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}}

Your wanton removal of images

Hello, though i understand why you are removing images from pages, you might want to tell users (such as myself) how to create a rational for an individual page since the policy is relatively new. I myself have no idea how to do it, ive never been asked to before. You should also be careful in removing images and double check them before you remove them. One that i reverted already had a pre-1923 public domain tag on it, and several others were obvioisly published before 1923 (several german world war 1 images).XavierGreen (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a few points, I do tell users how to fix the issues, Ive got a link to a guide to writing rationales and a FAQ both linked in the edit summary and a fairly detailed edit notice. Second, This policy is not new, its been around for at least 4 years (probably longer). Third every image I remove is in Category:All non-free media which classifies it as non-free. If it is tagged under a free license please ensure that it does not have a non-free rationale, because most of those templates classify the file as non-free and will lead to it being removed again. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The one file you removed File:Corea-map.jpg, has a PD-1923 tag on it and is a free image. It shouldnt be in the category non free media in the first place.XavierGreen (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It is tagged as non-free due to also including {{Non-free use rationale}}. Please adjust the file discription page so that that template is not used. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• You know, it would be nice if you posted a message on the talk page of the article(s) the image is being used on, explaining why you removed the image from the page. That would really help people a lot. —Compdude123 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Breadwinner (novel) - the image you removed

Hi - you removed the image from this article because I had forgotten the rationale - I have now included a rationale but please let me know if it is insufficient in any way. Mark^Dask 10:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The rationale refers to the wrong article, so please correct it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Corrected - although you could just have quickly corrected it yourself. If you have any other issues please let me know. Mark^Dask 16:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I could have, however remember the old parable about giving a fish and teaching a man to fish. --ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well said and yes I did learn from the exercise - thanks. Mark^Dask 05:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Breen (Star Trek)

Is there some particular reason you cannot simply clarify what the problem is with a given image, and why instead, you simply say the same thing over and over again? Did you not see my edit summary, in which I stated that the photo has a rationale for article in question? If this is wrong on my part, why not respond to explain why? Why do you make no attempt at clear communication with image uploaders? Can't you see how this can be seen as non-collaborative, and possibly disruptive? Nightscream (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That is where you are wrong, it does not have a rationale for where it is being used on. --ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does. It says "Breen (Star Trek)" where it says "article". Do you not see this? Again, if this is wrong, why can you not explain how it's wrong? Why do you refuse to communicate clearly in discussion.

As for your edit warring accusation, edit warring does not refer to good-faith reversions of unambiguous policy violations, such as content deletion without a valid rationale by a user who refuses to communicate with others, a point J Greb himself has made.

Can you please clarify so that we can work together to make sure the image has the right rationale? Nightscream (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As Masem states below at the time of my removal the file did not have a valid rationale, which is why it was removed. Not sure how much clearer my edit summary can be, it clearly stated the reason for removal. As for edit warring it does cover your actions, Three reverts without fixing the problem is edit warring, it may not be blockable, but it is edit warring (good faith or bad faith, I make no assumptions either way). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

At the time that Delta had removed and reremoved the image, the image file did not say "Breen (Star Trek)" [1]. SOmeone, after Delta's removal, your revert, and his rerevert, fixed the image to make it say "Breen (Star Trek)" correctly. So Delta did what was correct at the time. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why all this happened? Because the wikilink was wrong? Why couldn't he just say that? Why do others have respond for him? Because a wikilink was outdated due to a page move, he has the gall to accuse others of 3RR violations? I'm reporting this at 3RR. Nightscream (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Go right head, NFCC enforcement is exempt from 3RR. At the time the rationale was for a different article than where the file was being used. Thus it had no rationale for the article where it was being used. If needed We can take this to AN/3RR and prove it with another {{trout}} being handed to you. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

3RR requires that the user in question discuss the matter with others. You refused to do so. Even now you only chimed in to make an uncivil comment, but refused up until to explain what was wrong with the rationale, when you very well could have. How can I "fix the problem" if I don't know where it is, and if you refuse to tell me? It's obvious that you just wanted to sit back and watch the image get deleted so that you can have the self-righteous satisfaction of someone else's work being deleted, when you could have made a genuine, good-faith effort to fix yourself, or at least work with me by telling me what the problem was. Nightscream (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I provided two links explaining the problem in my edit summary and provide details in my edit notice, if you refuse to read the information that I give you do I need to make it in XXXXL font, red and blinking so that you see it? because its fairly clear in all three places. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Those links do not explain the problem, and you know it. They link to policy pages, which are filled with the various criteria for rationales, and do not make any mention of that specific image, or its rationale. Explaining what the general criteria are and what's wrong with the rationale on a specific image are not the same thing. I am well aware of the general criteria for rationales, which you can surmise from my history with images. But you did not explain what was wrong with the specific criteria on that image's page, even though I flat-out asked you. You could've avoided this entire prolonged conflict by simply fixing the wikilink yourself, or at least telling me that it now led to a disambiguation page, yet you refused to do so. Can you tell me why this is? Nightscream (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If you actually read the links provided you would have seen WP:FIXNF#LINKCORRECT and related sections, You have shown a repeated failure to follow NFC so having you familiarize yourself with policy seemed to be a good idea. My /edit notice says the same thing, yet you again seem not to have read that either. With at least three different points, you failed to ask what the problem was, instead you blindly re-inserted ignoring the problem, and violating NFCC. Do I need to make it large, red, blinking text next time? As I have provided plenty of explanation for my actions, it just seems you see a TL;DR and move on, which is not acceptable, especially from an administrator. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I read the links. None of the links in your edit summaries go to the specific policy page sections you have just linked to above. If you don't believe me, click on them. They simply link to the top of the policy pages, which means I had no way of knowing which criterion was in need of fixing.

You have not established any lack of familiarity with policy on my part, as the matter was due to an outdated wikilink. My reversions were not "blind", as I looked at the image page, and saw that the right article was apparently indicated. The fact that I did not realize that the problem was an outdated wikilink does not constitute a "blind" reversion. I asked you what the problem was, and you refused to respond.

One more time: What prevented you from simply fixing the wikilink yourself, or from telling me: "The wikilink is out of date"?

Wouldn't that have prevented this conflict, and been more in the spirit of collaboration and helpfulness? Or do you not care? Nightscream (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Nightscream, Im already just about at the maximum length for an edit summary, I linked to WP:FIXNF which was specifically created to address questions, there is a section there about common problems WP:FIXNF#Common non-free image problems, and how to fix them, where one of those is exactly what you case was WP:FIXNF#CORRECTLINK. Per WP:NFCC the burden of inclusion falls on those who wish to add/maintain NFC in articles. I know you are spreading lies about this being personal but its not, Im working though a list alphabetically removing all files without a valid rationales, there is nothing personal about that at all. Our paths have just crossed several times and you have yet to get the point about NFC. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

While the burden is on the uploader, an argument for common courtesy would be to include the specific issue on removal. Especially when asked directly. This isn't an issue under WP:CIVILITY (ignoring a request or refusing to provide info are not breaches of that) but a basic part a collaborative process. You know, helping other editors to get it right.

As a frank suggestion, used the shorthand links of WP:FIXNF#Whichever if there is a singular issue. It at least points to the most immediate problem. If there are multiple issues, use the general link to FIXNF, but offer the nut shell problems if asked.

- J Greb (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I really dont have the room in the summary, and the more people become familiar with our non-free content the fewer problems we will have later. Reading the FAQ is a good idea regardless, (Hell Ive read it several times and made a few suggestions on the talk page) If users cannot be bothered take a few minutes to familiarize themselves with NFC policy, should they really be involved in such a complex issue in the first place? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I literally have 3 characters left before I reach the max summary length. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a sec. I'm not suggesting you add but rather substitute. Currently you have:

All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page; please see [[Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline]] for more information; one or more files removed due to missing rationale [[WP:FIXNF|FAQ]]

(Yes, I'm assuming the shorthand). Wouldn't the following work in most cases?

All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page; please see [[Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline]] for more information; specifically [[WP:FIXNF#LINKCORRECT|on article links]]

- J Greb (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That assumes that every time Delta is removing an image for lacking a rational, it is because the rationale is not pointing to the exact right article name. There are other cases where the same warning applies where the image has been added (a second use, perhaps) to a different article. The link you give doesn't apply to that. Between what Delta does link , his own talk page edit warning, and everyhting else, there's little more that can be done short of telling editors to RTFM before they try to do anything NFC related. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ive really tried to avoid the term RTFM, but goddammit more people need to do it. Too many people see the manual, TL;DR say fuck it, and blindly revert. That behavior needs to be adjusted, and it is being adjusted, Im seeing more and more blocks being handed out because users dont RTFM. Like I have said, I provide about as much information as I can to help users shy of getting a ray gun with mind control functionality and using it on them. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Masem, you may want to look back a post or two. I prefaced this with "If there is only 1 issue..." This doesn't work if there are multiple issues.

As for RTFM...

1. This really isn't a "professional" environment where every one is on a deadline. Asking for help shouldn't be creating a detrimental time sink.
2. This project relies on volunteer effort and treating editors like new hires does not make for a "happy" editing environment.
3. It is at times a shotgun approach where a mountain of information is pointed to when only a specific and small section applies.
4. It is in some ways contrary to the collaborative spirit most try to foster. "Go figure it out yourself" isn't the best way to work with others.
5. It also assumes that the manual is crystal clear and easily understood and the editor is conversant with English at the level the manual is written at. Given how the "manual" has been arrived at and the make up of the editing population, neither assumption is a lead pipe cinch.

- J Greb (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A shotgun approach is the only one that works. We have tried very thing else, Telling someone to read up on policies before uploading non-free content would be preferable, but not possible via the software. Right now I am just checking one part of a valid rationale, and not the whole rationale. So pointing them to the rationale guidelines will help prevent further issues when I start this process over with the next part of the enforcement sweeps. NFC isnt what new hires should be doing, NFC should be left to those who have spent the time to familiarize themselves with policy prior to uploading, (and at that point they become fairly experienced editors). There have been several removals that I have preformed for 10c requirements that upon further examinations fail other parts of NFC. However my focus is 10c and I am not giving a file a clean pass, it just may meet what Im looking for at the moment. If next time around I find that it fails on two or three other points the users will be pissed that I didnt tell them about it the first time around, but I wasnt looking into those issues at the time. So pointing them to the guide(s) that are designed to fix all issues is a better solution that focusing just on the 10c issues that Im currently working through. Teaching more and more users how to properly work with non-free content is far far more effective than spoon feeding them the solution, because over time those users then get in the habit of checking NFC files that they come across and information and knowledge spreads. It is a perfect example of an old Chinese proverb Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. lets teach them how to work with NFC instead of fixing it for them. Then maybe one day the student can become a teacher and the message spreads even further. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nightscream, what have you got to gain from this? This is hardly the first time you've been picked up on your lack of respect for the NFCC; in this issue, you've been told again and again that you're in the wrong, and it's got to the point that your complaint is about how people were not specific enough in explaining why your edits were wrong. Just let it drop. J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a minimal issue here, very minimal for how it is being handled though. See my previous ost fo the long and short of it. Beyond that (shrug) I'm at a loss. - J Greb (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, admin cannot see issue so reverts, ignoring problem, problem pointed out again, admin ignores again. Short of XXXXXL, red, blinking text Ive done just about as much as I can. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You just plain don't get it. I understand the NFCC policy, and you've haven't established otherwise much less that I've been "picked upon" for "lack of respect" for it. If someone tag or remove an image as having a bad or incomplete rationale, and you say, "It appear to be in order, can you point out to me what's wrong it?", and all they do is point to a policy page that lists all the different criteria for rationales, without simply answering you as to which criterion is incomplete or incorrect, how is that person supposed to fix it? How does my asking you repeatedly what was wrong with the rationale constitute "ignoring" the issue? I didn't ignore anything, it was you that kept ignoring my queries as to what was wrong with the rationale.

What do I have to gain? I'm trying to understand what this guy won't work with editors instead of against them, and try to help them fix rationales when they flat-out ask them about them. I'm trying to understand why he provoked yet another needless conflict with his overzealous hall monitor attitude, his mendacious comments, the logical fallacies he employes, and his outright stonewalling, or why, for that matter, people like you not only act as turnkeys for people like him, but egg him on with inane comments like yours above.

Linking to the policy page does not indicate what is wrong with the rationale in the specific image. What good does reviewing a policy I'm already familiar with do when it doesn't tell me what's wrong with that particular rationale? Does it not occur to you that a misdirected wikilink is not always apparent, even when you're looking right at it, even for someone like me who is completely familiar with the NFCC policy? Why can't you comprehend this?

You go on and on and on about the length of your edit summary, when all you had to do was say, "The wikilink is outdated". There. How long would that edit summary have been? Why do you assume that you would've had to include this in addition to that long boilerplate summary, when it would've sufficed by itself? For that matter, if you discovered an outdated wikilink, why couldn't you just fix it yourself? And barring that, why couldn't you just say that the wikilink was outdated here on this talk page when I flat-out asked you? Again, wouldn't that have precluded all this? I've asked you this above, and you still haven't answered it.

How does my being unaware that someone having changed the name of the Breen article, made the wikilink in the rationale on the image's page constitute lack of familiarity with the NFCC policy, much less "lack of respect" it? What do you have against answering a simple question when someone asks you it? Nightscream (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Nightscream, with all respect and calmness, referring to someone as having a "overzealous hall monitor attitude", and referring to people's comments as "inane" is not civil. I am not out to get you blocked or anything the like. But please, can you tone down the incivility? Please? To "fixing it yourself"; some people think the NFCC patrollers should be made to do so. Others feel the opposite. There's no agreement to do so, and no requirement under policy to do so. In fact, the opposite is true. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Nightscream - Delta did not know either that the pointer was changed - for him that would have taken research, which Breen is depicted there (not much change here to make a mistake, though there were two possibilities, and it was depicted on one of them, likely the correct one - but never sure without someone knowledgeable in the subject). All Delta sees is that there is a non-free image without rationale for that use. I can see that editors revert that once, when they think all is fine, but if it then gets re-removed, then a bell should start ringing that there is something wrong. Now, here it is minor (it was indeed fair-use, just that there is no rationale) - but it also involves cases where the use is not fair-use. If an editor removes something twice citing policies and guidelines - why then re-insert it again and not first try to understand what is wrong. You start here the thread with "Is there some particular reason you cannot simply clarify what the problem is with a given image" (I believe that "one or more files removed due to missing rationale" does suggest strongly that there is a missing rationale, maybe it is just not obvious that it is missing, or it is not obvious that it is there) - why not start with "I am sorry, I am looking at it, you say that there is no rationale, but I think there is. Am I missing something?" - You would likely have gotten the answer "the image is displayed on Breen (Star Trek), but there is no rationale pointing to that specific article on the image description.". If Delta would understand what is wrong, they would probably have solved it themselves already. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think this is a very serious problem. If a file links to "Character" instead of "Character (series)", then fix it. You have to visit all 3 pages anyways(file, intended article, linked article). I think with some common sense, you can figure out easily which article people mean. It would take less effort to just fix the link then to remove the image, and it would do less damage. You would be improving Wikipedia instead of destroying it. I understand that you remove these images at the speed of light, and don't have time to think about what the heck you are doing, but try slowing down and fixing the problem instead of removing it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• It's not as simple as you suggest. Further, there's a presumption that removing NFCC violating content is somehow "destroying" the project. Further, you seem to be upset at a person who is removing NFCC violating content as a result of a page move shifting an image to a different location. Are you as equally upset at people who conduct page moves and commit the error of not fixing the associated rationales? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am not really "upset". I realize the people removing the images are not "wrong", but removing images because there is no rationale, when there is, but there is an error causing the article link to be incorrect is not helping. You can take the same time to fix the link then to remove the image, and like I said, you would be helping instead of hurting. This just causes other people to try and figure out what is wrong, when most of the time, they don't think anything is wrong, because they see a link pointing to their subject. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Actually I am less "upset" now that I see that by not fixing these things, you cause other editors to actually learn the rules of it and be able to fix more of them themselves. In fact, if you look at my contributions, I just fixed a few images myself before coming here to argue. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• You define "not helping" as removing an image lacking a rationale. Perhaps you could address the Foundation with this issue? They stated in their licensing resolution (#4) this requirement. I suppose then that the Foundation is also destroying the project? Someone figuring out what was wrong and fixing it themselves results in a person better educated about NFCC problems. That's not a bad thing. That's a good thing. ...and now I just read your second (16:17) comment :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• No, I define "not helping" as removing an image which DOES have a rationale, but has a slight error. Removing the image when there is a clear attempt at having a rationale makes little sense. Although it has also been brought to my attention that it is possible they do not read the image page, and instead look at this page, and simply remove the image from the article. So if this is what they do, they don't see that there is a rationale which is only listed for the wrong page on accident. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• You are certainly welcome to your opinion. Vive la différence. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hammersoft: "Nightscream, with all respect and calmness, referring to someone as having a "overzealous hall monitor attitude", and referring to people's comments as "inane" is not civil." Wrong. That is my opinion of his behavior, and constitutes a legitimate criticism. Just because you don't like the criticism does not make it uncivil. If I said that the comments were "silly" or "lacking sense", would that be any better, given that that's the definition of inane? I'm not going to be straightjacketed into using PC speech codes just because you don't like the message. The fact remains that J Milburn's comment that I've been criticized for "lack of respect for the NFCC" (I haven't) is indeed inane, as is his ridiculous remark that "people were not specific enough in explaining why your edits my wrong". The issue is that I could not see what was wrong with the rationale, and politely asked Triangle what it was, and Triangle refused to do so, and has repeatedly engaged in the condescending bait-and-switch of telling me that I need to "familiarize" myself with the policy, when I am already familiar with it. Not being familiar with NFCC and being well-familiar with it but not being able to see that a wikilink is outdated are not the same thing. Pretending that they are is inane, and I'm not backing down from that, whether you like it or not. Responding to this by saying that using the word "inane" is uncivil, rather than Triangle's conduct here, is just plain backwards, and shows that both you and J Milburn lack the ability to form reasoned, objective assessments.

Hammersoft: "To "fixing it yourself"; some people think the NFCC patrollers should be made to do so. Others feel the opposite. There's no agreement to do so, and no requirement under policy to do so. In fact, the opposite is true." Um, nope, wrong answer. We are all required to work together on this project, and that includes talking things over when conflicts arise. Triangle refused to do this. I offered examples of what he could've done that would've been better than this ridiculous argument, and it is perfectly reasonable that fixing itself was one of my suggestions. Another was that he simply tell me what was wrong with it, so that I could fix it. He refused to do either, and this led to a needless edit conflict, and accusations of 3RR, which he could've avoided if he really wanted to.

Dirk Beetstra: "Nightscream - Delta did not know either that the pointer was changed..." Then how did he know that the rationale was incomplete? His remark about limited edit summary space above would seem to indicate that he did, but just didn't want to answer my question (despite the fact that I never specified his edit summaries, as he could've told me on my talk page, or right here on his). For that matter, if he didn't know, why didn't he just say so? The bottom line is that he refused to give a clear answer to my questions.

Dirk Beetstra: "Why not start with "I am sorry, I am looking at it, you say that there is no rationale, but I think there is. Am I missing something?" I indicated as much in my edit summaries when I reverted it, which is a clear indication that I reviewed the rationale. Your assumption that I re-inserted it without trying to understand what was wrong with it at first is wrong. The question I asked at the top of this thread was clear enough in its question, even if you prefer a more euphemistic tone. (Nonetheless, although I disagree with you, I appreciate your friendly attempt at helping out by participating here.)

Hammersoft: "It's not as simple as you suggest. Further, there's a presumption that removing NFCC violating content is somehow "destroying" the project." See WP:PRESERVE. The opening sentence pretty much says it all. Nightscream (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, Nightscream - 'how did he know that the rationale was incomplete' - You take the image description page, you see that it is displayed on Breed (Star trek), you look trough the rationales, and none of them points to that article. OK, one of them looks very, very similar - but none of them was the same. We can then go on and figure out what has to be done, but as I said earlier, by far most of the cases are of the type 'is it DSM, DSM, DSM, DSM, DSM, DSM?' It may be clear, since the logo is displayed on one of them, but the people who are the most likely to know for sure are the ones who know about the article (something that can not be expected of ∆ or whoever), and there is the risk that the original inclusion was a mistake (which would be propagated by also adapting the rationale). And this is all in combination with "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created".

No, of course you tried to understand, I hope everyone does that when an image is removed - and very often editors just re-insert. What I try to understand is the second re-insertion of the image. Someone removes it with an edit summary, one does not understand, and does their best to understand - then it gets re-removed. Again with the same 'one or more files removed due to missing rationale' - why do editors then still re-insert? Does that not ring a bell of 'hmm .. maybe there is something wrong with the rationale or that file or something. Maybe I do miss something?'. Still, editors keep on re-inserting - they keep on pushing an edit war. I don't know, I am at a loss here, Nightscream

Regarding other points, let me bring this again to your attention, example: diff by you or diff by you. Your edit summary here is way less informative than ∆, how is the editor who added that supposed to know what unsourced here means - you do not link specifically to that. You plainly remove a piece of information, you do not discuss that with the editor, you do not tag it for 'citation needed'. Why do you not search for the citation, why do you not repair it. How does this look in the line of WP:PRESERVE??

Nightscream, you, as anyone else complaining here has a massive double standard. We are talking here about WP:NFCC, something that is written with a Foundation Resolution as a base "Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users." - the file that Delta here removed from display did not have that. While in the two diffs I show you ([2], [3]), you plainly do exactly the same. You remove, undiscussed, information which maybe could be preserved.

So the only point you have is, that you (repeatedly) re-insert material in violation of a Resolution of the Foundation, because you did not understand why it was removed. OK, Delta was not forthcoming in explaining exactly why (though 'one or more files removed due to missing rationale' is in line with 'Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.'), you do not have the patience (like many, many editors) to wait and see what was actually wrong and collaboratively work to a solution - you just revert because you do not see what is wrong, re-instate a violation of a Resolution of the Foundation because you do not understand what is going on, and now try to blame Delta for not preserving the image, and not explaining appropriately what exactly what was wrong.

I do hope that on next occasions where you (and others) run into a removal by ∆ (or me, or whoever), that you then think 'Oh, maybe there is something wrong, let me see if I can repair it', or ask Delta if he can help, in stead of saying: it must be correct because I don't see, nor understand, what is wrong. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

ESA logo

Hello!

You removed ESA's logo from here Talk:Mars_rover

Reason: ESA logo: remove files per WP:NFCC#9 using AWB

Why didn't you removed the logo from here European Space Agency?

I used that logo fairly.

Regards Csendesmark (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nonfree content cannot be used on talk pages, it can only be used in articles. Talk:Mars_rover is not an article and thus it was removed from there. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ... some CopyRights are just dumb... Thanx for the info --Csendesmark (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Azazel (Marvel Comics)

I didnt add the images to the pages of Azeal. I reverted the additions of the images to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

you are mistaken you reverted my removal [4] without fixing the problem. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:415 Records/Temp

Hi Δ, I'm working on the replacement article above, which is intended to replace the original copy-paste article 415 Records, currently being investigated at Copyright problems at my request. I noticed your removal of the image (which was in the original article). Thanks for calling my attention to the policy on mainspace-only use of non-free images, as I was not aware of that & will remember. I replaced the text you deleted (the image filename) in a hidden editorial note (which does not display), and clearly stated that point & that it is not to be used until/unless the article does get moved to mainspace, following the copyright problem investigation with the text. I had looked at the details on that image, but without the background to follow up properly on it, other than to make a mental note that the submitter's userpage is fraught with deleted non-free images, I was not clear on what the next move with it was. I hadn't gotten to it yet, as I just started working on the article last night & posted the temp today, but I had hoped that before the new article went to mainspace, someone might be able to confirm one way or the other whether the non-free use rationale is good with this image or not. Can you confirm or do we need to source another image? Further, you also deleted my hidden editorial notes in a lower section of the article, regarding a band noted in the original article, which apparently no longer has a page. There was nothing in your edit summary about it, so perhaps you won't mind explaining the reason for that deletion. I restored it, again, as a hidden editorial note (which it was when you deleted it), because it contains important information that I want to follow up on at some point. If there's some policy that discourages this, please point me there. Thanks very much for your work. duff 00:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. The matter was settled yesterday. The original article has been restored, with proper copyrights, and is now in mainspace with the image. Thanks for the pause. If there's any other trouble with that image, or anything else that needs to be done about the proposed deletion, or about the photo itself, please advise duff 15:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing rate limit

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_.CE.94_.2F_Betacommand_violating_community_imposed_sanctions 64.217.182.58 (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

On the same token, I've proposed removal of the edit rate sanction. Same thread as above. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Kanye-West-grabs-the-mic-2009-vma.jpg

Hello, Δ. I'm here to inform you that the above image did have fair-use rationales for three of the articles it is used in. It just so happens that an IP removed all the rationales when adding personal commentary. Did you not see this? And if you did, how come you didn't simply revert the IP?

In any case, I restored the rationales and reverted your removal of the image from the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards article. I'm confused, however. Because while I can understand you not having checked the edit history to spot that's IP's removal, I'm wondering why you only removed the image from the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards article, when it didn't have rationales for the other articles either. Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually missed that, Im sorry. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Because he apparently deletes all images that fall into a certain category without bothering to look at them or their edit historys.XavierGreen (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No I remove all files tagged as non-free that fail our non-free content policy ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom database theft; WikiLove to roll out on the English Wikipedia; brief news

• In the news: Russian president uploads to Wikimedia Commons; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit counting

It would be interesting to give some of the dweebs that have the need to update AN/I on your EPM(edits per minute), some real stuby pencil math to work on. 50.94.116.132 (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Just referring to the busy bodies that spend their day trying to find where you exceed your edit limit so they can hit the "New Section" button at the top of AN/I and be the 1st to report you. How in the F can someone be that hard pressed to find a violation, that they would poor over your edit history looking at timestamps and counting lines. 50.94.116.132 (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite simple, I piss a lot of people off enforcing NFC because they do not like the message, and prefer to shoot the messenger instead of the message. I remove/tag for deletion a lot of files, and people want to see WP:NFC die a quick death. However with users like myself pushing enforcement, thats not possible. Too many people want to see liberal usage NFC, regardless of what NFC says. (back in the day I removed over 500 non-free screenshots from a single article). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You should not have to9insert for clarity) be doing what you are doing. The burden should be on the editor to meet policy before he adds the NFC. For something looked at so strongly by the foundation/in policy, it is amazing that anyone can make the addition by taking a crap and pushing "save page". This would be a good area for a "pending changes" type of check to prevent the addition of a possible NFC until it can be verified as meeting policy. 50.94.116.132 (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hope to see some speed runs soon! 50.94.116.132 (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

TY

Thanks for your response to my question at AN/I. I honestly appreciate you taking the time. I thought as much, but I hate to assume what another person thinks or feels. Best of luck to you. — Ched :  ?  12:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, but did you listen to that audio clip? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes .. very good. And it's exactly why I'm trying so hard to get up to speed on all this NFC stuff. Drafting that fixnf essay helped a lot, as it forced me to really read in-depth so many things. I don't have a legal background, so there's times I need to read through things 2 or 3 times to really get a full understanding. I honestly do appreciate all your hard work in this area, and admire how hard you've tried to be so accommodating to some pretty crude attacks. On an off topic note: Do you still think that Kaspersky KIS is still the best package available? — Ched :  ?  12:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. If you have any questions feel free to jump on IRC and ping me. The nick is normally Delta. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the ASU image

Would you care to explain exactly how I can make the rationale template workable? I've looked at the NFC criteria repeatedly and as the image is low-resolution and I don't feel like there's a sufficient free alternative that could replace it, I think it fits. I'd like to avoid a repeat of what happened the last time you and I had NFC issues, and I'm willing to explain exactly why the image fulfills each criteria. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 06:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and replaced the NFU rationale with something much more detailed which I feel is sufficient. Please take a look and see what you think. If it's sufficient in your view, please give me time to replace the rationales on the other college football uniforms with the updated ones and don't remove the images. I will get to all of them ASAP. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 18:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

About Images

I did not upload any images. I think, Someone has removed these images and after that I changed the article. So, You may think that I added these images. But I did not95.15.167.177 (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop editing the Advanced Academy of Georgia

Hello - You keep removing the image used on the Advanced Academy of Georgia's entry, which is the seal of the University of West Georgia. The Advanced Academy of Georgia is - as is very clearly stated in the article - a program run by the University of West Georgia, under the Honors College. Please stop vandalizing the page by unnecessarily removing the image. I'm not an uploader, so it's not my responsibility to maintain "valid NFURs", whatever the hell that is. Instead, as you're the one that's initiating the changes, it seems like it's your responsibility to actually fix the article instead of repeatedly vandalizing it. Thanks. Bantam1983 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)