| Revision as of 20:16, 26 June 2013 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 48h) to User talk:Werieth/201306.← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:40, 26 June 2013 edit undoWerieth (talk | contribs)54,678 edits archiveNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| |archive = User talk:Werieth/%(year)d%(month)02d | |archive = User talk:Werieth/%(year)d%(month)02d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Follow up == | |||
| I'm curious as to whether self-reflection has led to any insights?] | |||
| <blockquote>"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"</blockquote> | |||
| ::--] (]) 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 ] was un-called for. ] (]) 13:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::*<blockquote>"You might want to consider that yourself."</blockquote> | |||
| ::::I did. My previous comment: | |||
| ::::<blockquote>"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..." </blockquote> | |||
| ::::was intended to convey such. | |||
| ::::<blockquote>"The current method removal with explanation in the edit summary is the best way of doing it."</blockquote> | |||
| ::::Best for whom, Werieth? | |||
| ::::--] (]) 15:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} | |||
| 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. --] (]) 22:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I just did some number crunching, on average there are between 100-400 ] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 00:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of course that same lawyer might come across the articles the files are currently in use in and take note of the fact that they'd been tagged as non-compliant but not corrected within a reasonable period time. And then proceed from there. I remind you that this discussion started in the real world involving real context and not some platonic realm of theory. | |||
| ::Could, perhaps, phrases like "Oops, sorry you found my edit disruptive." please be added to your active vocabulary? Such might help improve the tone of the responses you receive from fellow editors. And perhaps even help to foster cooperation —and even collaboration. --] (]) 20:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*A link to the '5 pillars' on led me to take a fresh glance and it turns out that my statement early in the discussion —"Misplaced Pages doesn't have policies it has guidelines."— was indeed a bit off paraphrased. The actual wording is "''']'''" <small>—from ]—</small> and: | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| :::* ] | |||
| :::* ] | |||
| :::* ] | |||
| :::* ] | |||
| :::* ] | |||
| :::* ] | |||
| :::* ] | |||
| ::::''<small>——</small>'' | |||
| ::I find the concepts linked above to be helpful when considering when, whether, where, and how to apply written policies and guidelines. Hopefully these links will serve as a useful reference for you as well, Werieth. --] (]) 20:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == This seems unfair... == | == This seems unfair... == | ||
Revision as of 22:40, 26 June 2013
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)
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)
- 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)