Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:52, 4 July 2013

This seems unfair...

...why'd you take out the image of April, May and June Duck from the Duck family article? Would it be better off in their Disney Wiki article instead? Just wondering.~~LDEJRuff~~ 1:31, 23 June, 2013 (UTC)

SPI

I just blocked two editors, and filed Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Billsilver1984. Maybe you want to weigh in, as you have been active in reverting these editors as well. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra 12:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Result of the edit-warring complaint about the Danish scouting society

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Werieth reported by User:Evrik (Result: Both warned), which contains a warning for both parties. If you allow the regular process to run its course on the copyright boards, you should have no further problems. If you add or remove any images before the boards have made their decision, blocks are possible. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Learnupon

This seems unfair. Can you explain why this page would be flagged for deletion? LearnUpon is an original and existing entity and is complying with the other lists of LMS entities as per this page here. Can you explain why the page suffers differences compared to DoceboLMS etc? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_learning_management_systems

You are using Misplaced Pages to promote your company (See WP:SPAM). You have an obvious Conflict of interest and shouldn't be editing anything related to your company. Your article doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. Werieth (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, okay, I think I get that, but then I don't quite understand why the other pages are allowed and are legit? With regards providing information about their status and fit to an industry. Can you tell me why or how we can adjust our page to meet the criteria or should these other pages be deleted also? Thanks for help.

You cannot, Misplaced Pages is not a platform to promote your company. We actually react fairly negativity to such actions. Werieth (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Newsjunky12 Hi all, im going to jump into this debate. I think if this article is turned into an actual company article we can keep it. The way it is now is like Werieth said, to much like an advertisement. So as of now I say delete but if you can change it to an actual company article with info about it and not just what it offers I would change my mind.

Hi Newsjunky, thank you for clarifying what the problem is. That makes more sense to me and I will have a look at updating the text used on the page to be more article like. What was confusing me was that the same format and wording was taken from other pages, so I guess if you delete this one then I was thinking why are the other pages not deleted. Leave it with me and I'll update here. Thanks again for the clarification.

Ulster Defence Regiment

You removed three images from Ulster Defence Regiment using WP:NFCC#8 "Contextual significance. 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." In all three cases the images were directly related to the text and would significantly improve the readers' understanding of the topic.

If you have continued objections to these images may I suggest you join the discussion at the talk page and tell us why:

1. The image of an application form isn't related to the provision of application forms. 2. The image of the aftermath of the Glenanne bombing isn't related to the Glenanne bombing. 3. Why a political poster shouldn't be used in the section "Political comment"

In the interim you have been reverted - in good faith. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to see an application to understand the organization, (See #8), the aftermath has its own article and the file is used there no need to duplicate it (See WP:NFCC#3) and the poster isn't mentioned in the text at all and thus cannot pass WP:NFCC#8, even if it was it would be mostly decorative. Werieth (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Having an historic document such as the application form included is an appropriate enhancement to the text which describes where and how application forms could be acquired. The aftermath may have its own article, which is correctly referenced in the text but that doesn't mean that use of the image to illustrate it in the "parent" article is anything less than educational and encyclopaedic. The political poster is in itself a political comment but if you'd taken the time to read the talk page you'd see that the article is being rewritten at the moment and further text will be going into that section to qualify the use of the poster as an illustration.

If you continue to have serious doubts then I respectfully suggest you post an RfC. I cannot see your case proven until item #8 of WP:NFCC, which is the rule you used for removal. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually you are forgetting the second part of #8, which none of these meet. If you think these pass NFCC file a WP:NFCR, and get approval before re-adding them. Werieth (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't accept your comments and I must now warn you that you have broken an arbitration enforcement by making two reverts on a Northern Ireland Troubles page within 24 hours, thereby engaging in edit warring. I respectfully suggest you revert yourself. If you fail to do so I will raise a complaint with Arbcom. In the meantime I have made an RfC. I suggest you comply with ALL guidance provided for wiki users, not just the ones which suit you. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC is not the correct venue, WP:NFCR is. Werieth (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:TROUBLES articles: reminder re 1RR

Pursuant to a message on my talk page I'm warning you regarding a breach of the 1RR on troubles. On examination I think this was a good faith mistake so take this as a reminder that pages covered by the Troubles RfAr is subject to one revert per person per 24 hours. I'll also remind you that the exception to 3RR for removal of Non free content applies only when that content is "unquestionably" in violation of the non-free content policy. As such WRT two of the three images I see exactly where your rationale in policy exists but your point on ] is debatable (I think the argument for keeping is tenuous but even still it's not unquestionably in violation as the file is about recruitment).
Furthermore please bear in mind that all WP:TROUBLES articles are under probation and covered by discretionary sanctions. It was inappropriate for you to delete SonOfSetanta's RFC eventhough you were correct that NFCR is the right venue. I or another uninvolved sysop could/would have closed that with a note pointing to the NFCR discussion. SonOfSetanta's action although incorrect in opening a talk page discussion is well within teh bounds of a good faith mistake--Cailil 13:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Your reverts

May I respectfully suggest that now you have been made aware of the 1RR ruling by a sysop that you take the correct and honourable course of action and revert your removal of these images as per the ArbCom ruling. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review policy, WP:NFCC is what I use to review how non-free files are being used. The correct action was taken by me in removing non-compliant files. Werieth (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out to you by Calil (a sysop) you are in breach of WP:1RR. This is clearly signposted at the top of the talk page. Calil has observed this is obviously a good faith error on your part but it has now been pointed out to you several times that you are in breach of ArbCom conditions for posting on articles concerning The Troubles - WP:1RR. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. If you fail to revert yourself I will be lodging a request for enforcement at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

As I've pointed out to you before: following one set of guidelines alone is not acceptable. You must follow ALL guidelines.

Do the correct thing and revert yourself until such times as a decision is made after due discussion.

SonofSetanta (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

NFCC enforcement is exempt from editwarring policy. If you must drag this to arbcom go ahead, Ill leave it up to them to {{trout}} you. Werieth (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have left a note to SonofSetanta telling him to stop this. There was nothing wrong with your inital removal - you don't need to reinstate the material. The problem lies in the breach of 1RR. And BTW don't rely on exemptions - they don't gauarntee amnesty--Cailil 14:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)