Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:51, 25 June 2013

Follow up

I'm curious as to whether self-reflection has led to any insights?

"I'd like to ask you to consider if there may have been a different approach that you could have taken which may have affected the tone of the response which you received. Other ways one may have informed/reminded fellow editors about the non-free content practices presently in use"

--Kevjonesin (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You might want to consider that yourself. Ive been doing these removals for a while and on average I remove 20+ per sweep. The current method removal with explanation in the edit summary is the best way of doing it. However your response due to lack of understanding WP:NFCC was un-called for. Werieth (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• "You might want to consider that yourself."

I did. My previous comment:

"Sorry for starting off with a snarky spin, Werieth. It's clearly not been very productive and seems to have set both of us off on poor emotional footing..."

was intended to convey such.

"The current method removal with explanation in the edit summary is the best way of doing it."

Best for whom, Werieth?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, in the future, Werieth, you'd be so kind as to ask someone who understands how things work locally to make changes on your behalf at the Photography workshop instead of breaking things and expecting others to clean up after you. You're not the only editor on the wiki who feels their contributions are important. I remind you that if you choose to "remove 20+ per sweep" that it is your own choice to do so. Not something to hold others accountable for. By all means feel free to make as many edits per session as you like. As long as you are able to do so without slipping into bot-like insensitivity towards others.

Perhaps it would have been more considerate —and caused no harm to the wiki— if you had chosen to post a note to the workshop talk page sharing your concerns about non-free images in the requests display instead of arbitrarily deleting elements marked as actively in use. If no response was received I'd understand if you then went ahead and made the deletion. A days notice would have been nice, but in actuality 4 hours likely would have done the trick.

Please note, I am not suggesting this as your new global algorithm for every edit you make on the wiki. Since your a human and not a bot, I'm assuming that you're able to assess and adapt to local context if you care to do so. I'm asking you to care. To show consideration, to place value on the work of others, to ask for help if similar circumstances should draw you into the workshop again as you make your wiki way. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I just did some number crunching, on average there are between 100-400 WP:NFCC#9 violations per day over the last year. (My previous estimate was just using a crappy memory and the last couple of days.) Graphics lab should know not to include non-free files, as there have been discussions about the removal there in the past. You might think your process is better, but keep in mind the large scope of the process, If I have to start discussions and "reminders" on just a fraction of the removals it becomes a quagmire and a BURO nightmare. NFCC#9 is fairly clear, those who use non-free media should already be familiar with WP:NFCC and not need a note. This isnt a matter of care, its a matter of standard practice and keeping the enforcement manageable. Copyright isnt something to be taken lightly. NFCC#9 violations can cause serious harm to the wiki as it is a breach of copyright. We cannot have a reasonable claim of fair use for a file that is being used on non-articles. It would only take one Lawyer to cause some serious issues. NFCC#9 is designed to prevent those issues. Werieth (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This seems unfair...

...why'd you take out the image of April, May and June Duck from the Duck family article? Would it be better off in their Disney Wiki article instead? Just wondering.~~LDEJRuff~~ 1:31, 23 June, 2013 (UTC)

re: File:UIQ 3.1 Screenshot.gif

I don't understand why this image was CSD'd. It is distributed under the Creative Commons license as well, which pretty much invalidates the F3 requirement. I have denied your request --w 14:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The software isnt released under a CC license. You cannot release the copyright to something you dont own. See Misplaced Pages:Derivative_works Werieth (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

X-Files images

Just wanted to drop a note here before anything gets blown out of proportion. Those images were added to Colonist (The X-Files) awhile back, and are all used because the alien races discussed are all so visually different and striking that the images are used to illustrate those "discussed in detail in the context of the article body, such as a discussion of the art style, or a contentious element of the work, simply provide visual identification of the elements" (WP:NFLISTS). That's why there isn't a copyright violation; the images received critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (generally in the production section) and are thus critical to understanding what the beings look like.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-free files where added to that page as recently as this month. Since you want to edit war Ill take this to WP:NFCR Werieth (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

My bad, I thought the over 3 reverts was the line, not 2. I'm not trying to peeve you off here, I'm just saying that I have a reasonable defense for keeping the images. Can't we just discuss this?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Your "reasonable defense" holds about as much water as a sieve. Werieth (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping it civil, dude.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please dont take that the wrong way. It just means the argument that you are making is full of holes. If you want when I get a few spare minutes I can list these out in detail and full explanations. Citing WP:NFCC #1,3 & 8. Along with several paragraphs and lengthy examples of why each use violates each point. (PS the holds about as much water as a sieve is a colloquialism and not meant as a personal attack). Werieth (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File issue

Hello,

I have now given a suitable and viable reason why the file of Morley's new Leisure Centre should be uploaded and how it is the only one of it's type. If you do not think that this is a viable reason for the image not to be uploaded, please explain as to why as the reason that I have given is very much a viable reason for it to be uploaded.

Tom 19:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomdaone (talk • contribs)

According to the source of the image the building is already in operation. Thus anyone can go take a photo of it. Werieth (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Bump

:) — This, that and the other (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay Hot-Shot, Okay! source images

It is common to include source artwork in Roy Lichtenstein articles. Why are you coming down on this one. I have reverted your edit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have re-removed the files for failing WP:NFCC#8. You dont need 5 images for two paragraphs. Werieth (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I am trying hard to bite my tongue, but this is about the most %^&*%^&*%$ reasoning I have seen on WP. Please re-read WP:NFCC#8 (Contextual significance) is the very reason why these images are necessary to understanding the subject matter. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Okay_Hot-Shot.2C_Okay.21_source_images. Please come explain your rationale.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I am no longer following her. Let's meet there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)