Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Vandenberg (talk | contribs) at 12:48, 30 June 2011 (→please stop: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

• You know, it would be nice if you posted a message on the talk page of the article(s) the image is being used on, explaining why you removed the image from the page. That would really help people a lot. —Compdude123 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  I already contain that information in the edit summary. ΔT 02:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit counting

It would be interesting to give some of the dweebs that have the need to update AN/I on your EPM(edits per minute), some real stuby pencil math to work on. 50.94.116.132 (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? ΔT 03:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Just referring to the busy bodies that spend their day trying to find where you exceed your edit limit so they can hit the "New Section" button at the top of AN/I and be the 1st to report you. How in the F can someone be that hard pressed to find a violation, that they would poor over your edit history looking at timestamps and counting lines. 50.94.116.132 (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite simple, I piss a lot of people off enforcing NFC because they do not like the message, and prefer to shoot the messenger instead of the message. I remove/tag for deletion a lot of files, and people want to see WP:NFC die a quick death. However with users like myself pushing enforcement, thats not possible. Too many people want to see liberal usage NFC, regardless of what NFC says. (back in the day I removed over 500 non-free screenshots from a single article). ΔT 03:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No, dude. It's because you're a rude SOB that annoys the hell out of people for the sake of getting high. Tiocfaidh bhúr lá! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.18.11 (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If it matters, I checked Google Translate for the above gibberish, and it turns out to be Irish for "Your day will come". Unfortunately, now I'm hearing "Our Day Will Come" running through my head. :( ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You should not have to9insert for clarity) be doing what you are doing. The burden should be on the editor to meet policy before he adds the NFC. For something looked at so strongly by the foundation/in policy, it is amazing that anyone can make the addition by taking a crap and pushing "save page". This would be a good area for a "pending changes" type of check to prevent the addition of a possible NFC until it can be verified as meeting policy. 50.94.116.132 (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hope to see some speed runs soon! 50.94.116.132 (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the ASU image

Would you care to explain exactly how I can make the rationale template workable? I've looked at the NFC criteria repeatedly and as the image is low-resolution and I don't feel like there's a sufficient free alternative that could replace it, I think it fits. I'd like to avoid a repeat of what happened the last time you and I had NFC issues, and I'm willing to explain exactly why the image fulfills each criteria. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 06:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and replaced the NFU rationale with something much more detailed which I feel is sufficient. Please take a look and see what you think. If it's sufficient in your view, please give me time to replace the rationales on the other college football uniforms with the updated ones and don't remove the images. I will get to all of them ASAP. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 18:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A little more context would be useful... ΔT 02:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In the NFUR or the article? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 04:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Which image/article are you referring to? ΔT 11:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

About Images

I did not upload any images. I think, Someone has removed these images and after that I changed the article. So, You may think that I added these images. But I did not95.15.167.177 (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A little more context is needed for me to respond. --ΔT 20:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop editing the Advanced Academy of Georgia

Hello - You keep removing the image used on the Advanced Academy of Georgia's entry, which is the seal of the University of West Georgia. The Advanced Academy of Georgia is - as is very clearly stated in the article - a program run by the University of West Georgia, under the Honors College. Please stop vandalizing the page by unnecessarily removing the image. I'm not an uploader, so it's not my responsibility to maintain "valid NFURs", whatever the hell that is. Instead, as you're the one that's initiating the changes, it seems like it's your responsibility to actually fix the article instead of repeatedly vandalizing it. Thanks. Bantam1983 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• I went ahead and did the NFUR thing, because I actually give a shit about taking the time to make Misplaced Pages better. Maybe you could do that in the future. Bantam1983 (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As responded to many people with a similar complaint, you have your opinion on what improves the project, other people have their opinions. You are welcome to yours. That does not make it any more right or wrong. What is wrong is claiming that people whose opinions disagree with yours are therefore wrong and destroying the project. Please don't. Also, insisting that media complies with WP:NFCC is not vandalism. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

please stop

You are obviously not checking your work or looking for the best solution. here you removed an image when the image had a FUR, however the content had been moved from one article to a daughter article. And here you remove a logo which could be moved to commons. John Vandenberg 12:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)