User talk:Werieth

Crystal Maze images

I have undone your removal of images from The Crystal Maze article. Please review and respond to my comments on the article's talk page before reinstating your edit. Thanks. Cmch83 (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else has already reverted you. See my post on the talk page. Werieth (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files you removed at List of NRHP sites in Downtown Davenport

You seem to be wrong in your stated reason for removing these pix - there are statements on them of why these non-free images can be used. Perhaps you should go back over them and restate your case. In any case, please inform the uploader (most likely User:Farragutful for all of them) if you're intending to delete or just remove the pix he uploaded.

Thanks in advance for your more careful efforts,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They may have a valid rationale, but it is not of the article where I removed the file. I can also cite WP:NFLIST as grounds for removal along with WP:NFCC#3 Werieth (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

copied from my talk:Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically National Register of Historic Places listings in Downtown Davenport, Iowa, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. The files in question do not have valid rationales for the list article, I could also cite WP:NFLIST as another reason for removal. Do not re-insert. Werieth (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't upload these photos. As I mentioned User:Farragutful a very good editor did
"May fail our non-free image policy" is quite different than "does fail" - it needs to be discussed, not just removed.
You should always inform the uploader on a matter like this - it is just a matter of politeness.
Please do not presume to order me with a sentence like "Do not re-insert." You have been reverted - please take actions like these carefully, otherwise you risk coming across as a bully.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time the uploader has nothing to do with the NFCC violations as they uploaded and used it on a single article, someone else comes along and adds the file to a second article without meeting WP:NFCC. Let me be specific, since my the nicely worded template didnt get the point across, These files fail WP:NFCC#1,WP:NFCC#3,WP:NFCC#8,WP:NFCC#10 and WP:NFLIST. By adding them back to the article you are violating the non-free content policy which is why I warned you so. Werieth (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just asked that you inform the person most concerned and discussed the issue, and you've started edit warring and being rather "forward." Do please look at the other comments around this one - I'm not the only one to see this problem. Maybe you should consider just calling it a day today - everybody can have a bad day every once in a while. If you'd rather not take this advice - then please read WP:Don't be intentionally obnoxious

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring Removing files that lacked a rationale

Please do not remove images without discussion when you have already been reverted once. People actually are watching this article, and are willing to add a fair use rationale if you would stop trying to remove it without discussion. Judgesurreal777 (talk)|

Until there is a valid rationale the file cannot be on that article. Werieth (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Werieth (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 19:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The files that I removed from those articles where removed for missing non-free use rationales, which is required by policy see WP:NFCC#10 Werieth (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They all have the rationale, for example File:Savez Izviđača Srbije.png. You are continuing the edit wat you started on Scouting in California. --evrik ^(talk) 19:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But not for where I removed them.
- File:Savez Izviđača Srbije.png
  - Is being used on two pages
    - Savez Izviđača Srbije
      - Which has a rationale
    - Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine
      - Which does not have a rationale and was removed.
Thus my comment is correct, before reverting me blindly please take some time to familiarize yourself with out non-free content policy WP:NFC. Werieth (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Blindly? Hardly. You have been engaged in contentious editng for a while now. now, Wikipedia:NFC#Policy_2 sets the minimum as one. Am I to understand that you keep removing the files because the template is wrong? Wouldn't it be less contentious to fix the template on the image file? --evrik ^(talk) 19:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you please add some context to the statement Wikipedia:NFC#Policy_2 sets the minimum as one. I was removing the files because the files clearly fail WP:NFCC#10 (missing a rationale for the article where it is being used). Its not a matter of just updating a template. The file is being used on multiple pages. Each use requires a separate rationale and to meet all 10 points of WP:NFCC. In this case there are no rationales for the additional uses of the file. Without meeting all 10 points of WP:NFCC and having a rationale for each use I will remove the file. If you continue to revert and violate WP:NFCC I might need to request that you be topic banned from adding non-free files. Werieth (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see that Werieth (talk · contribs) removed File:Bucks County Council CSP.png from the article Scouting in Pennsylvania. This looks perfectly correct: the file only has a fair use rationale for the article Bucks County Council (Boy Scouts of America), so the use of the file in Scouting in Pennsylvania violates WP:NFCC#10c. I see that the user has removed files from lots of articles citing WP:NFCC. In some cases, it might be a simple case of just adding a fair use rationale (and then readding the image after writing a fair use rationale), whereas in other cases there might be other parts of the WP:NFCC policy which aren't satisfied either (thereby meaning that it is unwise to readd the image to the article). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, I went back to File:Savez Izviđača Srbije.png and added {{Non-free image rationale}} for the second article. Is this going to suffice? Is there a preferred way to add a second rationale? Perhaps instead of stripping the images out of pages and angering people, you could add the second template yourself?--evrik ^(talk) 20:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The issue here is you are claiming that File:Savez Izviđača Srbije.png is the logo of Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine but File:Council of Scout Associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.svg is the actual logo, thus Purpose = logo is invalid. Werieth (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The best thing to do is ask why must this article include this image? If you cannot come up with a very strong reason, dont include the image. That reason should then be able to fill the purpose field. Werieth (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You didn't actually answer my question as to whether or not use of the template was what you were looking for. --evrik ^(talk) 20:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        If its filled out correctly and the rationale given in the template meets WP:NFCC then yes. Right now the rationale isnt sufficient. Werieth (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the rationale. --evrik ^(talk) 21:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fair use rationale currently tells that "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article". However, I have to scroll down quite a lot to see the image. Don't you see how wrong the fair use rationale is? Also, the logos obviously violate WP:NFCC#3a. See also WP:NFC#UUI §6 --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is wrong is sloppy editing, of which I am guilty. I have adjusted the text. --evrik ^(talk) 22:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It still needs some work, and doesn't look like a valid use. The image is placed in an article discussing Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey. identify the organization sounds like it is referring to Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine, while the logo is for another group. If the logo is not for Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine then it shouldnt be used on another group's page. Werieth (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will no longer be commenting here as Stefan has opened a new discussion here. --evrik ^(talk) 17:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:YarraTramsLogoNew.svg

The logo you keep removing from the Melbourne tram articles only consists of typefaces, individual words and simple geometric shapes and is therefore Public Domain - see Threshold of originality. It follows that the logo is also not affected by WP:NFCC at all. I have retagged the logo file and moved it to Commons accordingly, and will also restore it to all the Melbourne tram articles in due course. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]