Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:09, 12 August 2009

Archives

Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Thanks for dropping by! Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page. Messages here will often be read by a number of people. If you would rather discuss an issue privately, you can email me. I typically reply here, and, if I do, I will typically tag you in the message. If I haven't gotten back to you in a week and/or haven't gotten to something I said would, feel free to leave a reminder.

RE

I felt it had to be said, since I am fed up with IMatt's drama. I was upset, annoyed, tired, etc over his constant returning to either say the current formats are all wrong when he himself agreed to change them, bad mouthing the members of the project, and saying I should leave wikipedia because everything would be so much better. I felt justified in saying it. I knew something would probably happen but I would deal with it then. Matter a fact, being blocked would help me finish other projects I want to do in real life and cut my addiction off to this site at the core, though I would rather another block not tarnish the name of Wrestlinglover for a possible future RfA after I become more familiar with the policies of course. Then the questions "Why block a user who has expanded 19 articles to either FA, GA, or FL, and several others to to at least B class from either Stub, Start, or List? Why block one who also reviews Lists at FLC and articles at FAC and GAN. Matt and I just have different opinions which clash, and have for some time now. I do not intend to start a problem on here, they just happen in the heat of the moment. To be honest I do not regret my comments—comments which I am sure others agree with—but I do intend to return to the discussion and try to sort out a descision, and I would be glad if Matt would return as well. I do understand at the sametime I was in the wrong, but we are all only human and only as good as God made us. After the situation cools down, I do plan to work things out with Matt.-WillC 14:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no problem.--WillC 15:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:James hall III.jpg

How is "US Army" not a source? Every officer and upper level non-commissioned officers in the US Army have their photograph taken on base to be displayed as part of the chain of command that is put on display in every unit's building so every one can see the face behind the name. That photograph is one of those that is put on display. Thus I am going to revert your edit. Thanks Trentc (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:SSB SHOULDER TITLE & RED TAB.jpg

Hi Mr. Milburn - please refer to the licence and source text changes made on the above photo. I have also left the below message on user:whoosis' talk page. I sincerely believe this image deserves preservation!

Hi Whoosis. I have re-licenced image file:SSB SHOULDER TITLE & RED TAB.jpg in Wiki Commons and have added the following text " Source = This photo was originally uploaded by user:Whoosis and incorrectly placed under Licence type Template:Logo fur.... Whoosis states in the orignal text that: 1. He had purchased the actual insignia and 2. From the camera details visible, that he had taken the photo. As I cannot "sign" on behalf of user:Whoosis, I have re-classified this photo (as it is up for deletion) as licence type {PD-SELF} WHERE SELF REFERS TO USER:WHOOSIS. I have left a massage on his user page for him to re-do this under his own signature, as that would be the correct method to ensure the continued availablity of the photograph on Commons. If the above is incorrect, User:Whoosis has been requested to either correct the licence informaiton or to delete the image. A simple BOT induced deletion is totally uncalled for!" PLease visit this image and sign the licence under your user-name, or alternatively, delete it. I think it is a valuable image from the perspective of the S Afr forces in WWII. I have used it in the article on the 1st Infantry Division (South Africa). Regards. Farawayman (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Regards and hope this will resolve the issue. Farawayman (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Question!!!

Under what license can I upload an image of a building I found on a website? A.h. king (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It is an image of Murr Television's building, It is located on .A.h. king (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:CommandconquerCover.jpg, File:MusicOfRedAlert.jpg and File:CommandConquerTS Front Full.jpg

I requested the images restored and used them but currently another user is removing the images. We are in discussion at present and I hope to have the images back in the article asap. Thanks for your patience, Cabe6403 19:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not for the exact article, for full details of the discussion you can take a gander at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content#Fair use covers in a video game discography. Cheers -- Cabe6403 19:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with this policy and the way of defining Discographies but I fear that consensus is against me in this matter. From what I've gathered it would be permissible for ONE image to be in the article? -- Cabe6403 21:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason the images being used on the Final Fantasy articles -- Cabe6403 22:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone.The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for.Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original artwork, namely the artist's providing graphic design services to music concerns and in turn marketing music to the public -- Cabe6403 22:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What does it matter if it was copied and pasted? It's still relavent. The point remains. Does this or does this not meet wikipedia standards Cabe6403 22:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That rational was from File:Ff6sd.jpg. Which is included in a GA class Music of article. "One representative image is fine. The spotchecks of the FF ones all use a single image and thus are not the same as illustrating every album cover, as say the Ace Attorney ones" says User:Masim

Are you citing official policy or a personal view on the matter? In the meantime I am going to be WP:BOLD and WP:IAR as it seems the FF articles have done and add the image of the original release with the rational above which I personally believe is following wikipedia policy. I will of course, await your response first. -- Cabe6403 22:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a discussion if you reject outright my opinion on the matter and sidestep a reply with "Was that a copy-paste? It may as well have been..." which does not help matters. You have your opinion that these images are not beneficial, I have the opposite opinion. Cabe6403 22:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is the identifying artwork of the album. It was designed to go with the audio of the product. It is designed to compliment it and add to the product as a whole -- Cabe6403 22:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• . I have removed all but one image but it is my opinion that that one image is allowed to stay. Regardless WP:IAR, so that is what I am doing. I feel that the inclusion of this image improves the article. Clearly other people involved in WP:VG have this same opinion as the people who have constantly defended the inclusion have always been part of WP:VG bar one or two. Clearly this is just a difference of opinion from people who have different interests. I gather you are not much interested in video game music. Cabe6403 22:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• First off, no need for the language and no need to insult me ("or at least assume I'm dealing with a reasonable, mature and well-meaning adult").
• Also, will you please stop talking about "opinions"- this shouldn't be a matter of "this is what I think" "WELL, this is what I think"- this should be a matter of discussing the merits of the use of images and weighing them against the negatives, referencing our policies and guidelines as we go -- Misplaced Pages is all about consensus, what is consensus but opinions? Everyone is entitled to their own opinions on wikipedia, so no, I will not stop talking about them when I believe them relevant to the discussion. You've already said I've already said I don't agree with that usage I'm sorry, but that is an opinion.
• I have told you why I think the image merits are and you've done the opposite. You've repeatedly ask me "why" and when I respond I get another "why". To be honest I'm getting a little tired of constantly having to explain what I think is the best way to improve the article to you, you clearly don't agree. Good for you, you have your own opinion and I respect that but that doesn't mean I am going to follow your opinion.
• "you're just gonna run off and do what you like anyway?", I object to this statement, I am not just going to "do what I like", I do my best to follow the policy's on wikipedia. I, like you, am no newbie. One of wikipedia's core policys is WP:IAR which states: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it. (I quote this not because I do not think you know it but to add to my point). What is improvement, some argue that an article can be improved by doing a, others b. Opinion.

Now, why do I think the image should be included? Because I feel they improve the article. Answer me this, why do you feel they should not be included. And please do not answer with a question, I am genuinely interested in your opinion on the matter, not policy, not why should they, etc but why YOU think they should not.

Cabe6403 23:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Aside I was asked for my thoughts on this matter, and wrote this.  Chzz  ►  17:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Chzz, your comments are well thought out and very relevant. Cabe, I am not in a position to answer you at this time. Rest assured I will be replying as appropriate tomorrow. J Milburn (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Having reread your comments, this reply seems appropriate. I'm done with this discussion. Read our non-free content critiera, and don't view them as rules to be played with, view them as help with regards to making a judgement. Right now, you don't seem to believe that NFC is a negative. It's not easy to discuss these issues with someone who has completely the wrong attitude, and I'm not going to waste my time with it any longer. If you're putting one random album cover in, so be it, but don't come crying to me when it's removed or your article fails GAC/FAC. J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2009_July_22#File:Blood_of_Kingu_-_Alternative_Artwork.jpg

Apologies for the time it's taken me to get back to you on this; I've been ruminating on it a bit. The most important conclusion I've reached is that if you want to take this to DRV as well, which I gather from your post you probably do, I'll hold off on closing anymore remotely contentious FFDs until the DRV has run its course, and take whatever conclusions emerge from it (and hopefully there will be some, unlike in the Peter Pan one) under advisement if I subsequently elect to return to FFD closures. That said, I wanted to respond to a few of the points you made with which I don't agree:

• ""it's established practice that illustration of album cover artwork meets NFCC #8" is simply wrong, wrong, wrong." I hate to resort to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-style arguments, but there are so many articles on albums that feature low-resolution copies of the artwork that I don't see how you can deny that this is established practice. It seems to be such well-established practice that they don't even seem to get nominated for deletion anymore, let alone actually deleted (I'm speaking here of one example per article, as I was when I mentioned the established practice in the first place).
• I appreciate the distinction between including one album cover per album article and including more than one. But I don't think the difference is so clearcut that we can say "Even though including non-free album covers in articles about the album in question is well-established practice here, including a second one is such a flagrant violation of WP:NFCC that they should be deleted without discussion (or without regard for the views expressed in the discussion). If we accept that it's a legitimate interpretation of WP:NFCC that a single album cover is acceptable, I don't see how we can say that suggesting that a second one be used is clearly forbidden by it—these strike me as shades of grey.
• "there is certainly no precedent that these images are legitimate, other than the one you've just created." Speaking specifically on the issue of alternate album artwork, there was a precedent brought up in the FFD itself: Misplaced Pages:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2009_January_10#03_Bonnie_.26_Clyde_UK.jpg. In that case as in this one, the existence of an alternate cover is mentioned in the article, but the album cover is not actually discussed. The situation seems very similar to this one.
• I continue to disagree that the prevailing view expressed by editors participating in an FFD is irrelevant, but I don't really have much more to say on that question than what I've already said.

Anyway, I presume that this will go to DRV, where I hope either my view or yours will be clearly endorsed, and we can avoid making this sort of conversation into a trend. Cheers, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

69.153.221.50/Image Galleries

You may want to look into these edits as they have to do with image galleries being readded. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Some of them were just copying the current image into a gallery, which was just silly (see WUPV for an example of that), but the others I wasn't sure how to handle. Thanks for the response on that. Take Care and Have a Great Week Ahead...NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Low res?

Resizing does improve the apparent sharpness, but that isn't why I do it. The full sized sharpness of my fungi images is generally very good. I resize since a large proportion of off-wiki users don't respect the licence. The image quality differences can be attributed to technique and equipment. As far as equipment goes I am usually using about 6 kilograms worth of camera, lens, lighting gear and tripod for each fungi shot. A digital SLR, tripod and macro lens may be worth considering in the long term. If I was in your shoes I'd be acquiring a cheap tripod. I'd use the lowest ISO setting (64), an aperture of about f5.6, a focal length in the middle of the zoom range and the timer to eliminate vibration. You should be able to improve quality considerably doing so. I need to rename the article, but may be interesting (ignore the aperture advice, it is for a dSLR).Noodle snacks (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Piece offering

Hey, just wanted to say that I respect you as an editor and a wikipedian. We clearly have differing views on certain things, but then again who doesn't! :p As such, I come bearing a piece cookie in the hopes that we can put any bad blood that may exist between us behind

I thank you for your time and effort and I apologise if I offended you in our previous encounter and I present you with this cookie:

Cabe6403 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--Cabe6403 15:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Logos, an ongoing saga

User:Eastmain is FUR'ing some logos from WUTB and readding them back to the page. I reverted the readdition to the page, but not the FURs, I am not sure how to handle that. I said for him to take it up with you or to talk. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sam's Club

Hey. Twice now someone has readded the logo gallery. Rather than reverting it again, I thought I'd let you know about it. Someone has also opened a thread on Talk:Sam's Club#Logo gallery about it. — HelloAnnyong 01:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 10 August 2009

• Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
• News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfree pictures

Could take a look that the recent edits at Ibn Al-Khattab: . There are now two unfree images of him, although one would suffice. Am I correct that we are allowed to use unfree image at most? Offliner (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that both images be kept. The first image is a popular iconic image of Khattab and is used to illustrate him whereas, the second image shows Ibn al-Khattab training Chechen guerillas in the use of RPG's during the Second Chechen war which illustrates a particular role that he played as a trainer of Mujahideen. Joyson Noel (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And that particular role does not need to be illustrated... A single image of the subject to serve as identification is useful. As far as I can see, there is nothing else in the article that urgently needs illustrating. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't it need to be illustrated? It was an important role as far as can be determined. He was a chief financier and trainer of the Mujahideen, and played a prominent role in the Second Chechen War. WP:NFCC nowhere states that only one non-free image is sufficient in an article and only for identification purposes. A non-free image can also be used for illustrating an historic event. Joyson Noel (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that it is needed. If you genuinely had read our NFCC, you would understand that. Further, I am not challenging the importance of the fact that "He was a chief financier and trainer of the Mujahideen, and played a prominent role in the Second Chechen War"- I'm only saying we don't need a picture to show that. Say it, by all means, but don't go and steal a picture to show it... J Milburn (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read this carefully, so as to avoid a misunderstanding. I'm not trying to feud with you, in case that's what you are wondering, but what i have done is not stealing. It's called fair use. Stealing is when you use someone else's work and claim it as your own, without providing any attribution to it's rightful owner. As for providing the burden of proof, that's what i did, but you just keep dismissing the image as unworthy of inclusion. I'm aware that you are not challenging the facts, but the reasons i want the pictures to be included are two:

(1)It depicts a historic event showing him train Chechen guerillas during the War.

(2)It's inclusion as an image would give the novice reader a better understanding of the event. After all, a picture speaks a thousand words. Even though it is not needed to show their particular role, it's inclusion will nevertheless give a clearer picture to the novice reader and this will significantly increase the article's quality in serving an educational purpose, which is what wikipedia is all about. Plus, WP:NFCC clearly states that a 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.

This image, plus the Basayev one, satisfies both purposes. Moreover, your reasons for removal are not appropriate. I have read WP:NFCC carefully and can state with the utmost confidence that i am in no way of violation of that. As such, i'm going to re-insert them in their respective articles. However, if you still disagree with me, then please open a Request for Comment in order to get some more editors to discuss the issue. Please do not revert my edit unless consensus has been reached to do so. Likewise, if it turns out that the consensus agrees with your argument, I will respect that. Joyson Noel (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Dude, i did not patronise you. If you are mad at me for the comment i made refuting your allegation about me "stealing images", then i apologize. I really meant no disrespect, but i had to give a straightforward answer to defend myself against that unwarranted allegation that you made towards me. My intention was to defend myself, not to make you look like a fool. I'm aware that you are an old and significant contributor to wikipedia, and i respect that, but put yourself in my shoes, wouldn't you would have done the same? Is it fair for you to unjustly accuse me of stealing, but unfair for me to defend myself against it? Other than that, i tried my level best to be civil in my conduct towards you. This isn't an ownage contest. We are Wikipedians, not little kids. Sure, we have disagreements on this particular matter, but in wikipedia, one should expect to face disagreements. Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean that i am patronising you or have enmity with you. Come on! In fact, i went out of my way to request you to read my words carefully, and clearly stated that i did not want to feud with you, since i sensed that we would have problems, and wanted to avoid them. I tried my level best to act like a responsible and civil contributor. However, i am sure that in this one instance you are wrong and i'm right for the reasons i stated earlier. But if you still contest my position, then please do as i requested earlier. Until then, let that image remain. I assure you that if the outcome is in your favor, i will respect that. Peace!Joyson Noel (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Shamil basayev.jpg

Just because Basayev is speaking into a transmitter, that does not in itself make the picture unnotable. It is an iconic image of him and is used in both the articles to illustrate him during the Dagestan invasion which he instigated along with Ibn al-Khattab as the principal commander. I have not added it because it looks good. I believe that i have mentioned this before. So, please don't keep removing it as the reason you have provided for doing so is not appropriate. If there is an alternative free image depicting him during the invasion, then please do so. I have surfed the net, but have been unable to find an alternative image. As such, let it be. I have read WP:NFCC and i believe that it fulfills it's criteria for inclusion. Thanks. Joyson Noel (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What needs to be shown? What should he be doing in an image to make it look notable? I'm not being sarcastic. It's an honest question. Yes, it does add something to the article. It illustrates him during the Dagestan invasion as commander of the Chechen mujahideen troops, as i have repeated for the third time. This in itself is a valid reason and justifies it's inclusion to the article. Joyson Noel (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Image Question

Why are you tagging the images on WTKR for deletion when they aren't page of galleries? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason they were put up on the WTKR page is those anchors are no longer at WTKR. Ed Hughes passed away a few years back and was a long standing anchor at WTKR, Jane Gardner was also a long standing anchor at WTKR. But I can understand what you mean, but I think you understand why I would like to keep them. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

image galleries

Please refrain from removing image galleries unless the images are either tagged for deletion, or have been requested for removal (such as via a DMCA Takedown Notice). RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Better nominate the logos for Microsoft, NBC, and Misplaced Pages itself for speedy deletion becuase those are not free if you want to go by that logic. The NFCC actually allows for non-free television station logos and non-free images, the exact opposite of what you were saying it did on my talk page. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop disrupting articles about Polish WWII history, those images are perfectly valid under fair use. You can help by updating tags or rationales, but removing captions and trying to delete the images is disruptive. PS. I should also add that those images are a victim to meta:copyright paranoia, as the author is unknown, and Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs which hosts them has given us permission to use them. They are invaluable to the articles they illustrate, and in no way endanger or disrupt Misplaced Pages - their removal, on the other hand, is. If you disagree, I'd like to suggest that you bring the issue, along with the arguments why each individual article should be removed, to WP:PWNB. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've added FURs to those images, but as far as I can tell most of them had it initially - I am wondering if you looked at their pages? If they were missing some new template, the solution is to add it, not to try to delete a useful image. Please remember we are here to build a useful resource :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'd like you to bring those particular images for discussion at the abovementioned board (we could also link it from MILHIST). Editors there are knowledgeable about the issue, and may help find free replacements. I do agree with some of your decisions - like the fact that we don't need two fair use book covers to illustrate a person - but I think others need to be discussed by a wider community. Perhaps we can prune some of those images, we don't need 10 images of soldiers of the 27th Division, but for example, we certainly need at least one - and you tried to remove the only photo of the 7th Infantry Division (Poland). Let's start such a discussion, and try to reach a consensus; reverting one another is not helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:1Comp obwSambor inspecDrohobycz Burza3.jpg - it is a good quality photo of soldiers of a notable unit (still lacking an article), with weapons, in a forest setting (nice illustration for leśni of Armia Krajowa) that takes time during a notable operation. Now, why do you think it should be deleted? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the user who wrote the rationale. Again you have not answered my question - why do you want to delete it? How is it damaging to this project? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Significance is in the eye of the beholder. I and apparently Mtsmallwood believe it is important. I fail to see how your opinion can overrule ours; hence I suggested a community should discuss this. I have made a post here, feel free to advertise it elsewhere. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"This isn't a matter of opinion". Uh. You don't think it is important. That's an opinion. I think it is. It is an opinion. You think it's just a bunch of irrelevant guys with guns in a forest, hence unimportant. It's an opinion. I think it's a clearly labeled and described group of historically important soldiers, with notable equipment, in notable time and place, none of which can be reproduced. It is also a matter of opinion. As we are deadlocked, since neither one of us can justify his opinion on this, we need other members of community to weight in and contribute their opinion (on whether those photos are important or not), per dispute resolution procedure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What am I doing? From where I stand, I am trying to preserve a rare and informative set of images that are completely of no danger to this project (since the only organization that has claimed any form of copyright over them has given us permission to use). And I see you as trying to delete those images because you seem they are unimportant, where apparently at least three editors (me, Mtsmallwood and original uploader) have evidently thought differently. PS. Please link the IfD(s) at the WikiProject discussion thread I linked below, thanks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Armia Krajowa images

Your recent edits had the effect of blocking captions on about six images on Armia Krajowa. I restored the captions but left in your template that the fair use of the images was challenged. I also called attention to this on the talk page. Now I see that my changes, which was intended to inform question of fair use, and not supersede or preempt it, have all been reverted, and now there are no captions again, only a challenge to fair use. This seems unreasonable under the circumstances without previous discussion on the talk page. 01:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I really don't understand the reasons behind your recent removal of so many important images related to AK as well as other Poland related WW2 articles. I "don't buy" your arguments and I think you are wrong. This is my honest opinion and I think you, being an administrator, should know better that removal of images does not improve the quality of the articles. Looking for for any excuse to remove them is simply counterproductive to the development of this project. God bless you...--Jacurek (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

Tagging and removal of non-free images with good rationale already in place is POVed. You're supposed to be impartial. Why did you remove the extended info for the image I uploaded called File:Irena-Adamowicz.jpg, using misleading edit summary? You deleted a lot of data generated by a bot, calling it: "Cleanup, consolidate rationale and licensing info". What cleanup!? You removed the actual file info, which was totally unnecessary, making it impossible to trace back the process. You're making the lives of others hard with no overriding reason. --Poeticbent talk 02:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)