User talk:Δ/20110601

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Thoughts on the AN discussion

I find the fact that many people are seeking more restrictions on me asinine. Other than the one outburst I have remained very civil. If you don't like policy get it changed, don't shoot the messenger. Here is a counter proposal, people want me to communicate more, when I do communicate people don't listen, take for example the issue with currency recently, there where countless notification across multiple talk pages and wikiprojects. The users dont give a fuck until me and Hammersoft actually start removing the overuse (after a month of attempted discussions). Also take a look at Template:Politics of South Africa I left a explicitly clear reason for the edit twice and was reverted both times because of WP:ILIKEIT completely ignoring the core policy which is non-negotiable about NFC in userspace/templates. Here is my proposal create standard set of templates (the uw style works well) about incorrect usage of NFC, add it to twinkle and stress that files must be left out until the issues are resolved with them. If the issues are not resolved and the users insist on ignoring policy, admins must be willing to step in, and either protect the image free article, delete said files, or block the user until they get the point. I often try to explain NFC but too many users refuse to listen. Adding more restrictions on me will not solve the problem, we need a wider community push to get files in line with policy. This worked fairly well back in 2007-2008 with both the TV episode image removal and the push to ensure that all files have at least one rationale. Another request that should be made, (and Ive asked for this for years and have been ignored) is that admins who monitor both my talk page and the discussions I'm in would actually do something about the personal attacks directed towards me, instead of ignoring them, we could avoid situations like what recently happened when I was insulted and attacked one too many times by the same user. ΔT The only constant 14:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

NFC warning templates would be useful - perhaps you could draft something for that. I would also be willing to conditionally unblock you in order to participate in (i) the AN discussion about your possible sanction and (ii) the NFCC enforcement RFC. (This would be under a very generous interpretation of Wikipedia:BLOCK#Temporary_circumstances_unblocks, because of the role of NFCC in your editing and in your edit restrictions.) Editing any other pages, however virtuously or trivially (until your 1-week block expires, i.e. 14.41 6 June, UTC), would result in a reinstatement and doubling of the original block. If you'd like that conditional unblock, let me know; if you're afraid you might not stick to it, then don't go for it. Rd232 talk 14:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • With regards to the RfC, I haven't contributed because I think it's a dead end. Many people, myself included, have tried to get the community to a better place with regards to NFC and NFCC. It never works. It's a permanently broken system, but it's all we have. Consensus will never move it towards a better place, even if the former or latter existed. Wear I tend to exert my energies is in defending the (horribly stupid, ultimately unenforceable, badly corrupted) line in the sand we have. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. @Δ: I heartily agree, as you know, with the core issues you raise. If it had been me who gutted the numismatics articles rather than you, this debate would not have spun out of control. Why? Because when you're involved, people start invoking the past in an attempt to win the future. It's wrong, absolutely wrong, and an extremely strong reason to suspend the sanctions and have ArbCom explicitly state that use of past sanctions in disputes is irresponsible.
  2. That said, you have repeatedly violated the edit throttle. That was wrong, and there's no disputing that. I do think it's highly improper for people to scream about the edit throttle being violated without pointing to any actual damage caused when the throttle was violated. It's like a "we got you because we wanted to get you, not because you're hurting the project" situation. It again goes back to invoking the past to win the future. Still, you know the throttle is in place and violated it anyways. I'd hate to be under a throttle like that. It would be damned difficult to adhere to.
  3. You don't communicate well. You know it, I know it, so do lots of other people. That's not an attack but objective assessment. Everybody has their limitations. Some situations that you get involved in could be cooled down with more communication. Since that communication isn't your strong suit, passing such situations off to others to handle would be a good idea I think. I'll raise my hand and volunteer for this. Whether there's a new restriction or not, if you come across a situation where you've removed something and later reverted it's reinstatement only to have it removed again, let me know. I'll take care of it. At that point, just step back from it and move on to something else.
  4. Personal insults are rampant on the project. If you look at the body of attacks and the actual responses, the policy is effectively unenforced to the point that the policy has no standing anymore. I am routinely insulted. Portions of my userpage are an homage to that. I can't tell you how many times I've reported being insulted. Result? Nothing. I was even told I was the most ignorant and disrespectful editor on Wikipedia, and the people reviewing it declared it wasn't a personal attack. This is far from isolated. It happens all the time. Administrators simply don't want to step into the middle of such drama, and ignore it. We can't change that. The project has, as a whole, gotten to a point where fringe opinion adherents are treated almost with reverence in terms of how much bullshit they can get away with. An editor with considerable experience has almost no leeway. That's reality. I don't know what the solution is.
  5. I want to state again that the work you do here is invaluable. Nobody else does or can do what you've done. It's easy to get down in the dumps about all this crap. Frankly, I've been highly impressed you've stuck it out despite all of it. There are people here who will go to any length to make you look as bad as possible, and they are relentless. Please don't place value in their opinions. I have my own set of editors doing the same with me. I've taken to ignoring their posts. Their posts are frequently as nonsensical as they are illogical, and are extremely disconnected from the reality of what this project is. I choose not to waste my time reading them. If anything of import is raised by them, I figure someone else will write about it enough to bring it to my attention. Since that has never happened, it's so far been safe to conclude their comments remain non-pertinent, and I can continue to ignore them. This might do well for you too. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. Unfortunately, I know ArbCom doesn't have the testicular fortitude to actually get anything done worth while anymore, its a purely political group so they will never in a million years even ever consider such an action, let alone do it.
  2. yeah, I fucked up there and I am quietly taking my lumps for going over the throttle, and not requesting unblock or anything else. I am complaining about the other issues
  3. That is why you have seen me stay out of a lot of discussions here on my talk page because you and several other users have taken care of it for me.
  4. What I would like to see is a zero tolerance policy, on NPA and serious CIVIL issues (for all sides of the table)
  5. Thank you.
You might want to take a look at my monobook.js I added another tool that you might find useful. Also tools:~betacommand/nfcc might be interesting, Im running a NCC#10c scanner over every NFC use. <page title><tab><file name><tab><internal usage hash> ΔT The only constant 15:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Yep, I already added that tool. VERY useful! It's serious drudgery going through articles with >10 non-free images on them looking for such violations. Re (3); I kinda figured you were letting others step in for you on discussions here on this talk page, and I've been happy to do it. (4) You'll never see a zero tolerance policy on WP:NPA. Just won't happen. Barring Jimbo coming in and issuing a thousand blocks to forcefully change society here, WP:NPA will remain written on used toilet paper. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Case example on the zero tolerance idea. Quoting someone who recently responded to me, "You really just don't want this image on Wikipedia, do you?". Under current community standards, that's as far removed from a personal attack as the geocenter of the Sahara is from the Marianas Trench. Yet, it's a comment on me, not any points raised and DOES violate the "nutshell" shown on WP:NPA. WTF can post comments like this because he knows that nothing will ever be said about his comment. He feels at liberty to freely comment on me, knowing nothing will happen. Frankly, I find it silly for him to do this; it doesn't add to his argument. In fact, it detracts from it. But, there it is. Our culture doesn't support enforcement of WP:NPA. In fact, it's even the opposite. Several times now I've been attacked for showing intolerance of insults by way of WP:HAMMERSOFTSLAW. The irony is exquisitely delicious. The reality here is that if I were to say "Thou art a foul faced loon with intellect of a puffin" to someone I was in a disagreement with, nothing would happen to me. If instead I were to say "You are a fucking asshole, dumb as fuck all", I'd be taken to WP:WQA in heartbeat, probably WP:AN/I too, but probably not blocked for it. That's Wikipedia. Ain't it cool? <cough> The point here is that many editors just love to generate drama, and few admins are willing to walk face first into an unshielded fan to 'resolve' the issue (nothing gets resolved really). So, the culture is extreme tolerance of personal attacks because nobody will enforce the policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

take a second look there are two tools there, see example of the newest one :) ΔT The only constant 16:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Oh cool! Can you make on revision? Add a link to the image description page at the top of the report? (by the way; I've removed the violating uses of that image). --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Just to comment: I'm trying to find some reasonable means to validate your excellent NFC work against those that would just rather see you gone from the project regardless of your attempts to abide by the restrictions. Most of the complaints you get are people dissatisfied with NFC policy, but they don't seem to want to take up the changes there and use you as the punching bag instead. Which is why I'm thinking a solution that simply brings any disagreements on NFC enforcement to a venue where your NFC enforcement can be validated is going to help prevent discussions strictly on your talk page from breaking down into incivility (and which, yes, you are right, if someone calls you out for being incivil in a discussion, there's likely someone else being incivil right back to you), and re-enforce the purpose and need of NFC enforcement. So don't please don't take what I'm trying to do at AN in the wrong way, I'm trying to negotiate a difficult set of priorities here. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Then here is a solution: topic ban repeated offenders who try to use me as a punching bag; set up a discussion board with those who actively work with NFC, and point users to that board if they have issues. WP:NFCR not really suited for this in its current format, but a similar board focused on individual page/file uses (kinda like what WT:NFC is being used for now); Make it clear that Shooting the messenger is not acceptable and that the issues need to be focused on. With all of the proposals that Im seeing on AN right now I see nothing productive except making it easier for them to use me as a punching bag; We need to start focusing on the elephant in the room instead of the mouse. ΔT The only constant 17:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Politics of South Africa

Regarding your edits to Template:Politics of South Africa yes indeed, the image is not free, however it is a governmental work which is granted for non-commercial use by the South African government. The United States coat of arms (or Great Seal) falls under the same header of copyright law. Also, this image is used on South Africa which has been reviewed many times. If you consider it non-free then it would have to be removed from there as well.

Let me know what you think.

Kind Regards, User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

First File:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg is public domain and is not copyrighted. File:Coat of arms of South Africa.svg is copyrighted and is thus subject to our non-free content policy. Usage of it on Coat of arms of South Africa, South Africa, South African heraldry has been justified with a non-free rationale. Similar rationales cannot be made for its usage in a template. (see WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#9). Using non-free content in decorative situations like this template is not allowed. ΔT The only constant 10:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
After going over SA copyright law it seems that the South African Coat of Arms does indeed belong in the public domain as ::according to the Copyright Act § 12 (8) (a):
"No copyright shall ::subsist in official texts of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or in official translations of such texts."
The file [[File:Coat of arms of South Africa.svg]] is from such a source which you can find ::here[1].
I therefore recommend that all images that are derived from South ::African governmental works have their copyright status amended to the public domain so that they may be used on templates and ::anywhere else where they may have formerly been restricted.
Kind Regards User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

find all articles with same start date

I saw the blocked tag when I opened your talk page. I hope it's not a tremendous burr in your saddle. I wanted to follow up on the data you pulled regarding article start dates. In truth, what you sent was closer to what I wanted than what I had asked for (so kudos for parsing my request better than I wrote it). I found about 330k articles in the list you posted, so I'm curious about the first million comment in your post at the pump. Any idea why the numbers are so different? I see that some articles appear to have been renumbered (e.g., Buddhism), but that seems likely to be a relatively small number - unlikely to comprise 2/3 of articles in any case. If you are willing and able to pull the same data for the remaining articles (time and access permitting), I would love to get the query results. On a somewhat related note, do you know if there is any way to pull article class changes (or even current article class data) without looking at the text table? I know that class and other milestones are stored in a template on talk pages, but the text table is unpleasant to query. Thanks for the data you already provided - even that much is quite interesting. Wikipositivist (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I grabbed page_id 1-1,000,000 and then excluded everything not an article. (thus we have talk pages, user pages exct. that all get page_ids) So what you have is all articles with a page_id >1m. let me look around Ill see about getting the rest up shortly. ΔT The only constant 00:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I hear ya

Listen man, we disagree on things and I think you should dial it back (to the point I think you may need to be forced to dial it back), but I agree with you that civility is a two-way street. LessHeardVanU was out of line and I've told him so. I think a warning is sufficient right now. If you feel someone is pushing you around to the point of being hostile, I will stand by you. Let me know and I'll go to bat for you so you don't lose your cool (you can even e-mail me and vent, if you so desire). I don't think what you are doing is particularly helpful all the time, but I also recognize that some people are pushing you around. Just keep a level head and I'll back you up on civility issues (FWIW, I've been targeted by a particularly prolific sockpuppeter with over 300 accounts; he's accused me of all kinds of things including murder). Just chill and keep it civil. — BQZip01 — talk 01:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, its about frackin time people started to notice that I am normally a very civil person until pushed too far. Other than with the usage of logos I think our views on NFCC are fairly similar. Feel free to jump onto IRC any time and grab my ear if you want to discuss anything. (my nick is Delta or Delta|away normally on the freenode network) I idle in most wiki related channels. I think that if we could get most of the main players on both sides of the NFCC debate together, on IRC where communications are real time, I think we are all fairly similar in regards to our views, and I think a general airing of opinions and discussions, issues, approaches, and ideas would be helpful to both sides.
PS you might want to try adding importScript('User:Δ/NFCC.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js for two useful tools with regards to non-free files and their rationales. ΔT The only constant 01:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Good to see such dialogue. Don't you mean Special:MyPage/skin.js? Rd232 talk 01:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No, /common.js applies to all skins, if a user changes skins anything in common.js keeps working, its independent of your skin file, (kinda like a global scripts feature) ΔT The only constant 01:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, splendid. Well that seems worth recording in a suitable location, so I made Wikipedia:Common.js. Rd232 talk 02:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Image Police Request

Can you please take a look at the many issues with uploaded images as indicated on User talk:Hoops gza? This user has been having a hard time understanding Wikipedia policies and the talk page is full of image problem notices. There was also a disturbing post a while back where the user was advised to simply start marking all images as public domain. There is still further an ANI notice about this, and I'm surprised the image issue hasn't drawn more attention. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nicaraguan córdoba

Delta, I've just come across this edit on Nicaraguan córdoba from 6 June, and I want to ask you, in your judgement, whether you think it was really appropriate?

Remember, per WP:NFCC #8 and #3a, the community expects images to be kept which "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic".

In your judgement, can you really affirm that, in stripping the article of every single image apart from the (free) flag of Nicaragua, that you have preserved the understanding that readers were getting of the topic ?

You job is to try to work towards that balance; not to nuke the article into the stone age.

It seems to me that, particularly given the difficulty to describe of any pattern or consistency in the 2009 bills, there is a strong case for illustrating them all. The 2002 series was more consistent, but the images are useful to show the variety and range within that pattern. It is also, I suggest, clearly informative to show what the coins look like.

Given this, can I suggest that the appropriate action would be to identify on the talk page which particular images you believe fail to increase reader understanding; and in the mean time to restore the page to the state it was in before 6 June, to allow informed discussion. I appreciate that you may fear that insufficient attention may be paid simply to such talk-page interventions; but even in the worst case, if you feel there is a legitimate case for deletion, and that your concerns are not receiving proper attention, you can always refer them to WP:FFD and allow the community to decide.

Regardless, I hope you would agree that your edit of 6 June did not leave the article in an appropriate final state, and was therefore not appropriate; and I therefore expect you to reverse it.

If you believe that that edit was an appropriate final state to leave the article in, I have to inform you that I should feel bound to ask the community to consider that view at WP:AN/I; and to review, if that is your judgement, whether it is appropriate for you to continue to act as an enforcer for the community in this area. Jheald (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You must have missed the memo, take a look at 1 cent euro coins,1 euro coins,2 cent euro coins,5 cent euro coins,10 cent euro coins,20 cent euro coins,50 cent euro coins,Coins of the Dutch guilder,Coins of the Philippine peso,Commemorative coins of Poland: 1999,Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Netherlands),Florin (Australian coin),New Design series,One pound (British coin),Peruvian nuevo sol,Shilling (Australian),Threepence (Australian),Vatican euro coins. All of those articles have had large scale reductions of non-free content. This most recent cleanup was started by Hammersoft, and Hammersoft gave plenty of notice. See Talk:Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Netherlands)#Over use of non-free images for one example of many many notices that Hammersoft left, prior to us starting the large scale removals. My removals shouldnt be a final state, what should happen is that the editors of the affected pages should select a small sample of the previous non-free material which they see as the most important and them re-add that. ΔT The only constant 01:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • JHeald, to threaten to take this to WP:AN/I to force Δ not to work in this area is wholly inappropriate and absolutely out of line. In as much as you expect Δ to revert his edit, I expect you to apologize for your uncalled for aggression towards Δ. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • JHeald, I second that. First, this has nothing to do with WP:FFD, and the Foundation has asked us to minimise the use of non-free media. As Delta shows, notice was given early on that here something needed to be done, giving enough time for discussion, but (apparently) no-one wanted to do anything about it. Your further threats are totally inappropriate, and I expect you to withdraw them, and to apologize for this aggression (note: this is yet another example of an established editor who, in a first post to Delta on a subject, fails utterly to assume good faith on Delta, ánd is using inappropriate aggression in the same post). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup of Icon bar

Hi. Thanks for tidying up the text and image appearance in Icon bar. It looks better now, but it's worth noting that some of the images may be rescued. If and when this happens (along with adequate rationales), some of them should be returned to the article. Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

articles by start date

Delta, thanks for the earlier data dump. I went through it and it is quite interesting. I don't want to be a pest, so please let me know if you have real, productive editing to do and don't have time or energy to pull start dates and I can take it back to the pump and cross my fingers. Also, any idea where I can get some $2 bills (I forwarded that link along) :P. Wikipositivist (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I must have forgotten to post the link [2]. Depending on your location (I would assume that your American) If you walk into your local bank they should have them available for you. a quick but related note ΔT The only constant 18:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll start plugging away at it tonight. I used to use the old $ coins (not the really, really old ones), but it was a bit of a pain getting people to dig them out of the quarter slot when they failed to look... I'll have to start with $2 bills :) Wikipositivist (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

M.J. Coldwell picture

The M.J. Coldwell picture was not uploaded by me for starters. However, M.J. Coldwell deserves a picture, and that is the one that is currently on his page. Provide a rational for removing it.--Abebenjoe (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Simple it is non-free and does not have a rationale and fails WP:NFC#8 on the article where I removed it. That is three reasons. ΔT The only constant 22:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
First off, you should have replied on my wall. Secondly, why the hell didn't you post that in your first edit summary. I have other rights cleared images of Coldwell that I could have used, as opposed to wasting time debating with you.--Abebenjoe (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
If a conversation is started on one talk page, common curtsy and practice is to keep it in one place. Two, wikipedia does not have "walls". Three my edit summary remove files without a [[WP:NFUR|valid rationale]] for this usage was explicit for why it was removed it was non-free and missing a rationale. Upon further investigation I noticed it failed #8 also. Please remember to remain civil at all times and to not blindly revert. ΔT The only constant 22:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know where you got your Wiki manners, but if a conversation is started on one talk page, so that the other person knows there is a response, the reply is on that user's page so that they are notified. Two, you used the wrong tag in your edit commit, since I didn't upload the image, you could have stated clearly, that you thought the image was inappropriate due to possible copyright violations. Three don't be so thin skinned.Abebenjoe (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Uh, you need to take a few minutes and read through WP:NFC. I never sated that there was a copyright violation. I did use the correct summary, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include non-free content to provide rationales for every use. For this file there was only one rationale, and it was being used on three separate pages, which means it needed two more rationales. We have watchlists for a reason, I use mine to monitor discussions across multiple pages without getting flooded with new message banners. Also WP:CIVIL is a one of the pillars that wikipedia is founded on, when you come at someone in the aggressive and derogative manner that you did it is un-civil. Its not a matter of thickness of ones skin, its about common curtsy and manners. Again Special:Watchlist is your friend. ΔT The only constant 23:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Why did you edit my User Talk Page?

I was obviously using it to test a page yet you removed the image from the infobox and you made corrections to the page. Why did you remove the image yet you didn't do the same in the actual "Forza 2" article? I've undone your edit since I see no reason why you should be messing with my test page. Here's the link to your edits: --Holygamer (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NFCC#9 non-free files are not allowed on your talk page. ΔT The only constant 13:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't really understand that page! So does it basically say that you can't use non-free images anywhere except for the article page? Why did you make the other edits to my page though? --Holygamer (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Correct, non-free content can only be used in articles. I was just doing minor cleanup alongside my image removals. ΔT The only constant 13:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion: you mentioned the specific criterion in your edit summary but didn't wikilink it. It might help a little to do so, either instead of the wikilink to the NFC page or in addition. Rd232 talk 14:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/United Kingdom

  • A: The bot edit removed the "el:" thingy
  • (Additional to the things of interest to you), the Prestonmag edit restored the "el:" thingy and changed the catsort on "NATO Armies ranks and insignia templates"
  • B: Your edit only partially reverted Prestonmag
  • There followed more nuisance edits
  • You then reverted back to version "B:"

Is there any particular reason why you only partially reverted Prestonmag? Do you have any objection to reverting back to the bot edit - i.e. version "A:"? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers. A discussion is going on there about that editor. Coemgenus 15:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Your recent edits to Home Theater PC

I've restored the images you cut out. Of course you didn't bother reading the article since you would have seen the images were relevant there. So you can check of your box, I modified the fair use rationale on each image so that they include mention of the Home Theater PC article since each and every one of them was illustrating Home Theater PC software in use among others.

By the way, you reverted my edits while I was in the process of making the changes to the images that you could have just as easily done. So, please, in the future, help out.Mattnad (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

See /Editnotice#NFUR It is your responsibility to ensure it has a rationale prior to using it in an article, not mine to write it. ΔT The only constant 17:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Delta is correct here: your images do not have a separate rationale for the Home Theater PC page as required by WP:NFCC#10c (you have them for the individual hardware pages); thus his removal is legitimate. This can be corrected by adding a second rationale for each non-free image for the use on the HTPC page. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Sigh... do you guys work in the DMV by chance? So your saying that even though the current rationale explicitly mentions Home Theater PC, I have to redo do a separate form? Below is the current AppleTV2 image rational.

{{Non-free use rationale |Article = Apple TV |Description = AppleTV 3.0 interface |Source = Screenshot |Portion = |Low_resolution = Yes |Purpose = To illustrate the latest AppleTV interface in the article dedicated to the product. Also used in the Home Theater PC article, which includes a section on Apple supplied Home Theater PC devices and related software. |Replaceability = The is no free equivalent that could illustrate the interface. |other_information = Included in the [[Home Theater PC]] article which explicitly mentions this software platform and uses this image under fair use. }}

OK. I've now done repeated rationales. I hope this meet with your approval. And if not, how about helping out rather than just deleting?Mattnad (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That should be ok. The reason we require a separate rationale for each image use is a requirement of the Foundation, as each use should be for different purposes - otherwise images can be considered decorative and unnecessary. For example: here, one use is to show the device/interface for the Mac Mini article; the use on the Home Theater PC page is to show one example of a home theater PC device & its interface (specifically the Mac Mini) and some of the common features it shares with other products on the market. They are different reasons and why we want separate rationales. However, you should not expect Delta, or those remove the images, to guess on the rationale if it is lacking. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Like I said... seems to be a very DMVish experience which is when there's a problem, they don't help you, even if the solution is easy and obvious to them. The "not my problem" response is why I suspect Delta gets grief for his or her approach to this.20:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually I could dispute all of the rationales that you duplicated. They are generic rationales that really do not hold much water. When writing a rationale the key thing is to explain why a particular file must be used in a particular article, and why its omission would be detrimental to that (that being the understanding of article). In your current rationales it does not explain why you must use the same image across three separate articles. It really only gives a reason for one article. ΔT The only constant 20:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to CHRO-TV, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

Please review our non-free content policy, before re-adding files that violate it. ΔT The only constant 17:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at CHRO-TV, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InMontreal (talkcontribs) 17:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You need to check your facts. File:CTV_Two.png lacks a non-free media use rationale for CHRO-TV. Therefore the removal is appropriate. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Ive tried to tell them that but they dont listen. ΔT The only constant 17:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


You wrote that the non-free content is overused.

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

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

Article :

Thanks, Jakub— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kupsztal (talkcontribs)

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

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

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

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

(talk page stalker) Exactly, non-free files are not allowed in userspace (see WP:UP#NOTSUITED and WP:NFCC Policy 9.). Once the draft has been moved into mainspace, the image can be added back. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Great thank you. My mistake. Bygul (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Film posters

You being the resident guru of strict interpretation of the fair use criteria, I think we could use your input on the question of the use of film posters in film articles. The editor Amadscientist has been indef'd for making (borderline) legal threats, but I think he has a point, as film posters are hardly ever discussed in the movie articles but are merely used as "decorations":[3]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

True, they are not discussed, however like logos they are the primary visual representation of the film and thus under the for identification purpose of the non-free content policy (the same way logos and book covers do). Side note (NOT wiki policy) These posters are used as advertisements for said films and thus are spread as far and as wide as possible by most production companies and thus they will never sue us. </end side note> That being said, those posters are how a large majority of people associate with the film (using a single image vs video) so the for identification clause of the NFC is fairly solid, I would be surprised, and wouldnt support their mass removals. ΔT The only constant 18:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, the reasoning would be that they are an important identifying illustration, as with sports team logos, company logos, and the like; hence they don't have to be directly discussed in the article. Have I got that right? Also, I fully agree that the use of these small-scale logos amounts to free advertising and it's very unlikely a company would sue us for giving them free advertising. The issue raised by the blocked complainant has to do with "market value"; apparently the market value of the poster itself. That leads me to believe the guy is a collector rather than being connected with any studio. And his threat to "tell everyone he knows in Hollywood" to essentially "boycott" wikipedia is most likely a self-serving bluff. Thank you for your comments. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to both agree and disagree at the same time with you. :) I think our usage of Film posters is 100% correct, while our usage of logos is a little too excessive. Take a look at File:Abclocalradio.png its used on 44 articles. I think it should be used on ABC Television and that is it. However we (wikipedia) tend to over use the logo of a parent organization for every single child company if the said subdivision doesnt have their own logo instead of just a note like xxx is a subdivision of yyy and uses their logo for branding purposes because they do not have their own which would kill the over use of logos and also serve the same purpose. I would equate Film posters to book covers more than I would for logos. ΔT The only constant 20:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The book cover is a good analogy, especially as the cover of a DVD holder is often used for the poster placeholder in a film article. I don't really understand the concern about "over use" of logos from a policy standpoint, although one could argue that overuse might provide "too much" free advertising! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
In a somewhat parallel situation, I've seen the use of "trailers" on youtube quite a lot, where the film itself is copyrighted. I suspect they can get away with that for much the same reasoning as with posters: That they are marketing tools, and hence are free advertising for the given film. Only someone with a self-destructive business philosophy would be likely to complain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
More specifically, we did have a rather recent (last 6 months) discussion on cover art and consensus affirms that they are used for implicit aspects of branding and marketing of the published work, as long as the work is notable enough for its own article (hence why we don't have discography lists include cover art). Also, in regards to that guy's point on the commercial aspects, there's a reason we ask for low resolution images here, for respect of the commercial copyright - the image we provide cannot be blown up to poster-size and be appealing due to scaling artifacts, but yet large enough to be recognizable. (I will note, however, I do agree that I personally rather see cover images meet higher metrics, even if it is just used to identify characters, setting, or the like, rather than just placed there without further discussion, but that's not going to happen any time soon) --MASEM (t) 19:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


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

Delta can give you the technical explanation [as noted already, in the edit summaries], but regardless of that, you had best not issue threats such as "don't mess with me", or your stay on wikipedia will be very short. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
If you actually bothered to read my edit summary you would see that the file does not have a rationale for the article where I removed it. ΔT The only constant 22:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you try helping instead?

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

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

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

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

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


You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violation of Community-imposed restrictions regarding civility, refusing to dialogue with fellow editors and edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ΔT The only constant 10:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Asteriontalk 02:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Δ (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

You threatened a fellow editor with having him blocked[5] when he politely asked to justify your rationale, then proceeded to ignore his comments and repeatedly removed content, further on engaging in wikilawyering by selectively quoting WP:NFTABLE to justify yourself (i.e. leaving out "but [usage] should be considered on a case-by-case basis"). This is not the first time you fail to be civil to other wikipedians. You have been blocked in the past for the same kind of recurring behaviour.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Asteriontalk 03:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)}}

Giving someone a warning that repeated violations of the non-free content policy may lead to a block is standard practice, we do the same kind of thing with 3RR and other issues. Also please do not miss-quote me. take a look at my post on the talk page. The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable I see nothing special about this page that would make this usage of non-free content in tables acceptable I quoted policy and noted that I do not see any special reasons for that article to be excluded from the policy normals. ΔT The only constant 03:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
As involved, I can't remove this, but I'm bringing the block up for discussion at ANI. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


Per consensus at [6] I have unblocked Δ. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop Removing my uploads

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

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

Why did you remove the image

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

I will continue to remove files that do not have proper non-free rationales. In this case you just fixed the rationale to make it acceptable [7] ΔT The only constant 12:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Escher Circle Limit III

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

it was not random removals. The file is used on multiple articles and only has rationales for some. Those that do not have a rationale provided for the use get removed if/until a rationale is provided. FFD is only acceptable route if the whole image fails policy, not a particular use of the file. ΔT The only constant 23:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC) I thought I posted this just after you left me a note here, but it looks like an edit conflict prevented the post
The image is being used in two other article - both with proper rationales for its use there. The use of the image on the Mobius transformation article is given no rationale on the image page, and per policy, removal is appropriate (and deletion would be completely out of line). If you want to use the image on that page, you need to provide a valid rationale per WP:NFC policy. --MASEM (t) 12:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, have now added rationales to the image page. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
May not be the best ratioanle ever, but sufficient to maintain that there and prevent its immediate removal. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Italian Socialist Party

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

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

2011 PAG

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

Please READ the link I provided in my edit summary, every use of a non-free file must have an accompanying rationale. You do not have that here. ΔT The only constant 00:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a rationale here. Read the talk page of the image. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Wrong, you have a rationale for the article 2011 Pan American Games, its still being used there. Any other uses need a new specific rationale. ΔT The only constant 00:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The wording does not direct towards just the 2011 Pan American Games. I don't see where you are getting at. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes it does, see WP:NFCC#10c ΔT The only constant 00:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I was talking about the rationale, not the description. I will change it promptly. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
So was I, right now it has a rationale for one use, and its being used there. If you want to use it on other pages you need to write a valid rationale for each use on the file description page (a guide that I originally linked to) ΔT The only constant 00:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I put it back, but realized that you did not agree with it. I have put up a rationale for that article. Am I allowed to put back the image? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I never disputed the rationale. ΔT The only constant 01:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

@Intoronto: I do dispute the rationale. "Purpose of use: Promotional press kit". That doesn't make any sense. Wikipedia isn't a promotional press kit. No purpose of use has actually been specified. Using it on 2011 Pan American Games medal table is purely decorative and fails WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Crossmr (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on editing patterns, it appears that

Tamimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Tamimomari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

are likely all the same user. Tamimomari was indef'd for copyvios and personal attacks, the same stuff that Tamimo continued to do. He's mostly editing under IP's. He created the user ID's in order to be able to upload images. That's my theory, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Its obvious the user in question was socking, I just couldnt be arsed to take the time and gather all of the evidence needed for an SPI case. As for the original block I would have to call that excessive, given just the one comment (and other evidence available at the time). ΔT The only constant 10:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Ambox content.png

Hello Δ,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 04:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

BRD/Bot edits

I know you believe that you are in the right with regard to image policy, but that doesn't give you the right to make bot-like edits where you copy and paste the same edit summary for dozens upon dozens of edits, or to ignore any context in the article. Also, if you have been reverted, you shouldn't just do your copy-and-paste edit again, you should discuss it, especially if someone has given a reason for reverting you. Please note that I have expressed similar sentiments at your AFD/EW Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Funny. You don't come after me for performing "bot like edits". I've done more than 2000 edits using a single edit summary. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • How about please reading my edit summary, I clearly state why I remove files from pages. (they lack non-free rationales) and I also include a fairly detailed note about that in the edit notice for my talk page. But no one cares to take the time and actually read what I post. the non free content policy is rather clear about requiring rationales, and if there is not a rationale for a given usage it will be removed. ΔT The only constant 10:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on User talk:Rd232 and baiting User:MickMacNee into an edit warring violation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ΔT The only constant 16:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
At the time this block was placed, a discussion at WP:ANEW ([8]) had already concluded that a block was not necessary for this situation ([9]). As collective decisions reached among uninvolved administrators – carried out openly on suitable noticeboards, following Wikipedia's standard practices – generally supersede the judgements of individual editors, I have therefore lifted this block pending further discussion. SarekofVulcan or any other editor may appeal the conclusion reached at WP:ANEW on that board or at AN/I, and if they are able to establish a new, broader consensus in favor of a block then this block can and should be restored.
As a note to Δ, I would strongly caution that getting into any sort of back and forth reverting over a minor issue like this is a bad idea. If another editor seems hell-bent on reverting a particular edit, doing one more revert yourself isn't going to help. In the future, disputes about how to apply the talk page guidelines should get kicked upstairs to a wider audience. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat related to the above, I have removed rollback permissions from your account. I've seen you misuse rollback multiple times, both in the case leading up to the block above, and on previous occasions. I think your use of rollback has often led to inflaming situations, when what you really need is a polite well-thought out edit summary to calm things down (or simply discussion instead of edit-warring). This (excluding, to some extent, the edit-warring part) is especially true for your NFCC work. As you know I appreciate the work you do on that, but it's even better when you manage it in a way which results in both parties being happy (yourself and the uploader or user who wants the image in the article). I think your use of rollback often means that the other party becomes more upset. I hope that going without it for a while will help with your interactions with others in difficult situations where they are likely to become unhappy. Feel free to re-request at WP:RFPERM at any time. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

task DBQ-143

Thanks a lot for working with my task!

Just one more question: could you give me the code of query you've used for this task? I think that this job should be done on quite a regular base and I would ask our Toolserver members from to run this query from time to time... Rubin16 (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

that report should update daily. :) ΔT The only constant 13:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks a lot :) Rubin16 (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification regarding MickMacNee case

This message is to inform you that you have been added as a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. For reference, here is the notification that is normally issued to an editor who is listed as a party to a case at the time of acceptance:

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 28, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [] 17:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [] 17:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Maryland State Colonization Society

Hello Δ, you have twice deleted the Republic of Maryland flag from this article without explanation. Since the Republic was created by the Maryland Colonization Society, this seems reason enough to include the flag. I don't want to get into an edit war with you but I do note from your talk page that you seem to be in trouble with quite a few wikipedians over similar issues. Could you at least explain why you feel that the flag should not be included here? If your issue is one of copyright, then do note that this state existed from 1854-57 and therefore all of its symbols and imagery will by now be in the public domain. Thanks in advance for your time Asteuartw (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you can prove File:Republic of Maryland.svg is under a free license you need to update the licensing information on the file discription page. Until then it will be treated as non-free. As such it requires a rationale for each usage see WP:NFURG on how to write them. It was removed for lacking a rationale for the articles where it was used. ΔT The only constant 10:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

@Asteuartw; Δ did explain his edits. Please see the edit summary at this diff. That edit summary points to Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, which notes that a rationale is required for each use, and gives helpful directions on how to make such a rationale. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a lengthier edit summary might reduce the frequency of people saying he is not providing an explanation? –xenotalk 15:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
suggestions are always welcome. ΔT The only constant 15:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if this will fit, but something along the lines of: "All non-free files used on this page must have valid and specific rationale for use on this page; please see [[Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline]] for more information; one or more file removed due to missing rationale"xenotalk 15:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Would [10] work better? ΔT The only constant 15:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep. That's a lot more clear. Thanks, –xenotalk 19:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC) (Fix the grammar though: I missed an "s" in "one or more files")
This seems a lot more clear and a lot less likely to provoke a querying response. Thanks for taking the trouble. Asteuartw (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I would dispute that the Golden Arches logo comes under PD-textlogo, so I'm attempting to challenge that on Commons. In the meantime, I've reverted the PD-textlogo tagging on File:Mcdonalds-90s-logo.svg. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I never tagged it as PD-textlogo, take a look, I just converted the rationale template into {{information}} ΔT The only constant 15:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I know that the tagging predated you. I was just trying to explain what I was up to. Your edit was correct if PD-textlogo was correct -- I just don't think that's actually the case, which is why I brought it up on Commons:Commons talk:Licensing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
And they convinced me that even if it was copyrightable, it would have expired by now, so I reverted to your version.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

clean up

link. Thanks for the help. :) ... do you follow NASCAR by any chance? — Ched :  ?  12:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope just running through a list of dead links. ΔT The only constant 12:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


Somehow you broke the timeline image when you went through the article. Im not quite sure how though as it seems you didnt touch it.Jason Rees (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe leading whitespace is critical to the easy timeline MediaWiki plugin, hence why it broke (Delta was stripping out that space). That might be something for your (Delta's) tools to check for... --MASEM (t) 13:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I just came to that same conclusion and was making the adjustments to compensate for it. ΔT The only constant 13:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


Did you remove a picture from my sandbox, but not remove it from the actual Fly Like A Bird article???? Calvin 999 18:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You are not allowed to have non-free images in anything other than article space. If you are working on the text of an article in your own space, you have to do it without non-free images, using a placeholder instead to show you where the image will be in the finished article. That is our current non-free policy. Franamax (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I did the same thing myself a couple weeks ago Calvin .. was just throwing things together to fast and assumed the pic I grabbed was PD ... oops .. it happens. Just put it in when you move the article out. NBD. — Ched :  ?  00:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
So you can't have the single cover in the sandbox but you can in the actual article? What makes a difference? Calvin 999 01:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The difference is that when a non-free image is in a live article, it can be (potentially) justified as important to understanding the topic. If it's just being used on a sub-page used for testing or development, it conveys no such value for the reader. If you happen upon a user sub-page, you are not reading the actual encyslopedia, you are reading the processes involved in producing the enyclopedia, i.e. the huge amount of work involved in actually making all that stuff work properly. So there, the educational benefit is in observing the process, not in actually reading the articles, which of course you can do in the mainspace. We only use non-free images for educatioal purposes, so we only allow them in mainspace where they can benefit an actual live article. I'd rather see a strictly time-limited exemption for sandboxing an article with non-free images to avoid these kinds of problems, but it looks like a long process to get that idea accepted. In the meantime, we have to work within the current interpretation of policy, which is basically "no non-free images in userspace". Franamax (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. Calvin 999 12:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Franamax (or Delta .. or any other passing tps.) what's the name of that generic "gota pic file I've seen in some BLP articles where we don't have a PD photo? — Ched :  ?  00:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean a placeholder as in Category:Wikipedia image placeholders for when you're sandboxing an article? That has those generic female/male silhouettes in it. Or are you talking about "image requested" templates? They seem to be in that category too. Per WP:Image placeholders, I think they may or may not be deprecated, but certainly a generic placeholder can be used for sandboxing, with artful comments around the actual image name to allow easy restoration. Franamax (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
found it on the first link ... "No portrait-BFD-test" ... thanks Franamax. Don't mind us Delta .. :) — Ched :  ?  01:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your infinite capacity to act in bad faith

You have been asked - politely - twice - to explain yourself. Being "right" is NO excuse, or justification, for being rude, acting in bad faith, or starting an edit war. As I have said: I have examined NFCC and can not identify any non-compliance. Third time: Please explain.

Whoops: "only in article namespace" - A user page ain't in the namespace, is it. Oh well. As usual, you're right.

However, you could be more pleasant and more polite about it ... Pdfpdf (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I clearly and politely explained it in the removal edit summary, you choose to ignore my reason for removal so I had to go to the next step. NFCC#9 is about as simple as you can get Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace (my bolding) Removing non-compliant files is not being rude, nor is it bad faith. Your blind reversions are another story. You need to step back and calm down. ΔT The only constant 12:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd also add that Delta's original edit summary "(remove non-free content per WP:NFCC#9)" is simple and polite and direct. Ok, maybe he could add a statement "no non-free in user space" to clear exactly what's wrong, but its far from being a completely obscure, difficult-to-understand reason, and one I don't think needs explaining further as on a talk page. --MASEM (t) 12:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Communication and manners are the issues here. No matter what either of you think, feel, say or do, it is incumbent the transmitter to ensure that the receiver both receives AND understands. Over-and-out. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect though. If the explanation has been offered, isn't it "incumbent" on the receiver to "receive and understand". Someone stated the reason(s). The old saying: "You can lead a horse to water...". There was nothing rude. Nothing hostile. No bad manners. Just sayin. — Ched :  ?  12:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pdfpdf; the title of this tread "Your infinite capacity to act in bad faith" is a direct personal attack. If you can't refrain from making such attacks here, then I encourage you to not post to this talk page at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

task DBQ-143

Thanks a lot for working with my task!

Just one more question: could you give me the code of query you've used for this task? I think that this job should be done on quite a regular base and I would ask our Toolserver members from to run this query from time to time... Rubin16 (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

that report should update daily. :) ΔT The only constant 13:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks a lot :) Rubin16 (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I've taken this thread back from archive because as I can see report this isn't updated :( It's the same as when it was initially generated: link Rubin16 (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
That would be because I had a typo in my cron job that I fixed about 3 hours ago. I just ran an update and it should auto-update daily for now on, if not just drop me a note. ΔT The only constant 14:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary

I may be wrong, but I think you've lengthened your standard edit summary on fair-use rationales, to make it clearer what the issue is. Kudos. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, see User talk:Δ/20110601#Maryland State Colonization_Society ΔT The only constant 00:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
You want to start helping clean up files without rationales? ΔT The only constant 00:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a list? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
tools:~betacommand/cgi-bin/status start at about 350, Im working my way through the first part. If you click the page title it will process it (check all files, their rationales, remove those without one, fill in your edit summary, and show you a diff) Just double check the edit didnt break anything (it does in about 5% of edits) and go ahead and save it. Ill re-run that list in a bit. ΔT The only constant 01:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
My own natural instinct would instead be to extend the fair-use rationale to the article where it's missing - if it seems reasonable to do so. Maybe hard to do on a mass scale, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It is, especially given that most uses cannot be justified even with a rationale. And not knowing the subject you will spend 15+ minutes on each rationale probably. ΔT The only constant 01:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting tool, I tried one to see how it worked. Once the removal has been done, does it remove that article from your list? ... Just wondering about doing double work if someone has already run the script once. — Ched :  ?  06:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I update the list several times a day, once its fixed it should drop off the next update. ΔT The only constant 10:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

For those who are interested, and those who are on IRC, see #NFCCCompliance / #NFCCBackup on IRC - monitoring of edits to pages which contain non-free media, and/or where non-free media gets included. Works pretty nice with the removal tools from ∆ (you'll also note when images get re-included there). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

2005 in Canada

Ummmmm.... and File:Sask.jpg is free? 117Avenue (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on the licensing given for Sask.jpg, it says it is free as it is coming from Commons. That said, it looks like that is wrong, given that all images on Coins of the Canadian dollar, but that one, are non-free. I'm opening a request at Commons to review this image since I think it should be non-free. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing rate limit violation

Stop hand nuvola.svgThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, it appears that the speed of your editing may fail one of your editing restrictions. Specifically:

  • Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

From 2011-06-20 16:42-16:29, your rate of edits exceeded the allowed limit. (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up, Delta, I'm counting like 43 edits from 16:32 to 16:41 in said period. May want to check whatever throttle you have on your edits... --MASEM (t) 06:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning up after yourself

I have no problem with your removing nonfree images, but please at least make sure you don't do thing like leave contentless tables or columns, or stray captions in infoboxes. It just makes a mess for other people to have to clean up; cf. [11], [12]. Pais (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Im not going to touch table syntax, I always seem to screw it up and cannot figure out how to get it to work again. ΔT The only constant 11:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Also note, not in all cases all images are removed, and in some cases alternatives or other solutions can be found - then you have one editor spending time removing the column, and another who has to add it again. And in both of the examples you gave, there was still information (albeit commented) in some of the columns. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Jardine Matheson Holdings

Hi, I'm not sure you understand the claim of fair use on low resolution logos. Perhaps you should check Commons before wantonly deleting images from articles that have taken a great deal of work to create and the use of logos within them which are quite legitimate. ► Philg88 ◄ Star.pngtalk 11:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The files that I am removing are not on commons, they are non-free logos that are here on wikipedia, and you are using them without proper rationales see also WP:NFCC#10 ΔT The only constant 11:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── See my talk page for my response. ► Philg88 ◄ Star.pngtalk 11:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Central Bank of Ireland

You have removed images from the above entry, at least one of which is free to use (logo) and you further have left the untidy remains of what was once were images on the page, leaving others to clean it up. There are also gaps appearing in the text where the images appeared but you have not reformatted it. I can ask you please to look again at what you have done and have the courtesy to correct it.What appears to be your industrial scale editing appears to be too fast and in the cause of speed quality does suffer. A lot of people work hard on Wikipedia and your cooperation would be appreciated.

With thanks in advance,

Glic16 (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry I did not realize that the template broke without a filename, most templates check for and then prevent "broken" image syntax. I removed excessive amounts of non-free content from that article leaving only free files except File:CBFSAI IRELAND.png which is their logo. PS you need to take a look at the rest of the files because File:Punt - Series B - Ireland.png is not a free file and has been mis-tagged. ΔT The only constant 14:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


Firstly, please don't accuse me of any kind of abuse over the use of images. I didn't upload it, and I want to use it, period. It is on the RAF Fighter Command and RAF Bomber Command articles -- why hav'nt you done anything there? So second, don't threaten me with a block - certainly given all the above. My only 'crime' was to use an image that does not have clear free use. And it does by the way, the information needs changing. Use your words with more care in future, they are quite offensive to veteran editor. Dapi89 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  • You understand, I hope, that the message he left you here is a standard warning template found at Template:Uw-nonfree? If you would prefer a different wording on that template, please feel free to suggest such at WT:UTM. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

re Alexander Galich (writer)

OK, it's not OK to have a revert war with a discussion through edit summaries. I've made my point on the talk page and you're to respond there. This is not only polite but actually a requirement for editors, see WP:BRD and WP:3RR and etc. etc.

Your cryptic edit summaries leave me at a loss as to exactly what hoops you want me to jump through. I've added a template to the image file (you could have done this yourself), is this satisfactory? It wasn't really needed, but whatever.

There is no credible use for the image other than in the article Alexander Galich (writer), so if you believe it doesn't belong there then it doesn't belong anywhere and you should nominate it for deletion. This, I think, would be your proper avenue of relief if you don't like the picture, and any other course of action would be inappropriate, unless explained properly. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Herostratus, the removal edit summary says "All non-free files used on this page must have 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" - I don't see how this is cryptic, the image that was removed did not have a rationale, and has therefore been removed. Insertion of that means that you also need to give a rationale. I see that you did that by now. Can you point me to what point in the edit summary you did not understand, maybe we do need to improve it? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Alegría Image Question

I'm wanting to reach out to you to better understand the reason for removing the two images for Alegría. The reasoning for the usage of non-free images is listed on both of the respective pages. The images are utilized only once, and do not have a suitable replacement which is of free usage. Even in reading the link that was provided in the change log, the site needs to be listed and needs to have the rationale, which is in fact there. Is there something that is missing on the Alegría page and is causing the reason for removal, or is it is something else? Sorry to revert the edits, but in the information you provided I can't seem to find the reason for removal as valid context and rationale are provided for the particular article in question. (Brent.austin (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

Please see WP:NFCC#10c the rationales are not valid for Alegría (Cirque du Soleil). They are valid for Alegría when writing non-free rationales please ensure that you specify the exact article. ΔT The only constant 04:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
PS Do not re-add non-free files unless the problem its fixed. ΔT The only constant 04:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I see, Alegría was the old article title until it was changed to a disambiguation page. So, the rationales are still valid, but the article title is the old one. After I update those names (Alegría (Cirque du Soleil)), will that suffice the reasoning? Thanks for the speedy response! (Brent.austin (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC))
Right now they are invalid, once you correct the title then they will be valid. ΔT The only constant 04:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Awesome. I went ahead and made those changes adding the mention of the article name change in the log due to the disambiguation page. Thanks! (Brent.austin (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

(to Δ's talk page stalkers); The above is a model exchange. Well done to both participants. What usually happens it acerbic comments are hurled at Δ regarding his edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

inre this DIFF

I understand why you removed the image, but in its defense, the image WAS uploaded with valid and specific rationale for use in the article when it was first uploaded. What the article history shows is that when User:Marcus Qwertyus moved the article from old name America (film) to new name America (1924 film) he simply forgot to go the image file and correct the summary and fair use rationale to point to the the article's new name after the move. It was easy to fix. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

{(talk page stalker)Yes, some are easy to fix indeed, though will still need a search through histories of pages (where in some cases deleted original pages preclude the original cause of the loss of link) - it is sometimes a tiresome process, which goes much faster when editors who are knowledgeable in the subject see the image removal and repair it - they can do it much faster than someone who is not familiar with the subject. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It does, and as the bot notified me after the orphaning, the fix was no problem. Thanks much. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Any chance you can tell me where I went wrong

Hi. You've marked this for deletion, yet I can't find where the flaw is with the information on the page. Can you either provide an example of an album cover that is valid or details as to where I went wrong with this one please. Many thanks, Nikthestoned 09:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

{(talk page stalker)Actually, Courcelles tagged it for deletion. It was probably displayed somewhere on an article, but without a valid fair use rationale. You might want to check the place(s) where the image were displayed, and make sure that it gets a fair-use rationale for the page(s) where it should be, and then put the image back on the page. For more information on the rationale, see WP:NFCC. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, actually meant that it was removed from All Our Yesterdays by this user citing "All non-free files used on this page must have valid and specific rationale for use on this page". The image linked above does have a specific FUR for that album as its album cover. I assume I just missed something from the file page, just don't know what! Nikthestoned 09:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah .. well .. it had a rationale for All Our Yesterdays - this is again one of the 'reasonably easy cases' to repair (though there could be some confusion on the disambig - there is a song and an album). It has since been solved. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you kindly sir. You are a gent! Nikthestoned 10:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Δ. You have new messages at Dapi89's talk page.
Message added 09:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


[13] on the new edit summary, far more detailed, clear and a lot less dismissive.--Crossmr (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said Im always open to suggestions. ΔT The only constant 14:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Stupid question, Delta: do you have enough space left in the edit summary to possible point to a FAQ (essentially what you have as your talk page edit notice, but maybe like at "WP:Δ/F" (10 more characters with brackets) as further no-worries guides to your NFC patrolling? (eg: it could be a page that starts : "If I have removed image(s) from your page, it is likely for one of the following reasons...")--MASEM (t) 14:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
As the old saying goes there are no stupid questions, except the one you do not ask. Ive got 0000000000000000000000 left in my edit summary. If you write the FAQ Im sure I can fit it in. ΔT The only constant 14:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes Δ, thanks for adopting it. I realized I left behind another slight grammatical error: "must have valid and specific rationale" -> "must have a valid and specific rationale". Alternatively, you could add (s)to "rationale". –xenotalk 14:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh man, there's a template for Delta's name? Learn something new every day...--MASEM (t) 14:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Added to TfD; only four transclusions. Obviously useless! ;) To the point of the FAQ; you can lead a horse to water.. So many people don't read anymore. Say, 40%. Of the remaining 60%, let's say 15% say "That's an essay, not policy!" (and that is not a rare comeback). Of the 45% left, another 20% will disagree with it and revert anyway. For various other unsundry purposes, the FAQ will not have an effect on 10-15% of the remainder, leaving us with about 1 in 10 actually benefiting from its existence. Let's get writing. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • My concern is that what's going to happen is that people will go to WP:NFC (which he's linked) see walls of text, blank out, and then go and still complain at Delta for something they don't want to be bothered to understand. If the FAQ I'm thinking of is as simple as his edit editor (eg "Check for typos in the rationale!") that may defuse any additional comments towards his page. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
{{substed}} ;> –xenotalk 15:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)::
This is better. A good step in the right direction. One other thought is a simple how to page that actually shows what we mean by having a rationale for each article and example of what constitute good examples of template use since that's important too.Mattnad (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


THERE IS a rationale for the use in Amelia, Italy? Why you're keeping deleting the image? --'''Attilios''' (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It was not a valid rationale until I just fixed it. The rational was for Amelia not Amelia, Italy, If you re-insert non-free content prior to fixing the problem (and doing so repeatedly) you may be blocked for violating our non-free content policies. ΔT The only constant 19:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Your removal of image with broken rationale

I noticed your recent edit to Anywhere (New Musik album). The rationale was created in good faith and was broken by an article move, would it not be more constructive if you corrected the link? Also, look at the mess you have made to this article - All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song). memphisto 15:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)For the first one, yes, that would be, but it is sometimes quite a task for someone not familiar with the article to find that.
For the second, I have removed the other fields for now (hopefully the rationale can be fixed so the edits can be undone). I would call this more a problem of the template, it should not display anything if the filename is not given for some obscure reason. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The image description page contained a (rather weak, and still weak) rationale for the article "Anywhere". That article is a disambig page noting the existence of four different songs/albums under that title. That image description page does not have any indication as to which album/song the image belongs. Δ acted properly; the image must have a rationale for each use of the item under WP:NFCC #10c. He is not required to conduct research to identify where the image properly belongs, if it might be apparent as to where. It's a guessing game, especially across a wide number of articles where this enforcement is happening. Please be aware that this work has at times been done by a bot, which also does not do any research to guess where images belong. As to the "mess" he made with the article? He removed a file. There is no "mess" resulting from that removal that wasn't created when the sound file was improperly added to the article. You are of course welcome to fix these problems and/or prevent them from being problems by following WP:FURG when adding non-free content to articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Arguably, the NFUR on that .ogg was fine -- the only thing it was lacking was an explicit link to the article, but the Featured Article it was used in was clearly indentified. And yes, he made a mess -- the template he pulled the file out of rendered improperly with the file removed but the description fields left in. He should have gotten everything out, not just the file link. In any case, NFUR template added and info restored to the FA.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not "sometimes quite a task", you just click on the image to go to the file and look at 'File links'. memphisto 16:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Its not always that simple, Ive seen some complete clusterfucks that took me hours to sort out. ΔT The only constant 16:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • And as clearly stated in WP:NFCC, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". Δ is not required to go about trying to find where the image should be used and crafting/fixing a rationale for that use. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, this all would not happen if editors would fix the cases in this list. I would not know for most what the correct rationale is, but I hear that fixing them must be simple .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the article had a valid rationale that was broken by an article move. And also recent edits to Alive (Sonique song) and 21 (Adele album) - both good faith uses of the rationale that fail due to a mistake in linking to the article. memphisto 16:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Indeed it is a problem. However, it is not a problem that Δ is required to fix. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, Δ doesn't have to fix it, but he could also spend more time trying to fix things rather than just removing them all without any consideration. Consider FIRST that people added the image in good faith and made a mistake, then consider removing the image. There's no need to apply a sledgehammer approach to something that could easily be handled with a simple typo fix. — BQZip01 — talk 02:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • We have tried nicer approaches and they dont work, Also Please dont bring AGF into this. I am making no assumptions on the actions of the user, I just locate and fix problematic non-free content. If you know of an easier way to fix this large scale problem (besides ignoring it) Im all ears, Ive never seen a feasible solution that works practically except the mass removal approach. ΔT The only constant 02:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Again, Memphisto, the list is here: - Delta, you, Hammersoft, I, no-one is required to fix the rationales. Everyone who can may of course do it. And as I said, you are right, there are many that are easy to fix. But I am sure that you will in the process of going through that list find many, many, which will take you at least 10 minutes to fix, or you might even find out that you can not fix it yourself. You might even run into cases which you fix, and then someone else figures out you did it wrongly. I'm not sure if it is better having pages without fair-use rationale (basically, a violation of copyright), to have some pages without images which could maybe have been fixed (a pity, sure), or images with wrong fair-use rationales (again, basically a violation of copyright). I know, having the proper rationale there does not exclude problems with copyright, but not having it there or having a wrong one certainly will not help. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify a point - A malformed template does not a copyvio make (despite Beestra's suggestion above). Even if a fair use rationale is incomplete or inadequately formed or even "wrong" according to the editors who frequent this page, the fair use of photo does not depend on the filling out of a form, but where and how it was used. When is the last time you saw fair use templates on the Daily Show when Jon Stewart is commenting on video taken from some place. Mattnad (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
We do not use fair use, our policy is about non-free content which is much stricter and has more limits than fair use. Which is why you do not see it being called fair use. NFCC is crystal clear, it must have a rationale in place or be removed. The burden is on those who wish to include the copyrighted content to provide said rationales. ΔT The only constant 23:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok. So take everything I wrote, and substitute "fair use" with "non-free" and the conclusion is the same. A malformed template does not a copyvio make.Mattnad (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It isnt a copyvio but it is a clear violation of our non-free content policies. ΔT The only constant 23:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Please tell that to Dirk. Regards. Mattnad (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Dirk used the phrase basically a violation which it is, whether its on wikipedia or on the Daily show, there must me a fair use rationale. Its not always a template it could be much much less, (sometimes like the Daily show its implied) however wikipedia policies require our rationales to be clearly stated and defined for each use. If you use non-free content without a valid rationale (whether its on wikipedia or the Daily Show) you can get sued for violations of copyright. ΔT The only constant 00:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
No, Dirk uses that phrase regualrly, either as a scare tactic or reflective of a deep misundertanding of law. And you yourself, if you wish to be active in the area, should understand that the presence or absence of a written FUR has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not an owning party brings suit. FUR's are solely to prove due dilgence on the part of the volunteer editors here, acting en masse. They will never prevent the WMF (or individual editors) being sued, nor will they prevent a finding of culpability if the FU rationale (written or not) is found deficient. Franamax (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Fran, using any copyrighted material (under fair use or any other claim) is a copyright violation, however the law (fair use) gives use the right to violate their copyright under specific grounds. Neither I nor Dirk have ever stated that NFURs are the end all, they are just one part of the bigger picture here, and under policy they are required. I am probably one of the top 10 users on this wiki with the most knowledge about non-free content, and our polices in regard to them, so please take your herrings somewhere else. ΔT The only constant 01:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
That's great news that you are one of the 10 editors here with most expertise in these matters. Perhaps you can explain to me then, preferably citing case law or learned opinion, how fair use of a copyrighted work constitutes a violation of copyright? 'Cause it seems to me that by definitionm it does not. Let's leave aside the way the "copyvio" claims only come out when a written FUR is missing, let's just go with your self-proclaimed expertise in this area: if reuse of a copyrighted image is permitted under fair-use, and would be found by a court of law as non-violative of such laws and statutes, then how exactly would it be a "copyright violation"? I'm glad you've serlf-identified as such an expert and I await your informed commentary, failing which, could you identify the other nine experts here? Franamax (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Simple fair use is the defense of the copyright violation and the grounds for violating it are defended with a rationale. I could go out and get case law and facts that defend my point of view, however our policy goes far above and beyond what fair use is, and thus case law would not really apply too well because our policy is far far more strict than the law. Please take a few moments before posting to run your comments through a spell checker please. ΔT The only constant 02:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, I asked you, as one of the top experts on the subject, to point me to some or any commentary which declares fair use to be a "violation" of copyright and you apparently decline to do so. I'm quite familiar with the WMF resolution and the local project interpretation. I do understand that local policy goes beyond fair-use law, I suppose you've missed my occasional posts outlining exactly that right here on your very own talk page in the past. I asked specifically about the wording of "copyvio" when the usage is demonstrably fair, and I took pains to point out that a written rationale is not part of that under law. You've not responded to my actual point. So I'll ask again: please either stop conflating lack of a written FUR with a copyright violation for which one could be sued; or explain to me why lack of an FUR is no different than blatant copying without attribution which any editor or court in the land would recognize as blatant and punishable copyvio; or please direct me to the nine other experts here, who may be able to offer more response than "'cause I say so". And thanks for that advice about using a spell-checker, I'll definitely consider it in futrue. :) Franamax (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use: An affirmative defense to copyright infringement set forth in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 107) that allows certain persons or entities to use, access, copy, distribute, remix, publicly perform, or publicly display limited portions of protected material for certain purposes

Quoted from Yale's library. ΔT The only constant 03:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
OK thanks. I think what you're getting at there is the "affirmative" part of "defense", as in if there is no written FUR, then the defense is not affirmative but rather passive (i.e. could be proved later) and thus invalid? I dispute that interpretation, but thanks for finally drawing it out. Usage of a copyrighted image is either protected as fair-use (in which case, by my reading, the defense will inevitably be affirmative and there is no copyvio) or it is not (in which case, as in a purely decorative image, like a photo of the Grateful Dead on drugs taken by a Rolling Stone photog, it has no justification and violates reproduction rights). My whole point here is and has always been that it is not correct to label any image use which lacks a written rationale as "basically a copyright violation". That's simply not true, it depends absolutely on the case at hand. (Unless of course you want to label any and all NF images as copyvios) I really think the various discussions would best be served by reference to actual facts (like your quoting of text) rther than heated rhetoric, and we should be avoiding this copyvio monster when we could be instead discussing application of our own interpretation of WMF policy. I'll still likely be arguing with you about that too, but much less so than when "copyvio" gets tossed into the argument. Franamax (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
(multi-e/c, this is to DB) Beetstra, here you are again trotting out that "violation of copyright" meme. Can you please explain to me (or can anyone else here please explain) how an image which clearly shows that it is the property of a rights-holder, used without a project-mandated fair-use rationale, is in any way a copyright violation? Your wild-eyed rhetoric does a huge disservice those genuinely interested in adhering to minimal non-free content. I'm willing to stand corrected, otherwise I really think you should drop your use of such drivel. Franamax (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Franamax; refering to anyone as having "wild-eyed rhetoric" is rather uncivil. If you can't engage Dirk or Δ in a civil manner, please refrain from commenting at all. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I find Franamax's comments on the claims of both DB and Δ quite accurate. The Fair Use Rationale is a Wikipedia thing. It is not a requirement in any law in any country. Too many people are taking that rule and using it as a sledgehammer to figuratively club people who make an honest mistake. Overall, they fix lots of small problems, but create a smaller number (but still a significant quantity) of more major problems! This incident here is a perfect example. — BQZip01 — talk 02:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
We dont have fair use rationales. We have non-free use rationales which are different. ΔT The only constant 02:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'll bite. How are they different? — BQZip01 — talk 05:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The first one explains how a given use is in accordance to Fair use law, the second explain how it is in accordance to Wikipedia's non-free content policy. --damiens.rf 01:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hammersoft, I'm not setting out to be uncivil, I'm just trying to nail down the wording. "Copyright violation" has a very specific meaning, not least right here at English Wikipedia where it wakes my admin instincts (and my editor instincts from long before I became an admin) to remove on sight. I've asked for clarification on this before, apparently none is forthcoming. Discussions of image use without a written FUR invariably get cluttered up with "then it's a copyvio OMG!!". I don't believe that to be true and I can't get anyone to actually show me why it is. If all usage of copyrighted images are ipso facto copyvios, then please show me why that's true, that's all I'm asking. I'll shut up after that, I just want some authority other than the random opinions of Wikipedia editors. In other areas of copyright, I know a very very good editor who backs up her opinions with cited and cogent arguments, but I'm not going to ask her to get involved in this. I really think this "copyvio" argument should be put to rest. I'll reiterate, raising the spectre of copyvio when the problem is lack of a policy-mandated FUR is a mis-statement of the actual situation. It doesn't mean any image should be kept or not, it means that I dispute the language used by editors involved in this topic. Franamax (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
See above: Fair use, is the defense for specific cases of copyright violates that have been deemed acceptable under the law. ΔT The only constant 03:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Franamax, the point is not the direct legal problem, or whatever. These images are copyrighted, they are non-free. Just displaying or using them would be disallowed per copyright laws. However, there is such a thing as fair-use - if you can make a case that the image is used under those fair-use rules, then you are allowed to use them. If that case is not made, you are not allowed to use them. The point is not that we 'OMG we are sued by someone', the point is, that the foundation has specifically told us to make sure that for every use of a non-free image we need to have a fair-use rationale (actually, the Foundation says it stronger - the foundation excludes the use of non-free material completely, but the individual projects can write an excemption, but with strict rules - have a fair-use rationale in place - see the Resolution:Licensing policy of the Foundation). You are right in a way that the legal risk is minimal, chances of it being a legal problem are minimal etc. etc. - but it is one of the few things that have been put onto us by the Foundation, something where WP:IAR does not apply to, the Foundation requires us to do this. It does not matter that the whether it is called copyvio, whether it is copyvio or not, or whatever - it is a requirement which everybody on this 'pedia should abide to. (Re-)insertion of non-free images without fair-use rationale is a blockable offense following out of a Foundation Resolution, and technically, a display of a non-free image without fair-use rationale (or in violation of other parts of the fair-use law) is a copyright violation - Wikipedia is using, and technically, making money with, an image for which someone else is owning a copyright. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Franamax, I think we are talking in different directions. Lets try and turn this around. You are right in a way, that it may still be possible to make a case for fair-use of an image, and hence even without the fair-use rationale it may be fair-use if it is displayed properly, but there are many cases where it is not. There are many images here displayed on pages where you can not make a case for fair-use (the problem is even worse, there are images with a fair-use rationale which is not valid for the specific use of the image - at the moment we do not always detect that). And I am not disputing that in many cases of images a fair-use case can be made, the point is, that in many cases it was not made (or it was broken in process, but that is also not always easy to detect), and in many cases it can not be made.

Many of the images ∆, Hammersoft, others and I remove do not have a (valid) fair-use rationale (for whichever reason), which is a mandatory requirement per Foundation Resolution. But quite some of them do not have a (valid) fair-use rationale, ánd such a fair-use rationale can not be made. The former set is indeed not strict in violation of copyright, the latter set is. I may be exaggerating with calling everything without fair-use rationale a copyright violation (more strict, it is 'just' in violation of a Foundation Resolution), point is, that a lot of the material without (and probably also with ..) is not allowed under fair-use in the position where it is.

Now, if editors start edit warring about cases where the fair-use rationale was not there but probably can be made .. OK - still it is a requirement per a Foundation Resolution, though there will, probably, not be real problems coming from it when the fair-use rationale is not there. However, I have now in the last couple of days run into a couple of cases where editors yell, kick, edit-war, etc. etc. about cases where there was no fair-use rationale, and where such a rationale can not reasonably be written - the use is simply, plainly disallowed - there were cases which are simple violations of copyright. You can disagree with the point that images for which a fair-use could maybe be made should not be removed from display (though they are then still in violation of a Foundation Resolution - point is, for these cases it is easy to just write the FUR). Many editors just stand aside and think 'so what, it is fair-use'. The point is, editors also stand aside happens when there is no fair-use, where the image is in violation of copyright. And I am sorry, it is not ∆ (or mine, or whichever bystanders') task to find out whether the case for fair-use could be made, spend 10 minutes on the 250k+ non-free media files on Wikipedia to check all usage, it is the task of the editors wishing to include the image. Whether it is fair-use without rationale given, or not fair use at all - the images have to comply with the Resolution of the Foundation.

So simply, if there is an image, and one wants to re-include it, get the rationale there. Do not edit-war to keep the image there without rationale - that rationale is a requirement, whether or not it is obvious fair-use or not, the burden is on the one who wants to include. Still, all these discussions here on ∆'s talkpage or mine go the same way, we have to write the rationale, if it is 'obvious' fair-use then we should not remove it - the requirement is that it needs a fair-use rationale, so if you want to (re-)include the image, get the rationale correct first. I can point editors again and again to this list and ask them to solve the problems (if it is that easy), editors can be warned that there will be in due time a process of image removal on 'their' set of articles and ask them to get the required fair-use rationales in place (and check the ones that are there in the same go, there may be invalid ones), but nothing is going to happen there. So it would come down to ∆, and maybe 3 or 4 other volunteers to go through the 250k+ articles to check and write all rationales. While a) a significant part of it is just in plain violation of copyright, b) it takes for some up to 15 minutes per image to get the fair-use rationale correct .. the work is now pretty slow, images are removed on a relative slow rate, and the tens of thousands of editors (who were pre-warned in some cases) all have to do 1-2 pages every now and then. The other solution would be to give every active editor 25-30 pages to solve, if they do 5 a day we are ready in a week. But asking the public never helped, yelling at the messenger also does not help, and still there are violations of copyright, and even more where the images do not fulfill the required points as given by the Foundation. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Adams (comics)

Hi. The rationale was being added to the image while you were in the process of impatiently reverting the article and leaving a newbie template message on my page. Next time, please try to exercise a little bit of patience. You might also check up on the other user's history to see if they're an experienced editor; If they're a veteran editor of over 51,000 edits since 2005, and an administrator since 2007, that might mean that they're addressing the very matter brought up by the original removal of the image, which was the case here. Leaving a non-customized template message on their talk page that mentions images of living people (which the image in question is not) and block warnings under a month-and-year heading (which is typically only used on anonymous IP users' talk pages, and not those with username accounts) is slightly overkill. Nightscream (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ive seen administrators completely screw up with regards to non-free content, I treat all users equally. Also you should have a valid rationale prior to adding the file. Whether you have 1, 100, 1000 or 100,000 edits it really doesnt make too much of a difference. Everyone gets treated equally, I too have been around since 2006 and I have over 120,000 edits but that really doesnt matter. ΔT The only constant 03:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
PS example of a major admin fuckup and the lashing they got for it [14] ΔT The only constant 14:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Nightscream, if you have a different suggestion for a template to use in these cases, or would like to create one, please feel free to suggest or create one. As is, that's the one we use. I concur with Δ's comments regarding experience. All users in good standing are equal, and there is no idea of some being more equal than others simply because they have more time and/or edits on the project. The Foundation has been trying to come up with ways to encourage new users to stick around. Treating 'experienced' editors as somehow more deserving of a higher status here is antithetical to new users. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I have no interest in suggesting different templates, since the ones in use now are perfectly fine, and since that is completely irrelevant to this matter. If you or anyone else wants to change them, that's your area of interest, not mine. For my part, the Attribution 3.0 template that I used when uploading my photos of the November 2008 Big Apple Con--including the one of Frank Lucas that Δ deleted without just cause, under the mendacious claim that it was a "copyright violation"--a matter he has still not explained--is the same template I'm using today. I leave the nature and evolution of the templates to others such as yourself. I simply use what is mandated.
As for "treating all editors equally", using non-customized template messages when contacting experienced editors is considered inappropriate among members of the community. That is not my point of view, it's the point of view of others. I've simply conformed to it. If you two are unaware of this practice, then that's your ignorance, not mine.
Thus, your use of a non-customized template that mentioned photos of living persons when the image in question was not one (unless you think Mr. Adams is really hirsuite), and a block warning (when I merely reverted the photo right before fixing the rationale), combined with the indication by Kate's Tool that you accumulated 25,000 edits since July of last year (not 120,000 since 2006), led me to conclude that you were a newbie. But if you really have accumulated 120,000 edits since 2006, then that makes your behavior all the more inexcusable. If you have a legitimate concern over copyright, you don't outright delete a file using a false rationale of copyright infringement, you leave a message on the uploader's page inquiring about it first, and then delete it if no response is given after some time. You did not do this, nor have you yet explained why you did this.
But don't believe me. Continue unilateral deletion of files using false copyright infringement accusations, without notifying the uploader first, and then leave uncustomized template messages onto veteran editors' pages, and see how they react. Feel free to ignore the advice I've just given you. Keep it up, and in time, others will let you know about it as well. Nightscream (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:DTTR is an essay. It has every bit as much standing at WP:TTR. I shall remain "ignorant", thanks. As to concluding someone with 25,000 edits and a year here is a newbie? Ok. At what point does an editor here pass your threshold for what constitutes a non-newbie? As to the removal, the image was removed for failing WP:NFCC #10c. If you believe images should be retained without there being a rationale for that use present, you may wish to approach the Foundation to request they change their stance as expressed at #4 of Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. In any case, casting aspersions like this is unhelpful. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
"WP:DTTR is an essay." I didn't say anything about WP:DTTR. I pointed out what is a practice according to members of the community, something I would not merely dismiss out of hand as you seem to do.
"At what point does an editor here pass your threshold for what constitutes a non-newbie?" My explanation above details what I concluded at the time that Delta/Triangle (sorry, I don't know how to make triangles on my keyboard) was a newbie. It was an explanation of my perception at the time, and not some type of value judgment. But if you really want an answer to your question, I'd say an editor is no longer a newbie when they have a reasonable command of how Wikipedia works, such that they do not make false accusations of copyright infringement, make a point of communicating with image uploaders, and familiarize themselves with the right way to communicate with members of the community.
"If you believe images should be retained without there being a rationale for that use present..." Thank you for making it clear that you either are not reading my messages, or are being deliberately churlish. I didn't say anything about images being retained without a rationale. I already explained clearly above the matter regarding the rationale, and if you're either too illiterate or too lazy to read and comprehend this, then perhaps you should not engage me in discussion.
" may wish to approach the Foundation to request they change their stance as expressed at #4 of Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy." That item has no bearing on the image in question, since it's free-content, and not a copyright violation that requires any sort of exemption.
"n any case, casting aspersions like this is unhelpful." I made the edit summary that I thought was appropriate, as I'm quite tired of obnoxious deletionists like Triangle who make false accusations and no attempt to communicate with others, as well as persistent liars like yourself who think repeatedly putting words in other people's mouths constitutes "discussion". If you don't like my edit summaries, then tough shit. Nightscream (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Churlish? Illiterate? Lazy? I note that you've now been blocked for incivility. I'm happy to discuss issues with you if you remain civil. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


I am still new with some wikipedia issues but I believe the logo used was within the means described above. If you could please state why it does not meet the above guidelines I would be glad to make sure that the image passes wikipedia tests. In addition, this is not the first article that this image is used on. I obtained it from another wikipedia website. Thanks. --Johndheathcote (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Not knowing about these issues when I placed it I took no time to make sure it was legal as it was already on another page. Now that I look at the file it appears to have a Non-free media use rationale of about 15 lines. Speciffically it states, "Because it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary. Does it need a specific rational for each page? Is a new discription page made for each place the image is located? Other schools who have simular rational are File:BYU Medallion Logo.svg and File:Harvard Wreath Logo 1.svg. It is noted that Harvard has the approval of the school (which is significant) but yet, if I understand correctly not required (as in the example of BYU). Apart from these issues our logo appears the same.
I will be quite stuck on this issue until it is resolved yet I am willing to learn. I am however convinced that it can be made correct according to wikipedia standards and... It would be hard to convince me otherwise. What do you think? Thanks! --Johndheathcote (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Great explanation. Thanks! It would be nice if next time it were flagged rather than deleted (I dont know if there is a way of doing that). Thanks for keeping the wiki world in order! -- (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It should be good now. I will replace the image. Let me know if anything is incorrect.-- (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Image removal from a page - why?

I noticed you removed this image from the Alaska Air Group page on the basis that it did not have a rationale for being used on this page. What "rationale" do you need? I tried reading the non-free use rationale guidelines and I still don't understand why you removed it from the page. If it doesn't have a valid non-free use rationale, well then why didn't you remove it from the Horizon Air page too? (Horizon Air is a subsidiary of Alaska Air Group, btw) Please explain, I'm confused.

Compdude123 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Because it had a rationale for Horizon Air, but not for Alaska Air Group. Non-free content must have a separate rationale explaining why it can be used in each article it's used in.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Would the following be a good explanation for why it should be on the Alaska Air Group page? Alaska Air Group is Horizon Air's parent company, and therefore should contain this image as well I've never encountered this issue before, so I'm unsure what would be a good Non-free use rationale. —Compdude123 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The fact that you need a separate non-free use rationale for each article is not explained on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, so I didn't know. Kinda figured this was the issue, though. —Compdude123 (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It's hard to get much clearer than "A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article. The name of the article the image is used in must be included in the rationale.", which is the fourth paragraph in the article....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and, Could you please explain how to add another rationale for use on Alaska Air Group's page? As I've said already, I'm new to this kind of issue. —Compdude123 (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


Just fill out the above removing everything in <>. ΔT The only constant 20:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think the image is necessary at all...anywhere...the livery scheme is in fact in use [15]. This makes it replaceable. I'm going to mark it as such. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, we need to keep it here until someone takes a picture of the new livery. A search doesn't bring up any pictures besides this one. And of course, we can't just just steal the image from that article, either. We need to wait until we get a new image before deleting the one there. If anyone could take a picture of the plane in the new livery, that would be great. —Compdude123 (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As per WP:NFCC #1 where it says "...or could be created", we do not retain non-free content waiting for someone to create the free content if the free content CAN be created. Since one or more planes now exist in this livery, we can create free content imagery of it. I'm sorry, but the image has to go. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note

First: This is not directed at Delta (there's a template to make that "Δ"???). The only reason I post this here is because so much of the non-free issues seem to be discussed here. Assuming that there are many involved with "non-free" issues have this page watchlisted, I wanted to drop a link to a new essay. User:28bytes and I have made an effort to come up with an essay to explain a lot of what gets repeated here on an almost daily basis. That essay is now at: Wikipedia:Fixing non-free image problems. Naturally any and all are welcome to offer input. Thanks for your time .. (and for use of your page Delta) — Ched :  ?  21:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads up! This should probably be linked into edit summaries when doing 10c enforcement. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I've seen it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
already added :) ΔT The only constant 11:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


I was commenting on the issue - that the actions degrade the article , and that in any case just removing the image and not restoring the words is vandalistic and lazy. I t is a careless approach to the encyclopedia which you share I guess, but I don't. is that ok sir? Sayerslle (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

you lazy tosser is a clear personal attack, any further comments that are personal attacks will result in you being blocked. ΔT The only constant 12:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Clarkson

I'm confused as to why the image on Thomas Clarkson (rugby league)...

  • Article = Thomas Clarkson
  • Purpose = Used under fair use rationale to depict Thomas Clarkson.
  • Replaceability = No known free use images are known to exist. Photograph is not replaceable Thomas Clarkson died in the 20th century.

... is not a valid and specific rationale? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You wrote a rationale for Thomas Clarkson but the file was being used on Thomas Clarkson (rugby league) a different article. ΔT The only constant 13:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thomas Clarkson is not Thomas Clarkson (rugby league) .. it may be that you linked to the wrong article (but as I don't know for sure how either of them looks like (maybe Δ does), ...)? I hope that this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Clarkson wore a wig, and Thomas Clarkson (rugby league) had a natural side-parting. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That should be clear then. :-) --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

wait a little

Hello, Delta. Wait a minute !I am working on this right now. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Then please do not re-add the file until the issues are fixed. ΔT The only constant 14:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Unfixable, this image is replaceable. It should be deleted. I am sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Something went wrong

Some automatic script seems to have gone wrong, I fixed it. --Muhandes (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

wasnt automatic, just wasnt careful enough with the removal. ΔT The only constant 15:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect file deletion

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Δ. You have new messages at Beetstra's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
  • Note on the section title; the "incorrect file deletion" was an entirely accurate file removal. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Warlock of Firetop Mountain

Greetings - methinks you are perhaps a tad overzealous in jumping in right now given that I am adding information as we speak (something someone above has also pointed out) and that many other images are far less likely to pass muster. I did not upload this image, and am simply trying to fix it. Many missing details have since been added. If wishing to assist, can you advise as to what is still missing, as I'm only going by the guidelines? No animosity here - I can see you've already got your hands full with another editor. Just trying to get these articles up to scratch! Regards Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Sopranos non free use rationale

Hello, could you be so kind to tell me how can I change the non free use rationale for The Sopranos picture in order to use it in Italian American article? I wonder how - just because the picture already has another non free use rationale regarding a different article. I think that the latter could be suitable also for using it in the Italian American article, cause the rationale is pretty much the same: provide a visual description of the subject, even if this case I would like to show the elements of Italian American stereotyping. In addiction, I would like to exploit your knowledge asking the same question about Mario Puzo's The Godfather book cover that you removed. Best regards. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither image is really needed and would thus fail WP:NFCC#8 ΔT The only constant 11:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

re: User talk:J Greb#File:Star Sapphire power ring.jpg 2nd pass

Thank you for the templating about an image that does have a complete FUR.

If you feel the FUR falls short, please discuss it on the article's talk page in line with WP:BRD or nominate the file through MfD.

Please do not resort to deletion through orphaning at this point as that can be seen as disruptive.


- J Greb (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that your image did not have a FUR for "Star Sapphire (comics)", it had one for "Star Sapphire" (a disamb. page). I've fixed that for you, but the rationale has to include the exact article name for use. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks. I though I had copied the full article title over after Beetstra's run. Sorry about that. - J Greb (talk) 15:08, 25 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. MarkDask 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. MarkDask 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. MarkDask 05:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 00:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

you are mistaken you reverted my removal [16] without fixing the problem. ΔT The only constant 00:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing rate limit

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_.CE.94_.2F_Betacommand_violating_community_imposed_sanctions (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)

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)" [17]. 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 ([18], [19]), 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)

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)


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

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


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)


Please stop removing images without "appropriate rationale". If you think this is the case, fix the rationale yourself, don't just remove it. GSorby - Talk! 17:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Δ/Editnotice#NFUR ΔT The only constant 17:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:NFCC requires there be a rationale, and as the policy notes the burden is on those wishing to include non-free content to provide a rationale. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not gonna even bother with you. Sorry to say I don't edit war. See Wikipedia:Edit_warring if you're that interested in policies. GSorby - Talk! 17:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)