User talk:Werieth/201406

Removal of image at List of statues by height

I'm very curious why? :) Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFLIST, WP:NFTABLE, WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#10c Werieth (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Those are six excellent reasons! :) I always thought that was a commons file. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe we don't have a good freebie of that. I'll have to go check. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhh, I get it now. Well, I learned something new today. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

File:WMMS Rover billboard.jpg

I suspected this image failed WP:NFCCP#8 and/or WP:NFCI#4. Thank you for confirming my suspicions. Now I won't have to go to the trouble of opening a discussion at WP:NFCR. Levdr1lp / talk 13:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Polywell

I see you removed some images from the polywell article for valid copyright reasons, had that reverted by an anonymous editor, and then reverted the reversion. So I thought I would ask you, as a possibly interested editor, your opinion on an issue.

I've been trying for some time to improve the language and style, etc., of the article - my background is (electronic) engineering not specifically Physics, but I think I could improve some parts of these aspects. However my attempts are mostly reverted or elsewise undone, by one or more anonymous user: I have managed to get the initial article change from an indefinite 'a' to a definite 'the', but the first para of the lead still, in my opinion, needs structural work that these/this anonymous editors resist. I particularly dislike the references to it being closely related to certain other articles before any discussion of the attributes that relate to them.

I don't know if there is something about the polywell that attracts anonymous editors or what, but it's most frustrating not to be able to discuss these issues. So I was wondering if there's value in asking admin to partially protect this page, to limit editing to those with confirmed accounts. At least then I can open a dialogue with whoever it is that's has such strong, and I think mistaken, views, especially on the lead. What's your take on this idea?

Graham.Fountain | Talk 11:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If anon editors refuse to discuss why they reverted, and dont provide a valid rationale, it is considered disruptive editing and I would request simi-protection. Werieth (talk)

I have made a number of corrections to that article as well. I do allot of editing around fusion, IEC, ect... I am have 7+ years experience working on NIF for Riccardo Betti, with a PhD... So I consider myself well versed in fusion. It seems that a number of images are not fair use. I am planning to investigate the issue, to see if their are fair-use versions of these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHelper2134 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Albert Einstein World Award of Science Medal image

Hi Werieth. I can be considered as a new editor in Wikipedia and I need to learn a lot. I changed the source of the image of the medal you removed recently from a template I created. May I continue using the image as intended? (Removing poor source category, bsr and other tags). Thanks for your guidance on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healing Mandala (talk • contribs) 05:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs images

Hey man, I noted that you deleted some of the images from the Sleeping Dogs page. Was there something wrong with them? URDNEXT (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@URDNEXT: yes, the files that I removed do not meet WP:NFC. Werieth (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain, exactly what they did wrong? I edited their summaries to make sure they met the requirements and some adms even said it looked ok. URDNEXT (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Sleeping Dogs - Northpoint Apartment.jpg lacks critical commentary thus fails WP:NFCC#8, and we already have one gameplay image so a second is excessive. File:True Crime HK cover art.jpg Normally we only use one cover art and again there is no critical commentary on the contents of the image, thus fails #8, and File:Sleeping Dogs Year of the Snake - Square Enix video game cover.jpg is very close to the original cover and thus redundant. Overall you also have NFCC#3 issues. Werieth (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks. URDNEXT (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Minas Tênis Clube

I apologize. I didn't understand that the reason was WP:NFCC#10c. I have fixed the file description. Can you tell me if it's OK now to use the image in the articles? Pedro 11:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcgomes (talk • contribs)

@Pcgomes: I just did a quick look, but as long as you have a rationale for each use you should be good. Werieth (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Already returned the image. Thanks for pointing me the issue. Pedro 06:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcgomes (talk • contribs)

Portsmouth

Ok, I'll create the kits from the upcoming season only with the club's emblem. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 15:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

File:WestVirginiaPublicBroadcasting.PNG

Apparently you have a memory issue and have forgotten our past discussion on this image. So, I dug through your archives and posted that discussion below. In short: the image is used for the radio and television stations of West Virginia Public Broadcasting and it has been FUR'd.

As for WP:NFC#UUI 17, you're wrong. The TV side is called "West Virginia Public Television" and the radio side is called "West Virginia Public Radio".

If you comment the image out again, when it is quite clear you are in the wrong (and we have discussed this before and you were in the wrong then too), I will report you to ANI for disruption. Stop now! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually Im not wrong, you just refuse to follow policy. Ive gone ahead and NFCR'ed the image that way the next time its removed you wont be able to re-add it. Werieth (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you are. Under WP:NFC#UUI 17, it says "The logo of a entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks their own branding." This is, of course, wrong. West Virginia Public Radio and West Virginia Public Television are two different brandings, which use the "West Virginia Public Broadcasting" umbrella logo.

What you refuse to understand is the West Virginia Public Broadcasting page is actually the page for the entire company. The TV stations are redirected there.

You're wrong now, you were wrong then, you just refuse to accept it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually Im not. WVNP doesnt have its own branding/logo it uses that of a parent origination (West Virginia Public Broadcasting). If WVNP had its own branding it would be a different story but as a child entity of Virginia Public Radio, which is in turn a child of West Virginia Public Broadcasting we dont need to include the logo of the parent company. IE West Virginia Public Broadcasting. Werieth (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Look in the infobox of page WVNP. "Branding 'West Virginia Public Radio'" Different branding. Sorry, you're still wrong. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Instead of just doing some minor cleanup on the West Virginia Public Broadcasting page, why not do some updating there as well. The page has been marked "outdated" since August of 2013. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Past Discussion

An FUR is listed for each page on the image page. Why the commenting out? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

We dont include a parent logo, in a child article if the child doesnt have its own logo. Including this file on 11 other articles isnt minimal usage. Werieth (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The "Parent" logo is also used for their radio division. It's an umbrella logo. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That doesnt mean we need to include it, including a link to the parent company article where the logo is displayed is all that is needed, If the sub-entity doesnt have its own logo we dont need to substitute the parents logo. Werieth (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You're not understanding. The same logo is used for their radio division and their television division. This wasn't a problem before with the previous logo, so I don't see it being a problem now.

Just to note, the pages for TV stations associated with West Virginia Public Broadcasting (WNPB, WPBY and WSWP) all redirect back to West Virginia Public Broadcasting. Not of my doing, but that's the reasoning there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I cant see what license the previous logo was under, but if it was below ToO and wasnt copyrightable this wouldnt be an issue. Since the file is non-free that is where the issue is. In this case linking to the primary entity and noting that they have the same logo is enough, we dont need to display it on every satellite article. Werieth (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Same license this one is under. It wasn't a problem, because all stations are part of the same network, umbrella'd under West Virginia Public Broadcasting. Also, because, if memory serves, someone had uploaded the image 11 times....one for each page. Wasn't a problem then, won't be a problem now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It was a matter of the problem not being caught, not that it doesnt exist. Before this goest too far down the road you might look and see if the file is copyrightable, I dont think it is, see commons:COM:TOO, now that I take a second look at it. Werieth (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about being caught. As for whether the image is copyrightable, I have no clue. There wasn't a little C or R or TM beside it when I saved it, so I don't think so, but I can't say for certain. Hence why I used {{Non-free logo}}. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

FURs

Masem is an admin, you are not. Masem said "leaving the FURs does not harm anything as they still provide trail for publishing". You have removed them and removed that trail for publishing.

Would you like me to get another admin involved to prevent you from causing disruption? Don't revert again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I guess masem wasnt aware of the fact that the NFUR templates label the media as non-free. I didnt actually remove any content, thus the needed information is still there. If you fill in the {{information}} and migrate the useful information out of it they can be completely removed. However one of two things needs to happen. The file will either be treated as non-free and thus very limited usage, or the file is correctly labeled as free and all associated non-free labels are removed. I attempted to do the latter, but Im happy to do the former too. One of the two method needs to be done. If you dont want to be smart enough to do this yourself or let me, Ill be happy to drag this to the drama board (ANI) and force the change. I honestly could care less which method I have to take, as it seems that force is the only method that works with people who either cant understand or refuse to understand the policies. Werieth (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't threaten me, I'm not in the mood for it. You are PO'd because the image stands after you tagging the image WP:NFC#UUI 17 went sideways. No one backed you up, like I said, you were wrong. Now, you want to do away with the FURs after an admin allowed them to stay. So, yeah, take it to ANI if you wish, I would be more than happy to post all this there.

If you really want the information templates filled out, you'd do it yourself. Burden, remember? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually your blind reverts are placing the burden on yourself. Your edits are classifying the file as non-free. Im not Pissed off, in fact I suggested one of two courses, that A) the file was under the Threshold of originality, or B) subject to NFCC. During the NFCR it was determined that A was the correct path. I attempted to remove the non-free labeling from the file description page in order to comply with both standard practices and image licensing policies. Im not sure if you have hidden categories enabled or not, but the primary category that is used to tag non-free files is still present on that image, see [1]. Ill @Masem: as one last attempt to make you get my point before I take this to ANI and have someone else drill the information into your head. Werieth (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Werieth, I thought it was the licensing templates that set the image as free or non-free. We require a license template for all images, but do not require a non-free rationale template, and hence our determination is based on the license template included. Thus there is no problem leaving the rationale template which might label it as non-free as long as the license template says the right thing. Yes, {{information}} can be used to migrate appropriate information but it is far from required or necessary. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Masem:, the Non-free media rationale templates also flag media as non-free. Since NFUR's are only needed with non-free media its normally not an issue. In this case I attempted to migrate the useful data to {{information}} so that the file would no longer be classified as non-free. I left the template and associated data on the file description page in an HTML comment for historical reasons. Most media is classified from one of two root templates {{Free media}} and {{non-free media}}. I was attempting to fix it but Neutralhomer's stubbornness, and refusal to work together is making that impossible, since he was quoting your word as law, which it isnt, I was hoping you could talk to him. Leaving the NFUR templates in place will continue to cause the files to show up and be classified as non-free, Not sure why he his refusing logic by my attempts to migtrate to a neutral {{information}} template. Werieth (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

If the NFR template also tags as non-free, then yes, it should be mitigated to the basic information template as to keep the track of source, creator info, etc. I though only the license templates were used for bots to determine non-free. My apologies for the bad advice, NH; the image is still fine as free, the change in templates is correct. (I wonder how much trouble it would be to have a {{free-use rationale}} template that mirrors the same normal parameters as the non-free but only displays the basic aspects so that if a non-free turns free like this, its a simple change to a template call). --MASEM (t) 15:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It shouldnt be that hard, all we need to do is wrap it around {{information}} and point the different params to the correct one in the info template. Werieth (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Image removals

To be brutally honest, many of your image removals are the sort of thing we'd expect from vandals. Arbitrarily removing seemingly random images, leaving holes in articles without any discussion when images have valid FURs and often when the images are the subject of commentary, is at best unconstructive. Of course you usually leave an edit summary, often along the lines of "See WP:NFC" but that is no help to editors as it is often the case that WP:NFC doesn't support removal at all. You need to come up with a more cogent argument for removal, especially when you arbitrarily remove some images but not others. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, see NPA. Just because you cant understand the policy on non-free content doesnt mean my actions are vandalism. Most of the time the rationale for removing images requires more detail than what will fit into an edit summary. If a user has a question about a particular image they can come to my talk page and Ill be glad to explain it. However your actions prove that you dont understand NFCC so do not revert my edits again. Werieth (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

NPA doesn't apply. I've seen far too many instances where you have removed images arbitrarily and without discussion when images seem to comply with all of the policy. If your rationale requires more space, you can explain your edit on the talk page. That's what it's there for. Instead of expecting others to seek your counsel, it's actually your responsibility to provide an appropriate edit summary and, as I've already indicated, "See WP:NFC" is rarely an appropriate edit summary. I will continue to revert edits that do not seem appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ill consider that harassment then. Stalking and reverting my edits because you dont understand policy is unacceptable. Most of the time a fully detailed summary is several paragraphs of text, and given that only a small percentage of my edits are questioned its excessive to expect a user to write up a report for every edit that they make. If a user has questions Ill gladly explain that particular case. But Im not going to write a wall of text explaining every removal when less than 10% are questioned. Werieth (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of poor editing is not harrassment. Nobody has been stalking you. That's a paranoid thing to suggest. I'm sorry, but "Most of the time a fully detailed summary is several paragraphs of text" is absolutely wrong. Detailed information can be provided in the space available. It's incredibly rare that you'd need to write several paragraphs. Using that excuse to justify generally innacurate summaries like "See WP:NFC" just doesn't fly. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I dont have a diff handy, but often it takes several sentences per image of explanation and there are 3-4 images per article. That quickly becomes a wall of text. My edit summaries are not inaccurate, they may be brief but they are to the point. For most edits I would agree that its rare to exceed the 255 character limit in an edit summary, but for NFCC you will hit that per image easily, not per article. Edit summaries are not required, thus requiring a detailed edit summary isnt required either. Since you have shown a lack of understanding and an unwillingness to learn policy there really isnt much else to discuss. Werieth (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said, if there isn't space in the edit summary field, explain it on the talk page. If the edit is worth making, it's worth explaining. While edit summaries are not required, they are expected and you owe it to the community to be accurate. I find it rather hypocritical of you to accuse me of NPA and stalking when you persistently accuse me of not knowing policy. Please be more civil in your tone. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Do not template established users

Three issues: 1) You don't drop templates on established users; 2) You MUST discuss removals, when those removals are challenged per policy; and 3) Not every non-free image needs to be removed, particularly in the case of logos (WP:Logos).

So, do not simply revert out a logo that has been replaced, without establishing a discussion on the talk page. Lithistman (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lithistman: Where is policy challenging my edits? If you actually look at WP:LOGO you will note that their use must conform to the guidelines for non-free content. Usage of non-free logos on rivalry articles isnt allowed unless the rivalry has its own logo. Werieth (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It says NOTHING of the sort. The word "rivalry" never appears on that page. You're making things up out of whole cloth to justify continually reverting out a logo that in no way impinges WP:NFC. You refuse to explain WHAT SPECIFIC guideline it breaches, and are untruthfully representing what WP:Logos says about the issue. This needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. Lithistman (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I put the LOGO quote in italics. See the talk page for specific bullet point violations. Werieth (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Disney Junior

I have restored the logos to these articles along with the F-UR's as I feel your interpretation of UUI17 is hardly what was intended by that guideline. It is the primary logo utilized by each of these networks, and basically you're suggesting that up to eight different copies of this logo with separate F-UR's be uploaded to meet your definition of appropriate use. That is not only clumsy, but against the spirit of how we use fair use images in the correct way. These channels are not 'children' of the main DJ, but entities all their own, thus why I feel the use this way is appropriate, notwithstanding that some of the uploaders inappropriately upload them to Commons under PU licenses so they can throw them in articles as they please. As I have seen above on this page please have some consideration about how logos are used within articles. Nate • (chatter) 04:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The same also goes for Discovery Channel; although I have not reverted those removals I may ask for advice on how to restore them; it is frankly an embarrassment to not see a logo image in an infobox in DC Canada or DC UK/I just because of your interpretation of UUI17. Nate • (chatter) 04:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page User:Technical 13/SandBox/HTMLdump/Page 1 has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Using Media: to link to pages does not violate WP:NFCC#9. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: see the note on your talk page. It does create a file usage link which does cause NFCC#9 issues. Werieth (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What are you doing

Please explain to me why you removed the city flag and city seal from all of the recent articles I edited on neighborhoods of Long Beach, California. The two images in question appear to have the non-free-use rationales in place at (File:Long Beach CA flag.gif) and (File:LongBeachLogo.jpg). Using them in articles that are sub-articles of the main article seems perfectly appropriate to me. What exactly, in your mind, is wrong with the FURs provided on those images or my use of them?

Given your pattern of behavior, that is apparent from all the other comments on your talk page, it's going to be hard for me to WP:AGF. This appears to border on disruptive editing and a disruptive pattern of behavior. I'll have to ask you to please not just repeat your accusations or arguments that have already been refuted by others. In what way, specifically and uniquely, do you think I am in error here, that has not been adequately addressed by others above, in your attacks on their FURs? Darkest Tree Talk 18:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

At the time I removed the file from the articles it was tagged as non-free, (which has since been changed, Ill look into the validity of that in a minute). The files had a non-free use rationale for usage in Long Beach, California and that was it. Given that there wasnt a rationale for those articles and that the usage of a non-free city logo in neighborhoods violates WP:NFCC#1&3, Along with WP:NFC#UUI #6&17. I actually "attacked" your missing NFUR's. Werieth (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, looks like this issue has been resolved by a knowledgeable editor who changed the license type on the two files in question to {{PD-CAGov}}. I am going to go ahead and concur with him/her that this is the correct license type. I believe that takes care of this issue altogether. Thank you for your role in bringing this all to light. I will make sure to use {{PD-CAGov}} wherever appropriate in the future to ensure that worthwhile content is not removed from the Encyclopedia. Darkest Tree Talk 21:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Hunting Party (album)

Can you please elaborate on why the audio sample violates NFCC#1? There wouldn't be any free content to replace any sample from any audio recording because the songs themselves would be copyrighted. Any iteration or emulation of the recording would, in turn, be copyrighted as well. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 19:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@RazorEyeEdits: We have a entire article on the song Guilty All the Same a link to that page can replace the second usage. See also WP:NFC#UUI#6 Werieth (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, would a removal of the usage from Guilty All the Same allow it's usage on The Hunting Party (album)? RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 19:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it should be used on Guilty All the Same. Werieth (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Would like to note, Werieth, that you are in danger of violating 3RR in your reversions. Perhaps it might be more constructive to utilise WP:NFCR rather than edit warring over it. Also threatening good faith editors with blocks is unacceptable - I would strongly advise you to refrain from disruptive behavior like this in the future. —Dark 00:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@DarkFalls: and Ill point you to 3RRNO. Given that one of the multiple points I raised is a #10 failure, its a clear violation and exempt from 3RR. Given that I have seen this behavior before stern warnings and/or blocks are the only thing that get the point through. Werieth (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an unquestionable violation here, hence why I requested that you follow through on NFCR. In my opinion, it is a violation of NFCC #3 but not one that is closed to argument. I really don't care if you have seen it before, do not template regulars and do not threaten them with a block, especially if you are unable to do so in the first place. —Dark 03:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@DarkFalls: DTTR is an essay, not policy. If I need to send a message and its already in a template, Ill use that. I guess Ill need to give you a review lesson in WP:NFCC, didnt expect to need to do this to an admin, but surprises happen. The sound clip that I was removing is File:Guilty All The Same.ogg. If you review WP:NFCC#10 it requires specific information to be on the file description page. One of those elements is non-free use rationale's. In this case it does have one rationale for Guilty All the Same. However the file was being used on multiple articles with only a rationale for one. Per WP:NFCC#10c a file is required to have a rationale for each usage, because this file does not have one it is in clear violation of WP:NFCC#10, and thus removal is exempt from 3RR, see the point 5 of WP:3RRNO. In this case the violation is crystal clear, and is an established reason for removal. Now can you please stop trying to dictate how a policy should be enforced if you failed to understand one of the most basic points of it? NFCR is for questionable removals, this wasnt one of them. Werieth (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand NFCC perfectly well, thanks. As you well know, adding a rationale for usage in NFCC #10 is not exactly difficult. By your reasoning, we should delete all image infractions under #10 rather than fixing it. You are being unnecessarily pedantic for the purposes of making your point. As you can probably tell. my issue isn't with you templating regulars - my issue is with your incivility when dealing with other good faith editors. —Dark 18:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

And I'd also like to reaffirm my point as it seems to have gotten lost. I agree with your removal of the file from the page. I agree that it does violate WP:NFCC criteria #3. I do not agree with your edit warring in order to ensure that the file stays removed. I do not agree that it is an unquestionable copyright infringement to the extent that it is 3RR exempt as issues with file description can be easily rectified (and you should consider doing so). I also do not agree that you could threaten a good faith editor with a block for the reinstatement. —Dark 18:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Citing WP:FIXIT? I did just that, and you dont understand my reasoning. If it where just a basic rationale issue it wouldnt be such a big deal. In this case its one of several that I made to the user. If you consider warning users that they will be blocked for repeated violations of policy then Im just one of a long line of users who do such. Any user who fights vandalism too. Its not uncivil to provide sufficient warning before someone is blocked. I'll quote you I'm not seeing an unquestionable violation here means that you did not see/understand a WP:NFCC#10 failure even when it was pointed out. Its not much of a jump then to consider your understanding of NFCC lacking. When you cite fix it, fixing it can take several different manifestations. In this case I cannot see justification for usage and thus no valid NFUR, If I cant write a NFUR then the other option is to remove the file. Werieth (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I would not call edit warring for the removal of the file "fixing it". Indeed it did nothing but exacerbate an issue that could easily have been sorted out had you communicated more effectively. As you seem to be unable to grasp the point I am making here regarding the acceptable application of 3RRNO, I see that I will not get anything accomplished by discussing this any longer. I pointed out your edits were unnecessarily antagonistic, I can only hope you will take that on board for the future. Have a nice day. —Dark 22:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Bug in AWB script?

Please see this edit, which may indicate a bug in the AWB script you are using. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, That may have just been me deleting too much on accident. Werieth (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is links

Hi,

You recently deleted some archive.is links from the article's 62nd NHK Cup (shogi) and 61st NHK Cup (shogi) per this RfC. I am not contesting those edits. I am just wondering if it would be OK to use this and this instead. They seem to be the same links as before, but the name is slightly different. Is "archive.today" just "archive.is" is disquise? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Both of those sites are forbidden. Werieth (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be great if you added alternative links to the archive versions of the articles you removed the archive.is/archive.today links from. I've done this manually at Aeroflot. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Warriors covers

Could you explain which part of NFC you're referring to when removing cover images from Warriors: Power of Three and Warriors: Omen of the Stars? Brambleclawx 01:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Primarily WP:NFLISTS. We dont need to include every cover in story arc/series page. Werieth (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Noted. Brambleclawx 01:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Brambleclawx: Ill note that Warriors: Power of Three, does have box set cover which can be used. Werieth (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Holds heads in hands.

These need archives. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. At least one other editor has attempted to talk to you about this removal. You think you are being a help by removing the blacklist links, I get that. But if you do not replace them, that poses serious WP:LINKROT concerns. Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Its better to have a link rot than to promote spam, and violate consensus for their removal. Werieth (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I assume that the OP here is talking about removal of archive.is links; if not, please provide a link to a sample edit that is being described above (in any case, that's a helpful thing to do in a message like the one above). There is consensus for removal of archive.is links. Apologies if I am misunderstanding the context here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: you are correct, its just Favre1fan93 throwing a fit because they ended up on the loosing side of the RfC, and Im finally doing something about the removal process. Werieth (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not "throwing a fit" because I'm on the losing side. I'm "throwing a fit" because you are not rearchiving the links. I followed the RFC with removal on a good majority of the pages I watch and rearchived them with Webcite. So because you are not doing this, that is the issue I am taking to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Im not done with the process yet. First part is mass removal, then converting the current edit filter to blacklisting, and then Im going to be going through a large list of pages and adding archive URLs (which the previous archive.is pages are a subset). Werieth (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Well you have never made that clear, so I hope you see my issue in your editing when you just mass remove archive links because of the RfC, without giving the intention that you are going back to fix them. (And as I recall, even your fixed archives had issues when this was an issue previously). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You never asked. I dont post everything that I have plans for, just what Im currently doing. When there is a specific request, and the user isnt being difficult about I, Ill go ahead and skip to the final part for them. However your behavior has made it clear that you have OWN issues, and dont care about consensus. Given your behavior I dont see the benefits to go out of my way to help you. Werieth (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Favre don't bother with Werieth, he's very quick to throw out the indirect threats of "not helping unless you beg me to" even if he's helping you by undoing the mess he made. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Im not asking for begging at all, just polite, civil discussion towards progress. I guess it depends on your perspective. Removing archive.is is cleaning up one mess, while still leaving other problems. But we dont require users to fix every issue with an article when they make 1 edit. Werieth (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not 1 edit when you're doing it to 1000 articles. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think it was something I would have to ask a user. I guess I just hoped that anyone that came across these links, especially many on GA or FA content, would be considerate enough to realize that the urls would need new archive links. And I don't have OWN issues. If you are removing a lot of content that was done to initially further the preservation of the page (and yes the RfC changed that), I view that as disruptive. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Werieth might take note of some boxed remarks at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC: "To those removing Archive.is from articles, please be sure to make very clear A) why the community made this decision and B) what alternatives are available to them to deal with rotlink." and "that the removal of Archive.is links be done with care and clear explanation to editors". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Michael. That is the issue users are having with you Werieth. You are failing to rectify the problem fully. You are only going halfway. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you mind?

Please leave my external links alone. I read the Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC and I appreciate you diligence, but you are depriving my readers of an opportunity to read the academic source which explains and supports my article.[2] Besides, the URL parameter has a required status inside Template:Cite web so leave it there next time please. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 04:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is links are forbidden, which is why I removed it. For some reason I read that as a cite book template not a cite web template or I would have removed the entire reference. Werieth (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I was also less than impressed with how you handled the Bill Gibb archive.is incident. I reinstated the reference with a link to the actual webpage, overwriting the offending URL, but just ganking out the whole cite seemed clumsy and counterproductive. Could you not just have removed the offending URL and left the rest of the cite, with dates, publication details, etc, intact? Mabalu (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Where I think its possible I do leave the rest of the cite intact. In this case thought that the URL was required for the template. Werieth (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Nup, it's a Cite News template - wouldn't have affected anything with the URL removed. Mabalu (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, in the future Ill just remove the URL in those cases. Werieth (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the best place to discuss this but it seems to me there are some issues with the citation.

1) Why is the citeweb used? It seems to be a journal or similar so citeweb seems to be the wrong template.

2) Why was only an archive link provided in the first place, the original page still seems to work which would suggest both should be provided.

3) Are we even sure the the blogspot copy [3] is okay? It could easily be a copyvio. The blogspot copy mentions this page which suggests it could have been from the author's personal archive (which they are often allowed to have by journals) [4], but I'm not totally sure if the blog itself is run by the author. And if it isn't I'm not sure the blog hoster can host a copy just because it was taken from the author's personal archive, particularly since the robots.txt would seem to disallow it (of course the blog hoster wouldn't need to follow the robots.txt if they are doing it manually, but it implies the author may not be allowing archives).

Nil Einne (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Puzzled

Your clean-up of Astronomy's archives[5] puzzled me. Doesn't it risk confusing bots to leave an archiveurl= entry the same as the main url and archivedate set? I'm imagining someone trying to survey which urls have archives and thinking that those ones have. NebY (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Werieth (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! NebY (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't remove references to reliable sources

Just because an article has been archived on an unapproved site is not a reason to remove references to reliable sources. Just remove the link to the archive, not the citation. I strongly object to what you did at Bourbon whiskey. That is not justified. Wikipedia is allowed to contain references to WP:OFFLINE sources. There is no need to have a link to a copy of everything. You seem to be causing articles that are properly sourced to become unsourced. That is damaging to Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That appeared to be an online reference, and thus removal of the complete citation was justified. Werieth (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Converting a linked reference to an unlinked reference is not fundamentally damaging like removing reference citations altogether is. Please stop and revert all such actions. As you know, this is being discussed at the Administrator's noticeboard. Please at least stop until there has been an opportunity for this to get discussed and for some guidance to be provided. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Depending on the case, in this one the unlinked citation was useless and unverifiable because it fails to provide enough information. See what masem stated on AN. Werieth (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Your edit was seriously damaging. Please see additional remarks by others at AN. A citation to an article by the Smithsonian Institute, with a title, author, and publication date, is a fully adequate citation – even without a link. Please see WP:OFFLINE. Citations are not required to be linked. Your WP:Edit summary was also badly misleading, since it removed legitimate reliable sourcing when it appeared to only remove an archive link. Did you make other edits like that, converting sourced information to unsourced information? —BarrelProof (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm having an issue with your Archive.is handling

I get what you're doing, I really do. You're in the right in regards to removing these archive pages, as they are blacklisted and have been for awhile. Regardless of my opinion on that, to me it is simply a fact that you're in the right when you remove the archive.is links.

That said, I really think you should start replacing the archives with different ones. If you're going to remove the archiving and (probably) break the reference, you should replace the archive with something from WebCitation or Wayback Machine so that the reference is still accessible. Maybe this seems like too much, or like it isn't your responsibility, and I could understand that too (I sure as hell wouldn't want to do it). But it needs to be done, and it doesn't make sense to just leave what are most likely broken links sitting in both GAs and FAs. I know you're wanting to help, and you are in one way. But you're also harming in another. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Corvoe: As I have stated before, filling in valid archive urls is planned. However getting rid of the crap needs to happen first, otherwise it just makes it harder to fill in valid archive data. Werieth (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that stated by you, so I apologize for the assumption. But wouldn't it be easier to leave the parameters and just archive it then? I feel like you're making more work by not doing both at once. It's one edit instead of two, no time gap, etc. I could be wrong, I'm not trying to tell you how to edit; I'm just telling you how I would. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There is some discussion about this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Archive.is Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am in the list of the confused as well. You took out an archive.is link in the the article about Bridgnorth, leaving another url in that ref. The archive.is points to exactly the information needed, while the link remaining points to an article in French providing total population on Earth, and not specifically in Bridgnorth. You removed the pertinent url and kept the useless url. I have no knowledge of this Wikipedia argument with archive.is other than that one exists, but your action seems backwards. It cannot be reverted, now you took this step. I think you should find another source with the current (non census year) estimate of the population if you do not like the reference cited, instead of leaving a bit of nonsense. --Prairieplant (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I didnt "leave another link in its place" I returned to the original cited url. Werieth (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine points. You left the article with a useless citation, removing the useful one. I do not see the gain in that. Which url was first is not germane, unless that is what leaves you with a clean conscience, and the rest of us with no citation. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Its a matter of policy. I took a look and there are no valid archives for that particular URL, I would suggest you find a reliable source and use that. archive.is was forbidden for a reason. Werieth (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of John Brown image from my rewrite sandbox

The policy you cite (NFCC#9) makes no mention of user sandboxes when a rewrite is in progress. Neither does this essay further clarifying the issue mention such cases as prohibited. It is nearly impossible to figure out how text will wrap around a given image during a rewrite, without actually including that image on the sandbox page where the rewrite is occurring. As such, I am requesting that, as a compromise, we agree that by Sunday at 11:59 PM, I will have finished the rewrite to such an extent that I will remove both the JB image as well as the entire workspace from my userspace. Is that agreeable to you? Lithistman (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:NFCC#9 very clearly states that images only are allowed in articles. An article is a page in the article namespace. A user sandbox is not a page in the article namespace. A user sandbox is therefore not an article. Since a user sandbox isn't an article, WP:NFCC#9 therefore forbids non-free files in user sandboxes. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I posted here for a reply from Werieth, not you. And given your rudeness on my talkpage, I particularly do not wish to hear your opinion on interpretation of image policy as pertains to sandbox rewriting of articles. Lithistman (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lithistman: its not his interpretation of policy. It is policy. Usage of non-free media in your userspace has a zero tolerance. If you need to work out spacing issues use File:Example.jpg or any other free image. Werieth (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Please point out where anything resembling what I'm trying to do in my rewriting sandbox is addressed in NFCC#9, or anywhere else in image policy. I have not found it, and I have looked--wasting valuable time I could have actually, you know, been editing the encyclopedia, which is (at least I think) the point of this project. Lithistman (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lithistman: NFCC#9 states that non-free images can only be used in articles. An article is defined as being in namespace 0 (article space, See Wikipedia:What_is_an_article?#Namespace) and not Disambiguation pages, templates, navboxes, user pages, discussion pages, file pages, category pages, help pages and Wikipedia policy pages. Given those factors your current draft is both a userpage, and not in the article namespace. Werieth (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So, in other words, you can't find where it mentions this type of case (or anything similar) either. Got it. Lithistman (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lithistman: counter point, can you point to anything that specifically allows it? (I doubt it.) Werieth (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You take the antagonistic, totalitarian "if it's not specifically allowed, it must be impermissible." I take a much more pragmatic approach wherein if a usage is NEVER ONCE MENTIONED in the NFCC, it is permissible. Lithistman (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lithistman: It is specifically forbidden, and that isnt not the position I take. NFCC states that Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace. Your user space is neither a article nor in the article namespace. Care to argue how that use is acceptable when policy provides crystal clear prohibition? Werieth (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This is fundamentally a disagreement about whether to interpret image policy constrictively or loosely. That's at the heart of the matter. Lithistman (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No, its a matter of either following policy or ignoring it. NFCC#9 is very explicit in regards to usage. Because you disagree with policy you want to interpret it "loosely" so you can just ignore it. Werieth (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

People who interpret policy constrictively always believe that those who interpret it loosely are "just ignor[ing] it", thus precluding anyone from possibly disagreeing in good faith with their position. Your reply was exactly what I expected it to be. Cheers, Lithistman (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The reverse argument is that those who disagree with your position are interpreting policy too constrictive, and failing to AGF. While the truth is that you have zero policy based arguments other than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IWANTIT. If this was an issue that was debatable that would be one issue, however this issue is a bright line, you crossed. Werieth (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're acting very much in good faith. I believe people can disagree about policy interpretation and not be "just ignor[ing] it." I also believe that it's possible--likely, even--that your more constrictive interpretation of image policy will, in fact, win the day as far as what happens from a practical perspective. In this case, it is mainly due to the fact that I wish to do other things besides debating whether image policy should be interpreted proscriptively or, alternatively, whether a more moderate approach should be taken. Lithistman (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop removing archive.is links from articles

Hi, I see that you are removing archive.is links from a lot of articles and therefore I ask you to stop doing so as there is no valid consensus to do so. I am (meanwhile) aware of the RFC, but there is no substance to it. Another RFC is already ongoing and nothing is settled right now. Just because archive.is has been blacklisted as a consequence of the RFC (again without any substance) does not mean that existing links should be removed from articles. By doing so, you are destroying other editors precious contributions and they count much more to this project than a suspicion mostly based on speculation that a particular site might turn bad in the future. If the site would do, we can nuke it in a split-second by commenting out the archiveurl= parameter. Therefore, there is absolute no need for any immediate actions which are doing way more harm than good. Please stop your removals and revert your existing removals until a proper consensus and reaonable solutions could have been derived by the community as a whole to address any potential problems. Replacing archive.is links by links to other archive sites is okay, but only if done at the same time. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually a proper consensus was reached in the previous RfC, you disagree with that, tough luck. It has been established that the operator of archive.is has used an illegal bot net to insert links to their site onto wikipedia. Its not a matter of if the site is malicious, it has already been established as such. Keeping the current links does cause problems when trying to edit articles right now. Ill continue to remove per the established consensus of a valid closed RfC. I will be going back through these articles and adding archive urls where they are available. Right now the primary focus is removing a site that uses misleading and illegal tactics to promote themselves. Werieth (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a note: many of the URLs at Fortress (Alter Bridge album) no longer point to the archived versions of the websites. Please be sure to replace them with working archived URLs, otherwise it will not be able to confirm information about chart positions. Thanks. Have a good day. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Inadvertent canvassing

It's counterproductive for you to continue to try to get archive.is links removed right now. There are many that would argue that a temporary recess during the new RFC was a good idea. Even if you don't agree, there's one thing I'm certain of: every time you remove a link, it pisses someone off, they research, and run straight to the RFC to say that you shouldn't do it any more. It's a perverse form of canvassing: it distorts the result, and it distorts it in precisely the way you don't want to distort it.—Kww(talk) 05:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Your crude and destructive edit

Your recent edit at Brickens removed a legitimate citation when it should only have stripped the deprecated URL. I realise you want to remove a lot of URLs but you are obliged to do it without damaging valid citations, no matter how inconvenient. I have had to correct your error manually by restoring the citation. I suggest you proceed more slowly and preserve citations when possible. — O'Dea (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The citation that is left is too vague to be verified. It doesnt even include an author. Had the citation contained suffecient information it wouldnt have been removed. Werieth (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)