User talk:Werieth

User:Hotwiki

Since he didn't notify you of the discussion at WP:ANI, here it is. There's a lot more video stills and alternate covers where that lot came from, too. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I see he did, but Drmies accidentally removed it whilst removing his threats. Not to worry. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Yeah, oops. Happy hunting, you two. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and checked all pages where Hotwiki has uploaded files to, and removed quite a bit. Werieth (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Hello Werieth. There's a new thread by this editor at the main dramaboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Help about images. He mentions you by name, hence the courtesy noification. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Slow

Hi! I just want to thank you for that warning and now I understand why you removed the image from the article Slow (song). I'm often being told by more experienced editors that a music video still in a music video section is often helpful in showing the reader the look of the main artist concerned. I would like to ask you if there is anyway I can upload a still for the article in a way which doesn't fail the policy? Do you think I can removed the "Balenciaga dress" part from the section text and instead move it into the image caption to tell the readers that Minogue wore a blue Balenciaga through a visual? Thanks! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I really doubt it, WP:NFCC is fairly strict. You should only include non-free media when absolutely needed. Almost all music video screen caps wont pass that bar. Unless there is something unique that third party reliable sources have discussed that needs to be displayed (Example extra album cover for Virgin Killer) it shouldn't be added. Werieth (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh my, I just saw that you've been removing all music video stills from Kylie articles. I think that's a fairly wrong way of implementing the policy because I've seen that almost all GA and FA song articles have music video stills in it, and why do you think no one else has been removing them? I think you should consent an admin or someone more experienced on this before removing all non free images. Also do you edit articles or just keep on removing non free content? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Help about images & Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive806#Keeping_the_pictures_in_Desire.27s_article I am not removing all non-free images, in fact I often leave 2 non-free pieces of media (cover and sound clip). I pretty much lost the enthusiasm for it around the 1,000th insult (and the fact that most other admins, understandably, run away from those issues like someone just took the stopper out of a test-tube of Ebola). Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC) is a quote from an admin who used to enforce NFCC, they stopped due to the abuse that editors who dont understand NFC subjected them to. (Countless personal attacks, stalking, and harassment) Most users just dont want to deal with that headache and thus leave the issue un-addressed. Werieth (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I see, but I'm not sure that music video grabs still need to be removed. They after all are critical in showing the reader the look sported by the artist in question as words don't convey everything. Anyway I think my Balenciaga caption would help. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The video screen grabs are no where near meeting WP:NFCC#8. Yes they are attractive and make the article more visually appealing. But keep in mind the article is about the song, not the music video, and thus justification for including a screen grab is extreamly high. Wikipedia's m:Mission is to create a free content, and to do that we need to minimize the usage of non-free media to only where it is required (See WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8). Most music video screenshots fall into the category of "eye candy". Werieth (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Photos on page Muhammad Asad

Hi,

Kindly read the descriptions of all of those file, go to their mentioned source and translated the page into English. Doing so you will be able to read the explicit permission of Free-Use granted by copyright holders of these photos. If there is a change of licensing type needed, you can point me to that, but kindly don't remove photos without discussing first. -- Thinking Mind 17:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasi100 (talk • contribs)

The files are licensed as non-free and thus cannot be used. Werieth (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is the statement from copyright holder

"Please note the following copyright: When you use proof of "photo: Mischief Films" the use of the images provided here is free of charge."

.

In view of this statement, can you point me to a relevant license tag that I can use. Thanks in advance --Fasi100 (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I just checked File:Muhammad Asad in Jerusalem.jpg for one example and it is still completely under copyright. Werieth (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You must have seen the source link, kindly see the copyright description link i.e. http://www.derwegnachmekka.com/jart/prj3/poool/movie.jart?rel=de&content-id=1248152316145&reserve-mode=active I believe the right tag for this particular image will be Non-free promotional. For other images , Kindly visit this link (this is where the statement from copyright owner, which I posted in previous reply, can be found): http://www.mischief-films.com/presse/der-weg-nach-mekka and tell if the PD-link tag will be suitable for this. Cheers. --Fasi100 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I see the translation as but it is strictly forbidden, redistribute which means the files are non-free and not PD. Werieth (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

PS free of charge doesnt mean free of copyright. Werieth (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

WWE Raw edits

Any reason you reverted my edits with the WWE Raw pics? They've been used for ages.--Evil Yugi (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesnt mean that they comply with policy (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). The files I removed where because of WP:NFC issues. Werieth (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Notable cover version single covers that pass WP:NFCC

I see that you recently started editing some articles to reduce the number of fair use images in them, but I feel you are holding the images to a stricter standard than WP:NFCC currently enforces. Single covers in section infoboxes to represent notable cover versions pass all the points of WP:NFCC. They also pass the first example of acceptable use of fair images at WP:NFCI: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." Each of the images that you removed that I then replaced were for identification in the context of critical commentary as to how the cover versions are notable cover versions. If these cover versions had been original songs, they would have their own articles and the images would be acceptable there, so they are acceptable in the sections.

A few notes on your editing/behavior. First, please WP:DTTR, in general you should use your own words to discuss with another editor the issue. Second, you should start using edit summaries for each of your edits, especially when you making a reversion, so other editors know why you are making your edit. Third, I would like to know if there is any particular reason why you reverted my recent edits to director navigational templates in film articles. From my perspective, it seems like you did not like my reversions to your image deletions and you figured you would revert a number of my edits not related to those image deletions. Since you did not use any edit summaries to explain these reversions, I am only left to speculate.

In summary, if you feel that WP:NFCC needs to be stricter in its enforcement, you need to start a discussion at the talk page to gain a consensus for such a change. Until that consensus is found, you should stop deleting single covers of notable cover versions. Aspects (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I dont need to get consensus, it already exists. Take a look at the two links I provided in the warning. Werieth (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but you did need to get a consensus at WP:NFCC because you are not applying it properly to these images. And thank you for ignoring the entire post I spent about an hour composing by ignoring what I said and for repeating the same notes on your editing/behavior. You even reverted the edits to the film articles and then reverted back.

The first link is one person agreeing with you, which is definitely not consensus to change WP:NFCC, and the second link does not even deal with single covers of notable cover versions so it does not matter for this discussion. If you think I should be blocked, then bring me up because I am trying to discuss the issue with you and get you to start a discussion at the appropriate place, while something might WP:BOOMERANG back at you. You need to start a discussion at WP:NFCC because you are the one who is misapplying the enforcement and a couple of editors have stated as much. If you feel confident that you are correct in your enforcement, then you should fear nothing from a discussion there. Aspects (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually please review WP:NFC, There have been countless discussions at NFC about this. There is a defacto allowance for one cover, for visual identification. Beyond that there must be sourced critical commentary on the cover itself. If you want to change policy start a discussion yourself. Werieth (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Noticed the edit warring, I echo Aspects' sound arguments here. Covers for notable cover versions are defacto allowed since time immemorial. What is surely not allowed are multiple cover versions for the same song version (eg reissue covers or dvd covers). Cavarrone 21:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

(to Werieth) If this was the de facto allowance then there would not be hundreds or thousands of single articles with one cover version for each notable version and editors would be removing these all the time, but they are in the articles and editors are not removing them. Please read what I quoted above from WP:NFCI: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The cover versions have single covers for visual identification in the context of critical commentary of those cover versions. There does not need to be critical commentary of those images in these cases. Before I started this section, I tried to find a discussion specifically regarding notable cover versions of singles, but I could not find one. If you can, please link to them. If you cannot that is another reason why you should start a discussion. Aspects (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

That creates a single acceptable image. There have been discussions at WT:NFC that more than one file isnt needed for visual identification. Any additional images require critical cometary. Werieth (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Werieth, you know that I'm generally your ally on this one, but I really think you should go for discussion on this. The WP:NFCC cover for WP:3RR is not sufficiently clear in this case to give you much protection. I can assure you that I wouldn't unblock you on those grounds if another admin blocked you.—Kww(talk) 22:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is crystal clear, There is an allowance of 1 image "for visual identification", any additional images need to meet WP:NFCC#8 and have critical commentary. Take a look at Give Me Just a Little More Time the file I removed doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFCC#3. Just because someone created their version of a song doesn't mean we need to display their cover. Werieth (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Three quite experienced editors are saying you that in their opinion/"maybe"/probably you are wrong but you keep saying that your interpretation of NFCC is "crystal clear". So please, as required above, provide us evidences of a discussion specifically regarding notable cover versions of singles and evidences of a clear consensus of them violating WP:NFCC, otherwise don't be surprised if you will be reverted again (and, if you will keep on edit warring, even reported in the proper places). Cavarrone 22:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually Kww isnt taking your side. Im about to log off for a few hours (Real life plans) But Ill get a list of previous discussions that support my actions when I get back. Werieth (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• [1] and associated WP:NFCR is one example, now I really do need to log. Werieth (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_54#What_constitutes_contextual_significance_when_it_comes_to_alternate_cover_art.3F another example. Werieth (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The first link should have been about three different images for the same recording that were pretty much identical. I would have removed the second and third images, leaving the first. By your opinion here and recent edits, the first image should have stayed since there is no image used to represent the Beatles version, similar to your edits to I Think We're Alone Now leaving the Tiffany image since there is no image used to represent the Tommy James and the Shondells version.

The second link is about alternate images of the same recording and not about images of different recordings. That discussion would have called for the removal of the second and third images from Revolution (Beatles song) because the other two images were not "significantly different from the original."

I will say a big problem I have with your stance of one image per article no matter how many notable cover versions there are is that it would lead to a lot of edit wars as to which image to keep. Your edits show leaving the original and if there is not an image for the original, then the first one that comes chronologically. I Love Rock 'n' Roll has the front of the single itself and not a single cover that most readers would not recognize and that version would not even have an article if not for later notable cover versions. Why have the one version listed in the article that is not notable have an identification image when the clearly more notable cover versions do not? Aspects (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If as you say there are other notable covers (and not just the song it refers to) there should be third party reliable sources about the contents of the cover. If that is established my concerns tend to go away. As for which cover I left, if you feel that a particular cover is more notable I am not against having it replace the one that I left. WP:NFCC#3 requires us to keep to a minimum the number of non-free files we use, Which is why the cover art discussions (there are quite a few that explain my point of view at the archives of WT:NFC) have established that it is OK to use 1 file for visual identification. Any beyond the first must be supported with critical commentary and sources to establish grounds for including the file. Werieth (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I started this section quoting what WP:NFCI stated, it means critical commentary of the version/song/album and not critical commentary of the cover image. WP:NFCC#3 does not apply here because an image used for identification of one version of a song cannot convey equivalent significant information and/or identification of other notable versions. The discussions you see are about using multiple images for the same version/song/album and not for using one image for each notable version of the same song. If you could find a discussion that talks about that, you should link it. Aspects (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Aspects, I don't think you could get an agreement over this issue with Werieth, because he's just gonna delete the single covers again and again and he might threaten you with blocking like what he did to me. And he also reverted my edit in a film article w/c had nothing with single cover and I got the feeling like he did that just to piss me off. I think the best thing we could is hold a consensus about this issue, if single cover for cover versions should be deleted or not. I just don't know where it should be posted. I went to ANI and didn't get any help.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Aspects asked me to comment here. There's some information in the footnote Wikipedia:NFCI#cite note-2. If you look at the RFC dated January 2011, the closing statement says that "Stronger discouragement of alternate cover art just because it exists. More an issue in the music projects, but NFCI#1 should only apply to one cover image, no more. Secondary and alternative covers should require good demonstration of meeting NFCC completely and cannot rely on simply meeting NFCI#1. In terms of wording, all we need to say for now is that NFCI#1 only gives a maximum of one allowance of a cover image per article; any further uses must be justified another way." This is the way the policy has been enforced since I started helping with image deletions about 6 months ago. One non-free image per article, no image for cover versions of a song, no soundtrack image in a film article, no album covers in an article about a band, no book covers in an article about an author. Unless the imagery itself is the subject of commentary, such as we see in Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It); Yesterday and Today; and Virgin Killer. I gotta log off now and will check back here tomorrow -- Diannaa (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)