User talk:Werieth/201311

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:TNAF Hearts Like Ours.jpg[edit]

Should this file be deleted if it is a still frame used on Republic Records internet site when talking about Hearts Like Ours? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless its the cover to the single it shouldnt be used. Werieth (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Land of the Pharaohs[edit]

Did you even bother to LOOK before you tagged it as an orphan, less than a MINUTE after I uploaded it ??? Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hey[edit]

For your editing to the Beijing International Studies University page, many thanks. Just curious, what's wrong with the line <!--Part 6/6: Images and colours:--> ? Corphine (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just cleaning up hidden HTML comments. A lot of articles have unneeded comments. Werieth (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hi, you have removed File:Logotipo de TRT.jpg from several articles. But I couldn't understand your rationale ("files are missing non free usage"). These articles are about TRT network and what's wrong using the TRT logo in a TRT article? If the logo can't be used even in a TRT article WP, why do we keep it ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two files here, File:Turkish Radio and Television Corporation logo.png and File:Logotipo de TRT.jpg. I havent removed Logotipo, which is from commons and labeled as free. I did remove File:Turkish Radio and Television Corporation logo.png which is tagged as non-free. According to policy when using non-free media specific criteria must be met, and in this case they were not being met. Taking a closer look File:Turkish Radio and Television Corporation logo.png should probably be replaced and then deleted. Werieth (talk) 10:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


File:Li Chang 1914-2010.jpg[edit]

Just noticed you tagged this photo as an orphan. Unfortunately, it is not. It is used in the article Li Chang since 28 October. Corphine (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Li Chang (politician).jpg is the one in use. They are duplicates. Accordingly I've tagged it for deletion as WP:CSD#F1. We will of course keep the needed one. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. My bad. Corphine (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Bunuel images[edit]

I've moved the review to Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Luis_Bu.C3.B1uel Werieth (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I notice you zapped images in the article on Luis Bunuel with the explanation that "file lacks critical commentary and fails WP:NFC. I'm not sure I understand your viewpoint here. The Non-free content policy states: "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question. (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)." I'd like to make the following points:

  1. Permission to use the file(s) in question was explicitly granted by the copyright holder, and this is explained in the summary for media data on the image file.
  2. As to critical commentary -- this was provided in the caption to the image: "The classroom scene from Las Hurdes: Tierra Sin Pan is an ironic statement of Buñuel's Marxist sympathies." This included a reference to an RS. Isn't this "critical commentary" bearing directly on the use of the image?

Finally, wouldn't it have been better to discuss this on the talk page rather than taking unilateral action? Jburlinson (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im about to go away from the keyboard for a while. If you are in contact with the copyright holder request that they email WP:OTRS and release the file under a free license. A caption or passing reference may be commentary on the image, but its no where near what is needed to meet the critical commentary needed to justify a non-free file. When I get back Ill do an image by image breakdown with details. But for now the files need to stay out of the article. Werieth (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, the copyright holder did email WP about these images over a year ago. Isn't there some record of that? As to critical commentary, I look forward to a better understanding of "what is needed to meet the critical commentary needed to justify a non-free file", along with a reference to MOS or other authoritative source that provides a clear definition of "critical commentary" that invalidates the example I provided above. Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see any records on the file pages about an OTRS ticket. I am not a member so I cannot look up the case. but lets break this down one at a time. We already have one image of Bunuel which is free so additional images need justified. Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the image caption there is no reference to the image in the associated text. It is easily described with plain text X character writing Respect the property of others on a chalk board. (This would mean it fails WP:NFCC#1, and the second clause of #8 because there is nothing visually unique or distinguishing about the image that requires it to be in the article.). Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not forget that the subject of this article is a filmmaker -- therefore, images from his films are of particular consequence to an understanding of the subject. Films are images. The image of a small child writing a sociopolitical message on a blackboard has meaning over and above any textual description of that image. Using screenshot images as part of an article about a filmmaker is just as meaningful, even essential, as using images of paintings is for an article about a painter. Also, again, the image was accompanied by a caption providing specific commentary from an RS. Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments dont hold any water, taking a look at two of the biggest producers J. J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg there is a total of 1 non-free file between the two. Werieth (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF Jburlinson (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same issues as the previous file. Looks like an upside down picture of a rooster, something fairly easily described in plain text. Not critical to understanding who Bunuel was as it lacks any significance to who he is. (yes its a shot from one of his major pictures, but not actually anything major). Fails, #1,8 again. Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say "but not actually anything major". That's one person's subjective opinion. As such, it should be the occasion for a discussion, not a peremptory deletion. Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the previous two, we dont need to know the set of a film to understand the person. Fails NFCC#1,8 Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Viewing the image gives a sense as to the nature of the film productions being discussed at that point of the article. In addition, the image includes text describing the nature of the work done at Filmofono studios. Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We dont require a picture of the staff to know that he worked with those people, fails WP:NFCC#1,3,8. Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article discusses the "team" effort of the MOMA department -- a picture of the team is totally appropriate. Once again, this is a subjective situation that should be the occasion of a discussion, not unilateral action. Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again almost identical issues was with the first three images. Zero ties to the article text, non-critical image, image is decorative. (Fails WP:NFCC#1,3,8) Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image expands upon points made in the article concerning the violent nature of the protagonists of the film and the caption contains a quote from a well-known film critic that bears directly on the image. It is far from decorative -- it is critical and it is commentary, making it definitely "critical commentary." Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general we dont need 6 non-free files in an article with 8 free files. See WP:NFCC#3. Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion, isn't it. As such, it is subject to discussion. The proper place for such a discussion is the talk page of the article. NVCC#8 states: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I believe a case can be made that these images do significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, which, again, in this case is a filmmaker.
Didn't all this get covered a week ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Werieth_reported_by_User:SlimVirgin_.28Result:_warned.29 ? In light of the outcome of that discussion, wouldn't it be appropriate to restore all the images and carry on this discussion on the talk page of the article? Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually none of those files currently come close to meeting WP:NFC. If you want the removals reviewed file a WP:NFCR but until that closes the files need to stay out of the article. Werieth (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't provided a clear explanation of a WP policy or guideline that spells out exactly what "critical commentary" is and why your opinion is more valid than mine. It seems to me that you would be the appropriate person to file the WP:NFCR and that the images should remain in the article during the duration of any discussion. Jburlinson (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC places the burden on those wanting to use non-free media to establish that it meets policy. In this case you have utterly failed to do so. If you want the removals reviewed, file a WP:NFCR until the files have been established that they meet WP:NFC they need to stay out. Critical commentary is not a simple thing to define, If you take a look at the article Virgin Killer the cover art is specifically discussed, using reliable third party sources. It typically refers to the contents of an image being directly discussed in the article in a significant manor. In this case other than the captions there isnt any critical commentary. In other cases where the image is the primary subject of the article (Book or album cover in the associated article, picture of a deceased person), and then only 1 file is permitted for basic visual identification. Another example is ...Baby_One_More_Time_(song)#Synopsis where that particular outfit had significant fallout and created her best known look. Werieth (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say, "In this case other than the captions there isnt any critical commentary." Why don't the captions count as "critical commentary"? The captions are part of the article, aren't they? It would be redundant to make a point in the article and then make the same point in the caption, wouldn't it? Are you saying that if the text of the caption was in the article, then the image would be OK? If so, then why was the image from "Los olvidados" deleted? The text of the article talks about the situation depicted in the image.
You're avoiding the main issue, though, which is that if you feel there's a problem with any of these images, your recourse should be to discuss the situation on the article's talk page and then, if you're not satisfied, for you to file an WP:NFCR. BTW, I notice you've also zapped the images from the articles for the various films. This is really a shame, especially in the case of Las Hurdes: Tierra Sin Pan, since the images are essential for the reader's comprehension of the nature of Bunuel's film. Jburlinson (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously dont understand WP:NFCC. I have asked an admin to try and help explain it to you but they are not online at the moment. Critical commentary typically manifests in a paragraph or more of sourced text which not only focuses on the event in the image, but the image itself. The bar for usage of non-free media is high, in this case you are no where near meeting it. I zapped the files in the articles where you added them for the same reason, not meeting WP:NFC. Leave the files out and file a WP:NFCR, hopefully when they repeat the points Im making they are able to do it in a method that you understand, because you are not getting it right now. Werieth (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which admin is that? Jburlinson (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Werieth, in the discussion which Jburlinson linked above, I informed you that your interpretation of how to handle non-compliant NFCC images is a poor one. The proper case is for you (not the uploader) to take the issue to NFCR or to tag the files as {{subst:dfu}} before removing any images from the article unless it is crystal clear that each of the images is in violation of Wikipedia norms (e.g., using non-free works in a gallery, using a non-free school logo decoratively for someone who attended that school, etc.). Having multiple non-free images in this case does not rise to that level, because it's not clear which images should stay and which should go.
By continuing your current course of action of refusing to go through the proper channels, you are now engaging in disruptive editing. Please don't make us go that route; just follow the normal procedure like everyone else does and tag non-compliant files as DFU and/or bring them to NFCR. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Magog the Ogre I am following standard practices. I am waiting on several others to help explain the point here. This is a case of clear violations of WP:NFCC. I have notified the user if they want the removals reviewed to file a WP:NFCR the burden is on those wishing to include non-free media to establish that it meets WP:NFC. In this case it clearly hasn't been done. My actions do go though the proper procedures, and escalate the case as needed. Normal procedure is to remove violations. As I have stated if someone wants to have my removals reviewed file a WP:NFCR. Until it is established that the files meet policy they need to stay out of the article. Werieth (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect: it is the burden of proof to the person who wants it kept to prove in the deletion discussion that it ought not to be deleted. It is not that person's burden to prove the image needs to be kept in the article before the removal. Because this is not a clear-cut case for removing a non-compliant image, which has an exemption, I consider this to be edit warring, and, for that matter, disruptive editing (as stated above). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Magog the Ogre: You really should review policy and remove yourself from my talk page. I have made 1 edit to the page in question (Luis Buñuel), where I removed the excessive files. I have provided detailed rationale for the removal, and explained how to proceed with a review of the removals, along with requesting further input from several users familiar with WP:NFCC to assist in explaining why these are no where near meeting policy. Werieth (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And with that 1 edit, you summarily zapped multiple images each of which now, according to you, requires a separate NFCR. Your extremely minimal edit summary simply said "lacks critical commentary". As I've pointed out above, critical commentary is present for nearly all of the images. You have even acknowledged as much by admitting that the captions included critical commentary. Of course, the captions were zapped along with the image. So not only does the Bunuel article lose the image, it also loses the caption, both of which contain information content that has meaning and value. I could have started reverting your changes, but it's clear to me that you would simply have reinstated your deletions and we would have been off to the races to a 3RR situation. I had hoped we could achieve some sort of understanding on your talk page. Actually, the appropriate place for this discussion should be the article's talk page where it might attract the attention of others who are interested in the article, giving them a chance to weigh in on the issues involved. If I were now to revert your edit, what would you do next? Jburlinson (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can file one request to review all the the usages at once. If you want the removals reviewed tag the article with {{non-free review}}, and open a section on WP:NFCR with the title of the article. Werieth (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does this address the captions? The captions and the images go together. Not only does the image have information content, the caption also has information content. Together, the information content is mutually reinforcing. This is a very standard practice in other encyclopedias of repute. Jburlinson (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to merge the captions into the article text. Example of whole article review: Wikipedia:NFCR#Tweenies Werieth (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's m:Mission is to create free content, not just free to access, but with content under a free license. To my knowledge we are part of a very small group that wants to do both. Liberal usage of non-free media might be acceptable under fair use and employed by other encyclopedia's however that is not acceptable on wikipedia. Werieth (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Werieth, I am extremely familiar with Wikipedia image policy; probably more familiar with all but 10 or 20 other administrators. And I have been reading over the NFC policy, and I can't find anything to justify removing the images before the discussion has been taken up. It's possible I missed it; could you point me to where it is? As for the edit warring, I didn't mean just this instance, which wouldn't be a problem; I meant the pattern of behavior across several articles. However, if you can point me to something in policy that says I've misinterpreted it, then it's a moot point.
Regardless, if you are not able to point out to me precisely where you're justified in performing this action, then I will open an RFC and ask that something explicitly be put into policy or a guideline which should guide our actions. I am interpreting what appears to be unstated in policy, and has been a long-standing tradition, but it seems it's not explicitly stated anywhere, which is a problem. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the enforcement part of WP:NFCC the burden lies on those wanting to include the media. I have provided a detailed reasoning for why the files where removed. And I have said multiple times how to proceed with the case if the user wants to further challenge the removal, but they have yet to do so. Werieth (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


October 2013[edit]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? I did fix the issue, by removing the violation. Werieth (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not fixing the issue at all. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is. The burden is on those wanting to use the file to ensure that it complies with policy. Werieth (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's pretty much the definition of WP:DE, and I would strongly suggest making changes yourself instead of removing stuff in the future to avoid potential confrontations of this type. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You dont understand the policy I cited, please take a look at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Enforcement Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof. I did fix the issue, I removed the file from an article where it lacked a rationale. Standard procedure in this situation. Werieth (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately for you, the Wikipedia community has decided in numerous cases that WP:DE overrides virtually all other policies and guidelines (yes, it's a bit unusual for a guideline - as opposed to a policy - to be able to do this). Therefore, I strongly suggest that, before making an edit, you first consider whether it is compliant with WP:DE. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are plain wrong. WP:NFCC is a well established policy and DE under no circumstances overrides it. If you want to confirm that open a discussion at WT:NFC you will find that removing fairly standard textbook violations is no where near qualifying as DE. Werieth (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who's "plain wrong" - read some WP:ANI archives. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Disney Junior (French Canada), 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. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop, you are obviously dont understand WP:NFC. I removed the file for clearly failing policy. Werieth (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the edit in question, you did not state the specific criterion, hence this message. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You dont give someone a uw template when they remove an image citing the non-free content policy. If you dont understand the reason for the removal you ask politely for further information. Under no circumstances should you revert them and give them a blanket uw template. Your recent actions show that you do not understand our non-free content policy. Reverting someone who is taking actions based on a policy that you dont understand is dangerous and can lead to you getting blocked in some cases. Also leaving the barely relevant templated messages is a bad idea. Werieth (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The template states: "do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia [...] without giving a valid reason for the removal". How is this not precisely what you did in that particular edit? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cited our non-free content policy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria when performing the removal. You may not understand the reason for removal but it was given. Werieth (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but the reason that was given was supposed to be valid. Merely citing a policy without explaining how that policy actually applies does not qualify - otherwise, anyone could just cite a random policy and use that as valid reasoning. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It was, I just didnt cite the exact subsection of policy, WP:NFCC#10c to be exact. Again when someone cites a policy, for performing an action dont be a WP:DICK and revert because you dont understand what you are doing. Werieth (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The user linked to WP:FUR, where all you need to do is to read the first sentence on the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't invited into this conversation - and in any case, you're not looking at the right edit. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he was, and he is looking at the same issue. I removed two files, you added a rationale to one of them, and added both back. The second file still violated policy, and was thus removed, citing WP:NFC again. Werieth (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously referring to the second of the three edits - specifically its edit summary. Where was this user invited into this conversation, by the way? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a fairly open policy on my talk page and I have several Wikipedia:Talk page stalker's that help explain things to users like yourself who fail to understand policy. The removal in all of those cases was for the same reason. If you cannot put two and two together you may have WP:COMPETENCE issues. Werieth (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another view from another "talk page stalker". It's free and unsolicited, and you can, thus, obviously, take, leave, ignore or delete it as you wish. Your manner when dealing with your fellow editors, regardless of rightness or wrongness, is atrocious. There is nothing so important that you need to be as rude as you are to good-faith contributors, and a debatable WP:NFCC issue doesn't even approach such a thing. I cringe when I see this. Really I do. You're on a self-appointed mission, and if it's not as easy as you thought it was going to be - well maybe it's not supposed to be, because it's not so black and white as you imagined it was. Please get some perspective and show some respect for others. Begoon talk 23:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I get treated like trash and get zero respect. I wont be roses and smiles. When someone comes to my talk page with a legit question I calmly explain the issues. In this case I was treated like a vandal, by someone who hasnt read the policy I cited. Werieth (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, do it your own way. I'm only commenting because I've seen it all before. You may or may not believe this, but I support 100% what you're doing. Unfortunately, I support roughly 0% of the way you are doing it, and I've seen how it ends. Always. Your time, your decision. Begoon talk 23:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content[edit]

Please explain your edit comment here—I have no idea what you're referring to. Perhaps also try to be a little more helpful (less terse) in your edit comments in future. Thanks. Aquegg (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your un-discussed change to policy changes a few key meanings. When you changed it to points 1–9 of you excluded a few key rationale elements by removing point 10 (See 10c for example). Also the Per comment just sounds kludgely. Before making a change to policy please discuss it on the talk page. Werieth (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10 ... media description page contains ... non-free use rationale then A non-free rationale ... needs to clearly address all 10 points is recursive, thus meaningless, or at least down right confusing. Fixing the recursion does not constitute a change to policy. Aquegg (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way you changed it, does constitute a change in policy, as #10 also has to do with copyright, sourcing, and the requirements that must be included in a rationale for it to be valid. Its not recursive, take a look at WP:NFCC it should help clarify exactly what is being said. Werieth (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first statement I quoted is from NFCC: paraphrasing slightly: "10. The media description page shall contain one rationale per article". Then NFC has, paraphrasing again "each rationale shall address points 1-10 of NFCC". Regardless of whether you consider it to be recursive, it is clear that others could find it confusing. Maybe it should be points 1-9 & 10b or some such; if you can express it clearly, then please do. Aquegg (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look from a different angle, NFCC just identifies the need for a rationale and that it has to include the article name for which it applies. It does not go into details of what constitutes a rationale, NFC does that. Meeting all 10 points in a rationale is not difficult nor recursive, if you want to make a change take it to the talk page. Werieth (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of the problem is unclear wording—suggesting to look at it from a different angle doesn't solve the problem, it merely confirms it. Thanks for trying, though. Aquegg (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


wtf[edit]

WTH is wrong with you? all football clubs have their previous logos on their pages. This thing its very important. Dont vandalize that page more. XXN (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Our policy on non-free media Usage of non-free media in that manor isnt allowed and was removed. Your response is a borderline personal attack so please review WP:NPA. Werieth (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look baby, must I teach you:
You better dont touch articles about football if have no idea about this. XXN (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me to a discussion where this exception was given? Ive looked through WT:NFC and dont see anything. You cannot just claim that you are exempt from policy it doesnt work that way. Werieth (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Compliments[edit]

Just wanted to take a second to say you did an awesome job with the book citations/references on the Jeffrey Dahmer article. It was a seemingly insurmountable ordeal for me. I'm one of the main editors that has been most active with the expansion of Dahmer's article, so great work. --DendroNaja (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Another way[edit]

Well, if you keep pushing your ideas as facts without proposing and discussing, and do not respond to my userside suggestions, I guess we cannot call this a cooperation. Just another one-way talking bot. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ive only made a few concrete statements the rest are ideas and thoughts. Werieth (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you do within the bot is yours, except that the parameters are a user concern. You have not responded to a single proposal regarding any wiki-side topic. Not one conversation. Still you have imposed your own ideas as "that is how it will be", irrespective of what I had written. -DePiep (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FOV images[edit]

Hi, please do not remove images from the Field_of_view_in_video_games article. Those are needed to illustrate the field of view scaling method so that other people know how they work on certain games like that.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given you have free examples in the section above, or can get screenshots from free games, using copyrighted images violates WP:NFCC#1 Werieth (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Images removed from MotorStorm (series)[edit]

Hello. I noticed that the images (two which was uploaded by JMBZ-12) were deleted, which resulted in downgrading the article. If it did failed to meet WP:NFC, can you at least find other viable images for the article, so it won't have low quality for it? Thank you. 70.45.128.103 (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly taking another look at the article, yes it may not be as visually appealing, but it doesnt actually degrade the quality of the article. I cant see any justification for further non-free imagery in that article. Werieth (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Precious Metals[edit]

Werieth,

This article has been made in a good faith effort to produce quality content for Wikipedia. I am open for improvements making the article more encyclopedic and neutral...please help in this process. There are a handful of other editors who have added and deleted significant amounts of content, all of which I agree with and endorse. If you read the article as is, there are nothing but facts about the company which gives is a strong NPOV. As more and more people contribute, the article with further flesh itself out. If you have issues with the article, please create productive edits and contribute rather than brashly tagging it with multiple unsupported tags. Every single one of the tags you posted has been discussed on the article talk page and rectified by myself as well as a Wikipedia administrator (the same administrator who denied your speedy deletion request). The issues with the article have been confronted and have been discussed in detail on the talk page, if you would like to be a positive par of the discussion, please read and take part in that conversation.

Thank you, Chriskaspar (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ill further comment on the talk page, but the admin in question is the one who added most of the tags you are removing. Werieth (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm Chriskaspar. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Please work to contribute rather than do massive unsupported deltions. —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I was removing COI/promotional/unsourced material, and I did leave an edit summary. /facepalm Werieth (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


File:Miclas versus Eleking.jpg[edit]

Hi. You've tagged this image for deletion without notifying me. The discussion on Eleking was to merge the material into File:Miclas versus Eleking.jpg, which I have done, and updated the rationale to reflect this. I am not sure if I should simply delete the deletion template from File:Miclas versus Eleking.jpg or if some other procedure is appropriate. I'd appreciate your assistance with this. Thanks.

Ive gone ahead and removed the deletion notice, it is just a standard policy to delete non-free media thats not being used. Once its used again the deletion reason becomes invalid and the tag should be removed. Werieth (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I understand the policy and the reason for it, I just wasn't sure if removing the tag was enough, or if there was some separate nomination that would need closing somewhere. I appreciate the help. μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, just some house cleaning is all that was needed. Werieth (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


WP:NFCR#List of shopping mall retailers in the Philippines[edit]

You closed the section as resolved. How is File:Ayala Malls Logo.jpg copyrightable in the Philippines? Also File:Logo of Ever Gotesco Malls.jpg? --George Ho (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I take the TOO fairly low, these where tagged as non-free and thus removed. If we want to debate the TOO on a particular file feel free to open a new section on that particular file. Werieth (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Removing images before discussion[edit]

Hi Werieth, please don't remove fair-use images from articles (as you did here, for example) when you're intending to start a discussion about them. Removing them means they're liable to be deleted because unused, and also means that people wanting to discuss them can't see the context in which they were used without going into the history. If you leave them in place until the discussion has closed, it means people can see what's being talked about, and the uploader/editor can rewrite the text or captions around the images to add critical commentary – or to clarify why they're important – if that's what's needed. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt planning on starting a NFCR when I removed them. I filed it after the fact. Werieth (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the best thing in future is to restore the images once the NFCR is posted so that people can see them in situ, and so that the editor who wants to keep them can do some editing to make their significance clearer. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case there was no way that the files would have been acceptable, I just filed the NFCR so others could repeat what I was saying to make the same points. If people want to review the article with the images in location we have the history there for them to review. Re-adding obviously non-compliant files is a waste of time. Werieth (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing is not to remove them, but just to post the NFCR discussion. Or perhaps remove them once, if you want to be BOLD and/or you think no one will mind, but if someone restores them, the removal is by definition contentious and has to be discussed. That used to be written down somewhere, though I have no idea where. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont mean to be rude, but you dont know what your doing and cant be bothered to do any research and I really dont feel like re-explaining the obvious repeatedly. I made 1 edit to the article removing the files, the images where never restored. The removals where questioned, I answered those, and I didnt think the user was understanding what I was saying. So I filed an NFCR so that it could be repeated, in a probably different words, in a hope that the user would understand. I really dont appreciate the tone I am getting from you. I made a textbook removal of non-compliant files. The burden is on those wanting to include the media to prove that it meets policy, in this case that was far from being met. I am not going to leave obvious violations in place because someone disagrees with WP:NFCC. Werieth (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Luis Buñuel[edit]

Per the request of an editor uninvolved with the discussion, I have expanded the explanation of the consensus in the discussion that I previously closed. The discussion is: Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 37#Luis Buñuel. The consensus of the discussion, nor have my closure have changed, simply the explanation has been extended to include the individual images discussed. I am notifying you because you rightfully should be made aware when anything is changed regarding to a discussion you participated in. No action is required. As I have stated many times before, if an uninvolved administrator finds fault with my closure, I am more than happy to reopen the discussion. If a situation of that nature should arise, I will once again notify all parties involved in the discussion. Thanks for your hard work and happy editing! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding HTTPS[edit]

Hi,

I'm sorry the dispute got so heated between us lately. Even though I don't agree with you on the issue, I do respect your opinion. Thus my question: would you, too, oppose a switch from http:// to protocol relative URIs, or is that okay? --bender235 (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue isnt that your changing them, but how your changing them, and your misconception of how http vs https work. Switching 80%+ of the links to what ever can easily be done via lua module code changes. For those cases that it doesnt catch and for a longer term cleanup/standardization adding it to tools like AWB is the correct approach. Having a regular user mass change hundreds of thousands of links is plain disruptive. If there is a critical need for a migration from one protocol to another where it is a time sensitive issue (A site no longer supports non-https connections, or vice versa) a flagged bot is the correct method for doing that. It wont flood the recentchanges feed, that our anti-vandalism team work through, it wont flood watchlists, and it will give the community a good chance to analyze the changes, review the migration, the process and the procedures for doing so.
On a side note, how much do you know about information technology? I would really like to know what your foundation is so that I can discuss/teach you about computer cryptography. From what Ive been assuming (and please dont take offense to this) you are in your late teens to early 20's with a basic level of computer knowledge (what is often referred to as the 100 level courses in higher education). Werieth (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there are easier ways to fix those links than AWB. The Lua module for all CS1-templates, and a clean and silent bot for the rest, would be perfect. However, I gave up on the idea that we'd ever find consensus on that.
As far as my IT knowledge is concerned: I'm an economics post-graduate, yet I have a solid grasp on IT and the can's and cannot's of encryption. I know SSL/TLS has flaws, particular with the CA mess. I'm the last person to tell anyone that the little padlock in your browser means you're completely safe from any type of eavesdropping. Of course you're not. However, some encryption is better than none. Wide-scale diffusion of HTTPS would at least put stones in eavesdroppers' paths. It doesn't make DPI etc. impossible, but at least more difficult. That, compared to the fact that is has practically no downside at all, leads me to the conclussion that it is one of the many weapons against mass-surveillance. --bender235 (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isnt a tool for either support or a fight against mass surveillance. There are quite a few pit falls to https, they may not be a factor for you, but for a large percentage of our readers I know it can cause problems. I know quite a few corporate networks that make using https in a lot of cases problematic, I also know in non-first world countries governments have a tendency to block/filter those excessively. I also know that switching links to https by default can place extra stress on those websites, so its not something that should be done on the whim of a single wikipedia editor. Making a sound argument to switch to https can be done fairly easily, it can also be done fairly painlessly. However you need to understand that the wiki is extremely large and any migration done correctly will take time to phase out usage of the older style links. I think you need to step back get a cup of coffee (or what ever your preferred beverage is) and plan out an approach to this issue that works well, is non-disruptive to the community, and achieves the goals with as little pain as possible. Perhaps the first step is to find someone to write a lua module that converts any url which is on the list of https default friendly sites, from non secure to secure. Then perhaps roll that out to a limited number of citation templates. Once that phase is complete, slowly expand until all relevant templates use the http => https module. Once thats done and there is a wider acceptance to https defaults file a request for those changes to be ingrated into AWB, and the rest of the links will slowly be converted. Dont approach the issue like all links need converted in the next 30 days or the world will end, because guess what? the world will keep on rotating. Werieth (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to get political here. Of course it's not Wikipedia's business to fight mass surveillance, but apparently we do care about our readers' privacy. I am aware of the pit falls you mentioned, which is why I realized protocol-relative URIs would be best. If you are able to reach Wikipedia on HTTPS, you should be able to jump to Wayback on HTTPS, too. I do realize that HTTPS puts stress on websites, which is why I was exclusively refering to those that either require HTTPS by default (Facebook, Twitter, MySpace) or explicitely encourage their users to use HTTPS (YouTube, Internet Archive). I know we're not in a hurry here, but at times the decission-finding process on Wikipedia is a pain in the ass. It bothers me that people immediately abused the Wayback discussion for a HTTPS-good-or-bad proxy war.
I'm contemplating the idea of starting a final, general debate on this topic at WP:ELN or WP:VPP. Good idea? Just did. --bender235 (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Justin M. Nickels.jpg[edit]

Hi, Werieth! Could I ask your advice on File:Justin M. Nickels.jpg? The image is purportedly in the public domain, but I don't see any evidence that the copyright holder has released permission. It appears that that statement was added by the uploader. On Commons (where I have only the most limited experience) I would immediately nominate such a file for deletion, but I'm not too sure of the rules here. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the uploader is the subject of the picture. The question is whether the image is really released into the public domain. (Yeah, I saw the image but wanted to wait for further activity before tagging.) —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly how it would appear. There's some discussion of that aspect at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Justin Nickels. I did see that you had recently posted at the user's talkpage about another (perhaps similar?) picture, but only after I had already posted here to ask Werieth's advice; otherwise I'd have brought my question to you. I note that the image is declared to be sourced from justinnickels.com, where it is apparently (to my inexpert eye) covered by a copyright statement at the foot of the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the possible can of worms that could be opening, I would suggest that you politely drop a note to the uploader, request that they send a release of permissions to OTRS, and avoid directly editing their own article. Werieth (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


HELP![edit]

Hello! You recently commented at my user page about some unlicensed media I'd included in an edit. I'm hoping that this means that you're a current moderator-type person. I have been unable to log into my wikipedia account for months, and I've been poking all around the website looking for help -- but haven't found any. I'd love to touch base and get logged in again. Thanks for any help. user:PurpleChez 11/18/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.252.118 (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot assist you in recovering access to an account if you failed to set an email address. Werieth (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Talk[edit]

Dear Werieth, I really appreciate that you're contributing to keep the standards of Wikipedia at the highest level possible. Yesterday, I have noticed that you deleted a couple of pictures uploaded by me - I agree that two of them may be disputable and deleted them, but especially the picture of the Mannheim Palace before 1946 can not be considered as non-fair, since it is a historical photography that cannot be replicated - the Palace is not existing anymore in this condition. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattRaupa (talk • contribs) 08:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The files in question failed to meet WP:NFCC and where removed. Wikipedia's policy on non-free media is far more strict than that required by fair use law. Werieth (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Kansas State Wildcat's Men's Basketball[edit]

Wereith this logo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KSUWildcats_logo.svg) is already being used in association of the Kansas State Wildcat's Men's Basketball, therefore you should not be removing it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henningtl (talk • contribs) 22:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NFC#UUI#14 usage of non-free logos on yearly articles isnt allowed. Werieth (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Restoring[edit]

Werieth, Heads up. I'll soon be sending you the restoration requests so that you can undelete and redo files for in the following articles once they make AfC and go into mainspace. Your future to do list:

Thanks, Crtew (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When those articles get to mainspace feel free to restore them. Werieth (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Jeju United FC crests[edit]

Hi, I have a question. Jeju United FC and Bucheon SK are same club. But Why Bucheon SK article can have crests but Jeju United FC article can't have crests. I think crests are free contens. In Jeju United FC website, we can download crests freely.Footwiks (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they are posted on a website doesnt mean that they do not have a copyright. I have removed the files from both articles. Copyrighted material falls under WP:NFCC, the files that where removed do not meet that policy. Werieth (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how to use crests on jeju united fc article of wikipeda?Footwiks (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You cant. Werieth (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain in detail. Who use theses crests on Jeju United FC?

Hello there[edit]

How would I get documented evidence of permission? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTRS Werieth (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Order of a kernel[edit]

I removed your speedy tag. This is a statistics stub. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we just redirect it? Bearian (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given there is so little context and it currently makes no sense to someone not familiar with the topic I think a redirect or deletion are the only options unless someone familiar with the topic steps up and significantly adds to the article Werieth (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


November 2013[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on MAHLE_Powertrain. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. [1]

Please refer to the updated FURs Andy Dingley (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, FURs mean nothing when referring to replicable non-free media. Anyone can take a picture of an engine, it may not be easy, but any mechanic can pull an engine and take a free photo. This is the second time you have failed to understand WP:NFCC. If you continue to violate WP:NFCC I will be forced to seek a topic ban. Werieth (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Anyone can take a picture of an engine" Read the rationale. This is not an engine, it is a render of a design for an engine. The render model is MAHLE's, it is not available outside MAHLE for others to "take a picture of"(sic).
...And don't play mall cop. You're not an admin yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: Im not playing mall cop. Admins hold no special authority. Most of that article was pruned due to advert/copyright violation issues. We are not a venue for promoting that company, as an additional point the files failed WP:NFCC#8, the article wasnt about the engine, it was about the company that makes the engine. Werieth (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged the whole set with {{subst:rfu}}. Apart from WP:NFCC#1, they also fail WP:NFCC#8, and there is no evidence that they satisfy WP:NFCC#4 either. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeju United[edit]

Your requset is reasonble. That's right. Jeju United and Bucheon SK are same club. Please join the discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeju_United_FC#Merger_proposalFootwiks (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

logo of MLL on season page[edit]

help me to understand why we can not have a logo of the league on a season page for this Smith03 (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NFC#UUI #14 A logo of a perennial event (or of its sponsoring company), used to illustrate an article about a specific instance of that event. If each instance has its own logo, such specific logos remain acceptable Werieth (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Werieth/201311&oldid=1088071940"