| Revision as of 22:26, 25 June 2011 editΔ (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers35,263 edits →Your wanton removal of images← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:50, 25 June 2011 edit undoΔ (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers35,263 edits Archiving 11 sectionsNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{/top}} | {{/top}} | ||
| == Your removal of image with broken rationale == | |||
| I noticed your recent edit to ]. The rationale was created in good faith and was broken by an article move, would it not be more constructive if you corrected the link? Also, look at the mess you have made to this article - ]. ] 15:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tps}}For the first one, yes, that would be, but it is sometimes quite a task for someone not familiar with the article to find that. | |||
| :For the second, I have removed the other fields for now (hopefully the rationale can be fixed so the edits can be undone). I would call this more a problem of the template, it should not display anything if the filename is not given for some obscure reason. I hope this helps. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 16:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *The image description page contained a (rather weak, and still weak) rationale for the article "Anywhere". That article is a disambig page noting the existence of four different songs/albums under that title. That image description page does not have any indication as to which album/song the image belongs. Δ acted properly; the image must have a rationale for each use of the item under ] #10c. He is not required to conduct research to identify where the image properly belongs, if it might be apparent as to where. It's a guessing game, especially across a wide number of articles where this enforcement is happening. Please be aware that this work has at times been done by a bot, which also does not do any research to guess where images belong. As to the "mess" he made with the article? He . There is no "mess" resulting from that removal that wasn't created when the sound file was improperly added to the article. You are of course welcome to fix these problems and/or prevent them from being problems by following ] when adding non-free content to articles. --] (]) 16:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:Arguably, the NFUR on that .ogg was fine -- the only thing it was lacking was an explicit link to the article, but the Featured Article it was used in was clearly indentified. And yes, he made a mess -- the template he pulled the file out of rendered improperly with the file removed but the description fields left in. He should have gotten everything out, not just the file link. In any case, NFUR template added and info restored to the FA.--] 16:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| It is not "sometimes quite a task", you just click on the image to go to the file and look at 'File links'. ] 16:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Its not always that simple, Ive seen some complete clusterfucks that took me hours to sort out. ] 16:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :*And as clearly stated in ], "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". Δ is not required to go about trying to find where the image should be used and crafting/fixing a rationale for that use. --] (]) 16:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Of course, this all would not happen if editors would fix the cases in list. I would not know for most what the correct rationale is, but I hear that fixing them must be simple .. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 16:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| The problem is that the article had a valid rationale that was broken by an article move. And also recent edits to ] and ] - both good faith uses of the rationale that fail due to a mistake in linking to the article. ] 16:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Indeed it is a problem. However, it is not a problem that Δ is required to fix. --] (]) 16:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yeah, Δ doesn't ''have'' to fix it, but he could also spend more time trying to fix things rather than just removing them all without any consideration. Consider ''FIRST'' that people ] and made a mistake, ''then'' consider removing the image. There's no need to apply a sledgehammer approach to something that could easily be handled with a simple typo fix. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 02:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *::We have tried nicer approaches and they dont work, Also Please dont bring AGF into this. I am making no assumptions on the actions of the user, I just locate and fix problematic non-free content. If you know of an easier way to fix this large scale problem (besides ignoring it) Im all ears, Ive never seen a feasible solution that works practically except the mass removal approach. ] 02:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Again, Memphisto, the list is here: http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/nfcc/rationale_missing.log.old - Delta, you, Hammersoft, I, no-one is ''required'' to fix the rationales. Everyone who can may of course do it. And as I said, you are right, there are many that are easy to fix. But I am sure that you will in the process of going through that list find many, many, which will take you at least 10 minutes to fix, or you might even find out that you can not fix it yourself. You might even run into cases which you fix, and then someone else figures out you did it wrongly. I'm not sure if it is better having pages without fair-use rationale (basically, a violation of copyright), to have some pages without images which could maybe have been fixed (a pity, sure), or images with wrong fair-use rationales (again, basically a violation of copyright). I know, having the proper rationale there does not exclude problems with copyright, but not having it there or having a wrong one certainly will not help. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 16:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Just to clarify a point - A malformed template does not a copyvio make (despite Beestra's suggestion above). Even if a fair use rationale is incomplete or inadequately formed or even "wrong" according to the editors who frequent this page, the fair use of photo does not depend on the filling out of a form, but where and how it was used. When is the last time you saw fair use templates on the ] when Jon Stewart is commenting on video taken from some place. ] (]) 23:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::We do not use fair use, our policy is ] which is much stricter and has more limits than fair use. Which is why you do not see it being called fair use. NFCC is crystal clear, it must have a rationale in place or be removed. The burden is on those who wish to include the copyrighted content to provide said rationales. ] 23:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok. So take everything I wrote, and substitute "fair use" with "non-free" and the conclusion is the same. A malformed template does not a copyvio make.] (]) 23:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It isnt a copyvio but it is a clear violation of our non-free content policies. ] 23:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Please tell that to Dirk. Regards. ] (]) 23:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Dirk used the phrase ''basically a violation'' which it is, whether its on wikipedia or on the Daily show, there must me a fair use rationale. Its not always a template it could be much much less, (sometimes like the Daily show its implied) however wikipedia policies require our rationales to be clearly stated and defined for each use. If you use non-free content without a valid rationale (whether its on wikipedia or the Daily Show) you can get sued for violations of copyright. ] 00:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No, Dirk uses that phrase regualrly, either as a scare tactic or reflective of a deep misundertanding of law. And you yourself, if you wish to be active in the area, should understand that the presence or absence of a written FUR has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not an owning party brings suit. FUR's are solely to prove due dilgence on the part of the volunteer editors here, acting ''en masse''. They will never prevent the WMF (or individual editors) being sued, nor will they prevent a finding of culpability if the FU rationale (written or not) is found deficient. ] (]) 00:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Fran, using any copyrighted material (under fair use or any other claim) is a copyright violation, however the law (fair use) gives use the right to violate their copyright under specific grounds. Neither I nor Dirk have ever stated that NFURs are the end all, they are just one part of the bigger picture here, and under ] they are required. I am probably one of the top 10 users on this wiki with the most knowledge about non-free content, and our polices in regard to them, so please take your herrings somewhere else. ] 01:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That's great news that you are one of the 10 editors here with most expertise in these matters. Perhaps you can explain to me then, preferably citing case law or learned opinion, how fair use of a copyrighted work constitutes a violation of copyright? 'Cause it seems to me that by definitionm it does not. Let's leave aside the way the "copyvio" claims only come out when a written FUR is missing, let's just go with your self-proclaimed expertise in this area: if reuse of a copyrighted image is permitted under fair-use, and would be found by a court of law as non-violative of such laws and statutes, then how exactly would it be a "copyright violation"? I'm glad you've serlf-identified as such an expert and I await your informed commentary, failing which, could you identify the other nine experts here? ] (]) 01:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Simple fair use is the defense of the copyright violation and the grounds for violating it are defended with a rationale. I could go out and get case law and facts that defend my point of view, however our ] goes far above and beyond what fair use is, and thus case law would not really apply too well because our policy is far far more strict than the law. Please take a few moments before posting to run your comments through a spell checker please. ] 02:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::OK, I asked you, as one of the top experts on the subject, to point me to some or any commentary which declares fair use to be a "violation" of copyright and you apparently decline to do so. I'm quite familiar with the WMF resolution and the local project interpretation. I do understand that local policy goes beyond fair-use law, I suppose you've missed my occasional posts outlining exactly that right here on your very own talk page in the past. I asked specifically about the wording of "copyvio" when the usage is demonstrably fair, and I took pains to point out that a written rationale is not part of that ''under law''. You've not responded to my actual point. So I'll ask again: please either stop conflating lack of a written FUR with a copyright violation for which one could be sued; or explain to me why lack of an FUR is no different than blatant copying without attribution which any editor or court in the land would recognize as blatant and punishable copyvio; or please direct me to the nine other experts here, who may be able to offer more response than "'cause I say so". <small>And thanks for that advice about using a spell-checker, I'll definitely consider it in futrue. :)</small> ] (]) 03:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{od}}<blockquote>''Fair Use: An affirmative defense to copyright infringement set forth in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 107) that allows certain persons or entities to use, access, copy, distribute, remix, publicly perform, or publicly display limited portions of protected material for certain purposes''</blockquote> | |||
| ::Quoted from Yale's library. ] 03:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK thanks. I think what you're getting at there is the "affirmative" part of "defense", as in if there is no written FUR, then the defense is not affirmative but rather passive (i.e. could be proved later) and thus invalid? I dispute that interpretation, but thanks for finally drawing it out. Usage of a copyrighted image is either protected as fair-use (in which case, by my reading, the defense will inevitably be affirmative and there is no copyvio) or it is not (in which case, as in a purely decorative image, like a photo of the Grateful Dead on drugs taken by a Rolling Stone photog, it has no justification and violates reproduction rights). My whole point here is and has always been that it is not correct to label any image use which lacks a written rationale as "basically a copyright violation". That's simply not true, it depends absolutely on the case at hand. (Unless of course you want to label any and all NF images as copyvios) I really think the various discussions would best be served by reference to actual facts (like your quoting of text) rther than heated rhetoric, and we should be avoiding this copyvio monster when we could be instead discussing application of our own interpretation of WMF policy. I'll still likely be arguing with you about that too, but much less so than when "copyvio" gets tossed into the argument. ] (]) 03:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :(multi-e/c, this is to DB) Beetstra, here you are again trotting out that "violation of copyright" meme. Can you please explain to me (or can anyone else here please explain) how an image which clearly shows that it is the property of a rights-holder, used without a project-mandated fair-use rationale, is in any way a copyright violation? Your wild-eyed rhetoric does a huge disservice those genuinely interested in adhering to minimal non-free content. I'm willing to stand corrected, otherwise I really think you should drop your use of such drivel. ] (]) 23:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :*Franamax; refering to anyone as having "wild-eyed rhetoric" is rather ]. If you can't engage Dirk or Δ in a civil manner, please refrain from commenting at all. Thank you, --] (]) 02:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry, but I find Franamax's comments on the ''claims of both DB and Δ'' quite accurate. The Fair Use Rationale is a Misplaced Pages thing. It is not a requirement in any law in any country. Too many people are taking that rule and using it as a sledgehammer to figuratively club people who make an honest mistake. Overall, they fix lots of small problems, but create a smaller number (but still a significant quantity) of more major problems! This incident here is a perfect example. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 02:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We dont have fair use rationales. We have non-free use rationales which are different. ] 02:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::OK, I'll bite. How are they different? <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 05:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The first one explains how a given use is in accordance to Fair use law, the second explain how it is in accordance to Misplaced Pages's non-free content policy. --] 01:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hammersoft, I'm not setting out to be uncivil, I'm just trying to nail down the wording. "Copyright violation" has a very specific meaning, not least right here at English Misplaced Pages where it wakes my admin instincts (and my editor instincts from long before I became an admin) to remove on sight. I've asked for clarification on this before, apparently none is forthcoming. Discussions of image use without a written FUR invariably get cluttered up with "then it's a copyvio OMG!!". I don't believe that to be true and I can't get anyone to actually show me why it is. If all usage of copyrighted images are ''ipso facto'' copyvios, then please show me why that's true, that's all I'm asking. I'll shut up after that, I just want some authority other than the random opinions of Misplaced Pages editors. In other areas of copyright, I know a very very good editor who backs up her opinions with cited and cogent arguments, but I'm not going to ask her to get involved in this. I really think this "copyvio" argument should be put to rest. I'll reiterate, raising the spectre of copyvio when the problem is lack of a policy-mandated FUR is a mis-statement of the actual situation. It doesn't mean any image should be kept or not, it means that I dispute the language used by editors involved in this topic. ] (]) 03:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::See above: Fair use, is the defense for specific cases of copyright violates that have been deemed acceptable under the law. ] 03:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Franamax, the point is not the direct legal problem, or whatever. These images are copyrighted, they are non-free. Just displaying or using them would be disallowed per copyright laws. However, there is such a thing as fair-use - if you can make a case that the image is used under those fair-use rules, then you are allowed to use them. If that case is not made, you are not allowed to use them. The point is not that we 'OMG we are sued by someone', the point is, that the foundation has specifically told us to make sure that for every use of a non-free image we need to have a fair-use rationale (actually, the Foundation says it stronger - the foundation excludes the use of non-free material completely, but the individual projects can write an excemption, but with strict rules - have a fair-use rationale in place - see of the Foundation). You are right in a way that the legal risk is minimal, chances of it being a legal problem are minimal etc. etc. - but it is one of the few things that have been put onto us by the Foundation, something where ] does not apply to, the Foundation requires us to do this. It does not matter that the whether it is called copyvio, whether it is copyvio or not, or whatever - it is a requirement which everybody on this 'pedia should abide to. (Re-)insertion of non-free images without fair-use rationale is a blockable offense following out of a Foundation Resolution, and technically, a display of a non-free image without fair-use rationale (or in violation of other parts of the fair-use law) is a copyright violation - Misplaced Pages is using, and technically, making money with, an image for which someone else is owning a copyright. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 07:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Franamax, I think we are talking in different directions. Lets try and turn this around. You are right in a way, that it may still be possible to make a case for fair-use of an image, and hence even without the fair-use rationale it may be fair-use if it is displayed properly, but there are many cases where it is not. There are many images here displayed on pages where you can not make a case for fair-use (the problem is even worse, there are images with a fair-use rationale which is not valid for the specific use of the image - at the moment we do not always detect that). And I am not disputing that in many cases of images a fair-use case can be made, the point is, that in many cases it was not made (or it was broken in process, but that is also not always easy to detect), and in many cases it can not be made. | |||
| Many of the images ∆, Hammersoft, others and I remove do not have a (valid) fair-use rationale (for whichever reason), which is a mandatory requirement per Foundation Resolution. But quite some of them do not have a (valid) fair-use rationale, ánd such a fair-use rationale can not be made. The former set is indeed not strict in violation of copyright, the latter set is. I may be exaggerating with calling everything without fair-use rationale a copyright violation (more strict, it is 'just' in violation of a Foundation Resolution), point is, that a lot of the material without (and probably also with ..) is not allowed under fair-use in the position where it is. | |||
| Now, if editors start edit warring about cases where the fair-use rationale was not there but probably can be made .. OK - still it is a requirement per a Foundation Resolution, though there will, probably, not be real problems coming from it when the fair-use rationale is not there. However, I have now in the last couple of days run into a couple of cases where editors yell, kick, edit-war, etc. etc. about cases where there was no fair-use rationale, and where such a rationale can not reasonably be written - the use is simply, plainly disallowed - there were cases which are simple violations of copyright. You can disagree with the point that images for which a fair-use could maybe be made should not be removed from display (though they are then still in violation of a Foundation Resolution - point is, for these cases it is easy to just write the FUR). Many editors just stand aside and think 'so what, it is fair-use'. The point is, editors also stand aside happens when there is no fair-use, where the image is in violation of copyright. And I am sorry, it is not ∆ (or mine, or whichever bystanders') task to find out whether the case for fair-use could be made, spend 10 minutes on the 250k+ non-free media files on Misplaced Pages to check all usage, it is the task of the editors wishing to include the image. Whether it is fair-use without rationale given, or not fair use at all - the images have to comply with the Resolution of the Foundation. | |||
| So simply, if there is an image, and one wants to re-include it, get the rationale there. Do not edit-war to keep the image there without rationale - that rationale is a requirement, whether or not it is obvious fair-use or not, the burden is on the one who wants to include. Still, all these discussions here on ∆'s talkpage or mine go the same way, we have to write the rationale, if it is 'obvious' fair-use then we should not remove it - the requirement is that it needs a fair-use rationale, so if you want to (re-)include the image, get the rationale correct first. I can point editors again and again to and ask them to solve the problems (if it is that easy), editors can be warned that there will be in due time a process of image removal on 'their' set of articles and ask them to get the required fair-use rationales in place (and check the ones that are there in the same go, there may be invalid ones), but nothing is going to happen there. So it would come down to ∆, and maybe 3 or 4 other volunteers to go through the 250k+ articles to check and write all rationales. While a) a significant part of it is just in plain violation of copyright, b) it takes for some up to 15 minutes per image to get the fair-use rationale correct .. the work is now pretty slow, images are removed on a relative slow rate, and the tens of thousands of editors (who were pre-warned in some cases) all have to do 1-2 pages every now and then. The other solution would be to give every active editor 25-30 pages to solve, if they do 5 a day we are ready in a week. But asking the public never helped, yelling at the messenger also does not help, and still there are violations of copyright, and even more where the images do not fulfill the required points as given by the Foundation. I hope this explains. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 07:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Arthur Adams (comics)== | |||
| Hi. The rationale was being added to the image while you were in the process of impatiently reverting the article and leaving a newbie template message on my page. Next time, please try to exercise a little bit of patience. You might also check up on the other user's history to see if they're an experienced editor; If they're a veteran editor of over 51,000 edits since 2005, and an administrator since 2007, that ''might'' mean that they're addressing the very matter brought up by the original removal of the image, which was the case here. Leaving a non-customized template message on their talk page that mentions images of living people (which the image in question is not) and block warnings under a month-and-year heading (which is typically only used on anonymous IP users' talk pages, and not those with username accounts) is slightly overkill. ] (]) 03:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Ive seen administrators completely screw up with regards to non-free content, I treat all users equally. Also you should have a valid rationale prior to adding the file. Whether you have 1, 100, 1000 or 100,000 edits it really doesnt make too much of a difference. Everyone gets treated equally, I too have been around since 2006 and I have over 120,000 edits but that really doesnt matter. ] 03:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::PS example of a major admin fuckup and the lashing they got for it ] 14:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Nightscream, if you have a different suggestion for a template to use in these cases, or would like to create one, please feel free to suggest or create one. As is, that's the one we use. I concur with Δ's comments regarding experience. All users in good standing are equal, and there is no idea of some being more equal than others simply because they have more time and/or edits on the project. The Foundation has been trying to come up with ways to encourage new users to stick around. Treating 'experienced' editors as somehow more deserving of a higher status here is antithetical to new users. --] (]) 14:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have no interest in suggesting different templates, since the ones in use now are perfectly fine, and since that is completely irrelevant to this matter. If ''you'' or anyone else wants to change them, that's ''your'' area of interest, not mine. For my part, the Attribution 3.0 template that I used when uploading my photos of the November 2008 Big Apple Con--including the one of Frank Lucas that Δ deleted '''without just cause''', under the mendacious claim that it was a "copyright violation"--a matter he has still not explained--is the same template I'm using today. I leave the nature and evolution of the templates to others such as yourself. I simply use what is mandated. | |||
| ::As for "treating all editors equally", using non-customized template messages when contacting experienced editors is considered inappropriate among members of the community. That is not ''my'' point of view, it's the point of view of others. I've simply conformed to it. If you two are unaware of this practice, then that's ''your'' ignorance, not mine. | |||
| ::Thus, your use of a non-customized template that mentioned photos of living persons when was not one (unless you think Mr. Adams is really hirsuite), and a block warning (when I merely reverted the photo ''right before'' fixing the rationale), combined with the indication by Kate's Tool that you accumulated (not 120,000 since 2006), led me to conclude that you were a newbie. But if you really have accumulated 120,000 edits since 2006, then that makes your behavior all the more inexcusable. If you have a legitimate concern over copyright, you don't outright delete a file using a false rationale of copyright infringement, you '''leave a message on the uploader's page''' inquiring about it first, and then delete it if no response is given after some time. You did not do this, nor have you yet explained why you did this. | |||
| ::But don't believe me. Continue unilateral deletion of files using false copyright infringement accusations, without notifying the uploader first, and then leave uncustomized template messages onto veteran editors' pages, and see how they react. Feel free to ignore the advice I've just given you. Keep it up, and in time, others will let you know about it as well. ] (]) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::*] is an essay. It has every bit as much standing at ]. I shall remain "ignorant", thanks. As to concluding someone with 25,000 edits and a year here is a newbie? Ok. At what point does an editor here pass your threshold for what constitutes a non-newbie? As to the removal, the image was removed for failing ] #10c. If you believe images should be retained without there being a rationale for that use present, you may wish to approach the Foundation to request they change their stance as expressed at #4 of ]. In any case, casting aspersions is unhelpful. --] (]) 18:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''"WP:DTTR is an essay."''' I didn't say anything '''about''' WP:DTTR. I pointed out what is a practice according to members of the community, something I would not merely dismiss out of hand as you seem to do. | |||
| :::'''"At what point does an editor here pass your threshold for what constitutes a non-newbie?"''' My explanation above details what I concluded '''at the time''' that Delta/Triangle (sorry, I don't know how to make triangles on my keyboard) was a newbie. It was an explanation of my perception at the time, and not some type of value judgment. But if you really want an answer to your question, I'd say an editor is no longer a newbie when they have a reasonable command of how Misplaced Pages works, such that they do not make false accusations of copyright infringement, make a point of communicating with image uploaders, and familiarize themselves with the right way to communicate with members of the community. | |||
| :::'''"If you believe images should be retained without there being a rationale for that use present..."''' Thank you for making it clear that you either are not reading my messages, or are being deliberately churlish. I didn't say anything '''about''' images being retained without a rationale. I already explained clearly above the matter regarding the rationale, and if you're either too illiterate or too lazy to read and comprehend this, then perhaps you should not engage me in discussion. | |||
| :::'''"...you may wish to approach the Foundation to request they change their stance as expressed at #4 of ]."''' That item has no bearing on the image in question, since it's free-content, and not a copyright violation that requires any sort of exemption. | |||
| :::'''"n any case, casting aspersions like this is unhelpful."''' I made the edit summary that I thought was appropriate, as I'm quite tired of obnoxious deletionists like Triangle who make false accusations and no attempt to communicate with others, as well as persistent liars like yourself who think repeatedly putting words in other people's mouths constitutes "discussion". If you don't like my edit summaries, then tough shit. ] (]) 06:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::* Churlish? Illiterate? Lazy? I note that you've now been blocked for incivility. I'm happy to discuss issues with you if you remain civil. --] (]) 13:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ATSU SOMA == | |||
| I am still new with some wikipedia issues but I believe the logo used was within the means described above. If you could please state why it does not meet the above guidelines I would be glad to make sure that the image passes wikipedia tests. In addition, this is not the first article that this image is used on. I obtained it from another wikipedia website. Thanks. --] (]) 19:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *As per the , the file ] was removed from ] for lacking a rationale for that use. On Misplaced Pages per ] #10c, all non-free items must have a specific fair use rationale on the image description page for each use of a non-free item. That is not present for this logo for this article. Instructions on how to write an appropriate fair use rationale are available at ]. Thanks for asking! If you have other questions please ask. Thanks, --] (]) 19:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Not knowing about these issues when I placed it I took no time to make sure it was legal as it was already on another page. Now that I look at the file it appears to have a Non-free media use rationale of about 15 lines. Speciffically it states, <i>"Because it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary.</i> Does it need a specific rational for each page? Is a new discription page made for each place the image is located? Other schools who have simular rational are ] and ]. It is noted that Harvard has the approval of the school (which is significant) but yet, if I understand correctly not required (as in the example of BYU). Apart from these issues our logo appears the same. | |||
| :I will be quite stuck on this issue until it is resolved yet I am willing to learn. I am however convinced that it can be made correct according to wikipedia standards and... It would be hard to convince me otherwise. What do you think? Thanks! --] (]) 20:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :*As ] #10c notes, you need to have a separate, specific rationale for each use. ] is a good demonstration of that. --] (]) 22:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Great explanation. Thanks! It would be nice if next time it were flagged rather than deleted (I dont know if there is a way of doing that). Thanks for keeping the wiki world in order! --] (]) 22:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *It should be good now. I will replace the image. Let me know if anything is incorrect.--] (]) 22:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Image removal from a page - why? == | |||
| I noticed you removed from the ] page on the basis that it did not have a rationale for being used on this page. What "rationale" do you need? I tried reading the ] and I still don't understand why you removed it from the page. If it doesn't have a valid non-free use rationale, well then why didn't you remove it from the ] page too? (Horizon Air is a subsidiary of Alaska Air Group, btw) Please explain, I'm confused. | |||
| Thanks, </br>] (]) 20:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Because it had a rationale for ], but not for ]. Non-free content must have a separate rationale explaining why it can be used in each article it's used in.--] 20:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: Would the following be a good explanation for why it should be on the Alaska Air Group page? ''Alaska Air Group is Horizon Air's parent company, and therefore should contain this image as well'' I've never encountered this issue before, so I'm unsure what would be a good Non-free use rationale. —] (]) 20:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: The fact that you need a separate non-free use rationale for each article is not explained on ], so I didn't know. Kinda figured this was the issue, though. —] (]) 20:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's hard to get much clearer than "A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article. The name of the article the image is used in must be included in the rationale.", which is the fourth paragraph in the article....--] 21:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: Oh, and, Could you please explain how to add another rationale for use on Alaska Air Group's page? As I've said already, I'm new to this kind of issue. —] (]) 20:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| <nowiki> | |||
| {{Non-free image rationale | |||
| |Article = <EXACT NAME OF THE ARTICLE> | |||
| |Purpose = <WHY MUST THIS PAGE HAVE THIS EXACT FILE> | |||
| |Replaceability = <YES/NO CAN THIS FILE EVER BE REPLACED WITH A FREE FILE?> | |||
| }} | |||
| </nowiki> | |||
| :Just fill out the above removing everything in <>. ] 20:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Honestly, I don't think the image is necessary at all...anywhere...the livery scheme is in fact in use . This makes it replaceable. I'm going to mark it as such. --] (]) 21:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, we need to keep it here until someone takes a picture of the new livery. A search doesn't bring up any pictures besides this one. And of course, we can't just just steal the image from that article, either. '''We need to wait until we get a new image before deleting the one there.''' If anyone could take a picture of the plane in the new livery, that would be great. —] (]) 22:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :*As per ] #1 where it says "...or could be created", we do not retain non-free content waiting for someone to create the free content if the free content CAN be created. Since one or more planes now exist in this livery, we can create free content imagery of it. I'm sorry, but the image has to go. --] (]) 22:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Just a note == | |||
| First: This is not directed at Delta (there's a template to make that "Δ"???). The only reason I post this here is because so much of the non-free issues seem to be discussed here. Assuming that there are many involved with "non-free" issues have this page watchlisted, I wanted to drop a link to a new essay. ] and I have made an effort to come up with an essay to explain a lot of what gets repeated here on an almost daily basis. That essay is now at: ]. Naturally any and all are welcome to offer input. Thanks for your time .. (and for use of your page Delta) — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 21:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Thanks for the heads up! This should probably be linked into edit summaries when doing 10c enforcement. --] (]) 22:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Thanks! I've seen it. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 09:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :already added :) ] 11:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Homage== | |||
| I was commenting on the issue - that the actions degrade the article , and that in any case just removing the image and not restoring the words is vandalistic and lazy. I t is a careless approach to the encyclopedia which you share I guess, but I don't. is that ok sir? ] (]) 12:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :''you lazy tosser'' is a clear personal attack, any further comments that are personal attacks will result in you being blocked. ] 12:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thomas Clarkson== | |||
| I'm confused as to why the image on ]... | |||
| *Article = Thomas Clarkson | |||
| *Purpose = Used under fair use rationale to depict Thomas Clarkson. | |||
| *Replaceability = No known free use images are known to exist. Photograph is not replaceable Thomas Clarkson died in the 20th century. | |||
| ... is not a valid and specific rationale? Best Regards. ] (]) 13:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::You wrote a rationale for ] but the file was being used on ] a different article. ] 13:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :] is not ] .. it may be that you linked to the wrong article (but as I don't know for sure how either of them looks like (maybe Δ does), ...)? I hope that this explains. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 13:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ] wore a wig, and ] had a natural side-parting. Best Regards. ] (]) 14:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::That should be clear then. :-) --] <sup>] ]</sup> 14:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == wait a little == | |||
| Hello, Delta. Wait a minute !I am working on this right now. ] (]) 14:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Then please do not re-add the file until the issues are fixed. ] 14:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Unfixable, this image is replaceable. It should be deleted. I am sorry. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 14:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Something went wrong == | |||
| , I fixed it. --] (]) 15:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :wasnt automatic, just wasnt careful enough with the removal. ] 15:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Incorrect file deletion == | |||
| {{talkback|User_talk:Beetstra#Incorrect_file_deletion}} | |||
| *Note on the section title; the "incorrect file deletion" was an entirely accurate file removal. --] (]) 15:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == The Warlock of Firetop Mountain == | |||
| Greetings - methinks you are perhaps a tad overzealous in jumping in right now given that I am adding information as we speak (something someone above has also pointed out) and that many ''other'' images are far less likely to pass muster. I did not upload this image, and am simply trying to fix it. Many missing details have since been added. If wishing to assist, can you advise as to what is still missing, as I'm only going by the guidelines? No animosity here - I can see you've already got your hands full with another editor. Just trying to get these articles up to scratch! Regards ] (]) 03:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ''The Sopranos'' non free use rationale== | == ''The Sopranos'' non free use rationale== | ||
Revision as of 22:50, 25 June 2011
The Sopranos non free use rationale
Hello, could you be so kind to tell me how can I change the non free use rationale for The Sopranos picture in order to use it in Italian American article? I wonder how - just because the picture already has another non free use rationale regarding a different article. I think that the latter could be suitable also for using it in the Italian American article, cause the rationale is pretty much the same: provide a visual description of the subject, even if this case I would like to show the elements of Italian American stereotyping. In addiction, I would like to exploit your knowledge asking the same question about Mario Puzo's The Godfather book cover that you removed. Best regards. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Neither image is really needed and would thus fail WP:NFCC#8 ΔT 11:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
re: User talk:J Greb#File:Star Sapphire power ring.jpg 2nd pass
Thank you for the templating about an image that does have a complete FUR.
If you feel the FUR falls short, please discuss it on the article's talk page in line with WP:BRD or nominate the file through MfD.
Please do not resort to deletion through orphaning at this point as that can be seen as disruptive.
Thanks.
- J Greb (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that your image did not have a FUR for "Star Sapphire (comics)", it had one for "Star Sapphire" (a disamb. page). I've fixed that for you, but the rationale has to include the exact article name for use. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah. Thanks. I though I had copied the full article title over after Beetstra's run. Sorry about that. - J Greb (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Your wanton removal of images
Hello, though i understand why you are removing images from pages, you might want to tell users (such as myself) how to create a rational for an individual page since the policy is relatively new. I myself have no idea how to do it, ive never been asked to before. You should also be careful in removing images and double check them before you remove them. One that i reverted already had a pre-1923 public domain tag on it, and several others were obvioisly published before 1923 (several german world war 1 images).XavierGreen (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just a few points, I do tell users how to fix the issues, Ive got a link to a guide to writing rationales and a FAQ both linked in the edit summary and a fairly detailed edit notice. Second, This policy is not new, its been around for at least 4 years (probably longer). Third every image I remove is in Category:All non-free media which classifies it as non-free. If it is tagged under a free license please ensure that it does not have a non-free rationale, because most of those templates classify the file as non-free and will lead to it being removed again. ΔT 22:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)