| Revision as of 05:38, 23 December 2008 editHammersoft (talk | contribs)Administrators91,161 edits →Removal of images← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:18, 23 December 2008 edit undoRyan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,432 edits →Removal of images: CNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| :::the reasons that I removed those image have zero to do with that RfC. I removed those images due to not having a rationale. have a problem with that? get over it and read the policy. My actions have consensus and are backed with 110% of policy. ] 21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | :::the reasons that I removed those image have zero to do with that RfC. I removed those images due to not having a rationale. have a problem with that? get over it and read the policy. My actions have consensus and are backed with 110% of policy. ] 21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *I concur with Betacommand. He's acting perfectly within policy. He's done nothing wrong. --] (]) 05:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC) | *I concur with Betacommand. He's acting perfectly within policy. He's done nothing wrong. --] (]) 05:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Betacommand, you need to ask permission if you're doing a repetitive task of more than 25 edits - here you have done close to 50. It would be punitive to block you now, but in the future please post to the village pump to request permission. It doesn't matter how uncontroversial you believe the task is, you've got to request permission for anything over 25. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 11:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:18, 23 December 2008
- 20060127
- 20060409
- 20060508
- 20060713
- 20060906
- 20061017
- 20061117
- 20061207
- 20070101
- 20070201
- 20070301
- 20070401
- 20070501
- 20070601
- 20070701
- 20070801
- 20070901
- 20071101
- 20071201
- 20080101
- 20080201
- 20080301
- 20080401
- 20080501
- 20080601
- 20080701
- 20080801
- 20080901
- 20081001
- 20081101
- 20081201
- 20090101
- 20090201
- 20090301
- 20090401
- 20090701
- 20090801
- 20090901
- 20091001
- 20091101
- 20091201
- 20100101
- 20100201
- 20100301
- 20100401
- 20100501
- 20100601
- 20100701
Removal of images
Hi Betacommand,
I see that you have removed quite a few images from several articles about football teams. While you may be correct in removing these images from the articles, it seems that this violates your community-imposed restrictions, specifically the part that says "Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin."
I therefore suggest you drop a note at WP:VPR about this, to make sure that there is community consensus for this image removal task. Is he back? (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NFC and WP:NFCC. non-free images lacking rationales should be removed. if an image has no valid rationales it may be deleted. Please review policy as it has consensus. β 14:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Beta, we're well aware of those policies, and we know they have consensus. What doesn't have consensus is for you to perform a single task on multiple pages more than 25 times without first proposing it at WP:VPR, regardless to whether or not you're working in line with other policies. Please, follow the community imposed restrictions, or be prepared for consequences. TalkIslander 16:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please dont give me that line of BS. I dont need to get consensus for for something that already has it. If an admin cannot follow policy and blocks me for enforcing policy expect an arbcom case, Im getting sick of admins who cannot follow policy themselves. My actions are 110% within policy, so stop attempting to prevent policy enforcement. β 17:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Please dont give me that line of BS..." - that should earn you a block for breaching your civility parole, though clearly I'm not going to enforce it as I'm involved. You need to learn that, due to your poor behavior, the same community that by consensus devised these policies has forbidden you from carrying them out en-mass without at least attempting to gain consensus to do so at WP:VPN. You have not attempted to gain such consensus, therefore you are knowingly breaching your community imposed restrictions - please stop. TalkIslander 19:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I dont need to gain consensus for something that already has consensus. If you disagree with that go read policy, policy has consensus thus my actions have consensus. Please review what CIVIL means, my statement was not uncivil. β 19:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Granted, you've been far more incivil in the past, but in my opinion that remark was incivil. Regarding the edits: the whole point here is that it's about interpretation. If you were to go and remove 50 pornographic images from children's articles where they don't belong, then I honestly can't see that anyone would bat an eyelid, let alone have any right to challenge you over it. However, the NFCC are vastly open to interpretation; however concrete you try and convince anyone they are, they're really not. Therefore, under your community imposed restriction, you must first gain consensus that you have interpreted the policies correctly. TalkIslander 19:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- My recent removals are 110% within policy and non-debatable. All non-free images must have a rationale for each usage. (WP:NFCC#10c) if they dont have a rationale they either need deleted or removed. β 19:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not quite true - you've been removing images without rationales instantly , which is incorrect. Such images should be tagged for deletion, both on the image page and the article, so as to give editors a chance to add one. If, after seven days they still don't have a rationale, they then get deleted. You mustn't just remove the images straight away - you must give editors from those subject areas the chance to add rationales. TalkIslander 19:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- which is correct procedure. the only time an image gets seven days is if the actual image is up for deletion. Please review WP:NFCC#Enforcement An image with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the image should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added. and An image on which non-free use is claimed that is used in no article (criterion 7) may be deleted seven days after notification. β 19:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not quite true - you've been removing images without rationales instantly , which is incorrect. Such images should be tagged for deletion, both on the image page and the article, so as to give editors a chance to add one. If, after seven days they still don't have a rationale, they then get deleted. You mustn't just remove the images straight away - you must give editors from those subject areas the chance to add rationales. TalkIslander 19:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- My recent removals are 110% within policy and non-debatable. All non-free images must have a rationale for each usage. (WP:NFCC#10c) if they dont have a rationale they either need deleted or removed. β 19:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Granted, you've been far more incivil in the past, but in my opinion that remark was incivil. Regarding the edits: the whole point here is that it's about interpretation. If you were to go and remove 50 pornographic images from children's articles where they don't belong, then I honestly can't see that anyone would bat an eyelid, let alone have any right to challenge you over it. However, the NFCC are vastly open to interpretation; however concrete you try and convince anyone they are, they're really not. Therefore, under your community imposed restriction, you must first gain consensus that you have interpreted the policies correctly. TalkIslander 19:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I dont need to gain consensus for something that already has consensus. If you disagree with that go read policy, policy has consensus thus my actions have consensus. Please review what CIVIL means, my statement was not uncivil. β 19:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Please dont give me that line of BS..." - that should earn you a block for breaching your civility parole, though clearly I'm not going to enforce it as I'm involved. You need to learn that, due to your poor behavior, the same community that by consensus devised these policies has forbidden you from carrying them out en-mass without at least attempting to gain consensus to do so at WP:VPN. You have not attempted to gain such consensus, therefore you are knowingly breaching your community imposed restrictions - please stop. TalkIslander 19:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please dont give me that line of BS. I dont need to get consensus for for something that already has it. If an admin cannot follow policy and blocks me for enforcing policy expect an arbcom case, Im getting sick of admins who cannot follow policy themselves. My actions are 110% within policy, so stop attempting to prevent policy enforcement. β 17:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Beta, we're well aware of those policies, and we know they have consensus. What doesn't have consensus is for you to perform a single task on multiple pages more than 25 times without first proposing it at WP:VPR, regardless to whether or not you're working in line with other policies. Please, follow the community imposed restrictions, or be prepared for consequences. TalkIslander 16:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Beta, Islander is right. The community-imposed restrictions are crystal clear and this is not about right or wrong edits. The restrictions about repetitive tasks are unambiguous: you know this full well. You can take this to ArbCom if you want but I suggest you first consult with Ryan Postlethwaite, Jennavecia and CBM who worked out these restrictions. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I need consensus to make my edits, I have that, now get over it and please stop harassing me the both of you. β 20:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Beta, there's an ongoing RfC on the subject so the least you could do is wait until that discussion is over. This is exactly why I blocked you recently: you're doing these mass edits during a debate on the subject. This is a sure way to bring more drama. Like I said, if you think I'm harassing you, just consult with the three admins who drafted your restrictions and ask them if you're working within the limits they set or not. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- the reasons that I removed those image have zero to do with that RfC. I removed those images due to not having a rationale. have a problem with that? get over it and read the policy. My actions have consensus and are backed with 110% of policy. β 21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Beta, there's an ongoing RfC on the subject so the least you could do is wait until that discussion is over. This is exactly why I blocked you recently: you're doing these mass edits during a debate on the subject. This is a sure way to bring more drama. Like I said, if you think I'm harassing you, just consult with the three admins who drafted your restrictions and ask them if you're working within the limits they set or not. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I concur with Betacommand. He's acting perfectly within policy. He's done nothing wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Betacommand, you need to ask permission if you're doing a repetitive task of more than 25 edits - here you have done close to 50. It would be punitive to block you now, but in the future please post to the village pump to request permission. It doesn't matter how uncontroversial you believe the task is, you've got to request permission for anything over 25. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)