Misplaced Pages

User talk:Δ/20110601

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Δ

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Δ (talk | contribs) at 16:09, 22 June 2011 (Archiving 7 sections). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:09, 22 June 2011 by Δ (talk | contribs) (Archiving 7 sections)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Δ. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Thoughts on the AN discussion

I find the fact that many people are seeking more restrictions on me asinine. Other than the one outburst I have remained very civil. If you don't like policy get it changed, don't shoot the messenger. Here is a counter proposal, people want me to communicate more, when I do communicate people don't listen, take for example the issue with currency recently, there where countless notification across multiple talk pages and wikiprojects. The users dont give a fuck until me and Hammersoft actually start removing the overuse (after a month of attempted discussions). Also take a look at Template:Politics of South Africa I left a explicitly clear reason for the edit twice and was reverted both times because of WP:ILIKEIT completely ignoring the core policy which is non-negotiable about NFC in userspace/templates. Here is my proposal create standard set of templates (the uw style works well) about incorrect usage of NFC, add it to twinkle and stress that files must be left out until the issues are resolved with them. If the issues are not resolved and the users insist on ignoring policy, admins must be willing to step in, and either protect the image free article, delete said files, or block the user until they get the point. I often try to explain NFC but too many users refuse to listen. Adding more restrictions on me will not solve the problem, we need a wider community push to get files in line with policy. This worked fairly well back in 2007-2008 with both the TV episode image removal and the push to ensure that all files have at least one rationale. Another request that should be made, (and Ive asked for this for years and have been ignored) is that admins who monitor both my talk page and the discussions I'm in would actually do something about the personal attacks directed towards me, instead of ignoring them, we could avoid situations like what recently happened when I was insulted and attacked one too many times by the same user. ΔT 14:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

NFC warning templates would be useful - perhaps you could draft something for that. I would also be willing to conditionally unblock you in order to participate in (i) the AN discussion about your possible sanction and (ii) the NFCC enforcement RFC. (This would be under a very generous interpretation of Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Temporary_circumstances_unblocks, because of the role of NFCC in your editing and in your edit restrictions.) Editing any other pages, however virtuously or trivially (until your 1-week block expires, i.e. 14.41 6 June, UTC), would result in a reinstatement and doubling of the original block. If you'd like that conditional unblock, let me know; if you're afraid you might not stick to it, then don't go for it. Rd232 14:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • With regards to the RfC, I haven't contributed because I think it's a dead end. Many people, myself included, have tried to get the community to a better place with regards to NFC and NFCC. It never works. It's a permanently broken system, but it's all we have. Consensus will never move it towards a better place, even if the former or latter existed. Wear I tend to exert my energies is in defending the (horribly stupid, ultimately unenforceable, badly corrupted) line in the sand we have. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. @Δ: I heartily agree, as you know, with the core issues you raise. If it had been me who gutted the numismatics articles rather than you, this debate would not have spun out of control. Why? Because when you're involved, people start invoking the past in an attempt to win the future. It's wrong, absolutely wrong, and an extremely strong reason to suspend the sanctions and have ArbCom explicitly state that use of past sanctions in disputes is irresponsible.
  2. That said, you have repeatedly violated the edit throttle. That was wrong, and there's no disputing that. I do think it's highly improper for people to scream about the edit throttle being violated without pointing to any actual damage caused when the throttle was violated. It's like a "we got you because we wanted to get you, not because you're hurting the project" situation. It again goes back to invoking the past to win the future. Still, you know the throttle is in place and violated it anyways. I'd hate to be under a throttle like that. It would be damned difficult to adhere to.
  3. You don't communicate well. You know it, I know it, so do lots of other people. That's not an attack but objective assessment. Everybody has their limitations. Some situations that you get involved in could be cooled down with more communication. Since that communication isn't your strong suit, passing such situations off to others to handle would be a good idea I think. I'll raise my hand and volunteer for this. Whether there's a new restriction or not, if you come across a situation where you've removed something and later reverted it's reinstatement only to have it removed again, let me know. I'll take care of it. At that point, just step back from it and move on to something else.
  4. Personal insults are rampant on the project. If you look at the body of attacks and the actual responses, the policy is effectively unenforced to the point that the policy has no standing anymore. I am routinely insulted. Portions of my userpage are an homage to that. I can't tell you how many times I've reported being insulted. Result? Nothing. I was even told I was the most ignorant and disrespectful editor on Misplaced Pages, and the people reviewing it declared it wasn't a personal attack. This is far from isolated. It happens all the time. Administrators simply don't want to step into the middle of such drama, and ignore it. We can't change that. The project has, as a whole, gotten to a point where fringe opinion adherents are treated almost with reverence in terms of how much bullshit they can get away with. An editor with considerable experience has almost no leeway. That's reality. I don't know what the solution is.
  5. I want to state again that the work you do here is invaluable. Nobody else does or can do what you've done. It's easy to get down in the dumps about all this crap. Frankly, I've been highly impressed you've stuck it out despite all of it. There are people here who will go to any length to make you look as bad as possible, and they are relentless. Please don't place value in their opinions. I have my own set of editors doing the same with me. I've taken to ignoring their posts. Their posts are frequently as nonsensical as they are illogical, and are extremely disconnected from the reality of what this project is. I choose not to waste my time reading them. If anything of import is raised by them, I figure someone else will write about it enough to bring it to my attention. Since that has never happened, it's so far been safe to conclude their comments remain non-pertinent, and I can continue to ignore them. This might do well for you too. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. Unfortunately, I know ArbCom doesn't have the testicular fortitude to actually get anything done worth while anymore, its a purely political group so they will never in a million years even ever consider such an action, let alone do it.
  2. yeah, I fucked up there and I am quietly taking my lumps for going over the throttle, and not requesting unblock or anything else. I am complaining about the other issues
  3. That is why you have seen me stay out of a lot of discussions here on my talk page because you and several other users have taken care of it for me.
  4. What I would like to see is a zero tolerance policy, on NPA and serious CIVIL issues (for all sides of the table)
  5. Thank you.
You might want to take a look at my monobook.js I added another tool that you might find useful. Also tools:~betacommand/nfcc might be interesting, Im running a NCC#10c scanner over every NFC use. <page title><tab><file name><tab><internal usage hash> ΔT 15:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Yep, I already added that tool. VERY useful! It's serious drudgery going through articles with >10 non-free images on them looking for such violations. Re (3); I kinda figured you were letting others step in for you on discussions here on this talk page, and I've been happy to do it. (4) You'll never see a zero tolerance policy on WP:NPA. Just won't happen. Barring Jimbo coming in and issuing a thousand blocks to forcefully change society here, WP:NPA will remain written on used toilet paper. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Case example on the zero tolerance idea. Quoting someone who recently responded to me, "You really just don't want this image on Misplaced Pages, do you?". Under current community standards, that's as far removed from a personal attack as the geocenter of the Sahara is from the Marianas Trench. Yet, it's a comment on me, not any points raised and DOES violate the "nutshell" shown on WP:NPA. WTF can post comments like this because he knows that nothing will ever be said about his comment. He feels at liberty to freely comment on me, knowing nothing will happen. Frankly, I find it silly for him to do this; it doesn't add to his argument. In fact, it detracts from it. But, there it is. Our culture doesn't support enforcement of WP:NPA. In fact, it's even the opposite. Several times now I've been attacked for showing intolerance of insults by way of WP:HAMMERSOFTSLAW. The irony is exquisitely delicious. The reality here is that if I were to say "Thou art a foul faced loon with intellect of a puffin" to someone I was in a disagreement with, nothing would happen to me. If instead I were to say "You are a fucking asshole, dumb as fuck all", I'd be taken to WP:WQA in heartbeat, probably WP:AN/I too, but probably not blocked for it. That's Misplaced Pages. Ain't it cool? <cough> The point here is that many editors just love to generate drama, and few admins are willing to walk face first into an unshielded fan to 'resolve' the issue (nothing gets resolved really). So, the culture is extreme tolerance of personal attacks because nobody will enforce the policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

take a second look there are two tools there, see example of the newest one :) ΔT 16:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Just to comment: I'm trying to find some reasonable means to validate your excellent NFC work against those that would just rather see you gone from the project regardless of your attempts to abide by the restrictions. Most of the complaints you get are people dissatisfied with NFC policy, but they don't seem to want to take up the changes there and use you as the punching bag instead. Which is why I'm thinking a solution that simply brings any disagreements on NFC enforcement to a venue where your NFC enforcement can be validated is going to help prevent discussions strictly on your talk page from breaking down into incivility (and which, yes, you are right, if someone calls you out for being incivil in a discussion, there's likely someone else being incivil right back to you), and re-enforce the purpose and need of NFC enforcement. So don't please don't take what I'm trying to do at AN in the wrong way, I'm trying to negotiate a difficult set of priorities here. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Then here is a solution: topic ban repeated offenders who try to use me as a punching bag; set up a discussion board with those who actively work with NFC, and point users to that board if they have issues. WP:NFCR not really suited for this in its current format, but a similar board focused on individual page/file uses (kinda like what WT:NFC is being used for now); Make it clear that Shooting the messenger is not acceptable and that the issues need to be focused on. With all of the proposals that Im seeing on AN right now I see nothing productive except making it easier for them to use me as a punching bag; We need to start focusing on the elephant in the room instead of the mouse. ΔT 17:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Politics of South Africa

Regarding your edits to Template:Politics of South Africa yes indeed, the image is not free, however it is a governmental work which is granted for non-commercial use by the South African government. The United States coat of arms (or Great Seal) falls under the same header of copyright law. Also, this image is used on South Africa which has been reviewed many times. If you consider it non-free then it would have to be removed from there as well.

Let me know what you think.

Kind Regards, User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

First File:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg is public domain and is not copyrighted. File:Coat of arms of South Africa.svg is copyrighted and is thus subject to our non-free content policy. Usage of it on Coat of arms of South Africa, South Africa, South African heraldry has been justified with a non-free rationale. Similar rationales cannot be made for its usage in a template. (see WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#9). Using non-free content in decorative situations like this template is not allowed. ΔT 10:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
After going over SA copyright law it seems that the South African Coat of Arms does indeed belong in the public domain as ::according to the Copyright Act § 12 (8) (a):
"No copyright shall ::subsist in official texts of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or in official translations of such texts."
The file ] is from such a source which you can find ::here.
I therefore recommend that all images that are derived from South ::African governmental works have their copyright status amended to the public domain so that they may be used on templates and ::anywhere else where they may have formerly been restricted.
Kind Regards User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

find all articles with same start date

I saw the blocked tag when I opened your talk page. I hope it's not a tremendous burr in your saddle. I wanted to follow up on the data you pulled regarding article start dates. In truth, what you sent was closer to what I wanted than what I had asked for (so kudos for parsing my request better than I wrote it). I found about 330k articles in the list you posted, so I'm curious about the first million comment in your post at the pump. Any idea why the numbers are so different? I see that some articles appear to have been renumbered (e.g., Buddhism), but that seems likely to be a relatively small number - unlikely to comprise 2/3 of articles in any case. If you are willing and able to pull the same data for the remaining articles (time and access permitting), I would love to get the query results. On a somewhat related note, do you know if there is any way to pull article class changes (or even current article class data) without looking at the text table? I know that class and other milestones are stored in a template on talk pages, but the text table is unpleasant to query. Thanks for the data you already provided - even that much is quite interesting. Wikipositivist (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I grabbed page_id 1-1,000,000 and then excluded everything not an article. (thus we have talk pages, user pages exct. that all get page_ids) So what you have is all articles with a page_id >1m. let me look around Ill see about getting the rest up shortly. ΔT 00:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I hear ya

Listen man, we disagree on things and I think you should dial it back (to the point I think you may need to be forced to dial it back), but I agree with you that civility is a two-way street. LessHeardVanU was out of line and I've told him so. I think a warning is sufficient right now. If you feel someone is pushing you around to the point of being hostile, I will stand by you. Let me know and I'll go to bat for you so you don't lose your cool (you can even e-mail me and vent, if you so desire). I don't think what you are doing is particularly helpful all the time, but I also recognize that some people are pushing you around. Just keep a level head and I'll back you up on civility issues (FWIW, I've been targeted by a particularly prolific sockpuppeter with over 300 accounts; he's accused me of all kinds of things including murder). Just chill and keep it civil. — BQZip01 —  01:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, its about frackin time people started to notice that I am normally a very civil person until pushed too far. Other than with the usage of logos I think our views on NFCC are fairly similar. Feel free to jump onto IRC any time and grab my ear if you want to discuss anything. (my nick is Delta or Delta|away normally on the freenode network) I idle in most wiki related channels. I think that if we could get most of the main players on both sides of the NFCC debate together, on IRC where communications are real time, I think we are all fairly similar in regards to our views, and I think a general airing of opinions and discussions, issues, approaches, and ideas would be helpful to both sides.
PS you might want to try adding importScript('User:Δ/NFCC.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js for two useful tools with regards to non-free files and their rationales. ΔT 01:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Good to see such dialogue. Don't you mean Special:MyPage/skin.js? Rd232 01:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No, /common.js applies to all skins, if a user changes skins anything in common.js keeps working, its independent of your skin file, (kinda like a global scripts feature) ΔT 01:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, splendid. Well that seems worth recording in a suitable location, so I made Misplaced Pages:Common.js. Rd232 02:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Image Police Request

Can you please take a look at the many issues with uploaded images as indicated on User talk:Hoops gza? This user has been having a hard time understanding Misplaced Pages policies and the talk page is full of image problem notices. There was also a disturbing post a while back where the user was advised to simply start marking all images as public domain. There is still further an ANI notice about this, and I'm surprised the image issue hasn't drawn more attention. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nicaraguan córdoba

Delta, I've just come across this edit on Nicaraguan córdoba from 6 June, and I want to ask you, in your judgement, whether you think it was really appropriate?

Remember, per WP:NFCC #8 and #3a, the community expects images to be kept which "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic".

In your judgement, can you really affirm that, in stripping the article of every single image apart from the (free) flag of Nicaragua, that you have preserved the understanding that readers were getting of the topic ?

You job is to try to work towards that balance; not to nuke the article into the stone age.

It seems to me that, particularly given the difficulty to describe of any pattern or consistency in the 2009 bills, there is a strong case for illustrating them all. The 2002 series was more consistent, but the images are useful to show the variety and range within that pattern. It is also, I suggest, clearly informative to show what the coins look like.

Given this, can I suggest that the appropriate action would be to identify on the talk page which particular images you believe fail to increase reader understanding; and in the mean time to restore the page to the state it was in before 6 June, to allow informed discussion. I appreciate that you may fear that insufficient attention may be paid simply to such talk-page interventions; but even in the worst case, if you feel there is a legitimate case for deletion, and that your concerns are not receiving proper attention, you can always refer them to WP:FFD and allow the community to decide.

Regardless, I hope you would agree that your edit of 6 June did not leave the article in an appropriate final state, and was therefore not appropriate; and I therefore expect you to reverse it.

If you believe that that edit was an appropriate final state to leave the article in, I have to inform you that I should feel bound to ask the community to consider that view at WP:AN/I; and to review, if that is your judgement, whether it is appropriate for you to continue to act as an enforcer for the community in this area. Jheald (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You must have missed the memo, take a look at 1 cent euro coins,1 euro coins,2 cent euro coins,5 cent euro coins,10 cent euro coins,20 cent euro coins,50 cent euro coins,Coins of the Dutch guilder,Coins of the Philippine peso,Commemorative coins of Poland: 1999,Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Netherlands),Florin (Australian coin),New Design series,One pound (British coin),Peruvian nuevo sol,Shilling (Australian),Threepence (Australian),Vatican euro coins. All of those articles have had large scale reductions of non-free content. This most recent cleanup was started by Hammersoft, and Hammersoft gave plenty of notice. See Talk:Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Netherlands)#Over use of non-free images for one example of many many notices that Hammersoft left, prior to us starting the large scale removals. My removals shouldnt be a final state, what should happen is that the editors of the affected pages should select a small sample of the previous non-free material which they see as the most important and them re-add that. ΔT 01:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • JHeald, to threaten to take this to WP:AN/I to force Δ not to work in this area is wholly inappropriate and absolutely out of line. In as much as you expect Δ to revert his edit, I expect you to apologize for your uncalled for aggression towards Δ. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • JHeald, I second that. First, this has nothing to do with WP:FFD, and the Foundation has asked us to minimise the use of non-free media. As Delta shows, notice was given early on that here something needed to be done, giving enough time for discussion, but (apparently) no-one wanted to do anything about it. Your further threats are totally inappropriate, and I expect you to withdraw them, and to apologize for this aggression (note: this is yet another example of an established editor who, in a first post to Delta on a subject, fails utterly to assume good faith on Delta, ánd is using inappropriate aggression in the same post). --Dirk Beetstra 07:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup of Icon bar

Hi. Thanks for tidying up the text and image appearance in Icon bar. It looks better now, but it's worth noting that some of the images may be rescued. If and when this happens (along with adequate rationales), some of them should be returned to the article. Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

articles by start date

Delta, thanks for the earlier data dump. I went through it and it is quite interesting. I don't want to be a pest, so please let me know if you have real, productive editing to do and don't have time or energy to pull start dates and I can take it back to the pump and cross my fingers. Also, any idea where I can get some $2 bills (I forwarded that link along) :P. Wikipositivist (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I must have forgotten to post the link . Depending on your location (I would assume that your American) If you walk into your local bank they should have them available for you. a quick but related note ΔT 18:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll start plugging away at it tonight. I used to use the old $ coins (not the really, really old ones), but it was a bit of a pain getting people to dig them out of the quarter slot when they failed to look... I'll have to start with $2 bills :) Wikipositivist (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

M.J. Coldwell picture

The M.J. Coldwell picture was not uploaded by me for starters. However, M.J. Coldwell deserves a picture, and that is the one that is currently on his page. Provide a rational for removing it.--Abebenjoe (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Simple it is non-free and does not have a rationale and fails WP:NFC#8 on the article where I removed it. That is three reasons. ΔT 22:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
First off, you should have replied on my wall. Secondly, why the hell didn't you post that in your first edit summary. I have other rights cleared images of Coldwell that I could have used, as opposed to wasting time debating with you.--Abebenjoe (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
If a conversation is started on one talk page, common curtsy and practice is to keep it in one place. Two, wikipedia does not have "walls". Three my edit summary remove files without a ] for this usage was explicit for why it was removed it was non-free and missing a rationale. Upon further investigation I noticed it failed #8 also. Please remember to remain civil at all times and to not blindly revert. ΔT 22:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know where you got your Wiki manners, but if a conversation is started on one talk page, so that the other person knows there is a response, the reply is on that user's page so that they are notified. Two, you used the wrong tag in your edit commit, since I didn't upload the image, you could have stated clearly, that you thought the image was inappropriate due to possible copyright violations. Three don't be so thin skinned.Abebenjoe (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Uh, you need to take a few minutes and read through WP:NFC. I never sated that there was a copyright violation. I did use the correct summary, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include non-free content to provide rationales for every use. For this file there was only one rationale, and it was being used on three separate pages, which means it needed two more rationales. We have watchlists for a reason, I use mine to monitor discussions across multiple pages without getting flooded with new message banners. Also WP:CIVIL is a one of the pillars that wikipedia is founded on, when you come at someone in the aggressive and derogative manner that you did it is un-civil. Its not a matter of thickness of ones skin, its about common curtsy and manners. Again Special:Watchlist is your friend. ΔT 23:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Why did you edit my User Talk Page?

I was obviously using it to test a page yet you removed the image from the infobox and you made corrections to the page. Why did you remove the image yet you didn't do the same in the actual "Forza 2" article? I've undone your edit since I see no reason why you should be messing with my test page. Here's the link to your edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Holygamer&diff=433814861&oldid=433622193 --Holygamer (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NFCC#9 non-free files are not allowed on your talk page. ΔT 13:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't really understand that page! So does it basically say that you can't use non-free images anywhere except for the article page? Why did you make the other edits to my page though? --Holygamer (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Correct, non-free content can only be used in articles. I was just doing minor cleanup alongside my image removals. ΔT 13:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion: you mentioned the specific criterion in your edit summary but didn't wikilink it. It might help a little to do so, either instead of the wikilink to the NFC page or in addition. Rd232 14:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/United Kingdom

  • A: The bot edit removed the "el:" thingy
  • (Additional to the things of interest to you), the Prestonmag edit restored the "el:" thingy and changed the catsort on "NATO Armies ranks and insignia templates"
  • B: Your edit only partially reverted Prestonmag
  • There followed more nuisance edits
  • You then reverted back to version "B:"

Is there any particular reason why you only partially reverted Prestonmag? Do you have any objection to reverting back to the bot edit - i.e. version "A:"? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers. A discussion is going on there about that editor. Coemgenus 15:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Your recent edits to Home Theater PC

I've restored the images you cut out. Of course you didn't bother reading the article since you would have seen the images were relevant there. So you can check of your box, I modified the fair use rationale on each image so that they include mention of the Home Theater PC article since each and every one of them was illustrating Home Theater PC software in use among others.

By the way, you reverted my edits while I was in the process of making the changes to the images that you could have just as easily done. So, please, in the future, help out.Mattnad (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

See /Editnotice#NFUR It is your responsibility to ensure it has a rationale prior to using it in an article, not mine to write it. ΔT 17:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Delta is correct here: your images do not have a separate rationale for the Home Theater PC page as required by WP:NFCC#10c (you have them for the individual hardware pages); thus his removal is legitimate. This can be corrected by adding a second rationale for each non-free image for the use on the HTPC page. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Sigh... do you guys work in the DMV by chance? So your saying that even though the current rationale explicitly mentions Home Theater PC, I have to redo do a separate form? Below is the current AppleTV2 image rational.

{{Non-free use rationale |Article = Apple TV |Description = AppleTV 3.0 interface |Source = Screenshot |Portion = |Low_resolution = Yes |Purpose = To illustrate the latest AppleTV interface in the article dedicated to the product. Also used in the Home Theater PC article, which includes a section on Apple supplied Home Theater PC devices and related software. |Replaceability = The is no free equivalent that could illustrate the interface. |other_information = Included in the ] article which explicitly mentions this software platform and uses this image under fair use. }}

OK. I've now done repeated rationales. I hope this meet with your approval. And if not, how about helping out rather than just deleting?Mattnad (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That should be ok. The reason we require a separate rationale for each image use is a requirement of the Foundation, as each use should be for different purposes - otherwise images can be considered decorative and unnecessary. For example: here, one use is to show the device/interface for the Mac Mini article; the use on the Home Theater PC page is to show one example of a home theater PC device & its interface (specifically the Mac Mini) and some of the common features it shares with other products on the market. They are different reasons and why we want separate rationales. However, you should not expect Delta, or those remove the images, to guess on the rationale if it is lacking. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Like I said... seems to be a very DMVish experience which is when there's a problem, they don't help you, even if the solution is easy and obvious to them. The "not my problem" response is why I suspect Delta gets grief for his or her approach to this.20:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually I could dispute all of the rationales that you duplicated. They are generic rationales that really do not hold much water. When writing a rationale the key thing is to explain why a particular file must be used in a particular article, and why its omission would be detrimental to that (that being the understanding of article). In your current rationales it does not explain why you must use the same image across three separate articles. It really only gives a reason for one article. ΔT 20:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to CHRO-TV, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

Please review our non-free content policy, before re-adding files that violate it. ΔT 17:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did at CHRO-TV, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InMontreal (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You need to check your facts. File:CTV_Two.png lacks a non-free media use rationale for CHRO-TV. Therefore the removal is appropriate. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Ive tried to tell them that but they dont listen. ΔT 17:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are you removing a book cover image from the article regarding the book?

Jirel of Joiry. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The image's rationale linked to Jirel of Joiry, but was being used on a non-redirected Jirel of Joiry (collection); the rationale needed to be fixed to point to the right place which I have done. --MASEM (t) 03:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Reasons behind removing "non-free content overuse" on Commemorative_coins_of_Poland:_1999

Hi,

You wrote that the non-free content is overused.

I believe I took all steps necessary to fulfil Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content_criteria.

Could you please specify exactly what is/was missing, so that I could avoid any deletion in future ?

Article : http://en.wikipedia.org/Commemorative_coins_of_Poland:_1999

Thanks, Jakub— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kupsztal (talk • contribs)

Reasons behind removing "logo" of Romanian national teams of football or beach soccer

there are all governed by FRF (Romanian Football Federation)! please be more careful— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyperuspapyrus (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker)That might be, but all those images need for every single use a proper rationale per WP:NFCC#10c. Please update the rationales on the image description page before inserting the images. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra 09:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


Removal of the Pink Triangle Services logo

Hello. I thought the logo was within the fair use policy for an article on the organization (of which I have a history with). Is this issue that the article is currently only a user draft? And, if so what other steps are needed that I didn't take once it is an article? Sincerely Bygul (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Exactly, non-free files are not allowed in userspace (see WP:UP#NOTSUITED and WP:NFCC Policy 9.). Once the draft has been moved into mainspace, the image can be added back. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Great thank you. My mistake. Bygul (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


Film posters

You being the resident guru of strict interpretation of the fair use criteria, I think we could use your input on the question of the use of film posters in film articles. The editor Amadscientist has been indef'd for making (borderline) legal threats, but I think he has a point, as film posters are hardly ever discussed in the movie articles but are merely used as "decorations": ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

True, they are not discussed, however like logos they are the primary visual representation of the film and thus under the for identification purpose of the non-free content policy (the same way logos and book covers do). Side note (NOT wiki policy) These posters are used as advertisements for said films and thus are spread as far and as wide as possible by most production companies and thus they will never sue us. </end side note> That being said, those posters are how a large majority of people associate with the film (using a single image vs video) so the for identification clause of the NFC is fairly solid, I would be surprised, and wouldnt support their mass removals. ΔT 18:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, the reasoning would be that they are an important identifying illustration, as with sports team logos, company logos, and the like; hence they don't have to be directly discussed in the article. Have I got that right? Also, I fully agree that the use of these small-scale logos amounts to free advertising and it's very unlikely a company would sue us for giving them free advertising. The issue raised by the blocked complainant has to do with "market value"; apparently the market value of the poster itself. That leads me to believe the guy is a collector rather than being connected with any studio. And his threat to "tell everyone he knows in Hollywood" to essentially "boycott" wikipedia is most likely a self-serving bluff. Thank you for your comments. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to both agree and disagree at the same time with you. :) I think our usage of Film posters is 100% correct, while our usage of logos is a little too excessive. Take a look at File:Abclocalradio.png its used on 44 articles. I think it should be used on ABC Television and that is it. However we (wikipedia) tend to over use the logo of a parent organization for every single child company if the said subdivision doesnt have their own logo instead of just a note like xxx is a subdivision of yyy and uses their logo for branding purposes because they do not have their own which would kill the over use of logos and also serve the same purpose. I would equate Film posters to book covers more than I would for logos. ΔT 20:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The book cover is a good analogy, especially as the cover of a DVD holder is often used for the poster placeholder in a film article. I don't really understand the concern about "over use" of logos from a policy standpoint, although one could argue that overuse might provide "too much" free advertising! ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
In a somewhat parallel situation, I've seen the use of "trailers" on youtube quite a lot, where the film itself is copyrighted. I suspect they can get away with that for much the same reasoning as with posters: That they are marketing tools, and hence are free advertising for the given film. Only someone with a self-destructive business philosophy would be likely to complain. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
More specifically, we did have a rather recent (last 6 months) discussion on cover art and consensus affirms that they are used for implicit aspects of branding and marketing of the published work, as long as the work is notable enough for its own article (hence why we don't have discography lists include cover art). Also, in regards to that guy's point on the commercial aspects, there's a reason we ask for low resolution images here, for respect of the commercial copyright - the image we provide cannot be blown up to poster-size and be appealing due to scaling artifacts, but yet large enough to be recognizable. (I will note, however, I do agree that I personally rather see cover images meet higher metrics, even if it is just used to identify characters, setting, or the like, rather than just placed there without further discussion, but that's not going to happen any time soon) --MASEM (t) 19:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


Tamimo

Why do you keep on dleting my pic for Raja Ki aayege baraat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamimo (talk • contribs) 22:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Delta can give you the technical explanation , but regardless of that, you had best not issue threats such as "don't mess with me", or your stay on wikipedia will be very short. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
If you actually bothered to read my edit summary you would see that the file does not have a rationale for the article where I removed it. ΔT 22:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


Why don't you try helping instead?

Instead of just deleting images, it would be more helpful if you could explain *WHY* you're doing it! Earlier posts about your being just like the DMV are right on point.... Sheesh.... Why not look at the image, also look at the article. Examine the context. Use your brain instead of a stupid computer program. thanks for nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacw123 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you read both of his edit summaries: remove files without a valid rationale for this usage, and the link he gives to WP:NFUR, and the box of text that he has on this page when you edit it, it is clear that you need to add a rationale for using that image, else its use is improper. Delta can't help you fill that out as he has no idea what your intent of using that non-free image is on that page, so that is your responsibility to complete if you want to retain the image. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


As Per Help:Misplaced Pages: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with Other Editors/Communicating with Editors

] In general, the rule for editing or deleting a comment that you or another editor has posted to an article talk page is simple: Don't. That goes for fixing spelling errors, typos, run-on sentences, or any other minor wording changes, no matter how trivial. At Misplaced Pages, a talk page is essentially a transcript; no matter how well-intentioned you are in your editing, other editors aren't going to see it that way. Neutralaccounting (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:NFCC#9 you cannot display non-free files on talk pages. They will be removed, if you re-add them you may be blocked. ΔT 02:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violation of Community-imposed restrictions regarding civility, refusing to dialogue with fellow editors and edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ΔT 10:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Asterion 02:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Δ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not be uncivil and I see no grounds for this block ΔT The only constant 02:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You threatened a fellow editor with having him blocked when he politely asked to justify your rationale, then proceeded to ignore his comments and repeatedly removed content, further on engaging in wikilawyering by selectively quoting WP:NFTABLE to justify yourself (i.e. leaving out "but should be considered on a case-by-case basis"). This is not the first time you fail to be civil to other wikipedians. You have been blocked in the past for the same kind of recurring behaviour.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Asterion 03:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)}}

Giving someone a warning that repeated violations of the non-free content policy may lead to a block is standard practice, we do the same kind of thing with 3RR and other issues. Also please do not miss-quote me. take a look at my post on the talk page. The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable I see nothing special about this page that would make this usage of non-free content in tables acceptable I quoted policy and noted that I do not see any special reasons for that article to be excluded from the policy normals. ΔT 03:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
As involved, I can't remove this, but I'm bringing the block up for discussion at ANI. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


Unblocked

Per consensus at I have unblocked Δ. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop Removing my uploads

I find this very disruptive and stop saying my images are of non free content.Non free content can be uploaded with permisssion and my content is never overused. Maglame 06:40 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not your content, you might me the uploader but someone else owns the copyright. See the note I left on the talk page. ΔT 09:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove the image

The image Payanam.jpeg had a proper rationale and license and it met wiki's criteria for use. I see that a lot of people have accused you for unnecessarily removing their images and I request you not to continue this in future. Secret of success (Talk) 17:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I will continue to remove files that do not have proper non-free rationales. In this case you just fixed the rationale to make it acceptable ΔT 12:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Escher Circle Limit III

If you believe that File:Escher Circle Limit III.jpg breaches Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline then surely the appropriate way to address your concerns is to take the image itself to FfD. Removing uses of the image on a random and ad-hoc basis from articles such as Möbius transformation without deleting the underlying image itself is pointless, isn't it ? Gandalf61 (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

it was not random removals. The file is used on multiple articles and only has rationales for some. Those that do not have a rationale provided for the use get removed if/until a rationale is provided. FFD is only acceptable route if the whole image fails policy, not a particular use of the file. ΔT 23:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC) I thought I posted this just after you left me a note here, but it looks like an edit conflict prevented the post
The image is being used in two other article - both with proper rationales for its use there. The use of the image on the Mobius transformation article is given no rationale on the image page, and per policy, removal is appropriate (and deletion would be completely out of line). If you want to use the image on that page, you need to provide a valid rationale per WP:NFC policy. --MASEM (t) 12:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, have now added rationales to the image page. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
May not be the best ratioanle ever, but sufficient to maintain that there and prevent its immediate removal. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Italian Socialist Party

Hi. What have I to do so that the logos could be published? I asked to an administrator and he said to me that I could publish them. Hi. --Pelusu (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to ensure that the rationales WP:NFURG are correct and that they specify which article(s) that the file is being used on and why they must be included. ΔT

2011 PAG

A couple of admins., have approved that file to be on that page. Intoronto1125TalkContributions

Please READ the link I provided in my edit summary, every use of a non-free file must have an accompanying rationale. You do not have that here. ΔT 00:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a rationale here. Read the talk page of the image. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Wrong, you have a rationale for the article 2011 Pan American Games, its still being used there. Any other uses need a new specific rationale. ΔT 00:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The wording does not direct towards just the 2011 Pan American Games. I don't see where you are getting at. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes it does, see WP:NFCC#10c ΔT 00:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I was talking about the rationale, not the description. I will change it promptly. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
So was I, right now it has a rationale for one use, and its being used there. If you want to use it on other pages you need to write a valid rationale for each use on the file description page (a guide that I originally linked to) ΔT 00:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I put it back, but realized that you did not agree with it. I have put up a rationale for that article. Am I allowed to put back the image? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I never disputed the rationale. ΔT 01:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

@Intoronto: I do dispute the rationale. "Purpose of use: Promotional press kit". That doesn't make any sense. Misplaced Pages isn't a promotional press kit. No purpose of use has actually been specified. Using it on 2011 Pan American Games medal table is purely decorative and fails WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Crossmr (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on editing patterns, it appears that

Tamimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tamimomari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.80.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.81.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.67.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.73.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

are likely all the same user. Tamimomari was indef'd for copyvios and personal attacks, the same stuff that Tamimo continued to do. He's mostly editing under IP's. He created the user ID's in order to be able to upload images. That's my theory, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Its obvious the user in question was socking, I just couldnt be arsed to take the time and gather all of the evidence needed for an SPI case. As for the original block I would have to call that excessive, given just the one comment (and other evidence available at the time). ΔT 10:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Δ,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 04:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

BRD/Bot edits

I know you believe that you are in the right with regard to image policy, but that doesn't give you the right to make bot-like edits where you copy and paste the same edit summary for dozens upon dozens of edits, or to ignore any context in the article. Also, if you have been reverted, you shouldn't just do your copy-and-paste edit again, you should discuss it, especially if someone has given a reason for reverting you. Please note that I have expressed similar sentiments at your AFD/EW Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Funny. You don't come after me for performing "bot like edits". I've done more than 2000 edits using a single edit summary. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • How about please reading my edit summary, I clearly state why I remove files from pages. (they lack non-free rationales) and I also include a fairly detailed note about that in the edit notice for my talk page. But no one cares to take the time and actually read what I post. the non free content policy is rather clear about requiring rationales, and if there is not a rationale for a given usage it will be removed. ΔT 10:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on User talk:Rd232 and baiting User:MickMacNee into an edit warring violation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ΔT 16:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
At the time this block was placed, a discussion at WP:ANEW () had already concluded that a block was not necessary for this situation (). As collective decisions reached among uninvolved administrators – carried out openly on suitable noticeboards, following Misplaced Pages's standard practices – generally supersede the judgements of individual editors, I have therefore lifted this block pending further discussion. SarekofVulcan or any other editor may appeal the conclusion reached at WP:ANEW on that board or at AN/I, and if they are able to establish a new, broader consensus in favor of a block then this block can and should be restored.
As a note to Δ, I would strongly caution that getting into any sort of back and forth reverting over a minor issue like this is a bad idea. If another editor seems hell-bent on reverting a particular edit, doing one more revert yourself isn't going to help. In the future, disputes about how to apply the talk page guidelines should get kicked upstairs to a wider audience. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat related to the above, I have removed rollback permissions from your account. I've seen you misuse rollback multiple times, both in the case leading up to the block above, and on previous occasions. I think your use of rollback has often led to inflaming situations, when what you really need is a polite well-thought out edit summary to calm things down (or simply discussion instead of edit-warring). This (excluding, to some extent, the edit-warring part) is especially true for your NFCC work. As you know I appreciate the work you do on that, but it's even better when you manage it in a way which results in both parties being happy (yourself and the uploader or user who wants the image in the article). I think your use of rollback often means that the other party becomes more upset. I hope that going without it for a while will help with your interactions with others in difficult situations where they are likely to become unhappy. Feel free to re-request at WP:RFPERM at any time. - Kingpin (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

task DBQ-143

Thanks a lot for working with my task!

Just one more question: could you give me the code of query you've used for this task? I think that this job should be done on quite a regular base and I would ask our Toolserver members from ru.wiki to run this query from time to time... Rubin16 (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

that report should update daily. :) ΔT 13:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks a lot :) Rubin16 (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification regarding MickMacNee case

This message is to inform you that you have been added as a party to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. For reference, here is the notification that is normally issued to an editor who is listed as a party to a case at the time of acceptance:

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 28, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 17:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 17:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Maryland State Colonization Society

Hello Δ, you have twice deleted the Republic of Maryland flag from this article without explanation. Since the Republic was created by the Maryland Colonization Society, this seems reason enough to include the flag. I don't want to get into an edit war with you but I do note from your talk page that you seem to be in trouble with quite a few wikipedians over similar issues. Could you at least explain why you feel that the flag should not be included here? If your issue is one of copyright, then do note that this state existed from 1854-57 and therefore all of its symbols and imagery will by now be in the public domain. Thanks in advance for your time Asteuartw (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you can prove File:Republic of Maryland.svg is under a free license you need to update the licensing information on the file discription page. Until then it will be treated as non-free. As such it requires a rationale for each usage see WP:NFURG on how to write them. It was removed for lacking a rationale for the articles where it was used. ΔT 10:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

@Asteuartw; Δ did explain his edits. Please see the edit summary at this diff. That edit summary points to Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline, which notes that a rationale is required for each use, and gives helpful directions on how to make such a rationale. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a lengthier edit summary might reduce the frequency of people saying he is not providing an explanation? –xeno 15:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
suggestions are always welcome. ΔT 15:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if this will fit, but something along the lines of: "All non-free files used on this page must have valid and specific rationale for use on this page; please see ] for more information; one or more file removed due to missing rationale" –xeno 15:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Would work better? ΔT 15:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep. That's a lot more clear. Thanks, –xeno 19:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC) (Fix the grammar though: I missed an "s" in "one or more files")
This seems a lot more clear and a lot less likely to provoke a querying response. Thanks for taking the trouble. Asteuartw (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

McDonald's logo

I would dispute that the Golden Arches logo comes under PD-textlogo, so I'm attempting to challenge that on Commons. In the meantime, I've reverted the PD-textlogo tagging on File:Mcdonalds-90s-logo.svg. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I never tagged it as PD-textlogo, take a look, I just converted the rationale template into {{information}} ΔT 15:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I know that the tagging predated you. I was just trying to explain what I was up to. Your edit was correct if PD-textlogo was correct -- I just don't think that's actually the case, which is why I brought it up on Commons:Commons talk:Licensing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
And they convinced me that even if it was copyrightable, it would have expired by now, so I reverted to your version.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

clean up

link. Thanks for the help. :) ... do you follow NASCAR by any chance? — Ched :  ?  12:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope just running through a list of dead links. ΔT 12:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Odd

Somehow you broke the timeline image when you went through the article. Im not quite sure how though as it seems you didnt touch it.Jason Rees (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe leading whitespace is critical to the easy timeline MediaWiki plugin, hence why it broke (Delta was stripping out that space). That might be something for your (Delta's) tools to check for... --MASEM (t) 13:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I just came to that same conclusion and was making the adjustments to compensate for it. ΔT 13:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Why

Did you remove a picture from my sandbox, but not remove it from the actual Fly Like A Bird article???? Calvin • 18:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You are not allowed to have non-free images in anything other than article space. If you are working on the text of an article in your own space, you have to do it without non-free images, using a placeholder instead to show you where the image will be in the finished article. That is our current non-free policy. Franamax (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I did the same thing myself a couple weeks ago Calvin .. was just throwing things together to fast and assumed the pic I grabbed was PD ... oops .. it happens. Just put it in when you move the article out. NBD. — Ched :  ?  00:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
So you can't have the single cover in the sandbox but you can in the actual article? What makes a difference? Calvin • 01:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The difference is that when a non-free image is in a live article, it can be (potentially) justified as important to understanding the topic. If it's just being used on a sub-page used for testing or development, it conveys no such value for the reader. If you happen upon a user sub-page, you are not reading the actual encyslopedia, you are reading the processes involved in producing the enyclopedia, i.e. the huge amount of work involved in actually making all that stuff work properly. So there, the educational benefit is in observing the process, not in actually reading the articles, which of course you can do in the mainspace. We only use non-free images for educatioal purposes, so we only allow them in mainspace where they can benefit an actual live article. I'd rather see a strictly time-limited exemption for sandboxing an article with non-free images to avoid these kinds of problems, but it looks like a long process to get that idea accepted. In the meantime, we have to work within the current interpretation of policy, which is basically "no non-free images in userspace". Franamax (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. Calvin • 12:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Franamax (or Delta .. or any other passing tps.) what's the name of that generic "gota pic file I've seen in some BLP articles where we don't have a PD photo? — Ched :  ?  00:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean a placeholder as in Category:Misplaced Pages image placeholders for when you're sandboxing an article? That has those generic female/male silhouettes in it. Or are you talking about "image requested" templates? They seem to be in that category too. Per WP:Image placeholders, I think they may or may not be deprecated, but certainly a generic placeholder can be used for sandboxing, with artful comments around the actual image name to allow easy restoration. Franamax (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
found it on the first link ... "No portrait-BFD-test" ... thanks Franamax. Don't mind us Delta .. :) — Ched :  ?  01:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your infinite capacity to act in bad faith

You have been asked - politely - twice - to explain yourself. Being "right" is NO excuse, or justification, for being rude, acting in bad faith, or starting an edit war. As I have said: I have examined NFCC and can not identify any non-compliance. Third time: Please explain.

Whoops: "only in article namespace" - A user page ain't in the namespace, is it. Oh well. As usual, you're right.

However, you could be more pleasant and more polite about it ... Pdfpdf (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I clearly and politely explained it in the removal edit summary, you choose to ignore my reason for removal so I had to go to the next step. NFCC#9 is about as simple as you can get Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace (my bolding) Removing non-compliant files is not being rude, nor is it bad faith. Your blind reversions are another story. You need to step back and calm down. ΔT 12:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd also add that Delta's original edit summary "(remove non-free content per WP:NFCC#9)" is simple and polite and direct. Ok, maybe he could add a statement "no non-free in user space" to clear exactly what's wrong, but its far from being a completely obscure, difficult-to-understand reason, and one I don't think needs explaining further as on a talk page. --MASEM (t) 12:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Communication and manners are the issues here. No matter what either of you think, feel, say or do, it is incumbent the transmitter to ensure that the receiver both receives AND understands. Over-and-out. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect though. If the explanation has been offered, isn't it "incumbent" on the receiver to "receive and understand". Someone stated the reason(s). The old saying: "You can lead a horse to water...". There was nothing rude. Nothing hostile. No bad manners. Just sayin. — Ched :  ?  12:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pdfpdf; the title of this tread "Your infinite capacity to act in bad faith" is a direct personal attack. If you can't refrain from making such attacks here, then I encourage you to not post to this talk page at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

task DBQ-143

Thanks a lot for working with my task!

Just one more question: could you give me the code of query you've used for this task? I think that this job should be done on quite a regular base and I would ask our Toolserver members from ru.wiki to run this query from time to time... Rubin16 (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

that report should update daily. :) ΔT 13:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks a lot :) Rubin16 (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I've taken this thread back from archive because as I can see report this isn't updated :( It's the same as when it was initially generated: link Rubin16 (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
That would be because I had a typo in my cron job that I fixed about 3 hours ago. I just ran an update and it should auto-update daily for now on, if not just drop me a note. ΔT 14:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


Edit summary

I may be wrong, but I think you've lengthened your standard edit summary on fair-use rationales, to make it clearer what the issue is. Kudos. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, see User talk:Δ/20110601#Maryland State Colonization_Society ΔT 00:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
You want to start helping clean up files without rationales? ΔT 00:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a list? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
tools:~betacommand/cgi-bin/status start at about 350, Im working my way through the first part. If you click the page title it will process it (check all files, their rationales, remove those without one, fill in your edit summary, and show you a diff) Just double check the edit didnt break anything (it does in about 5% of edits) and go ahead and save it. Ill re-run that list in a bit. ΔT 01:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
My own natural instinct would instead be to extend the fair-use rationale to the article where it's missing - if it seems reasonable to do so. Maybe hard to do on a mass scale, though. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It is, especially given that most uses cannot be justified even with a rationale. And not knowing the subject you will spend 15+ minutes on each rationale probably. ΔT 01:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting tool, I tried one to see how it worked. Once the removal has been done, does it remove that article from your list? ... Just wondering about doing double work if someone has already run the script once. — Ched :  ?  06:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I update the list several times a day, once its fixed it should drop off the next update. ΔT 10:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

For those who are interested, and those who are on IRC, see #NFCCCompliance / #NFCCBackup on IRC - monitoring of edits to pages which contain non-free media, and/or where non-free media gets included. Works pretty nice with the removal tools from ∆ (you'll also note when images get re-included there). --Dirk Beetstra 09:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


2005 in Canada

Ummmmm.... and File:Sask.jpg is free? 117Avenue (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on the licensing given for Sask.jpg, it says it is free as it is coming from Commons. That said, it looks like that is wrong, given that all images on Coins of the Canadian dollar, but that one, are non-free. I'm opening a request at Commons to review this image since I think it should be non-free. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


Editing rate limit violation

Thank you for contributing to Misplaced Pages. However, it appears that the speed of your editing may fail one of your editing restrictions. Specifically:

  • Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

From 2011-06-20 16:42-16:29, your rate of edits exceeded the allowed limit. 64.217.182.58 (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up, Delta, I'm counting like 43 edits from 16:32 to 16:41 in said period. May want to check whatever throttle you have on your edits... --MASEM (t) 06:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


Cleaning up after yourself

I have no problem with your removing nonfree images, but please at least make sure you don't do thing like leave contentless tables or columns, or stray captions in infoboxes. It just makes a mess for other people to have to clean up; cf. , . Pais (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Im not going to touch table syntax, I always seem to screw it up and cannot figure out how to get it to work again. ΔT 11:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Also note, not in all cases all images are removed, and in some cases alternatives or other solutions can be found - then you have one editor spending time removing the column, and another who has to add it again. And in both of the examples you gave, there was still information (albeit commented) in some of the columns. --Dirk Beetstra 11:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


Jardine Matheson Holdings

Hi, I'm not sure you understand the claim of fair use on low resolution logos. Perhaps you should check Commons before wantonly deleting images from articles that have taken a great deal of work to create and the use of logos within them which are quite legitimate. ► Philg88 ◄ 11:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The files that I am removing are not on commons, they are non-free logos that are here on wikipedia, and you are using them without proper rationales see also WP:NFCC#10 ΔT 11:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

See my talk page for my response. ► Philg88 ◄ 11:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)