Talk:Sarasota Chalk Festival/Archive 1

Untitled
I appreciate the effort that went into this page, but Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising events, even if they are non-profit or cultural in nature. Subjective claims like "The most important..." lead me to believe that this page is the work of someone who has either a personal stake in the success of the festival or who simply wants to aggrandize their hometown. Regardless, the tone of the writing requires revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.143.48 (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Long present images removed
'''Two images that have been present in this article for a long time were removed along with two new images inserted in August 2013. Following brief discussion on this user's page, namely,'''

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Sarasota Chalk Festival, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you want blocked? Werieth (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the deletion on the basis of #8 '''Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding'''. This is an annual visual arts event and representation of its graphic details is most informative, and failing to provide examples of its contents is like having articles on artists without a gallery of their works. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We dont get to have galleries of non-free media. See WP:NFG Werieth (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a simile, not an assertion of intent for this article. Please do not twist my words as you avoid discussion of the basis for my objection. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not avoiding the issue, it is in fact almost the same issue. WP:NFG, WP:NFLIST, WP:NFCC, and WP:NFCC all apply. You do not need to include a large number of non-free images. Werieth (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to appeal this to administrators in the area of images. Unfortunately, you are an editor with a short history and your track record is patchy, showing other valid complaints about your decisions as well. Boldness is admirable, I exercise it as I edit, but your attempt to intimidate me with a threat to block me while I was in the process of making edits to eliminate the one image (Rosie) that I believe could be eliminated because of failing to qualify within our guidelines along with clarifying relevance to the text for others and your avoidance of the topic I put to you is of concern to me however. I sensed that you were hovering to exercise your preference, to exercise blind authority, or to justify your actions rather than allowing dialogue to ensue among peer editors arguing their points of difference. That motivates me to appeal rather than to continue the argument with you.

Save the one I did delete because a link to another article would suffice, the images you have deleted are not of the same types, they are from varied sources external to WP and therefore without potential for links, and they are quite helpful in showing our readers what is being described in the article about a complex performing visual arts festival spanning several days that is held by a nonprofit and attended, without fee, by the public.

The images posted to the article over the years are appropriate uses of non-free media materials. We are a publisher also and images make our articles more appealing to our readers. Counting the number of non-free images used in an article is not analyzing how those images available for the topic are effective educational tools offered to our readers. Few images of the works created in the festival are eligible because of copyright limitations so taking advantage of the non-free images available is one of the ways to overcome that in this article.

One of the images you have removed is the cover of a guide to the ten days of the 2012 festival that was donated as a public service by a local publisher. How more specific to a section of the article can an image be? It provided forty pages of details about the history of the festival, the artists invited to it that year, and the educational programs presented at the festival that year. That depth could not be covered in our article, but certainly provides our readers with a handy avenue to much greater educational information about the topic.

Guidance by our editors was given to the poster of another one of the images, after they sought our help regarding proper posting procedures and followed that guidance to post it, now you have decided to delete it.

The posters, which were published by the organization and disseminated freely as promotional materials, are prime candidates for us to use in our articles.

Rather than to belabor this with you, I appeal to higher authorized editors specializing in images. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

'''the new editor, clinging to a single criterion regarding non-free images in spite of their apparent qualification under several other criteria and using edit-war tactics, ignored new edits to the article that established better information for the photographs to accompany and ignored the request by this editor to advance the discussion to more experienced editors. The new editor deleted new edits along with the images, with wholesale reversals. He also left gaps in the article and totally ignored edits that needed correction. No attempt to contribute positively to the article was made. There was but one mission—deleting images—and the existing images have been deleted repeatedly even though the notice was about newly introduced images.''' _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * a file must meet all points of NFCC. Werieth (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case they fail WP:NFCC and WPP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)