that article. It had one for Nothing Personal but that page was moved to Nothing Personal (album). I'm fairly new and I changed the link in the NFUR because I was correcting all the links to that album. Is it now possible to use this file again for Nothing Personal (album)? I'm not sure if the NFUR is okay. EllaLM (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous fair use rationale removal

Hello! On the page 1939 Waynesburg vs. Fordham football game some time back you removed an image (File:1939 Waynesberg vs Fordham football game.jpg) stating that there was no fair use rationale. The fair use rationale was at the time and still is on the image page. I have gone back to bold it for you.

If you believe that the fair use rationale is not enough, or otherwise has not been met, please let me know.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The fair use rationale has to explicitly say what article the photo is being used on for each rationale. This one presently does not but you can easily add that. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Article under development

Re this. I know you didn't make the rules, but pray tell... How is one supposed to develop an article in userspace if the incorporation of necessary media for a mainspace article is removed within minutes of its being inserted?? I was intending on moving the article to mainspace within this week. --Ohconfucius 10:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

the best option if you need it for layout purposes is to use an image from Category:Misplaced Pages image placeholders until its moved to mainspace. ΔT 11:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a new badge ?

Bonjour, on the badge of page Great Britain women's national ice hockey team , you wrote file does not have a Non-free use rationale for this article. Thanks for you work but this another badge on Ice Hockey UK is free or not free for put in Great Britain women's national ice hockey team page ? Maybe it is a good alternative. Thanks for your assistance, --Geneviève (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Icehockeyuk.jpg is non-free but it has a rationale for Ice Hockey UK ΔT 00:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Kubrick

Enormous care has been taken to make sure that every image in the Stanley Kubrick article complies with WP policy re providing of relevant critical commentary within the body of the article for which understanding has been enhanced by the placement of the image. The only objections that have been raised are a) that there are too many of them, and b) User:Hammersoft has objected to the way a few specific ones are used for which I have taken great care to address his specific objections to those images.

The most obviously UNobjectionable ones are the Steadicam shot from The Shining and the candlelight shot from Barry Lyndon and the FREE triple-Sellers shot for Doctor Strangelove. I suspect the shots from the 1950s are actually free. Do I need to check the NFUR's on the image pages?--WickerGuy (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Usage of non-free content on BLPs is highly restricted, and I see no reason for having any on that page, let alone the number that where there before. ΔT 20:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Stanley Kubrick died in 1999. He is not a living person, ergo this is not a BLP article!! He is also a visual artist, specifically a film director, and most of the shots are from his movies, and not actually shots of him. Most books on Kubrick have a lot of images, precisely because his image style is extremely distinctive and innovative. Of the three images I just restored, one is a film scene entirely shot in real candlelight (no offscreen artificial light) for which Kubrick developed a special lense never used before in film. William Armstrong is a living painter, and several paintings of his are in the article (admittedly public domain ones). Where is the policy that specifically restricts non-free content on BLP anyway, not that it has any relevance to someone deceased?--WickerGuy (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You are surely not referring to WP:MUG?? Even less relevant.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The number of non-free images on that article has been extensively debated in the recent past, with a number of shortcomings of the non-free image usages pointed out. To date, these shortcomings remain largely unaddressed. It is hardly surprising the article was, again, gutted of non-free content. Even a dead person, a biography is not entitled to non-free content. There must be strong rationalization for such use. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
As I say, I plan shortly to put the galleries in a separate article. I quite recently in the past 2 months attempted to address several of the claimed shortcomings of these images. I moved the images to places closer to the place in the body of the article which discussed the same material, and revised the captions of the images to more closely match the article text, and even added a few citations to back up controverted assertions in the image caption!!! I don't really agree with your assertion that "To date, these shortcomings remain largely unaddressed." It may be a stretch to have one image per picture (13 movies), but care has been taken to see that every image enhances critical commentary in the article. Perhaps the least justifiable image is the one of Kubrick and Douglas on the set of Spartacus, but all the others illustrate some element of Kubrick's film-making style in a discernable way.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It was Δ, not you, Hammersoft, who specifically mentioned BLP, and made the breathtaking assertion he could "see no reason for having any on that page". Come on, we're talking about a (deceased) artist in a visual medium. Both assertions certainly false!!--WickerGuy (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually I was mistaken about the BLP issue, however free images exist thus usage of non-free content is not allowed. See WP:NFCC#1 I really doubt that the non-free content is required for the understanding of the article. Especially given that some of those images are used on other articles on wp. Thus fails, NFCC#3 and NFCC#8. Also ANY gallery of non-free content will be removed. Splitting it to a new article means nothing. ΔT 01:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Free equivalents of the screen images uploaded???? Where, pray tell??? Perhaps for "Space Odyssey" in the preview trailer, which is probably public domain. For any of the others??? Where???? The ONLY image used in another article is the Peter Sellers montage, which has been verified free!! All the other images are unique to this article!!! How then is NFCC#3 failed? Each image is about a separate aspect of SK's film-making. Finally you say "I really doubt that the non-free content is required for the understanding of the article." The images are all tightly linked with commentary in the main text, far more so than say the non-free images in the article Orson Welles which appear far more to be merely decorative. Kubrick INVENTS a lense to photograph in nothing but candlelight- it's worth showing the product of his work, etc. etc. Neither of you has acknowledged the enormous trouble I went to to comply with NFCC#8 as much as possible.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
My mistake. The images for The Shining and Barry Lyndon are indeed resused in the articles about those films.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
lets break it down:
File Status Comment
File:20050613-007-childwickbury.jpg free
File:KubrickForLook.jpg free
File:Stanley Kubrick 1949 with Rosemary Williams a showgirl.jpg free
File:3SellersRoles.jpg non-free Not needed
File:Barry12.jpg non-free Good usage, missed this before
File:KubrickStare1.jpg non-free Used in a gallery, needs removed
File:KubrickStare2.jpg non-free Used in a gallery, needs removed
File:KubrickStareThree.jpg non-free Used in a gallery, needs removed
File:KubrickWallOne.jpg non-free Used in a gallery, needs removed
File:KubrickWallsThree.jpg non-free Used in a gallery, needs removed
File:KubrickWallsTwo.jpg non-free Used in a gallery, needs removed
File:SteadicamDanny.jpg non-free already used
So I see grounds for removing 8 files currently being used on that page. ΔT 01:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually Barry12 is also already used along with SteadicamDanny. So non-free is absolutely forbidden in galleries? They are there to show recurring visual motifs in Kubrick. To do that visually, you need more than one image. If we can't, we can't. As for 3SellersRoles.jpg, I was mistaken about it's being non-free and indeed it is used elsewhere. It has an excellent rationale on its own page.
Ironically, then, the images I find to be the very most useful & important to this article have the biggest problems, as they are used elsewhere or are in galleries.
I was not aware that anything in Misplaced Pages:NFCC precluded using an image in more than one article!!!! You say ""Especially given that some of those images are used on other articles on wp. Thus fails, NFCC#3 and NFCC#8."" #3 seems to limit multiple images illustrating the same idea, not the reuse of one image in more than one article. You also connect this issue above to #8- that has to do with limiting a reader's understanding. Are you implying that since the reader can get this understanding by going to the other article on WP, we don't need it in Stanley Kubrick? Is this what you mean? At any rate, I was never aware of this rule or interpretation of the rules? (Also note that that File:SteadicamDanny.jpg and File:Barry12.jpg were put in THIS article first and THEN re-used in ] and The Shining (film) respectively, though that is not the case with the File:3SellersRoles.jpg. All three seem to be fairly useful in this article, especially the first two.)

When the galleries (and surrounding content) get "moved", I'll avoid either gallery or montage format for them.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

NFCC#3 refers to minimal usage, that means, part of the image used, total number of images, and number of places an image is used. Typically NFC is used on one article where it has the most relevance, and when you need to explain it to users you can just point them to the respective section/image for further details. See WP:NFG and WP:FUEXPLAIN. ΔT 02:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Well then if that really is de facto policy, then the text of NFCC#3 needs to be rewritten, since it overtly mentions items 1 & 2, but nary a mention of item 3 (number of places an image is used). I see no way a newbie to WP could possibly infer #3 from reading the policy even if they read it a dozen times. You cite WP:NFG. That's just the gallery issue. Point taken. I don't dispute anything really in WP:FUEXPLAIN, though it mitigates against the way this article has one image per Kubrick film. But neither does it directly support policy use of NFC in only one article (though one might infer such policy from it.) At any rate (once again), if previous debates have actually gone that route, then NFCC#3 needs to be rewritten.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
In particular, your policy point (about usage in multiple articles) can be inferred from "Misplaced Pages:FUEXPLAIN#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" on a close reading, but again not really from the main WP:NFCC page.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Under the basic term called minimal usage. That means little as possible is used. ΔT 13:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • As seen elsewhere, an approach being used is to see what pathways through the policy will allow as much non-free use as possible. That's catastrophically the wrong approach. The proper approach is to see if anything stands against an inclusion at all, or might be construed to do so, and if so avoid using it. Misplaced Pages's mission is a free content one, not one of using as much fair use content as we can get away with. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, it seems the best approach is to break off much of this overly long article (53 pages) into a separate article on Kubrick's film-making style. There we can use four to five fair use images. In the main article, we might be able to use stills from earlier films (and not one pic per film- less) or even free images of behind-the-scenes stuff.
Separate question
Some editors on WP think that images from promotional material or a preview trailer is presumed public domain. The Doctor Strangelove has a whole bunch of film stills which the uploader says are public domain for this reason. They are even in the plot section. WP strictly forbids fair use images in the plot section (they can only be critically commented on in a production section, not a plot section), but the editors there say these are free images, not fair use, since they are from promotional material or preview trailers. How does this work? Can I use images from preview trailers or posters in general willy-nilly?--WickerGuy (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Point 1: forking to a new article does not mean you get to use more non-free content.
Point 2: Take a closer look at the copyright policies it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice. means that it is public domain. However you need to ensure that the material that you use meets those criteria, if you are going to use that license. ΔT 18:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "There we can use four to five images". No, that's not correct. There is no set number that is permissible. Preview trailers and promotional materials are not any less subject to copyright concerns than any other creative works. The studios might want them widely distributed to enhance their sales, but it does not have any effect whatsoever on their copyright status. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Some trailers released before 1978 may have been released without a copyright notice (they probably have been labeled with them but could be buried/hard to spot, but there are exceptions), which would make them fall into the public domain due to the lack of notice (in the US at least). But this has to be reviewed, and as Hammer said, there's no default exception here. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The plan to fork to a new article was conceived before the images were challenged. It is motivated by the excessive length of the article, not as a pretext for using more images. I was not picking the number "four to five" on the basis of an abstract policy, but in terms of what I think can be justified for specifically THIS subject. Frankly, for an article on Stanley Kubrick's style, I think you could justify around seven images, but maybe I'll just settle for three. Again, we're talking about a visual artist who developed a new lense to film in real candlelight, made the first significant use of the Steadicam camera, invented groundbreaking special effects for Space Odyssey, and had a distinctive visual style which has since been widely copied by other film-makers. Clearly, some level of fair use is warranted. For the main article, stills from early movies that have gone public domain are likely suitable. I haven't any idea how to investigate it, and I have no idea why the images in the Doctor Strangelove article are considered public domain or how that was ascertained.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Action taken.
I have removed the gallery and the Peter Sellers image. I have put back the 1950s Paths of Glory image. I have removed the Danny Lloyd Steadicam image from the article on The Shining and retaining it here. The Barry Lyndon candlelight photo remains used both in the article on Barry Lyndon and here, which I think is well-justified.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I was mistaken. The 3Sellers image is not used elsewhere on WP. However, I don't feel strongly enough about it to put it back.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Virginia Tech uniforms

I'm well-aware of the NFC guidelines regarding galleries, but they do say that instances should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Virginia Tech has worn several different uniforms over the past few years and they're all relevant to the article. Furthermore, I and other designers will be adding past uniforms as well. Unfortunately, to display the images on the page in any other way besides the gallery would be unsightly and cluttered. Using a gallery is the most succinct way to display the images. That's why I've undone your edit. I hope you can see things my way. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 21:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot any further re-inserting of those images will lead to you being blocked for copyright violations. see WP:FUEXPLAIN that many non-free images goes against policy. ΔT 21:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not a copyright violation. I'm doing everything right and the gallery is necessary. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 21:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It is not necessary. Yes it makes the article pretty and visually appealing, but it violates our non-free content policy. ΔT 21:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I wasn't the one who added the helmet images, so those aren't my fault. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 21:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

When you re-add them you are violating copyright, I have reported you to AIV for your actions. ΔT 21:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, where can I defend myself against your spurious accusations? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 22:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

NFC enforcement

A noble task, certainly, but it's worth bearing in mind that being right doesn't mean everybody will agree with you and having an exemption to the 3RR doesn't make it a good idea to revert ad infinitum. Sometimes it's better to go to a noticeboard and then disengage until the other party realises their mistake or is blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

User page redirect

Your user page redirect is disruptive. Please remove it. --OhSoMany (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, its not an active redirect. ΔT 12:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot Special: pages cannot be redirected to. --OhSoMany (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Twelve Colonies

Hi. I have read the Non-free content criteria in regards to the images on the Twelve Colonies article, and I am a bit puzzled as to why all of them have been removed from the Article. The flags themselves, and the symbols they incorporate, have a valid NFUR stating which specific article that image is for and why it is necessary that that image be included in that particular article. Taking into consideration the importance of the symbols to the re-imagined BSG universe and the Twelve Colonies, it is essential that the said images be included so as to provide an understanding of the topic which cannot be done without the use of images, in a similar manner that the flag of the United Federation of Planets is used in the corresponding article. -- Philly boy92 (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Children (film)

Hi, you removed File:Children poster.jpg from this page. I presume this was simply because when the page was moved in March 2011, the user did not change the "Article" parameter on the file page, so the non-free media use rationale on the file page is pointing to the old title rather than the new one? You know more about these things than me, so I'll leave it to you to sort out. - Kingpin (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Children (2006 film). File:Children poster.jpg has a rationale for Children (film), which is a DaB page. If you want to use it on the 2006 film page just correct the rationale. ΔT 11:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, you see the Children (2006 film) was originally named Children (film), but when it got moved, the rationale wasn't updated. So I'll just do that I guess... - Kingpin (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hello, my name is Zach. I understand why you removed the images on my User-Page, so thank-you for doing so. I just wanted to know if those images that were removed have a chance of being permanently deleted (and if so, what must I do to prevent this)? Also, is it okay for me to set-up a link to, or just type the name of, the images I have uploaded? And what does "NFUR" mean? Thank-you for any assistance you can offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach Winkler (talk • contribs) (Zach Winkler (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC))

A Non-free use rationale AKA NFUR and a guide on writing them is Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline. The only problem that I see is that File:187674 withfriendslikethese2c.jpg does not have a rationale for it's usage on Eddsworld and that it is licensed as a logo when its a screen shot. As long as you do not display the files on your user page you can link to them the same way that I just used above. ΔT 06:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
First, sorry for not signing and thank-you for notifying me. I am going to try to change the information on that one image so that it is more accurate. If there are any more problems than please tell me. Thank-you. Zach Winkler (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
That is all that I have noticed. ΔT 06:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


"Page" parameter in citations, and "dead link" tag

Please note that there is an important distinction between the "pages" and "page" parameters in book citations. "Pages" refers to the total number of pages in that publication, whereas "page" refers to the page on which a quote of the information being referred-to is located. In several of the edits you made, you reversed these (added a "s" and removed a "s") which rendered the cite incorrect. Also, did you even bother checking the hyperlink before you tagged it as a {{dead link}}, because I just tested it, and it works fine? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken, take a look at the documentation for Template:Cite book

pages or page: These parameters are for listing the pages relevant to the citation, not the total number of pages in the book.

Which states the exact opposite of what you are saying. ΔT 12:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes I tested it twice before I tagged it as dead. ΔT 12:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I tested it this morning, and it's very much alive. Also, re: page parameter, fine I was wrong, but you still used it incorrectly though. You should have checked the page reference, because after the edit, the page ref was wrong, because one parameter overrode the other. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


UserCompare

Hi,
FYI, your UserCompare tool seems to be a bit erratic at the moment. I haven't really ever used it thus far, but apparently most files aren't being generated anymore.
Cheers, Amalthea 15:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

that should be fixed, it was caused by a bug in my code with regards to user names and spaces, It was choking with Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai where there is a space before the IP address. I have since fixed it. ΔT 15:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Amalthea 16:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


Use of logo in article

Greetings Δ: thumb|right|100px|The logo in question Concerning the use of the Golden State Warriors logo in what I consider to be an appropriate manner within article in question, I have reviewed Misplaced Pages:Logos and find nothing specifically prohibiting my use, which you have stated to be non-conforming to WP policy. Furthermore there appears to be a specific section that addresses this use if this logo (bold emphasis added):

Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons.

I feel that my argument for use (specifically that it is of interest for both design and artistic reasons) is reasonable, prudent, and justified.

Please let me know if this has not convinced you. If it has not, I propose that an arbitration would be appropriate and I expect (for myself) and hope (for you) that this would lead to a satisfactory resolution for both of us in either of the two possible results, but I hope that I have convinced you of both the reasonableness of my argument and of its correctness.

Incidentally, I am not the original contributor in the placement of this logo in the article, but I was delighted to see its appearance.

Best wishes,

Leonard

Leonard G. (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:LOGO does not matter, WP:NFCC trumps whatever logo states, see WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. There are no grounds for using that particular piece of non-free content on that page. ΔT 17:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
While I do not think that WP:NFCC#3 applies, your assertion of WP:NFCC#8 appears to me to be a reasonable argument, even though (in my opinion) somewhat of a stretch. Some additional clarity in the Logos article may be appropriate. Otherwise, you may consider this issue closed. Thank you for your prompt response - Leonard G. (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Δ is quite correct. There's no need to include the logo as you desire. The reader can go to the team's page to see the logo. That's why it fails #3. Also, it did fail #10c of NFCC policy as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

List of rail accidents (1900–1949)

Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article List of rail accidents (1900–1949) has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Tim PF (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars. —James • 8:19pm • 10:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
@James -- I don't think I've come across that before -- shouldn't there be a template for it? ;-)
@Δ -- Your edit to List of rail accidents (1900–1949) really confused me, as you had not removed an image file, and had done much more besides.
I did notice the change of "Image:Atsf19.jpg" to "File:Atsf19.jpg", and eventually concluded that this was the file in question, but that its fair-use rationale now pointed to the wrong page following the article split in February (I've now changed it).
I now note that you did indeed remove a file "File:AK trains2.jpg", which has a different Summary template (which I cannot be bothered to understand), which also cites the old article name (List of rail accidents (pre-1950)). I'm going to highlight this to DanTD (talk · contribs), who dealt with the other image, and might be interested here. Tim PF (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I just converted the name of the article that image was intended for, but I also added another FU tag as a supplement, just in case the previous tag is considered unacceptable. ----DanTD (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Please take a look at WP:NFLISTS which states that non-free content should not be used in list of... articles. Especially due to the fact that the incident already has a page just for it. ΔT 12:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see where the article on the particular incident exists, but maybe we can shift the image there, and add the article to the list. ----DanTD (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
File:Atsf19.jpg already has its own article, Super Chief, re-reading your statement I see that you are referring to File:AK trains2.jpg, which does not have its own article. However it still cannot be used, see WP:NFLISTS. ΔT 15:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it's inappropriate to use File:AK trains2.jpg at List of rail accidents (1900–1949), but mainly as it doesn't relate to a listed incident. It might fit in with Union of Retaliation, but I'll leave others to determine if that would be justified. Tim PF (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I can see adding it to Union of Retaliation, or some other article related to the Polish Underground, so yeah, I'm okay with that. Let's move it to one of those. ----DanTD (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE - Okay, I moved it there. Having said that, I saw a deleted image of the same attack. What happened with that one? ----DanTD (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Union of Retaliation looks okay like that, but the reference was deleted from List of rail accidents (1900–1949) by Δ yesterday, if that is what you meant. The image file therefore no longer needs justification for it as well, even though I have now added an entry for the sabotage. Tim PF (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The usage on Union of Retaliation is still very weak, please review WP:NFCC#8 I really don't see a need for that image in either article. ΔT 16:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My plan for the uniform images

First of all, I am really sorry for what happened. Edit warring is extremely out of character for me. I don't know what got into me. Hopefully the extreme rarity of such instances along with my previous responsible use of the rollback will allow me to regain it in due time.

I've come up with a solution that should solve the uniform problems entirely. Instead of having the individual images for one-time uniforms (such as throwbacks) I'll incorporate them into the season images and add notation explaining the significance of the uniform, or something like that (maybe a note that says "see week 10," or something like that, and have text explaining the uniform there). That way, it'll just be one image per season. Said images will be added to the season template. However, in some cases, like Penn State and Alabama, the same image will be used for multiple seasons because they have rarely-changed uniforms (Penn State's upcoming 2011 uniforms notwithstanding). Is that ok?

Secondly, I realize that the rationale for me losing the file mover tag was valid and I won't argue that. However, would it be possible for me to be given it back in order to facilitate me moving the images around to make this simplification work?

Finally, there are other teams' pages that have the uniform images in galleries. Would you mind not removing those until I can get this problem resolved? Those will be the first pages I fix, and it would make things easier if the images weren't deleted before I fixed up the pages. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 04:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If Δ's editnotice is anything to go by, he'll probably get to those other pages soon enough, but if you point them out, I'll remove them. As for your filemover flag, if you have a need for it, I can restore it. Your rollback might take more time (and you'd have to ask the admin who removed it). I'll let Δ tell you whether your plans are acceptable or not—he's the expert on NFCC enforcement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm going to wait a while before requesting that my rollback be restored. I've probably got a good shot since I haven't made a habit of edit warring and I have a past history of responsible editing and responsible use of the rollback. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 21:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • You're talking about creating montages of non-free images of the uniforms, correct? If so, that's a complete non-starter. If you take 5 images and turn it into 1, it's still 5 images. It doesn't change the situation. Earlier arguments still apply; why must a given uniform image be on a given article? MUST is the operative word here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
You might as well remove the uniform parameter from the college season template, then, and start getting rid of the MLB and NFL uniforms as well. I would argue that the uniforms fall under the "Team and corporate logos" point of acceptable use of NFC. It is being used for identification purposes, which is clearly noted as acceptable use. By combining the images into one image, it certainly helps in regards to NFCC #3, since there would be fewer images and thus, more minimal use, and #8, since by restricting the images to their individual seasons, they'd be much more contextual. The issue that Δ had with my images was over #3 and #8, so I think this is the best solution. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 19:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Kevin, if you upload 3 copyrighted images, you have 3 copyrighted images. If you put them side by side as one image and upload it, you still have three copyrighted images; you're just make it one image. The issue IS NOT how many images, but how much non-free content there is. By creating a montage, you are NOT reducing the amount of non-free content. Creating better contextual significance is good, but if there's not secondary source supported discussion regarding an alternate uniform, there's precious little reason to include the alternate uniform. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I mentioned the discussion in the original post. I said I would add sourced discussion to the season pages regarding the one-time uniforms: "...maybe a note that says 'see week 10,' or something like that, and have text explaining the uniform there." I'm sure I can find third-party sources for most, if not all of the uniforms. One question I do have: why isn't a press release from the school, for example, a valid source regarding those kinds of uniforms? I don't understand why this wouldn't work. It clearly explains the uniform's significance. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 20:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Please read and understand this explanation on types of sources. A primary source isn't very useful. They can be useful at times, but we rely primarily on secondary sources. As I previously noted, anybody could write extensively about themselves, and then cite their own writings. That doesn't make it verifiable, nor does it make it properly sourced. Again, don't look for ways to include non-free content. Look for ways that it MUST be used. Don't try to find edges in the policy that would permit your use. Come up with a really, really good reason why we must have a given non-free item, and you're on much safer ground. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've already started compiling some secondary sources. I'll have sourcing for the Nike Pro Combat uniforms, at the minimum. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 21:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't have a link at top to your most recent archive

See subject heading. I could find it from your history page, but not here.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for orphaned Stanley Kubrick images

File Status Comment
File:KubrickKilling.jpg non-free Put in article on movie "The Killing" instead of here
File:Spartacus-douglas-kubrick.jpg non-free Discard- insufficiently strong critical commentary (though I tried)
File:KubrickLolita.jpg non-free Put back in Kubrick article. Illustrate's well Kubrick tiptoeing around censorship issues
File:3SellersRoles.jpg non-free Discard- possibly replace with gallery of FREE images
File:OdysseyMoon.jpg non-free Discard-insufficiently strong critical commentary (though I tried)
File:ActKubrickClockwork.jpg non-free Discard-insufficiently strong critical commentary (though I tried)
File:Barry12.jpg non-free Keep in both Kubrick article and Lyndon article as they are now-strong critical commentary
File:SteadicamDanny.jpg non-free Keep as is in Kubrick article- Keep removed from Shining article as is case now- lots of other images there.
File:JacketBleakUrbanWar.jpg non-free Put in "Full Metal Jacket" article instead of here.
File:KidmanCruiseEyesWideShut.jpg non-free Discard-insufficiently strong critical commentary (though I tried)
File:KubrickStare1.jpg non-free Restore in non-gallery format- important critical commentary
File:KubrickStare2.jpg non-free Restore in non-gallery format- important critical commentary
File:KubrickStareThree.jpg non-free Restore in non-gallery format- important critical commentary
Restore nothing from second or third gallery non-free

What think ye and what think User:Hammersoft?

  • Just speaking to one image, File:ActKubrickClockwork.jpg was re-added back to the article by User:Victor falk. The rationale? "Show Kubrick's use of classical music in Clockwork Orange in combination with slow motion in contrast to style in 2001 per discussion of a few critics (Ebert and Kael) dislike of latter" How in hell can you show using classical music in the context of slow motion using a STILL PHOTO? This image is completely superfluous to the text. It flat out is NOT needed to convey this. A video might be useful, but a still image? There are days when I feel like I'm screaming at the wall for all the good it does to convey to people the importance of judicious use of non-free media. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think its time to bring back my old userpage. Too many recent face palms. ΔT 14:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(WickerGuy, not picking or even referring to you with any of the following) @Δ; Maybe we need an MSDS for stupidity. Said tongue in cheek, but there's some serious disconnect out there for some who really have virtually no understanding of how non-free media needs to be handled here. Soooo many times I come across people who fight tooth and nail to retain non-free images they uploaded. It's a serious disservice to the community. The common approach among these types is to attempt to find something, anything, even a speck of policy or guideline that could be twisted in some fashion to 'prove' that the use of their pet non-free image is allowed. It's completely the wrong approach. I've toyed with creating an easy to follow guide to help bridge these gaps. Unfortunately, the cynic in me tells me it would never be read by those who most need to read it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do, it might help. The one question I try to ask is: Why must that particular page have that specific image, and what critical information is being lost by not having it. ΔT 15:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
First of all, this is the second time Falk has added back a picture I think as INsufficient rationale (on a scale of 1 to 10 maybe about a strength of 5&1/2 to 6). I specifically targetted the ClockOrange and EyesShut images as ones to NOT be restored. I myself removed the EyesShut image when Falk restored it, & wasn't aware of his restoral of the ClockOrange image, which I will now delete. Falk has a different sense of what's restorable than I. Actually I was thinking of putting the pic of Alex being subjected to the Ludovico technique in the ClockOrange article also in Kubrick- a much much better choice.
I was indeed for a while, as Hammersoft says, looking for "even a speck of policy or guideline", but NOT for my PET images, but to get one image per film, something you fellows have genuinely persuaded me is the wrong approach!! I am dropping that approach, though I'm glad to see there are some FREE images from both Strangelove and Space Odyssey out on WP commons.
As for the image from "The Killing" it is typical of the visual style of film noir, a genre which was fading when Kubrick made the film, but is now considered one of the best of the genre.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
If the screenshot is so representative of the film, perhaps it would be suitable to replace the poster currently used in the article- that kind of "representation" is the typical rationale for an infobox poster. J Milburn (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
That's possible. To convey my motives further, the shot illustrates that at a very young age (after a successful career in still photography), Kubrick knew exactly how to emulate the visual style of film noir clearly.
I see that Falk restored the Clockwork Orange image BEFORE he restored the Eyes Shut image, the latter of which I caught immediately. Didn't look down the list far enough.
A sidenote in the general defense of this project. I don't know of any other filmmaker who has had as many paintings by other artists made from stills of his films as Stanley Kubrick (some of which have been exhibited in prominent museums.) A definite indicator of the distinctiveness of his visual style.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hammersoft's guide could be used as an after-the-fact reference and should be sufficiently linked to from other existing guideline pages, and should be QC'd by other long-time Misplaced Pages editors, but I think it's a good idea.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WebCite Bot

Hi, is your WebCite bot working? I entered User:Gratisaktie/work here, but nothing happened. I would like to archive cite-web-references within to German wikipedia articles and copied the first one to User:Gratisaktie/work.

regards, --Gratisaktie (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC) / de:PM3

Yes, its not instant, but I should be able to run the queries that you want. ΔT 22:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Great! I have entered e request for User:Gratisaktie/work now and would be happy if the bot does it. The article contains 190 cite-web's; about 50 of them are already archived at WebCite. --Gratisaktie (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You can help!

Hi I've seen that you have cool bot on irc which watches the pages we would apperciate if it joined #huggle and report changes to pages: Misplaced Pages:Huggle/Config and Huggle/Config on meta, thanks Petrb (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

concern expressed about changes to resource notes

Hi, please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Bot_owners%27_noticeboard#Concerns.2Fcomplaints_about_bot_tasks_and_practices

best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Live at Gray Matters

Live at Gray Matters is a discussion about four albums. Each album has its own infobox on the article. The images are used to describe the album. If you have a problem with that, it's not Misplaced Pages's. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It is the same thing that a discography is. Multiple non-fee files are not warranted. see WP:NFLISTS ΔT 18:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not. It's an article about the albums, but we'll let someone else decide. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@Walter: Δ happens to be right. In no case have I ever seen an article constructed like this permit album covers in the infoboxes. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Who are you?

Why are you not informing the public who you are? Like the other wikipedia editors they put photos of themselves, their names where they come from..are you an inferior skunk... just skunky brave to edit if you are hiding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.174.172 (talk • contribs)

I do not release my personal information online because there are too many whack jobs who attempt to use wikipedia to promote their illegal/insane points of view. (NAMBLA the North American Man/Boy Love Association and others) who do not like it when active users prevent them from pushing their point. (that pedophilia is acceptable in their case) or some other wacko idea. When long term/high profile editors take action against them they have been known to harass and even stalk people in real life (when personal information can be figured out). I really do not want to have to put up with that kind of crap, so my online identity is not tied to my real life identity. Right now I can count the number of people who know the connection on my fingers and that is how I hope to keep it. ΔT 17:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)