User talk:Δ

Once more I'm off to do some work

_{^{archives:  1   2  3   4   5
               6   7  8   9  10
              11 12 13 14 15
              16 17 18 19}}

Why are you removing a book cover image from the article regarding the book?

Jirel of Joiry. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The image's rationale linked to Jirel of Joiry, but was being used on a non-redirected Jirel of Joiry (collection); the rationale needed to be fixed to point to the right place which I have done. --MASEM (t) 03:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Reasons behind removing "non-free content overuse" on Commemorative_coins_of_Poland:_1999

Hi,

You wrote that the non-free content is overused.

I believe I took all steps necessary to fulfil Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria.

Could you please specify exactly what is/was missing, so that I could avoid any deletion in future ?

Article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commemorative_coins_of_Poland:_1999

Thanks, Jakub— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kupsztal (talk • contribs)

Reasons behind removing "logo" of Romanian national teams of football or beach soccer

there are all governed by FRF (Romanian Football Federation)! please be more careful— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyperuspapyrus (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker)That might be, but all those images need for every single use a proper rationale per WP:NFCC#10c. Please update the rationales on the image description page before inserting the images. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the Pink Triangle Services logo

Hello. I thought the logo was within the fair use policy for an article on the organization (of which I have a history with). Is this issue that the article is currently only a user draft? And, if so what other steps are needed that I didn't take once it is an article? Sincerely Bygul (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Exactly, non-free files are not allowed in userspace (see WP:UP#NOTSUITED and WP:NFCC Policy 9.). Once the draft has been moved into mainspace, the image can be added back. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Great thank you. My mistake. Bygul (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Film posters

You being the resident guru of strict interpretation of the fair use criteria, I think we could use your input on the question of the use of film posters in film articles. The editor Amadscientist has been indef'd for making (borderline) legal threats, but I think he has a point, as film posters are hardly ever discussed in the movie articles but are merely used as "decorations":[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

True, they are not discussed, however like logos they are the primary visual representation of the film and thus under the for identification purpose of the non-free content policy (the same way logos and book covers do). Side note (NOT wiki policy) These posters are used as advertisements for said films and thus are spread as far and as wide as possible by most production companies and thus they will never sue us. </end side note> That being said, those posters are how a large majority of people associate with the film (using a single image vs video) so the for identification clause of the NFC is fairly solid, I would be surprised, and wouldnt support their mass removals. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 18:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, the reasoning would be that they are an important identifying illustration, as with sports team logos, company logos, and the like; hence they don't have to be directly discussed in the article. Have I got that right? Also, I fully agree that the use of these small-scale logos amounts to free advertising and it's very unlikely a company would sue us for giving them free advertising. The issue raised by the blocked complainant has to do with "market value"; apparently the market value of the poster itself. That leads me to believe the guy is a collector rather than being connected with any studio. And his threat to "tell everyone he knows in Hollywood" to essentially "boycott" wikipedia is most likely a self-serving bluff. Thank you for your comments. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to both agree and disagree at the same time with you. :) I think our usage of Film posters is 100% correct, while our usage of logos is a little too excessive. Take a look at File:Abclocalradio.png its used on 44 articles. I think it should be used on ABC Television and that is it. However we (wikipedia) tend to over use the logo of a parent organization for every single child company if the said subdivision doesnt have their own logo instead of just a note like xxx is a subdivision of yyy and uses their logo for branding purposes because they do not have their own which would kill the over use of logos and also serve the same purpose. I would equate Film posters to book covers more than I would for logos. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The book cover is a good analogy, especially as the cover of a DVD holder is often used for the poster placeholder in a film article. I don't really understand the concern about "over use" of logos from a policy standpoint, although one could argue that overuse might provide "too much" free advertising! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In a somewhat parallel situation, I've seen the use of "trailers" on youtube quite a lot, where the film itself is copyrighted. I suspect they can get away with that for much the same reasoning as with posters: That they are marketing tools, and hence are free advertising for the given film. Only someone with a self-destructive business philosophy would be likely to complain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

More specifically, we did have a rather recent (last 6 months) discussion on cover art and consensus affirms that they are used for implicit aspects of branding and marketing of the published work, as long as the work is notable enough for its own article (hence why we don't have discography lists include cover art). Also, in regards to that guy's point on the commercial aspects, there's a reason we ask for low resolution images here, for respect of the commercial copyright - the image we provide cannot be blown up to poster-size and be appealing due to scaling artifacts, but yet large enough to be recognizable. (I will note, however, I do agree that I personally rather see cover images meet higher metrics, even if it is just used to identify characters, setting, or the like, rather than just placed there without further discussion, but that's not going to happen any time soon) --MASEM (t) 19:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Tamimo

Why do you keep on dleting my pic for Raja Ki aayege baraat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamimo (talk • contribs) 22:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Delta can give you the technical explanation [as noted already, in the edit summaries], but regardless of that, you had best not issue threats such as "don't mess with me", or your stay on wikipedia will be very short. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you actually bothered to read my edit summary you would see that the file does not have a rationale for the article where I removed it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you try helping instead?

Instead of just deleting images, it would be more helpful if you could explain *WHY* you're doing it! Earlier posts about your being just like the DMV are right on point.... Sheesh.... Why not look at the image, also look at the article. Examine the context. Use your brain instead of a stupid computer program. thanks for nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacw123 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you read both of his edit summaries: remove files without a valid rationale for this usage, and the link he gives to WP:NFUR, and the box of text that he has on this page when you edit it, it is clear that you need to add a rationale for using that image, else its use is improper. Delta can't help you fill that out as he has no idea what your intent of using that non-free image is on that page, so that is your responsibility to complete if you want to retain the image. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As Per Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with Other Editors/Communicating with Editors

[[2]] In general, the rule for editing or deleting a comment that you or another editor has posted to an article talk page is simple: Don't. That goes for fixing spelling errors, typos, run-on sentences, or any other minor wording changes, no matter how trivial. At Wikipedia, a talk page is essentially a transcript; no matter how well-intentioned you are in your editing, other editors aren't going to see it that way. Neutralaccounting (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:NFCC#9 you cannot display non-free files on talk pages. They will be removed, if you re-add them you may be blocked. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violation of Community-imposed restrictions regarding civility, refusing to dialogue with fellow editors and edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Asterion^talk 02:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Δ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have not be uncivil and I see no grounds for this block ΔT The only constant 02:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You threatened a fellow editor with having him blocked[3] when he politely asked to justify your rationale, then proceeded to ignore his comments and repeatedly removed content, further on engaging in wikilawyering by selectively quoting WP:NFTABLE to justify yourself (i.e. leaving out "but [usage] should be considered on a case-by-case basis"). This is not the first time you fail to be civil to other wikipedians. You have been blocked in the past for the same kind of recurring behaviour.

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Asterion^talk 03:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)}}

Giving someone a warning that repeated violations of the non-free content policy may lead to a block is standard practice, we do the same kind of thing with 3RR and other issues. Also please do not miss-quote me. take a look at my post on the talk page. The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable I see nothing special about this page that would make this usage of non-free content in tables acceptable I quoted policy and noted that I do not see any special reasons for that article to be excluded from the policy normals. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As involved, I can't remove this, but I'm bringing the block up for discussion at ANI. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked

Per consensus at [4] I have unblocked Δ. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop Removing my uploads

I find this very disruptive and stop saying my images are of non free content.Non free content can be uploaded with permisssion and my content is never overused. Maglame 06:40 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not your content, you might me the uploader but someone else owns the copyright. See the note I left on the talk page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 09:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove the image

The image Payanam.jpeg had a proper rationale and license and it met wiki's criteria for use. I see that a lot of people have accused you for unnecessarily removing their images and I request you not to continue this in future. Secret of success (Talk) 17:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I will continue to remove files that do not have proper non-free rationales. In this case you just fixed the rationale to make it acceptable [5] ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Escher Circle Limit III

If you believe that File:Escher Circle Limit III.jpg breaches Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline then surely the appropriate way to address your concerns is to take the image itself to FfD. Removing uses of the image on a random and ad-hoc basis from articles such as Möbius transformation without deleting the underlying image itself is pointless, isn't it ? Gandalf61 (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

it was not random removals. The file is used on multiple articles and only has rationales for some. Those that do not have a rationale provided for the use get removed if/until a rationale is provided. FFD is only acceptable route if the whole image fails policy, not a particular use of the file. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC) I thought I posted this just after you left me a note here, but it looks like an edit conflict prevented the post

The image is being used in two other article - both with proper rationales for its use there. The use of the image on the Mobius transformation article is given no rationale on the image page, and per policy, removal is appropriate (and deletion would be completely out of line). If you want to use the image on that page, you need to provide a valid rationale per WP:NFC policy. --MASEM (t) 12:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, have now added rationales to the image page. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

May not be the best ratioanle ever, but sufficient to maintain that there and prevent its immediate removal. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Italian Socialist Party

Hi. What have I to do so that the logos could be published? I asked to an administrator and he said to me that I could publish them. Hi. --Pelusu (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to ensure that the rationales WP:NFURG are correct and that they specify which article(s) that the file is being used on and why they must be included. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

• And I removed them for failing WP:NFG. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 PAG

A couple of admins., have approved that file to be on that page. Intoronto1125TalkContributions

Please READ the link I provided in my edit summary, every use of a non-free file must have an accompanying rationale. You do not have that here. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a rationale here. Read the talk page of the image. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, you have a rationale for the article 2011 Pan American Games, its still being used there. Any other uses need a new specific rationale. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The wording does not direct towards just the 2011Pan American Games. I don't see where you are getting at. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does, see WP:NFCC#10c ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)