User talk:Werieth

Removed pictures

You seem to have removed five pictures from Scandrett Regional Park because of "excessive non-free files". Can you explain this to me please? E James Bowman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Non-free content Policy 3.a. says "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." There is no more that one photo per person mentioned in the article. No photo exists with all the people in the photos. So there is no one item that can convey equivalent significant info. There is one photo of the building mentioned in the article. And the photo of the building does not contain the people mentioned in the article. So there is no one item that can convey equivalent significant info. So I've added the photos back to Scandrett Regional Park as suggested to me. If there is another policy about "excessive non-free files" please let me know before deleting these photos again. Thanks. E James Bowman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ive gone ahead and re-removed them, they fail WP:NFCC on several points 1,3,8. Please do not re-add them. Werieth (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking into this, I can re-upload the three older images as copyright-free images: File:George Scandrett.jpg File:Helena Scandrett.jpg & File:Thomas Henry & Lucy Susie Scandrett.jpg because of the age of the photos. if I did that, would you be comfortable with me including the two newer ones in the article also? File:Raymond Renshaw & Frances Elizabeth Scandrett.jpg illustrates the third generation to live on the property, as outlined in the article, completing the series of photos; and File:Scandrett Homestead 1940s.jpg illustrates the historic homestead the three generations lived in. As a series they really help bring the history of the public park alive. The park was purchased because of its historical significance, so we believe historic imagery is important here. My family own the copyright to the two newer images, and would happily give the copyright away, but as we didn't take the photos, I can't see how we can do this. If you know a way around this, please let me know. E James Bowman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I cannot see any non-free content being justified in that article, it also needs a mass-rewrite, and cleanup. Werieth (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You've removed most of the article I have created stating "mass prune of COI non-encyclopedic information". Reviewing Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Verifiability you are unjustified in doing this. Most of the information in the article was referenced third party historic information, with some information published by my family and provided to the Auckland Regional Authority in 2008. The article has been sent to, and reviewed by Michelle Edge, David Edge and Sue Hill of the Auckland Council. They have expressed no concern in any of the content I created, and are assisting me by providing further publicly published material to add to the article. E James Bowman (talk)

Reviewing Wikipedia:Dispute resolution I don't believe you've followed the normal protocol here: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording. Be sure to include citations for any material you add, or it may be removed. If you do not know how to fix a problem, post a note on the talk page asking for help. To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in the edit summary, or if the change is potentially contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page." Please undo your mass deletion and follow the normal protocol above. E James Bowman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I've undone your mass deletion for the reasons above. Please edit the article according to the protocol above or let me know which which parts you believe are "non-encyclopedic information". I've searched for this term on Wikipedia but can find no guidance. I believe the information I've provided is encyclopedic but am happy to change it if proven otherwise. E James Bowman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

With further input I've removed the listed park features & info and edited the history. FYI, the history of the farm, buildings and family is one of the major reasons the park was established and is what helps make the park unique, as you can read in the referenced material. Other Wikipedia articles about historically significant New Zealand places explain the owners names, their years of life, the companies they ran, their children, etc. Eg Linwood House, Pah Homestead, The Colonial Cottage Museum. The history is of significant local interest. Eg [Article A][Article B][Article C] E James Bowman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The material you are trying to add isnt appropriate for that article. Werieth (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply

First off, nice grammar with your latest message. Second, no, I want some pictures on my user page. Why does copyright matter when on one hand, the images are on the website already, and on the other hand, there was a Wikipedia blackout that essentially protested laws and companies that whined about copyright infringement!? If no one is suing Wikipedia for having the posters on the movie-related articles in the first place, why would they sue Wikipedia for some random user that it might take awhile to find who has these posters placed harmlessly on their user page? I'm starting to get sick of you people, honestly, one day someone's reverting my edits because of copyright and unreferenced material that I wrote aeons ago (I'm talking about Trivialist here), and the next day people are taking off material from my user page due to copyright!

So, excuse me for having copyrighted material on a website that not only explains many copyrighted topics and media, but also is filled to the brim with copyrighted images and articles! And on top of all that, people are acting as though I'm a new user! I made this account a few months ago, and I had a previous account before this one! The last account I essentially used for some nonsense, and yes, I am guilty of being a vandal with that account, so charge me as you will with that one, but that was before I realized what an amazing fountain of knowledge this website is! That's why I made this account, to right my wrongs and contribute as best I could, but apparently, that's not good enough with you people! I don't even know who's actually talking to me anymore or who's just an automatic message telling me I screwed up! In case you haven't noticed, there's lists and lists of text on my user page that is basically compiled of copyrighted trademarks and brand names; are you going to go ahead and take that away too? Can't you people just LEAVE ME ALONE?

Well... ...that escalated quickly. But you guys make me furious. I'm just not really as happy with my fellow Wikipedians right now as I was before... constant reversions and undone edits... I work pretty hard on articles just to have them deleted nowadays, (Cindamuse and, again, Trivialist)... I thank people only to have reply back coldly (DragonflySixtyseven)...

...Can't you just let me be for a bit? Have a good day, mate... --Matthew (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Here's something I give to you anyways. Now please, let me be. --Matthew (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Second reply

Of course. I give you a long, thought-out message and a barnstar. You give me a generic, seemingly-automated message that non-free media must comply with WP:FFC, which is yet another rule of Wikipedia that I never knew about and that no one was ever gracious enough to inform me about. But, fine, you won't need to block me because I'll refrain from re-adding it. This is playing out just as usual. I argue, I get threatened with a block, and whoever I'm arguing with ultimately wins the debate thanks to a random rule. I doubt you took the time to read my reply anyway, you most likely decided it was too long and simply skimmed through it, thought nothing of it, and replied to me with this. Why do I keep making more enemies than friends on here? I want to make friends, to cooperate with people, really I do, but soon enough, all the work I've done has garnered no rewards or practically no thanks, and has been reduced to an undone, unreferenced, unnecessary, piece of non-notable copyrighted garbage tossed away in the "view history" section of an article. --Matthew (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: Someone just gave a Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. So, yeah... --Matthew (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

3rr warning on Desire (Geri Halliwell song)

You have made three reverts in a 24-hour period on Desire (Geri Halliwell song) and any other revert to the article could result in being blocked from editing. From WP:3RR, "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." (boldfaced from the policy) In this case where two editors have added back the images and the image is being discussed at the talk page, the image is not an unquestionably violation and is not established as a violation. Since the image is being discussed at the talk page, a consensus should be reached there instead of continually removing the image. Aspects (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

KIndly dont revert the Pictures from the Punjabi people page. They are historically and factually correct and it is illogical to remove these pictures from this forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.24.51.102 (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

List of colleges for Vinoba Bhave University

A list of colleges under a university is neither cruft nor a directory of internal organization. Colleges under a university in India are not 'internal' entities. They are 'associated' entities and the relationship of a university and a college is important information. The list is encyclopedic. Please do not remove without further discussionAcsenray (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Its not appropriate for that article. The list that I removed was almost exclusively red links and made up 60% of the article. We dont need the list. Werieth (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Also some of the wording violates WP:NPOV. Werieth (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Also your last edit broke the page. Werieth (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

(1) It's not up to you whether "we need the list." It is encyclopedic material; thus it belongs in the article. (2) If red links are a problem, then just remove the '[[ ]]' from the list item. (3) I don't know what you're talking about regarding NPOV. It's merely supposed to be a list of colleges. If there is any non-NPOV wording then edit it so it is NPOV.Acsenray (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nor is it up to you. Right now the article looks like a directory. The content isn't suitable for article-space yet. Werieth (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your jxm/sandbox edit

Thank you for making the NFCC edit on my sandbox page. However, I notice also that a link to Honorary degree page was also modified in the same edit, and I'm curious as to why.

I'm actually using the sandbox page to try and debug an occasional problem that seems to occur when using the Apple iPad browser to do section edits. Essentially, the page content gets replicated during the edit save process. (Look at the Bob Jones University edit history for a recent example.) I think the problem may be connected with the use of the redirection bar in links.

If you look at the previous edit item to yours, you'll see that the actual intended text for display ("honorary doctorate") somehow morphed into "honorary degree" before your edit was made. I suspect that this may be another aspect of the iPad editing bug. Any thoughts you can shed on it would be much appreciated. Tnx! jxm (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Im not sure if you are using the Visual Editor (which I highly suspect) but it is still full of bugs. [[Honorary degree|honorary degree]]<nowiki> and <nowiki>[[honorary degree]] both link to the same article, its just simplifying the text. Its part of Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes See Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes#Simplify_links_.28SimplifyLinks.29 Werieth (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

EWO Brewery Ltd.

I have reverted your edits to the EWO Brewery Ltd. article and removed the speedy delete tags for the associated files. These images are "fair use" and comply with WP:NFCI after they were moved from Commons following your previous edits to the article. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 06:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules are far stricter than fair use. These files fail WP:NFCC #1,3,8 Please do not re-add them. Werieth (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice from Technical 13

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User: Werieth and his bullying reverts.. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)