Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:21, 21 May 2008

sin é!

Re: Your edits to The Doctor's Daughter

But... I'm not saying other images are wrongfully left alone. I'm saying other images are licensed in an identical way and no one has any issues with them. I don't see how this image fails nfc. Where screenshots are an acceptable form of illustration for an article, how could it be licensed any better? And also, the link you supplied concerns deletion debates and so is entirely irrelevant. U-Mos (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There is massive copyright abuse on WP and the volume of image violations far excedes the time available to deal with them, this image fails wp:nfc#8, and please see wp:othercrapexists as to why you cannot rely on practices in other articles Fasach Nua (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The image in question has now been replaced by a better screenshot. Nevertheless, I feel the need to comment on your general attitude towards other editors. Ignoring the fact you continue to cite wp:othercrapexists (even after I pointed out its complete irrelevance), you say the image failed nfc point 8: significance. That point is not something you can just say an image fails. It is an interpretive point, so you would need to raise your issue on the talk page and in doing so invite people to comment on its significance. You shouldn't just assume authority on things, and you especially shouldn't continue to assert this assumed authority after being challenged on it. You are undoubtedly trying to make a positive difference in terms of images on Misplaced Pages, but the way in which you are doing so leaves a lot to be desired. I hope you take my comments on board rather than taking offence. U-Mos (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As a separate issue...

Have you ever considered automatic archiving of your talkpage, rather than simple deletion? Archiving makes it much easier for users to find past discussion threads! —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop edit warring over the use of old logos. You seem isolated in your view that the logos in question fail the fair use criteria. Each of your current nominations for deletion have been opposed and your continual reversion of a number of other editor's edits is a clear indication that you are editing against the consensus. As with all other mass edits, it's better for you to bring this up at WP:FOOTBALL first, discuss it with the other members of the project since it has far-reaching ramifications, and then agree a consensus. Then, if it's agreed that these logos are being used "for decorative purpose only" then it would be reasonable to remove them from the pages in question and tag them for deletion. However, in the meantime, please use the footy talkpage to engage other editors for continuing on your crusade. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not edit warring over logos, I have put a stop to it by submitting them for deletion. I am not editing against the consensus, these decorative logos only exist on German league team pages, and none of the other 150 leagues across the world (at least as far as I know), these logos have only been uploaded by one individual, so there is no consensus movement to get them uploaded.

What I have done is not a mass edit, it is a clean up of a small section, no wikiproject owns these articles, and this type of copyright abuse is not typical of that wikiproject, it is an open and shut case of copyright abuse, and the images will be removed. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So if the articles had a section discussing the evolution of the logo, you'd be happier? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If the logos where nessicary for the reader to understand the club, then of course they would meet wp:nfc#8, for example I left a historic non-free logo in Berliner_FC_Dynamo. However the non-free content must be neccesiary, the reason for its inclusion is if an editor is trying to explain something,, and is unable to do it properly, then the image is used. The text should not be added to justify the image, rather an image added to compliment the text. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah so if a section which tried to describe the evolution of the crest was written then you'd have no complaints as this section would need the old crest to be visualised? And for what it's worth, nobody has supported any of your deletion requests thus far... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If the use of the logo was nessicary and the evoloution of the crest was significant and it's inclusion was not detremental to the aims of the foundation, I would be happy enough. I would be stunned if it was nessicary to include all three of these images Berliner FC Dynamo.png to Image:Berliner FC Dynamo 10.png to Image:Berliner FC Dynamo 3.png, clearly one with test would suffice.

No-one has supported it thus far, but there have been no real FU arguments put forward to keep it either, the deletion is supported by ploicy and the aims of the foundation, and WP is not a democracy. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I need to wade in to provide a couple of corrections here.

Yes, you are edit warring. With me. We've both been warned off it. I've acknowledged that we're duking it out, but you're refusing to listen to anyone else, including folks usually on the deletionist side of the debate. Denying your role in this is disingenuous and doesn't credit you.

I'm not proud of it, but I don't think bullying your way to where you want us all to be is acceptable. It is certainly not acceptable to me. And by the way, those logos were unilaterally deleted without due process (part of policy) and only showed up on the list after I noted you failed to follow fair process. Funny that.

You engaged in a wholesale blind sweep of all the logos at Berliner_FC_Dynamo without consideration of the fact they they are placed in context and referred to in the article. It was part of your sweep of pointy editing specifically targeted at me. Claiming you left one behind is, well, disingenuous. It comes late and only after I noted the POV driven character of the edit.

No, this use of logos does not exist only on the German football pages. At the risk of discomfiting other folks I'd invite you to spend some time looking at the team pages of NFL, NBA, and MLB clubs. Lots of historical logos there. (That would be 3 of those 150 leagues, without trying too hard). I find that they help me better understand the history and traditions of those clubs. Funny that. Probably lots of other examples around, too. Yeah. I know. That's not an argument. But it certainly does seem to be evidence of established policy, the application of recognized guidelines, and concensus (all of which seems to be coming up repeatedly) that supports the use of logos. And I'm still put off that you chose to resort to attacking me through my contributions in the midst of a review discussion.

No, mass deletion to suit your POV is not supported by policy. The use of logos is supported by policy, guideline, and consensus. The guidelines for the use of logos are not there as place holders - they have a purpose. If you think they don't apply to anything, go delete those pages and see what it gets you. The third item in the rationale at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content is "To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a quality encyclopedia." You, on the other hand, came out of the gate proclaiming "I would have no problem removing logos from WP, I haven't come across a single one that is necessary ..." and appear to have read only as far as the first line of the rationale there. That's extreme in the extreme. Especially in the face of established policy, the existance of guidelines for the use of logos, broadly based user consensus (are you getting this yet?).

No, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. But then, neither is it a bureaucracy. That's the second item right after the not a democracy stuff in the big section that says Misplaced Pages is a community. You might try respecting that idea of community and the other editors who contribute here.

neccesiary=necessary. You're welcome. Wiggy! (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, I am removing inapproprioate material you have uploaded. When you repeatidly refuse to accept the clean ups, I submitted the images to WP:IFD to stop your ongoing disruption.

The use of historic logos in these German articles are a complete anomoly in soccer related articles, a few American articles have them, and they should be removed ... but the other European and South American teams are without them, even the FA and GA soccer articles have managed to avoid these decorative images. (Last time I checked Baseball and Americal football wern't forms of association football)

What "fair process" and "policy" are you refering to? All my edits are within policy, unlike yours! I even had the decency to inform you of the deletion of process here, unfortunetly you will not give me the same courtesy

"You engaged in a wholesale blind sweep of all the logos at Berliner_FC_Dynamo", does that refer to this edit in which a historic logo was included, this edit in which a historic logo was included, this edit in which a historic logo was included, or this edit in which a historic logo was included, or are you just telling lies?

That is not evidence of established policy, the m:mission is clear, the use of non-free content must be minimised.

The use of logos is supported in guidelines in limited context, these historic logos do not fall within these provisions. I accept there is a consensus for use of current logos, which is why I brought this to wp:FUR to explore the issue, unfortunetly you ran straight into attack mode. You are correct your attitude of constant attacking is not in the spirit of community,

Thanks for the spelling tip, I would rather you discussed wp:nfc, but if you are more comfortable with spelling than the aims of wp, you should work to you strengths. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

GAA crest

No problem, i've got most of them , if you see anymore drop me a line and i'll sort it Gnevin (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The crests used ~15 ago are PD, It might be worth looking at replacing them rather than removing them, but great job anyway! Fasach Nua (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Having no crest at all is the best starting place , i'll post a discussion as WP:GAA about how we should move forward from here Gnevin (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

{{template:Antrim_GAA}} or {{flagicon|GAA|Cork}} might be the next step, it will certainly make any mass changes simpler Fasach Nua (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Edits to 2005 in Ireland

Your Edits to 2006 in Ireland

Your Edits to 2007 in Ireland

Hi Fasach Nua, my long time ago edits were not vandalism - perhaps you hadn't noticed that the info on NI football matches is to be found in, for instance, 2007 in Northern Ireland and does not need to be replicated in 2007 in Ireland. You may not have noticed that in many areas of these articles (eg Events) info relating to NI is not replicated in the Years in Ireland articles. I have been working on these articles for some considerable time (set up many of them and added much content to them), so accusations of vandalism are not welcome from what appears to be an uninformed source.Ardfern (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just spotted that edit comment re 'Ardfern vandalism' and must say the charge is very unfair (apart from the WP:CIVIL issue). I have never once seen Ardferm vandalise anything; indeed it is hard to even imagine! And on the issue of unnecessary replication I agree with him - so long as there is a separate list for NI it is pointless replicating all the information in the 'Years in Ireland' series - which are also largely the work of Ardfern. Sarah777 (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

International football teams

I could ask you why you added them? There was a discussion in the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football a while back regarding your edits and the consensus was to not add those tags. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus to remove the tags, and that project does not wp:own these articles, they were allowed to be removed to pacify Grant.Alpaugh while a discussion was ongoing. The consensus of the discussion was there was a problem with these sections, buut no action was decided apon. If you object to the maintainence tags, probably the best thing to do is to perform maintain tenance before the tags are removed. Fasach Nua (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Some of your tag additions are bordering on edit warring and sailing close to 3RR. If you wish to discuss this, perhaps initiatate another discussion at WP:FOOTBALL. I understand (and partly agree with the theme of) your actions but the manner in which you are going about the mass article tagging day after day, reverting other editors, is antagonistic and could be better dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The WP:FOOTBALL does not own these articles, I have refrained from reinserting these tags while this was under discussion and it has given the project an opportunity to deal with the issue, and it choose not to. The tags should not be removed until the articles sections meet WP:V, I am tagging an unreferenced section as unreferenced, I cant really see grounds for objection. Fasach Nua (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you do not know which players were famous or noteable, leave it up to someone who does know. Don't undermine an article and make it look incomplete or inaccurate just because you haven't heard of these players before. And yes there was a desicion on what to do and it was to stop adding these tags. And by the way, what is the point of tagging these sections in the first place? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you know who is notable and who is not, simply add the source, so that everyone can know that its just not some-ones POV, why is Jack Bowler classified a notable international footballer? Fasach Nua (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The point of the tags is to achieve WP:VERIFY in these articles, the lists do need referenced Fasach Nua (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is my criticism of your actions less valid than anyone else's? Why do you delete my comments and not anyone else's? 15:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)