User talk:TLSuda

Dove

That discussion is still opened...Modernist (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No it is not, you need to stop reverting discussion closures simply because you do not agree. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ive given a final warning. If they continue I will seek their block. Werieth (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that regardless of outcome there will always be those who disagree with policy and will do whatever it takes to get their way. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no agreement - don't push it; until there is an agreement...Modernist (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)NFCR's dont need an agreement. Modernist, given your position you will never agree to any removals, which would place it at an indefinite stale mate. That is why we have NFCRs. Werieth (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There is obvious consensus that is policy backed. You just don't agree with the policy because you don't like it. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Back in 2006 the visual arts project and your project came to an understanding regarding the use of fair use imagery and your project changed your standard after our agreement; Ex Post Facto...Modernist (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

What actually happened is post 2006, WP:NFCC (a POLICY) changed. Policy ALWAYS trumps any other agreement. You don't like the policy, so discuss that. Open an RFC on the policy and what parts you don't agree with. There was consensus to change the policy in 2006. Holding old grudges gets you nowhere. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not about grudges - it's about creating great articles that show visual art - paintings and works of sculpture - that need to be seen in order to be understood. The dynamic is that works from the 20th century and works from the 21st century need to be seen. We came to an understanding in 2006 - because the foundation understood that exceptions must be made for paintings - because they need to be seen to be understood by our readers...Modernist (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what "foundation" you are talking about, but if there was a decision made about the use of visual art by the WMF, where is the policy that shows that? There isn't one. But there is policy that allows non-free images, if they meet all criteria of WP:NFCC. Those two images do not. So, you could keep arguing that you don't like the policy, or you could start an RFC to change the policy, or you could conform to the policy and actually create content that provides contextual significance. I think you should stop whining and actually do one of those. As I said on ColdCreation's talk page which has since been moved to Dove's talk page: you could fix the article and then gain consensus for the inclusion. Its that simple. If you cannot be productive in one of those ways, please kindly see yourself away from my talk page. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Wikimedia foundation that owns this website - this is a particularly interesting read - [1]...Modernist (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in that article that you've linked that shows that the WMF says that non-free content of paintings can be used. Also, the last few paragraphs (which actually are about non-free content) basically defer to the individual projects (en.wp included) for use of non-free files. That's why we have the policy at WP:NFCC. At this point you are now unwelcome on my talkpage. Further comments from you are considered to be harassment and therefore will be reported and handled through the dispute resolution process. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!

Hello ТимофейЛееСуда, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition began on 1 January. There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close imminently, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Logo Contributor Calls It Quits For A While…

For a while, I was getting very enthusiastic about adding "Former Logos" of various TV/Radio Stations but after realizing that there are plenty of Policies and Regulations regarding what content can be featured on Wikipedia, I got discouraged and decided that maybe I should look elsewhere to take my interests. I just visited This Page and I get it now. I'm not gonna be naïve now. I recognize that this is a friendly warning. I'm feeling embarrassed and don't feel like my contributions are wanted so, that being said, I'm not sure whether I should be contributing to Wikipedia. It would save me plenty of embarrassment and humiliation to just look into other websites. Isn't there a website called "Logopedia" or something like that? "Logopedia" features libraries of logos from various businesses and whatnot. I'm in doubt about whether that website is in violation of a lot of things and could get into trouble. I don't know why all the fun stuff has to be the things that are not allowed. I've always been one to go for the forbidden stuff.

Don't think I'm gonna be writing all over your page (just so you know). I don't typically write on Talk Pages. I was just doing this because I had some questions but I cannot remember the last time I ever wrote on somebody's Talk Page. I'm so sorry to be bothering you and I apologize if you feel that I'm a "Talk Page Stalker" and now I feel that it would be best if I just get out of Wikipedia. I'm gonna go now. It depresses me that I've caused people so much frustration.

50.138.170.28 (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I truly hope that you do not quit editing Wikipedia. You've made a bunch of good contributions on finding logos for stations that don't have them. Also, I should have reached out to you to explain everything instead of giving you a big "no." As for talk page stalker, I was talking about myself. I was explaining that I butted in to that conversation because I watch Armbrust's talk page. If there is anything else I can help with, please don't hesitate to reach out to me. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Gallery of country coats of arms

Why did you close the discussion before it was finished? Arms Jones (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was started on January 11, and these discussions usually run a week, whereas it had been almost a month since the discussion started. There had not been any new comments since February 3, so it was almost a week without comments by the time I closed the discussion. Most of all I closed it because there was a policy-backed consensus to not include non-free files, even with the various changes that have been made to the article throughout the discussion. The discussion about the actual style of the "gallery" (your word) is a content discussion and should be discussed on the article's talk page. Based on your arguments, you seem to be willing to attempt to find a common ground with using the non-free coat of arms, and I find that commendable. As it stands right now though, based on consensus in the discussion, any use of non-free files seems to violate WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFG, WP:NFCC#8, and WP:NFCC#3a. My recommendation would be if you still think the non-free files should be included, you should fix the entire article first. You should then come up with a reasonable argument for why using the files does not violate those policies that I listed above, then start a new discussion about the inclusion of those files at WP:NFCR. Right now, there is consensus against you, and it does not help that you are still working out details on how you are going to accomplish meeting the requirements in the policy. Trial and error is not a way to solve non-free content usage issues. If you can get the article cleaned up and have a reasonable argument, I would be happy to support it. Cheers and good luck. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The consensus was earlier, that the article has to be developed so that the text is comparing the images against eachother. That is how it is now. The article is cleaned up and we are still waiting for some people to say it is OK - if you read, you see that not everyone has answered that yet. But if you think it is OK to use all the files now, I am OK with that. There has also been a discussion at the article's talk page. Arms Jones (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The consensus in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 31 was that the image File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg fails WP:NFCC#1, except in the article Arms of Canada. What part of the consensus is it that you do not understand? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That discussion is obsolete, since the article is not a plain image gallery anymore, which it was when that discussion started. You can't remove images based on an obsolete discussion. Arms Jones (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Stefan is correct, the reasoning behind the consensus hasn't changed. Also, the consensus in the discussion on WP:NFCR was made for the non-free files to not be included, but never refuted. Just because you don't agree with the consensus, does not mean there isn't one. Also, I don't think its fine to use the non-free files now as you still haven't made a compelling argument to change the consensus. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the consensus is dealing with the gallery the way it looked before, so you can't remove the image based on that discussion only. You have to take the present state of the article into consideration and the discussion which has been present since then. I can't see either of you has even bothered about this before, so why are you suddenly so interested in it now? The deletion discussion is obsolete. Read the following discussions. Arms Jones (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The present state is how the sections under A, B & C were on February 3rd, and you still could not gain consensus. The only difference is you've applied the same style and structure to the remaining of the article. I'm not interested in the article itself. If I were, I would not be able to close the discussion per WP:INVOLVED. I closed the discussion based on consensus. There are now two separate discussions that have a consensus against inclusion of non-free files. Period. Nothing has changed. End of story. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You closed an open discussion. Well, I say, good job! Congratulations. A, B, and C is not now as it was then, if you read the text, because I have developed the text to confirm with what consensus wanted for the files to be able to be there. But perhaps, you don't want Wikipedia to become better, you just want to end annoying discussions and go do something else. Everything is always just no, no, no here at Wikipedia, there are never anyone who tries to work with the contributor to try to make things possible. *Sigh* Arms Jones (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I closed a discussion that interpreted consensus. You don't agree with that consensus. I recommended a process for you to work toward establishing consensus. I'm trying to work with you, not against you. Currently you have no one who agrees with you. Fighting editors like Stefan and I, and complaining that we have not read the discussions, does you no good. If you don't want to work with me, that's fine, but please do not make edits that are against consensus. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You closed a discussion which was working towards a consensus. I can't see you have recommended any other process for me. It would have been nice to have someone trying to work with me and not against me, but I'm sorry to say I can't see where you have tried to do that. Arms Jones (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)