Jump to content

User talk:Δ

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Monarca7 (talk | contribs) at 14:40, 3 May 2011 (→NALFO). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

NALFO

Hi, you removed some of the shields and crest on the NALFO page but left others. I read the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. but didn't see any reason why they should be excluded but others kept. Each shield or crest is representative of a different member organization of NALFO. I just want a little clarification of where my mistake was made. Thank you. Monarca7 (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand dollar images

Can you please explain why you deleted all the coin and banknote images from the New Zealand dollar articles? They are all compliant, and no other currency images have the problem (the NFUR is required to say that we comply with the Reserve Bank's guidelines). Lcmortensen (mailbox) 21:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same question is about military ranks and coins image of worldwide countries in their specific pages. It seems you had not read the specific file page where is specifically written where they can be used. --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but this is absolutely not overuse, is written on their specific (file)pages were use is permitted, you are deleting everything without reading their specific rationale use! ...Next time will be useful to open a discuss before to use this massive deleting system. And it seem also that I'm not the only one to telling you so, now I'm going to rollback. This is not a collaborative editing. --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
if you rollback you will be blocked from editing for inserting copyvios. Rationales do not give you carte blanche to use NFC. they are just one part needed to defend the usage of NFC in articles. ΔT The only constant 21:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see consensus first, then you are also making an a edit-war and last but not least, as already told to you on their specific file page there is the rationale use were use is permitted if you not agree, I'm sorry but you had to discuss before doing this kind of a massive/disrupting editing without a previous consensus. --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus means nothing, WP:NFCC trumps your statement, and just because you have a rationale does not mean the usage is valid, see WP:FUEXPLAIN ΔT The only constant 21:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but consensus (one of Wikipedia Pillars) means nothing is just your personal opinion, especially when you are removing rank insignia like the British Army ones from the same British Army rank insignia page e.g. even in presence of a rationale use for a British Army ranks on a Brithish Army ranks page! You are proceding in a massive disruptive editing, this is called vandalism. --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to review what WP:VAND states, you are talking to an editor with over 115,000 edits, and former administrator. My actions are no where NEAR vandalism. I am enforcing our non-free content policy and our m:Mission. Just because a group of users thinks its OK to rob a bank does not make it legal. ΔT The only constant 21:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but this is not an answer, I'm an editor too, and if on the file page is written that British Army ranks are just for a rationale use on British Army rank page this means that British Army rank have a rationale use like an educational purpose to explain on the British Army rank page wich ranks are currently in use, is not so difficult to understand. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just I could write a rationale for anything. That does not make the usage valid. Please read the links that I have provided. ΔT The only constant 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The images on the New Zealand Dollar articles are all compliant with all policies
  • WP:NFLISTS applies to list articles - the articles you deleted the images from are not list articles.
  • WP:NFCC#3: An image of a 10c coin cannot can convey equivalent significant information for all five coins, so is compliant
  • WP:NFCC#9: The images are displayed in article namespace, so are compliant
  • WP:FUEXPLAIN: Meets WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8 (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.). No specific mention of coins or banknotes.
It is uncalled for and non-consensus removal of content, so unfortunately rules are rules, regardless of who you claim to be, and I do have to give you a vandalism warning. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that should have been WP:NFCC#8 not 9. Using 10+ non-free images are not needed. you do not have to include every image. ΔT The only constant 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the work "List" is not in the title it may still be a list, which is what the currency articles are. ΔT The only constant 22:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lcmortensen, because you are removing everything from everywhere, the purpose of a rationale use is an educational purpose, this is called "playing with rules" misleading the free rationale use for coins and ranks. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take a read at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics#Usage_of_non-free_images this usage violates our non-free content policy. ΔT The only constant 22:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And an editor of your experience should know NEVER to remove vandalism template. Any more reverts on the articles will result in breaking WP:3RR so please stop and get consensus first! Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:DTTR, your "warnings" are incorrect and thus can be removed as invalid. you need to read WP:VAND NONE of my edits can be considered vandalism. ΔT The only constant 22:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reverting violations of NFCC is specifically exempted from WP:3RR. [stwalkerster|talk] 22:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with this and your answer is not valid about military ranks on military rank page! this is called "playing with rules" and you are not searching consensus, just reverting vandalizing! --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Enforcing WP:NFCC not vandalism, Im not playing with the rules, they are fairly clear. such over usage of non-free content is not allowed. ΔT The only constant 22:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No man sorry, you are amking disruptive editing, edit war, and playing with rules avoiding to find any sort of consensus, military ranks fell on WP:NFCC#1. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC#3 is minimal which you are failing. the ranks also fall into WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFLISTS does apply here. NFC must meet ALL 10 criteria ΔT The only constant 22:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted New Zealand dollar with only 10 NF images (the 5 backs of the coins and 5 fronts of the notes). Happy now? Or do I have to continue to sing Cee Lo Green? Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, why did you revert the ten-image version? It was compliant according to your rules - only ten images that showed the basics of the currency! Can you please follow your own rules! Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never stated that 10 was acceptable. On some articles 1 is too much. See WP:NFLISTS and WP:OVERUSE. ΔT The only constant 23:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Using 10+ non-free images are not needed" is the same as saying "maximum of 10" Lcmortensen (mailbox) 02:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding onto that, why didn't you just trim the number of images rather than remove them all? We wouldn't have gotten into this discussion if you did the right thing in the first place. And your infringing WP:NFCC#7 (one article minimum) if you remove the images - not every note and coin has its own page. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 23:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outside opinion: "Trimming the number of images" gives rise to WP:NPOV debates, which are open to even more edit-warring and therefore inadvisable. There is no consistent rule on Wikipedia for images in lists, and even more so when each element in the list does not have its own article, and I've recently seen, although not contributed to, a recent similar debate in Deaths in 2011. My basis is that debates about interpretation of WP:NFCC and the sufficiency of a Fair use rationale should be referred to WP:IFD rather than being taken by one editor, however experienced. Only in that way can consensus be established, and precedent established, despite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, etc. Hengist Pod (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) There is a consistent rule for images in lists, namely WP:NFLISTS which states that there should not be a non-free image for each entry in a list. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't think that the rule is consistent, since we are talking about representative images in a list, rather than one image per entry- that, I would concede, would breach policy. It's perhaps difficult here, and elsewhere, since not every entry in a list might be independently notable, which raises the question of why it should be in the list to begin with. To avoid WP:NPOV concerns, I would think that lists should have either NO images, or ALL images, but to be honest, I consider that against that consideration, WP:NFCC would militate against the latter, and enthusiasm and creativity would militate against the former. Sometimes, I feel that we are bending the rules against creating a useful encyclopedia in favour of compliance with rules that are admittedly stricter than normal "fair-use" rules. Some slack would be welcome, because the reality is that we have very little trouble with images, which tells me that we are more than not getting it right. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NFLISTS is the rule, it does apply, and it is consistent. List articles routinely fail WP:NFCC requirements, specifically #8. Δ is absolutely right in his application of policy and guideline in trimming out the overuse of non-free images. Further, taking each individual image to IfD is tedious. List usages of non-free images are routinely removed. I've done tons of them myself. Occasionally some images can be used, but they are by far the exception rather than the rule. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another thing - why target New Zealand notes and coins, when under New Zealand law, US notes and bills are required to comply with WP:NFCC (see [1]). Should I go ahead and remove all the US notes and bills?

It's money. It's freely available and easily reproduced (just needs $188.80 in cash to reproduce). The only problem is with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand's restriction on reproduction for fear of counterfeiting (although if you ever try to counterfeit a New Zealand banknote using Wikipedia, you're going to get caught - New Zealand banknotes are polymer and very difficult and expensive to counterfeit. The best even the most skilled counterfeiters can do is paper with clear adhesive tape for the transparencies!)

Can we please hold off the mass culling for the moment until we can find images compliant with WP:NFLISTS? After all, that's what WP:IAR (the fifth pillar) is all about! If you really want to help in this, please put NZD 188.80 in my ANZ bank account . Lcmortensen (mailbox) 02:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will not hold off, if you take a look at all of my previous comments you will see that I said using 1 NFC is normally acceptable, 2 or more the bar rises quickly, using 10+ without a dam good reason is a violation I never stated that 10 was acceptable. I stated that one image for a topic related to non-free content is normally acceptable (used for identification), the bar of acceptable usage rises quickly along with the number of images. If you read WP:OVERUSE which I have pointed to multiple times you will see where it states that even one non-free file may violate WP:NFCC. I am not just targeting NZ related money, I am an equal opportunity offender. I removed 100+ from euro related pages, and more from other places where the images of their currency is non-free. Take a read at commons:COM:MONEY#New Zealand which shows that NZ currency is non-free. However most United States currency is within the public domain (see commons:COM:MONEY#United States) and thus NFC does not apply. ΔT The only constant 07:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I worded that wrong - can we hold of the deleting EVERY SINGLE NON-FREE IMAGE. I would understand if the page had 114, but not six that complied with WP:NFCC (if you ignored the overuse part for the interim) and of which I could reproduce and replace in a week's time with a compliant NFC image (it actually took me 8 hours). And why is the US getting away with its hundreds of images despite New Zealand law saying they are copyrighted and comply with NFCC. I can go and wipe them because of RBNZ rules saying any foreign currency in New Zealand is subject to the same rules as local currency. We need one rule for money images, not two hundred.
If you are so devoted to reducing the number of non-free images in an article, do something about it yourself, rather than just deleting them and letting other have to clean up the mess. Be bold - take a moment to assess the situation and remedy it. If you have problems with your girlfriend (I'm assuming you're male and straight - but according to you, I'm wrong - shesus, if you told me you were a girl in the first place, I would have gone easy!), you would sort the problems out with her and try to remedy them, rather than stab her 216 times with a pair of scissors and leave the mess to her mother (and yes, that has happened). Same goes for Wikipedia. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 08:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Per WP:NFCC there is no need for Δ "to do something about it himself". The use of non-free content on Wikipedia is not routinely permitted and the use of multiple non-free images in an article violates WP:NFCC#Policy#3. I don't see any good reason why there would be a pressing need in a currency article to have multiple non-free images. It is quite possible to create a single image carrying the same meaning. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have done that already with a single picture. All I'm saying is for Δ to be more CONstructive than DEstructive: sure there is NFCC, but that's only one part of the argument. We are supposed to be helping to construct a high-quality online encyclopedia, so Δ is expected to help towards that goal by helping to find suitable replacements before going through articles like a bull in a china shop. It's not like that NFCC compliance has to be done right there, right now - what's more important, complying with NFCC or eating dinner? We get a seven-day "death row" period for NFC deletion, so why can't he/she/they help.
I did find a suitable replacement image for the coins, but none for the notes yet.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 10:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VEGAN might me a good read, its possible to create a good encyclopedia without any non-free content, just ask the Germans what you see as constructive, I see as destructive and against both our non-free content policy and our m:Mission. Take a look at the line below every page title, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Every usage of non-free material goes against that. However I agree that a limited usage is acceptable, however please always remember our mission is to create free content, not only free to read, but free to re-use and distribute as people want. ΔT The only constant 09:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Wikipedia is not "free", as it is under CC-BY-SA 3.0, which means it is only free as long as you attribute and share-alike. You can't redistribute Wikipedia willy nilly!
I have been a Wikipedian longer than you have (21 August 2005 vs. 12 July 2010), so I know a few more things than you. The first thing is all of five pillars and the m:Values have to be taken in whole and each part equally - you cannot focus on one part and expect everyone to do the rest. Wikipedia is "free" ("free" like local phone calls - there's a catch - CC-BY-SA in Wikipedia's case), but there is also Accessibility, Quality and Independence. It's like McDonald's - "Quality, Service, Cleanliness, Value" - they only work together and everyone is expected to support all four principles, not one.
Why do we go to the cenotaph every 25 April? "For freedom, there is always a price." We need non-free content to keep Wikipedia alive, but of course, too much of it is actually ruining the Mission of Wikipedia.
Take that all into account - NFCC is only a small part of the Freedom part - you need to work on the other parts as well.
So, here's the thing. We have articles with multiple non-free content. Obviously you're not fully capable of balancing between Freedom and Quality, but there are millions of other Wikipedians out there that can help. That's the working together to achieve the goal part. Rather than going through each article and deleting the images, place a banner on the top of the article concerned warning about WP:OVERUSE (one may have to be made), let the people who know the article try to remedy the problem before taking action by removal of overused images (72 hours should be more than enough). It's not like the Mission of Wikipedia is so important that it must be followed to the letter at every second of the day or else!
See, that's my bit on how you can be more constructive while helping to achieve the Mission of Wikipedia. This is a community, and people need to work together to achieve their goals.
Sorry for the essay (I've been waiting ages to write one!). If you don't agree with me, then.... We'll come to that later (I don't mind the warning for what I would say)
Lcmortensen (mailbox) 10:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to check your facts and stop the personal attacks. Ive been editing since 7 November 2005, Im a former administrator and I have over 115,000 edits. So I really doubt you know more about non-free content or wikipedia as a whole. I was also flown to WMF headquarters back when they where in St Petersburg, FL for a conference with Danny and the board. I really do not like to brag but your disrespectful comments require a response. Wikipedia is free, Lets say I am mayor of town XYZ, and wikipedia has a really good article on my town, If I wanted I could print it up in brochure format and do what ever I wanted with it. The only requirement is that I include a note stating that it is from wikipedia and provide a link back to the article. People sell wikipedia articles on Amazon [2] it is 100% legal, (and quite crafty) even though I may not agree with it, it allowable. However if an article includes non-free content as mayor of town XYZ I cannot publish it. I would need to remove that material first, or I would be sued for violating the copyright of the owner of the NFCC. ΔT The only constant 11:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS there was a note left on Talk:Banknotes of the New Zealand dollar about the over use of NFC and it was ignored. ΔT The only constant 11:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was an note, but it was left over Easter Weekend - I was away with no internet so had no time to respond. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I make mistakes - I'm human, unlike you. Special:Contributions/Δ only go back as far as 12 July 2010. Anyway, 21 August beats 7 November, not to mention I was 14 when I started editing, way earlier than you.
If you are not happy with the way I am talking to you, then fine: Get off your chair, go for a walk, have something to eat and a rest, and stay off Wikipedia for 24 hours. Some time to cool off for both of us would be best. This is the end of the discussion. No if, or buts. I will personally have the pleasure of removing any of your Liberal-borderline-Fascist NFCC rubbish. GOODNIGHT!!! (i need sleep) Lcmortensen (mailbox) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether Δ started editing first or you did Lcmortensen, it's completely irrelevant. It's equivalent to sandbox arguments about who threw the sand first. Enough. Further, readting to Δ by saying "your Liberal-borderline-Fascist NFCC rubbish", especially in the context of asking him to cool off, is both ironic and out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New Zealand dollar. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

enforcing WP:NFCC is exempt. ΔT The only constant 22:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read #2 - even if you are right, it still applies. and it is not an infringement of WP:NFCC if you read carefully Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why that would mean that I left a violation of the non-free content policy stand. In cases where copyright are concerned removal is default and you need to get consensus to add the material back in. ΔT The only constant 22:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS I am probably one of the top 10 people on wikipedia who knows the non-free content policy the best, using 1 NFC is normally acceptable, 2 or more the bar rises quickly, using 10+ without a dam good reason is a violation. take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics#Usage_of_non-free_images ΔT The only constant 22:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember WP:V - where is the source to your ranking? Otherwise, like non-free images, it can be deleted! Lcmortensen (mailbox) 10:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V only applies to articles. ΔT The only constant 11:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No no, sorry but I'm still thinking you are playing with rules avoiding to find any kind of consensus, Wikipedia is not your personal site, is not a game, and last but not least is not compulsory. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know

Unfortunately, I've been busy with school lately thanks to it being the end of the semester, but I've started removing the NFC uniform images from the schools' main pages and have been relegating them to the individual season pages where they belong. This will probably be a somewhat lengthy process, but I just wanted you to know that the process is proceeding smoothly. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 22:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ive tried. Please note that WP:NFCC is exempt from WP:3RR ΔT The only constant 11:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The important word there is "unquestionably"... which is not the case at all. You've forced me to protect the page. It's clear that this is a disruptive pattern of yours. You need to discuss these issues and come to consensus, not assume that a fascist interpretation of policy will grant you carte blanche to do whatever you want. If you still feel that the unfree images need to go, go to the article's talk page and discuss it there. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
take a look at what I have linked to, usage in this manner is clear violation of the non-free policy. I have reported you for violating 3RR. ΔT The only constant 11:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:FUEXPLAIN#Prior_debates ΔT The only constant 11:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That link does nothing except prove that there have been other disputes. The number of non-free images you deem to be excessive is not in line with previous consensus. You're not even willing to discuss the matter to possibly change consensus, which is a clear violation of policies which you are familiar with. The fact that you think none is the only acceptable number is not a policy, nor can you disregard previous consensus to implement it. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In prior discussions it was deemed 1 or 2 group shots where acceptable for list articles, 10 has never been acceptable. ΔT The only constant 12:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more example where a list of characters had NFC removed Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_40#Another_character_article ΔT The only constant 12:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[3] I Agree with Bahamut0013, You are still playing with rules misleading policies, and it seems several user are saying you this. So first stop, then ask and discute! --Nicola Romani (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you keep pointing to discussions about different articles, as if that consensus applied to all articles. They don't, or else they'd be in the policy. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:NFLISTS which covers what Im doing. ΔT The only constant 12:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. "are strongly preferred over individual images" doesn't say "remove all images when they number over x". The policy allows for flexibility. Why don't you? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do have flexibility, using 10 non-free files is not flexibility, its lets ignore the non-free policy and place as many pretty pictures as we can in this article. 1-2 images are acceptable, 3-5 questionable if really needed, 10 or more clearly over usage. If this was within the 3-6 range I would be a lot more easy about how I removed it, however when Im removing 10 or more the only way people will listen is by force, this has been proven many many many times. People want to debate it until people loose interest so that they can continue to over use non-free materiel. However there has never been a successful modification of policy to enable such abuse. ΔT The only constant 12:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this clear, Delta: I would be willing to entertain your interpretation of policy if you're willing to go to the talk page and compromise with me. My issue with you is your heavy-handed tactics, and I'm willing to let that go if you just discuss the matter. But if you wnat to try to use force, then you're never going to get what you want. I hate bullies, and my sympathy for what you think should be diminishes the more you try to force it on me. I'm a well-respected editor, not some floozy, and you shouldn't be trying to pick a fight with an admin like this. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shouldn't be trying to pick a fight with an admin? Why? Pray tell, what possible consequences does an editor face when in dispute with an administrator that they don't face when in dispute with any other editor? Don't threaten people with your administrator privileges Bahamut. You are way out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's well established that picking a fight with anyone on Wikipedia is a bad idea, but to offer such disrespect to a member who is tasked with enforcing community standards adds a certain level of insult to it. He knows damn well that he's in the wrong, and when an admin tries to stop him form being disruptive, he thumbs his nose. If you want to interpret that as a threat, fine, it's not my problem what you think, but you can't sit there and quail about me trying to do my job and stop disruptive editing. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are no more entitled to respect because you are an administrator/checkuser/oversight than any other editor here. If you really think you're more entitled to respect here because of your positions, all the more reason you should step down. Your position entitles you to nothing except the privilege of the tools the server permits you to use. As to him being in the wrong, hardly. He's absolutely right. The prohibition of overuse of non-free images on list type articles is well documented and supported by policy and guideline. Asserting he is thumbing is nose is not supported by any facts in evidence. And I will sit here and tell you to stop abusing your admin privileges. If you still think you made no error in your use of the privileges (and your threats here), you really do need to step down. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the article goes

I believe that can be considered resolved. Beta/Delta said that 1-2 images is acceptable. Considering the images of the warriors contained the same characters as many of the individual character images, that (I believe) violated NFCC by including more than one image of the same character. Thus, I have included the images of the light and dark warriors. That's two images each with four warriors. Thus, it keeps the use of non-free images to a minimum while maximizing the number of characters shown. Hopefully this will resolve the article issue.

As for the abuse of adminship and the overly-bold editing without discussion, that probably won't be resolved for several days, many pages, and an obscene amount of kb. Lara 14:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approach

As you know, I do not agree with attempts by editors to force non-free content onto list articles and have conducted many removals myself ([4][5][6] for recent examples). It is unquestionable that Bahamut0013 abused his administrator privileges in his dispute with you. In this dispute specifically, I 100% agree with you that the images on List of characters of 8-Bit Theater were inappropriate. Further, they had laughably weak rationales that are blatant failures of WP:NFCC.

However, a rapid fire edit war which both you and Bahamut conducted is out of line in any case. Whether there is a special exclusion in 3RR for such a case is really irrelevant. An edit war, regardless of whether it is violating policy or not, fans flames and makes the situation hotter. This does no service to anyone. I've encountered such problems before with editors refusing to permit the removal of images. When faced with such a situation, I often report the situation to WT:NFC or WP:AN/I for assistance. I strongly, in the most animated terms, encourage you to do the same. You are too valuable here to fall victim to more sanctions on your editing, and make no mistake; if the edit warring continues across articles in support of image removals off of lists, somebody (or more likely multiple somebodies) will be coming after you with the Wikipedia version of pitchforks. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I admit it. I'm confused.

Dear Delta, I am not here to, and I do not wish to, pick a fight with you.
There are some things I do not understand, and I am here to ask you if you will explain them to me, please.
Due to previous explanations from you, I now have almost as good knowledge (if not understanding) of WP:NFCC as you do.
But there are a few matters I would appreciate if you would clarify for me, please.
In particular, when an image has been uploaded for a specific use on a specific page, a FUR has been provided for use on that page, and it is not used on any other page, what are the other issues that make use of that image a problem?
By way of example, (because it does not feature in the above "conversations", and hence by referring to it I'm not buying into existing "disagreements"), I'll mention the page Australian commemorative coins. You have created its current state with the edit comment: remove non-free content overuse.
By this, I am guessing that you are referring to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy, specifically clauses 3a & 3b?
If not, please advise.
If so:

3a says: Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information
On the page mentioned, "one item can" not "convey equivalent significant information", so I am guessing that 3a is not the justification you are using. (Please advise if I have come to the "wrong" conclusion, and if so, please explain why.)
3b says: Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
Breaking it up into bits:
An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. - I don't see how "a portion will suffice". By virtue of the FACT that you have removed ALL of the images, I am assuming that you, also, do not believe "a portion will suffice". Am I correct?
However, I do NOT understand how removing ALL of the images addresses, much less "solves" the problem. Simple logic suggests to me that if "a portion will" NOT "suffice", then one would include ALL of them. Can you help me understand your POV please?
The rest of the criteria do not seem relevant.

Awaiting your informative and helpful reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pdfpdf, allow me to explain if I may. There's a number of policies and guidelines that synthesize together to form an understanding of why list type articles (whether called a list in name or not) should not contain any more non-free image use than necessary. First, look at m:Mission and understand from it that our purpose is working towards "develop[ing] educational content under a free license". Non-free content isn't under a free license, and its use on the project detracts from our mission and must be used only when truly necessary. Next, have a look at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, specifically point #3. The Foundation is our governing body, and here they are emphatically telling us that non-free content must be used minimally. This isn't a suggestion. It's a requirement. This sets the stage for us. Simply because under fair use law we can use non-free media doesn't mean we should. Typically in a list type article, non-free images fail minimal use requirements as outlined in WP:NFCC #3a. We have to keep use minimal. So where do we draw the line? WP:NFCC #8 covers this. In particular, if you have 20 images of all the units of currency in a currency system, there's really no argument that all 20 of them are significant such that the article is functionally impaired by their absence. Wikipedia:NFLISTS#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles point #2 addresses this in that it notes "Images which are discussed in detail in the context of the article body, such as a discussion of the art style, or a contentious element of the work", and also noting this must be done in concert with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Just because something is true doesn't make it acceptable to Wikipedia. We know it's true that there N units of currency in X currency system. That doesn't give us leave to include non-free images of every unit of that currency. What synthesizes from this is that we need to have verifiable secondary sources to support discussion of the appearance being represented in a given image in order to merit inclusion in most cases. List articles routinely fail this important requirement. Instead, we typically get long article texts with hardly any references and non-free images to "visually identify" each subelement within the entire set. In the case of Australian commemorative coins we had a number of images with the purpose of use rationale "illustration only for completing an index of all commemorative coins viewed together against the other". But, there's no sourced discussion (or in fact ANY discussion) on the difference of appearance between coins such that we need images in order for the reader to understand the difference in designs. This is just a slavish list of the coins with the coin images being used for illustration only. This isn't what Wikipedia is about. This entire article is a failure of WP:NOTCATALOG. It is probably hard to fathom that, and understand the unacceptability of such an article given the presence of so many other likewise failing articles, but it's true. This isn't a Wikipedia article. It's a slavish catalog of the entire set with virtually no references and no encyclopedic content. I hope that helps clarify things. Thanks for writing and asking! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Δ&oldid=427241786"