Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Δ (talk | contribs) at 01:15, 27 June 2011 (→Breen (Star Trek)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

The one file you removed File:Corea-map.jpg, has a PD-1923 tag on it and is a free image. It shouldnt be in the category non free media in the first place.XavierGreen (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It is tagged as non-free due to also including {{Non-free use rationale}}. Please adjust the file discription page so that that template is not used. ΔT 01:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Breadwinner (novel) - the image you removed

Hi - you removed the image from this article because I had forgotten the rationale - I have now included a rationale but please let me know if it is insufficient in any way. Mark 10:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The rationale refers to the wrong article, so please correct it. ΔT 12:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Corrected - although you could just have quickly corrected it yourself. If you have any other issues please let me know. Mark 16:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I could have, however remember the old parable about giving a fish and teaching a man to fish. --ΔT 20:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Breen (Star Trek)

Is there some particular reason you cannot simply clarify what the problem is with a given image, and why instead, you simply say the same thing over and over again? Did you not see my edit summary, in which I stated that the photo has a rationale for article in question? If this is wrong on my part, why not respond to explain why? Why do you make no attempt at clear communication with image uploaders? Can't you see how this can be seen as non-collaborative, and possibly disruptive? Nightscream (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That is where you are wrong, it does not have a rationale for where it is being used on. --ΔT 20:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does. It says "Breen (Star Trek)" where it says "article". Do you not see this? Again, if this is wrong, why can you not explain how it's wrong? Why do you refuse to communicate clearly in discussion.

As for your edit warring accusation, edit warring does not refer to good-faith reversions of unambiguous policy violations, such as content deletion without a valid rationale by a user who refuses to communicate with others, a point J Greb himself has made.

Can you please clarify so that we can work together to make sure the image has the right rationale? Nightscream (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As Masem states below at the time of my removal the file did not have a valid rationale, which is why it was removed. Not sure how much clearer my edit summary can be, it clearly stated the reason for removal. As for edit warring it does cover your actions, Three reverts without fixing the problem is edit warring, it may not be blockable, but it is edit warring (good faith or bad faith, I make no assumptions either way). ΔT 21:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

At the time that Delta had removed and reremoved the image, the image file did not say "Breen (Star Trek)" . SOmeone, after Delta's removal, your revert, and his rerevert, fixed the image to make it say "Breen (Star Trek)" correctly. So Delta did what was correct at the time. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why all this happened? Because the wikilink was wrong? Why couldn't he just say that? Why do others have respond for him? Because a wikilink was outdated due to a page move, he has the gall to accuse others of 3RR violations? I'm reporting this at 3RR. Nightscream (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Go right head, NFCC enforcement is exempt from 3RR. At the time the rationale was for a different article than where the file was being used. Thus it had no rationale for the article where it was being used. If needed We can take this to AN/3RR and prove it with another {{trout}} being handed to you. ΔT 21:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

3RR requires that the user in question discuss the matter with others. You refused to do so. Even now you only chimed in to make an uncivil comment, but refused up until to explain what was wrong with the rationale, when you very well could have. How can I "fix the problem" if I don't know where it is, and if you refuse to tell me? It's obvious that you just wanted to sit back and watch the image get deleted so that you can have the self-righteous satisfaction of someone else's work being deleted, when you could have made a genuine, good-faith effort to fix yourself, or at least work with me by telling me what the problem was. Nightscream (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I provided two links explaining the problem in my edit summary and provide details in my edit notice, if you refuse to read the information that I give you do I need to make it in XXXXL font, red and blinking so that you see it? because its fairly clear in all three places. ΔT 21:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Those links do not explain the problem, and you know it. They link to policy pages, which are filled with the various criteria for rationales, and do not make any mention of that specific image, or its rationale. Explaining what the general criteria are and what's wrong with the rationale on a specific image are not the same thing. I am well aware of the general criteria for rationales, which you can surmise from my history with images. But you did not explain what was wrong with the specific criteria on that image's page, even though I flat-out asked you. You could've avoided this entire prolonged conflict by simply fixing the wikilink yourself, or at least telling me that it now led to a disambiguation page, yet you refused to do so. Can you tell me why this is? Nightscream (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If you actually read the links provided you would have seen WP:FIXNF#LINKCORRECT and related sections, You have shown a repeated failure to follow NFC so having you familiarize yourself with policy seemed to be a good idea. My /edit notice says the same thing, yet you again seem not to have read that either. With at least three different points, you failed to ask what the problem was, instead you blindly re-inserted ignoring the problem, and violating NFCC. Do I need to make it large, red, blinking text next time? As I have provided plenty of explanation for my actions, it just seems you see a TL;DR and move on, which is not acceptable, especially from an administrator. ΔT 23:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I read the links. None of the links in your edit summaries go to the specific policy page sections you have just linked to above. If you don't believe me, click on them. They simply link to the top of the policy pages, which means I had no way of knowing which criterion was in need of fixing.

You have not established any lack of familiarity with policy on my part, as the matter was due to an outdated wikilink. My reversions were not "blind", as I looked at the image page, and saw that the right article was apparently indicated. The fact that I did not realize that the problem was an outdated wikilink does not constitute a "blind" reversion. I asked you what the problem was, and you refused to respond.

One more time: What prevented you from simply fixing the wikilink yourself, or from telling me: "The wikilink is out of date"?

Wouldn't that have prevented this conflict, and been more in the spirit of collaboration and helpfulness? Or do you not care? Nightscream (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Nightscream, Im already just about at the maximum length for an edit summary, I linked to WP:FIXNF which was specifically created to address questions, there is a section there about common problems WP:FIXNF#Common non-free image problems, and how to fix them, where one of those is exactly what you case was WP:FIXNF#CORRECTLINK. Per WP:NFCC the burden of inclusion falls on those who wish to add/maintain NFC in articles. I know you are spreading lies about this being personal but its not, Im working though a list alphabetically removing all files without a valid rationales, there is nothing personal about that at all. Our paths have just crossed several times and you have yet to get the point about NFC. ΔT 00:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

While the burden is on the uploader, an argument for common courtesy would be to include the specific issue on removal. Especially when asked directly. This isn't an issue under WP:CIVILITY (ignoring a request or refusing to provide info are not breaches of that) but a basic part a collaborative process. You know, helping other editors to get it right.

As a frank suggestion, used the shorthand links of WP:FIXNF#Whichever if there is a singular issue. It at least points to the most immediate problem. If there are multiple issues, use the general link to FIXNF, but offer the nut shell problems if asked.

- J Greb (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I really dont have the room in the summary, and the more people become familiar with our non-free content the fewer problems we will have later. Reading the FAQ is a good idea regardless, (Hell Ive read it several times and made a few suggestions on the talk page) If users cannot be bothered take a few minutes to familiarize themselves with NFC policy, should they really be involved in such a complex issue in the first place? ΔT 00:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I literally have 3 characters left before I reach the max summary length. ΔT 00:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a sec. I'm not suggesting you add but rather substitute. Currently you have:

All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page; please see ] for more information; one or more files removed due to missing rationale ]

(Yes, I'm assuming the shorthand). Wouldn't the following work in most cases?

All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page; please see ] for more information; specifically ]

- J Greb (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That assumes that every time Delta is removing an image for lacking a rational, it is because the rationale is not pointing to the exact right article name. There are other cases where the same warning applies where the image has been added (a second use, perhaps) to a different article. The link you give doesn't apply to that. Between what Delta does link , his own talk page edit warning, and everyhting else, there's little more that can be done short of telling editors to RTFM before they try to do anything NFC related. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ive really tried to avoid the term RTFM, but goddammit more people need to do it. Too many people see the manual, TL;DR say fuck it, and blindly revert. That behavior needs to be adjusted, and it is being adjusted, Im seeing more and more blocks being handed out because users dont RTFM. Like I have said, I provide about as much information as I can to help users shy of getting a ray gun with mind control functionality and using it on them. ΔT 01:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nightscream, what have you got to gain from this? This is hardly the first time you've been picked up on your lack of respect for the NFCC; in this issue, you've been told again and again that you're in the wrong, and it's got to the point that your complaint is about how people were not specific enough in explaining why your edits were wrong. Just let it drop. J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a minimal issue here, very minimal for how it is being handled though. See my previous ost fo the long and short of it. Beyond that (shrug) I'm at a loss. - J Greb (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, admin cannot see issue so reverts, ignoring problem, problem pointed out again, admin ignores again. Short of XXXXXL, red, blinking text Ive done just about as much as I can. ΔT 00:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

ESA logo

Hello!

You removed ESA's logo from here Talk:Mars_rover

Reason: ESA logo: remove files per WP:NFCC#9 using AWB

Why didn't you removed the logo from here European Space Agency?

I used that logo fairly.

Regards Csendesmark (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nonfree content cannot be used on talk pages, it can only be used in articles. Talk:Mars_rover is not an article and thus it was removed from there. ΔT 00:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Azazel (Marvel Comics)

I didnt add the images to the pages of Azeal. I reverted the additions of the images to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

you are mistaken you reverted my removal without fixing the problem. ΔT 00:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:415 Records/Temp

Hi Δ, I'm working on the replacement article above, which is intended to replace the original copy-paste article 415 Records, currently being investigated at Copyright problems at my request. I noticed your removal of the image (which was in the original article). Thanks for calling my attention to the policy on mainspace-only use of non-free images, as I was not aware of that & will remember. I replaced the text you deleted (the image filename) in a hidden editorial note (which does not display), and clearly stated that point & that it is not to be used until/unless the article does get moved to mainspace, following the copyright problem investigation with the text. I had looked at the details on that image, but without the background to follow up properly on it, other than to make a mental note that the submitter's userpage is fraught with deleted non-free images, I was not clear on what the next move with it was. I hadn't gotten to it yet, as I just started working on the article last night & posted the temp today, but I had hoped that before the new article went to mainspace, someone might be able to confirm one way or the other whether the non-free use rationale is good with this image or not. Can you confirm or do we need to source another image? Further, you also deleted my hidden editorial notes in a lower section of the article, regarding a band noted in the original article, which apparently no longer has a page. There was nothing in your edit summary about it, so perhaps you won't mind explaining the reason for that deletion. I restored it, again, as a hidden editorial note (which it was when you deleted it), because it contains important information that I want to follow up on at some point. If there's some policy that discourages this, please point me there. Thanks very much for your work. duff 00:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)