User talk:Werieth/201303

Pissed on content removal
Smartguy, do you have to shamelessly remove mine as well?? ALL of those fall through the rules so what's wrong???--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) 05:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? --Werieth (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They're talking about this. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ummm
I appreciate your diligence ... but do you mind leaving the images in place for a while so I may work on my draft. --evrik (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You cannot use them in that draft File:Example.jpg can be used as a substitute until it is ready for main space. Werieth (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI. I am actively working on my draft right now. Please don't remove the images this afternoon. --evrik (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Why remove all that content?
On the wikipedia page "Di-Gata Defenders", you removed all the images in the "Power Sigils" section. I read the page WP:NFLISTS, and it didn't seem to apply very much. Would you prefer one image with all the sigils?

I'm going to undo those changes until a good answer is given, because all that removing those images does is take away from the article.

Kulboy121 (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not re-insert those images, take a look at Non-free content Those files do not meet the requirements for inclusion. Werieth (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so there are too many images? Would a single image that displays all the sigils mentioned in that section be acceptable? I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but the only point in the unacceptable use section seems to be the amount of images in that article. Kulboy121 (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The files fail WP:NFC and thus cannot be included in the article. Werieth (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sorry about that. Kulboy121 (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply
You either do the same for the UFC, or you don't delete our posters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_in_UFC

You have to choose but the convention was that we can keep them.

Ozumi-k1fan (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Both violations have been resolved. However please note that Other stuff exists isnt a reason for keeping violations. Werieth (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Victoria Wood As Seen On TV
Thanks for tagging this as using excessive non-free images. I have removed many of them and I think it might now be acceptable. If you get a chance can you revisit this article. You might want to give it a day or two to make sure the new version is stable. AIR corn (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good except for one file I removed, it was already being used in the main article for that section. Werieth (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
While it's true that excessive non-free content is a problem, the number of pages you're "cleaning" of non-free content, and the rate at which you are doing them, implies that you are taking a "shotgun" approach instead of carefully considering each page, its potential issues, and its potential problems. When you see a page that you believe violates the non-free content policy, instead of removing the content you believe to be probematic, and then edit-warring to keep them removed, please go to the article's talk page, post a list of the files that are problematic and why, and allow discussion to determine what, if anything, needs to be done as a WP:CONSENSUS. Your conduct on 2012 in K-1 Events is especially concerning, repeatedly removing content with the same edit summary without discussion after the removal was disputed. Wikipedia operates on the basis of bold, revert, discuss; after you had boldly removed the files you believed to be problematic, and someone else reverted your edit, the next step is to discuss, not to blindly revert repeatedly - simply repeating your disputed edit without discussion is disruptive editing and can, if continued, lead to your being blocked from editing. Also, please do not post notices on user talk pages saying that editors "will be blocked" - use the standard Twinkle warning templates instead. As you are not an administrator you cannot block people; implying that you will isn't conducive to a collegial editing environment. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you actually take a look at the user's talk page I have left several warnings including the only "twinkle" warning about non-free content. I am not using a shotgun approach, in fact my actions are carefully backed by policy and review of each article. Threatening with a block for repeated violations of the non-free content policy is standard practice, just like warning vandals (note twinkle includes similar phrasing towards vandals from non-administrators). If you take a look at the policies and attempts at discussion that I have started you will see I attempted to resolve the issue peacefully, and only implemented a final warning after the user refused to discuss the issues. Werieth (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You've also edit-warred and not discussed when your edits have been disputed. You can't simply repeat the edit with the same edit summary; that is disruptive. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I do discuss the issues when possible, Talk:Lisa Lavie. However one cannot discuss issues when a user repeatedly ignores posts to their talk page, blanks it in an attempt to hide the issue. When one side refuses to open dialog, discussion cannot happen. Please take a look at the non-free content policy WP:NFC it is rather a complex policy, unlike most other policies the burden is not on me, rather the burden is on those who want to use non-free content that the files are compliant with policy. Werieth (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of unambiguous WP:NFCC violations is a specific exemption to WP:EW, and, so far as I can see, Werieth is correctly identifying unambigous WP:NFCC violations. For his own protection, I advise Werieth to link to WP:EW in his edit summary.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear bot-wielder. Please post whatever criteria, with the EXACT VERBIAGE YOU PREFER that needs to be used to not trigger your little script. Because, as anyone can plainly see, all the images you marked for deletion HAD non-free rationales posted that were enough for someone reading it. Please avoid over-estimating your own cleverness in writing a script. K8 fan (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not a bot, WP:NFC states The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8). which means that your usage in The Reverend Peyton's Big Damn Band is prohibited. I can quote several other parts of policy that re-enforce the point if needed. Werieth (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Some points of note
At User_talk:Slowking4 you differentiated the opinions of non-admin editors as being less significant than the opinions of two administrators (Masem, Black Kite) regarding the issue. Just a helpful note; the words of admins have no more weight than the words of non-admins. Admins work for editors, not the other way around. Their opinions on topics not strictly related to blocking/protecting/deleting/etc. have no more value than that of the typical editor. There are plenty of editors considerably more knowledgeable than the average admin on various subject areas of policy. I used to be a strong enforcer of NFCC policy. I am not so anymore. There was a time when some people regarded me as one of the foremost experts on NFCC policy and NFC guideline on the project. I am not an administrator.

Segueing from that point; I would like to raise a couple of other points with you. First, there is a distinction between WP:NFCC policy and WP:NFC guideline. It is important not to conflate the two. EW contains an exemption for WP:NFCC violations. It does NOT contain an exemption for WP:NFC violations. There was an editor before your time who ran into considerable trouble because he was using the exemption to enforce WP:NFC, rather than WP:NFCC. The typical way in which the exemption is interpreted is if there is something blatantly in violation of WP:NFCC policy. There was nothing among those images that was a blatant violation of the policy, only the guideline. While some may feel they should be removed due to violating WP:NFCC #3a and/or #8, this is a subjective call. It was also heavily discussed on the talk page of the article. The next step was not edit warring. Even EW notes that the issue could be taken up at Non-free content review. It was not. I do note that you asked for more eyes on the issue at WT:NFC, but this is not enough to launch an edit war.

Indeed, there is never enough for an edit war. Reverting 18 times in less than an hour was grossly out of line. You were achieving nothing with the edit warring except being disruptive. I don't say this to chastise you; please, hear me out. I'm trying to help you. The correct action should have been to remove the images if you felt it necessary, then when reverted, maybe revert the restoration of the images and leave a message on the person's talk page. This didn't happen until after your third revert. It should never have gotten that far. The next step should have been an RfC, an AN/I thread, SOMEthing other than continuing a pointless edit war.

WP:NFCC enforcement is a muddy, filth infested, anger ridden, hate smeared arena. People hate NFCC by the droves. You will find opposition in every corner, at every turn, at every debate. The debates are endless, cover the same ground year after year after year, but they continue on nevertheless. Enforcing it is one thing; enforcing it by edit warring is quite another. You can not gain the high ground by engaging in such tactics again. It will end badly for you. It has ended badly for many an NFCC enforcer before you. You are not the first to try this nor will you be the last.

Even when the 3RR exemption applied, I wouldn't violate 3RR to enforce NFCC policy. It's pointless and achieves nothing. Far better to attempt to inform the editor and if that fails ask for an administrator to step in to stop the person from violating policy. That's usually very easy to do and happens quickly.

All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

cover images
You won't win that one. Each of those subsections would qualify to be a standalone article if it weren't for our general practice of placing all cover recordings into the article about the song. If you try to remove images, people just split the article to get the image back. Then the article gets merged again, and the image is back. I think the practice of allowing cover images for identification purposes is pretty silly, but until you get past that hurdle, you don't stand a chance. I'd pick better battles.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Currency images
In the light of, I have restored the images to
 * Banknotes of the Australian dollar
 * Coins of Madagascar
 * Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee
 * Singapore dollar
 * Nicaraguan córdoba
 * Brunei dollar
 * Croatian kuna

I would be grateful if you could restore them to any other articles I might have missed. Jheald (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would request that you revert your additions, one FfD does not override the RfC, and WP:NFLIST & WP:NFTABLE Werieth (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think the FFD was wrongly decided, we have due process -- in the first instance contact the closing admin and put your concerns to him, and failing that take it to WP:DRV. But the images from similar pages should not be auto-deleted by bots as orphans while the matter is still in question.
 * My view is that the RfC does not form a basis to delete these images, as the question put was hopelessly flawed. That is a view that a very experienced admin has now concurred with.
 * As for in detail why I believe these images are appropriate, see my comments at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_55, particularly the run of comments starting at 16:05, 16 May 20.
 * Originally this discussion occurred just before Hammersoft's broken RfC on the WT:NFC talkpage, so I didn't make the arguments again in detail. (And it is very hard to respond when somebody makes a straw-man RfC proposal which is so obviously broken, as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz dissected).  Unfortunately, due to the wonders of archiving, the earlier discussion which originally set the frame for the later discussion got separated from it, and perhaps wasn't eventually taken into account.  Jheald (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Chérie FM logo history
Why is it forbidden to add the logo history to the Chérie FM article? it is stated in the Branding timeline templated : ''Per this discussion at WT:NFC, this template should be used with non-free content only if it is directly paired with text discussing the images; and only if there is a significance to each and every image shown, such that it passes NFCC#8, and is not redundant per NFCC#3a. Even when these conditions are met, it may be preferable to use the images inline, rather than in this template.'' --StevenGomez (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * paired with text discussing the images; ... such that it passes NFCC#8 The barrier for inclusion has not been met, this is basically a bare section with a gallery of logos, with no sourced third party commentary about the logos. The bar for meeting WP:NFCC has far from been met. Werieth (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

CALABARZON
You removed images from this article. A user asked a question about this at. You might wish to comment there. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They also posted on the talk page of the article talk page where I responded. Werieth (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Note that this is a bit complex, though. The seals are works by the Philippine government. English Wikipedia thinks that they are "unfree" (Template:Non-free Philippines government), but if you move them to Commons (Commons:Template:PD-PhilippinesGov), then they suddenly become "free". Thus, if you host the images on this project, then they violate WP:NFCC, but if you move the images to Commons, then they suddenly stop violating WP:NFCC. This can't be the way it's supposed to be, but both templates have been kept when nominated for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

AC power plugs and sockets
Your edits to AC power plugs and sockets succeeded in breaking multiple book references which were to specific pages with highlighted terms. Please do not vandalize in this way. Mautby (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * see WP:NPA and WP:AGF Werieth (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring, as you did at Arts on the Line. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — foxj 01:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion notification
I started an ANI discussion that you would be considered an "involved party". - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 01:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please slow down
I do want to make it clear that you didn't handle that situation at Arts on the Line well. Did you fit in the exemption? In my judgment, yes, but others obviously disagree. Even though I think you fit inside the exemption, the speed and quantity of the reverts is beyond what anyone had in mind when they wrote the exemption. The next time you see someone edit warring in what you believe to be an NFCC violation, report it to someone that can do something about it long before you hit 15 reverts in an hour. I won't unblock again if I see that kind of speed and ferocity again.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

FTSE 100 Index
Hi - I think you find you are in breach of WP:3RR in respect of the highly innovative and useful work undertaken by User:Wikidea on the FTSE 100 Index article. Regards, Dormskirk (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See EW every one of those files still violate WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Image deletion at Duke Ellington at Fargo, 1940 Live
I'm not sure what your real rationale for unilaterally deleting images at Duke Ellington at Fargo, 1940 Live as you first claimed "excessive covers", then "WP:NFTABLE, then "WP:NFC".

However, whatever the reason, it is typical for Wikipedia to have multiple cover images of albums in one article such as when an album is released with different titles in different countries (e.g., The Rolling Stones/England's Newest Hit Makers), an album is released in different countries with different covers (e.g., Sticky Fingers), or when an album is reissued with a different cover (e.g., Beggars Banquet). This is a variation of what was explained to you by another user here.

In the case of Duke Ellington at Fargo, 1940 Live, the original phonograph version is rare and the album has been re-released in other formats with other titles and track configurations. The album was even awarded a Grammy under one of these alternative titles. All of these permutations are discussed in the article.

Based on this, multiple image usage for this article clearly passes both the affirmative and negative of WP:NFC's contextual significance test. Because a cover is the primary visual identifier of a music work, the images both "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and their "omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Each version of the album has a different title and cover design in addition to content variations. Having the article depending on any one image would seriously mislead readers as to the sum of the article's content. (A non-music analogy is the Coca-Cola where multiple non-free images are used to illustrate the varieties of Coke.)

As can be seen from the examples I gave above, WP:OVERUSE does not typically extend to album covers in album articles and it rejects numerical quotas on non-free images. If you still feel that your understanding of WP:NFC or other policies or guidelines does not allow for such image use in album articles, please discuss it at the appropriate talk page. As noted by others, Wikipedia operates on consensus (despite my own misgivings). Convince others of a clear limit to such images and I will accede. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  20:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 4 extra covers with little to no critical commentary on the covers is excessive. NFCC#8 normally OK's the first cover for visual identification, beyond that the barrier for inclusion raises significantly for each additional image. Werieth (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a fine opinion but it's not policy. Discuss it and build consensus for your beliefs.  —  AjaxSmack   20:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WT:NFC you will see that that is consensus. Werieth (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I already have. The guidelines contain no numerical limits or commentary quotas. —  AjaxSmack   20:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC also applies, see also WP:NOTDIR we dont need every cover. Policy requires minimal usage, 4 covers that are not significantly tied to the text are excessive. Werieth (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You are tripping up over the identification issue again. Take a deep breath, and say to yourself "consensus is that if the image could reasonably be tied to the reader's identification of the topic, it passes WP:NFCC". It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not (I certainly don't), but that is what consensus says. For things like albums and book covers, multiple printings or pressings with substantially different artwork has been held to pass WP:NFCC, and, by virtue of each one identifying an individual release, WP:NFCC as well. You don't have any cover from the WP:3RR exemption on this issue, and with the number of people that are upset with you, I would tread extremely lightly.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)So now you move the goalposts for the third (and fourth?) time? Good try but, luckily, I was versed in all of the WP:NFCC guidelines and policies before attaching images to the article.  As I mentioned above, the image usage is the minimum necessary for a complete understanding of the topic and all images are low resolution.  WP:NOTDIR is not relevant here and nor is there an image of every cover attached to the article; only the ones necessary. —  AjaxSmack   20:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Formal Request for comment (RFC)
A formal RFC has been entered at Talk:Lisa Lavie on the topic of non-free content. RCraig09 (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Unwarranted removal of images, from articles you don't even contribute to!
Dear bored editor, please refrain from continually removing images i have added to the Rockwiz article. I put them there for identification purposes, to help people that are unfamiliar with the show. Or like myself fans that purchase the series, and need a visual reference to distinguish between titles. Which as i understand it is the whole purpose, of using an image related to a topic being talked about or referenced.

They might not be set out in a way you prefer, well i'm very sorry about that. as you don't see fit to talk to me before destroying my work, i wouldn't know. If you have advice to offer i'm all ears / eyes, if you know a better way to display the images TELL ME!

Just continually removing them, is only causing aggravation and annoyance.Rockwizfan (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They do not comply with WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC and thus are unacceptable for usage in the manner you are using them. Werieth (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I just read the guidelines you pointed out, and fail to see your argument? Each image is in direct reference to it's release information, and are there for identification in low resolution as is required. As i see in the above article i am not alone, combating your ignorance or interpretation of the guidelines you hide behind.Rockwizfan (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article does not require a image for each DVD release, see WP:NFCC a gallery of them also violates WP:NFCC. They are pretty to have, but not required. Please review WP:NPA also. Werieth (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not you see them as being required, is a matter of your own opinion. And as for this being some sort of personal attack, that is also a matter of your own opinion. Last time i checked, personal opinion did not serve as fact.

You keep going on about the images being in a gallery, as i stated before. If you have advice to offer i'm all ears / eyes, if you know a better way to display the images TELL ME!

I haven't been an editor / contributor very long, and are still learning with every new edit. When i find a better way, i use it. Often returning to earlier edits, making changes in layout or appearance. copying things i've discovered on other pages, and experimenting with ideas.

i've never been happy with the gallery layout, and have wanted a better method. This is the idea i have, but don't know how to achieve it.


 * image * title information
 * image * title information
 * image * title information

Obviously the images would be a lot smaller, which is what i was after to start with. 2 rows would be ideal, with the 2nd row being centre screen. • image * title information

• image * title information

• image * title information

• image * title information

• image * title information

• image * title informationRockwizfan (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Re-review WP:NFCC the images are decorative and not required for understanding of the subject (the TV show). Per WP:NFCC they then cannot be used. It doesn't matter if you use columns, tables or galleries, the files will still be in violation of the requirements for both #8 and minimal usage policy WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is plainly obvious this person is using an excessively literal interpretation of the guidelines as a way to bully people. What can we do to see him banned? K8 fan (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how a gallery of non-free files pass WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC & WP:NFCC? Fair use overuse is a good read, specifically Fair_use_overuse Werieth (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Werieth, if you care for any advice at all, mine is to slow down and don't get caught up in an edit war. Even if you're right, it may not be helpful. Moreover, it tends to piss people off. I also have some advice for those who seem to be pissed off, like Rockwizfan and K8 fan: WP:NFCC isn't a guideline, it's a policy, and a hugely important one. You may think you're doing someone a favor by sticking pictures all over the places, but this isn't kindergarten anymore and those personal attacks of yours must stop. Let that serve as a warning for y'all's incivility. K8, I'm going to give you a serious, templated warning for "what can we do to see him banned" as excessively ad hominem, essentially disruptive, and exceedingly discouraging for a user who is fighting an uphill battle of keeping Wikipedia clean and within the bounds of the law. Werieth, carry on--but slowly and with feeling, please. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts
LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Organizational Logos". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Scouting in California
Before you revert what I just did. Can we please engage in dialog? --evrik (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am always willing to discuss issues. Just dont re-insert files until there is a consensus to do so. Werieth (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your actions speak louder than your words, otherwise you wouldn't have been so aggressive in slapping the warning on my talk page. I undid your action, and am now doing it a second time because by removing the images, you are setting off the bots to start tagging the images. Please hold off on this for a little bit. --evrik (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually you need to justify the usage of 24 non-free files in what is basically a list. Please note that I both reverted and warned you prior to your talk page message. Please remove the files until there is consensus for an exception to WP:NFLISTS established. Werieth (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't mind that you stripped the images from my working draft, but there is a small problem with removing the images from Scouting in California. There are more than fifty pages that use the same formatting of state and council articles, check out Scouting in the United States. Over the last seven years there has been an on-going discussion about which council articles are notable. The end result was that many of them were merged into the state articles, and the images were kept. If you look at the redirects, you will see that most of those redirects were once articles themselves. I can understand that you cited WP:NFCC#8, but I don't believe that it applies. These aren't list articles. For comparison, if you look at the Scouting in Vermont article, you'll see that there is only one council – and that image has more of an impact than say, California … which is a much larger state … The images do add to the article as each council is an entity into itself. Do me a favor please, before stripping out any more images, please discuss it with me first. Thanks.--evrik (talk)
 * We were writing at the same time ... anyway, there is a consensus. There has been a consensus. This was the solution. This discussion has been held a number of times over the years. --evrik (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide specific discussions where it was determined that large numbers of non-free files are acceptable in scouting articles? This appears to be just a variant of the discography, list of characters debates, where the individual  parts are unable to stand as independent articles and where thus merged together. Werieth (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can, but it may take me a day or two to search for those old posts. Some of these discussion were six years ago. --evrik (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If they are that old, WP:NFCC and WP:NFC have changed drastically since then, and usage has become far far stricter. Consensus project wide has changed and thus would invalidate those discussions. Werieth (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the people involved in the Scouting Wikiproject have been keeping abreast of this. I have asked for someone else to weigh in on this as he has been more actively involved in the discussions. There are several hundred of these images, all found here: Category:Boy Scouts of America council logos. Also, I do believe that these images meet the criteria of WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. The people involved with the Scouting Wikiproject have gone to great lengths to make sure that all the images use both the Non-free use rationale logo and the Non-free Scout logo templates. The question then is, are these articles lists? --evrik (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See also Talk:FTSE_100_Index and Arts on the Line and the discussion on the talk page. Werieth (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see the similarities, but I also think there are differences in these three articles. Looking at what you've written, I would tend to agree with some of the other writers. I am going to beg your indulgence on this topic and ask that we hold off on doing anything at this moment. I have to do some things IRL and will not be able to focus on this until tomorrow. --evrik (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I will give you 48 hours, after that if a exception to NFLIST hasn't been clarified, and justification for 24 non-free files is still unsubstantiated I will remove the files. Werieth (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Round Two I haven't had time to work on this. I would like to point out a couple of differences. There are a number of BSA list articles, examples are Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America User:Gadget850/List of defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America, or the list at current councils, or anything found here Category:Scouting-related lists or here Category:List-Class Scouting articles. Please hold off on taking any unilateral action. There isn't a big hue and cry over these articles. Perhaps, next week, we can start an RFC to start a discussion. Your patience is appreciated. --evrik (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually an RfC isnt needed, prior lengthy discussions have determined that these list articles are non-complaint with our non-free content policies, If you would like file a request at WP:NFCR and the non-free file usage can be reviewed there. Werieth (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A discussion is appropriate, but now we're venue shopping. I need to correspond with some of the wikiproject people before I go down that Rabbit Hole. --evrik (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Would you please remove the warning. --evrik (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Usage notes
Hey, Werieth, just so you know: right now, the script is only enabled for WP and WP talk namespaces; let me know if there are other places you need it. On those pages, you'll see a link appear next to the normal edit section link called "Close section"; click on it and it'll prompt you to enter a rationale. If you leave this blank, it'll abort without closing the section; otherwise, it'll use whatever you typed in (signing it automatically) and close the section with it. Let me know if you come across any bugs or have any other suggestions for it. Thanks! Writ Keeper (t + c) 21:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

COI/Spam
Hi Werieth,

I manage content/information for Snap Surveys (www.snapsurveys.com). I would like to include Snap Survey Software in the comparison list of survey software solutions. Our software was left out of the list. Snap Survey Software is an advanced survey software solution for paper, online, and mobile surveys, and I would like to add it to the list. The only link I am using is www.snapsurveys.com.

Thanks,

Susan
 * In short dont. See WP:COI and WP:SPAM Werieth (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

May I ask why you do not want a complete list of survey software providers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.235.201 (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a directory of links. Having the company that makes a program force their links into wikipedia goes against WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTDIR Werieth (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I was just placing information in the chart using the same format as the other providers. I'll be sure to put Wikipedia on our list of unreliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.235.201 (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It might be in the same format, however it does not meet the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has relatively high standards in regards to what it takes to meet its notability standards. I am sorry if you think that makes Wikipedia unreliable, however I feel the opposite, with standards it prevents every Tom, Dick and Harry from coming along and inserting their propaganda about their product into wikipedia. By setting the bar high we ensure the quality of the content. Yes we may not include every possible item in a list, however we do include the important/notable members while sorting out the chafe and keeping the trivial information to a minimum. Werieth (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)