User talk:Werieth/201307

Geza Pap
I am not sure what spam are you talking about. I have found and added the reference myself. If you do not like it, please add another one. Removing the only reference from a (BLP) article is not really constructive.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not a BLP, and you dont use sources like ebay as a reliable source I am actually thinking of nominating this for deletion as lacking notability. Werieth (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not see why this source is like ebay. Concerning the nomination, this would be a great strategy: first to remove reliable sources from the article, then nominate it for deletion as unsourced. Just try. I may also wish to nominate you to ANI then.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, hung-art.com is an auction site. Per WP:RS it shouldnt be used. This ANI report goes into some detail. Right now I am not seeing how this particular artist passes our notability policy. I never said I was going to delete it as un-sourced. Feel free to take this to ANI, I am not afraid of your empty threats. ANI shouldnt be used as a threat to enforce your POV. Werieth (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * May be you should look at the sources still and the article and see how it passes notability. And in the discussion you provided a link to there is no consensus that hung-art.com is not an RS (though some pages are clearly commercial, I do not see why Geza Pap page is). And no, I have no POV, I just do not like when people behave destructively.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Everyone has a POV. I took a look at the page, there are about 3 sentences referring to the painter, (none of which would meet WP:N ) and a gallery of links to purchase paintings, and a large Paintings for sale along the side. This is extremely promotional in nature and looks like your average auction house. There is nothing there that would make this meet WP:RS. Werieth (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You archived an unprocessed request
See here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist TCO (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, was just trying to clean up the page some. I saw it marked as approved and thought it was handled. Werieth (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Images
The sole reason I want to keep the images on the page is to keep the bots from tagging them for deletion. This is not an unreasonable thing. --evrik (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And Ill re-remove as there isnt consensus for them. Werieth (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you really want to go down this road again? You are driving an edit war. --evrik (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually you are the one who seems to like to edit war, If these files are deleted and it is later determined that they are acceptable undeletion is trivial. NFCC places the burden on those who want to include it, in this case that burden as not been met. Werieth (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Removing the images before the discussion is complete is outside of policy. You're just making things up. --evrik (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to read WP:NFCC the burden is on the person wanting to include the material. Werieth (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * While the burden might be as you say, preemptively removing the images is not policy. --evrik (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Policy is to remove WP:NFCC violations, not ignore them Werieth (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with grouping the discussions? --evrik (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Its bad practice to refactor discussions, and these are not a grouped issue, thus discussions shouldnt be lumped together either. Werieth (talk)
 * They are grouped. Same issues. Same subject matter. You also removed my comments. --evrik (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This isnt a group nomination and thus shouldn't be grouped. You dont group all business articles that have notability issues into a single AfD. Werieth (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * These are all common discussions. --evrik (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You could say the same thing about a lot of AfD's too. You dont just lump them together based on broad strokes. Each discussion is independent. Werieth (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and yet, we keep discussing the same issues. --evrik (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please top edit warring on the Non-free content review and Fællesrådet for Danmarks Drengespejdere pages. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

SPI
I just blocked two editors, and filed Sockpuppet investigations/Billsilver1984. Maybe you want to weigh in, as you have been active in reverting these editors as well. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Result of the edit-warring complaint about the Danish scouting society
Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, which contains a warning for both parties. If you allow the regular process to run its course on the copyright boards, you should have no further problems. If you add or remove any images before the boards have made their decision, blocks are possible. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Learnupon
This seems unfair. Can you explain why this page would be flagged for deletion? LearnUpon is an original and existing entity and is complying with the other lists of LMS entities as per this page here. Can you explain why the page suffers differences compared to DoceboLMS etc? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_learning_management_systems
 * You are using Wikipedia to promote your company (See WP:SPAM). You have an obvious Conflict of interest and shouldn't be editing anything related to your company. Your article doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. Werieth (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, okay, I think I get that, but then I don't quite understand why the other pages are allowed and are legit? With regards providing information about their status and fit to an industry. Can you tell me why or how we can adjust our page to meet the criteria or should these other pages be deleted also? Thanks for help.
 * You cannot, Wikipedia is not a platform to promote your company. We actually react fairly negativity to such actions. Werieth (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Newsjunky12 Hi all, im going to jump into this debate. I think if this article is turned into an actual company article we can keep it. The way it is now is like Werieth said, to much like an advertisement. So as of now I say delete but if you can change it to an actual company article with info about it and not just what it offers I would change my mind.

Hi Newsjunky, thank you for clarifying what the problem is. That makes more sense to me and I will have a look at updating the text used on the page to be more article like. What was confusing me was that the same format and wording was taken from other pages, so I guess if you delete this one then I was thinking why are the other pages not deleted. Leave it with me and I'll update here. Thanks again for the clarification.

Ulster Defence Regiment
You removed three images from Ulster Defence Regiment using WP:NFCC "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." In all three cases the images were directly related to the text and would significantly improve the readers' understanding of the topic.

If you have continued objections to these images may I suggest you join the discussion at the talk page and tell us why:

1. The image of an application form isn't related to the provision of application forms. 2. The image of the aftermath of the Glenanne bombing isn't related to the Glenanne bombing. 3. Why a political poster shouldn't be used in the section "Political comment"

In the interim you have been reverted - in good faith. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't need to see an application to understand the organization, (See #8), the aftermath has its own article and the file is used there no need to duplicate it (See WP:NFCC) and the poster isn't mentioned in the text at all and thus cannot pass WP:NFCC, even if it was it would be mostly decorative. Werieth (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Having an historic document such as the application form included is an appropriate enhancement to the text which describes where and how application forms could be acquired.  The aftermath may have its own article, which is correctly referenced in the text but that doesn't mean that use of the image to illustrate it in the "parent" article is anything less than educational and encyclopaedic.  The political poster is in itself a political comment but if you'd taken the time to read the talk page you'd see that the article is being rewritten at the moment and further text will be going into that section to qualify the use of the poster as an illustration.


 * If you continue to have serious doubts then I respectfully suggest you post an RfC.  I cannot see your case proven until item #8 of WP:NFCC, which is the rule you used for removal.  SonofSetanta (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually you are forgetting the second part of #8, which none of these meet. If you think these pass NFCC file a WP:NFCR, and get approval before re-adding them. Werieth (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't accept your comments and I must now warn you that you have broken an arbitration enforcement by making two reverts on a Northern Ireland Troubles page within 24 hours, thereby engaging in edit warring. I respectfully suggest you revert yourself.  If you fail to do so I will raise a complaint with Arbcom.  In the meantime I have made an RfC.  I suggest you comply with ALL guidance provided for wiki users, not just the ones which suit you.  SonofSetanta (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * RfC is not the correct venue, WP:NFCR is. Werieth (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:TROUBLES articles: reminder re 1RR
Pursuant to a message on my talk page I'm warning you regarding a breach of the 1RR on troubles. On examination I think this was a good faith mistake so take this as a reminder that pages covered by the Troubles RfAr is subject to one revert per person per 24 hours. I'll also remind you that the exception to 3RR for removal of Non free content applies only when that content is "unquestionably" in violation of the non-free content policy. As such WRT two of the three images I see exactly where your rationale in policy exists but your point on is debatable (I think the argument for keeping is tenuous but even still it's not unquestionably in violation as the file is about recruitment). Furthermore please bear in mind that all WP:TROUBLES articles are under probation and covered by discretionary sanctions. It was inappropriate for you to delete SonOfSetanta's RFC eventhough you were correct that NFCR is the right venue. I or another uninvolved sysop could/would have closed that with a note pointing to the NFCR discussion. SonOfSetanta's action although incorrect in opening a talk page discussion is well within teh bounds of a good faith mistake-- Cailil  talk 13:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Your reverts
May I respectfully suggest that now you have been made aware of the 1RR ruling by a sysop that you take the correct and honourable course of action and revert your removal of these images as per the ArbCom ruling. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review policy, WP:NFCC is what I use to review how non-free files are being used. The correct action was taken by me in removing non-compliant files. Werieth (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As has already been pointed out to you by Calil (a sysop) you are in breach of WP:1RR. This is clearly signposted at the top of the talk page.  Calil has observed this is obviously a good faith error on your part but it has now been pointed out to you several times that you are in breach of ArbCom conditions for posting on articles concerning The Troubles - WP:1RR.  See Requests for arbitration/The Troubles.  If you fail to revert yourself I will be lodging a request for enforcement at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.


 * As I've pointed out to you before: following one set of guidelines alone is not acceptable. You must follow ALL guidelines.


 * Do the correct thing and revert yourself until such times as a decision is made after due discussion.

SonofSetanta (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * NFCC enforcement is exempt from editwarring policy. If you must drag this to arbcom go ahead, Ill leave it up to them to trout you. Werieth (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have left a note to SonofSetanta telling him to stop this. There was nothing wrong with your inital removal - you don't need to reinstate the material. The problem lies in the breach of 1RR. And BTW don't rely on exemptions - they don't gauarntee amnesty-- Cailil  talk 14:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Stay off my talk page unless you've got an actual reason to be there. NFCC "violations" don't qualify, as they are the most broadly interpretable rules Wikipedia has. Image cops are not welcome to bring their tedious crusade to my page. I encourage you to get a life and pursue a more constructive cause with this project. This will be your only warning. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:NPA. If you continue to violate WP:NFCC I will only have two options, seek a block or a topic ban. Werieth (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Go for it, tough guy. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Singapore Army
The usage of File:Singapore Armed Forces Crest.svg on Singapore Army complies with non-free image policy, following similar usage for File:Republic of Singapore Navy Crest.svg and File:RSAF Crest.svg. If this continues, I will be forced to seek protection for the page, or a temporary block/ban for edit warring and harassment. I also do not appreciate being threatened. (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Its missing a rationale for that article, and thus cannot be used there. Werieth (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Template:Non-free symbol is clearly stated on the file page. (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It says: To the uploader: Please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use.... Something that hasnt been done. Werieth (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have checked the page, and said line does not appear anywhere.(talk) 15:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read Template:Non-free symbol (since you linked it, you should at least read it) See also WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Bhutan FA.png
I am talking to you Werieth. Leave me and my updating of holy country Bhutan football,womens football and futsal page on wikipedia. I cant post an image from this account so i must log out to do that. I f you dare to remove anything i update on these pages,and i am personal friend of all bhutanese players so all is correct,your ip adress will be sent to bhutan royal police and the king jigme wangchuk himself will put you in jail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otisnaguzici (talk • contribs)
 * The files you are adding are not compliant with WP:NFCC, which is why I removed them. Werieth (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Lyceum of the Philippines University-Laguna
Which of the two solutions would be easier. Adding a Non-free Usage Statement for the main Lyceum University image for use on the Laguna campus page *or* creating a Laguna specific image like the one on Lyceum of the Philippines University-Cavite and putting a Non-Free Usage on that?Naraht (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A rationale is all that is needed. Werieth (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanx!Naraht (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

UDR article and discussion of using NFC
I have made some progress and invite you to examine my comments at Non-free_content_review. Bearing in mind the comments I have viewed on your talk page my attitude is somewhat changed and I can promise you I will not set the police on you. Nor am I personal friends with any football players and I will not ask the Queen to put you in jail! The worst I might do is drink your beer when your back is turned to wreak my revenge upon you. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of images per WP:NFCC
Hi Werieth,

I noticed you removing non-free files several times, now (and especially here). I have two requests: Thanks, --Patrick87 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Please, if you remove an non-free file, leave a link behind. Links are perfectly fine regarding NFCC#9, removing the images completely often renders comments on talk pages useless unless one digs into history pages!
 * 2) Take care when removing images. In the above example you "vandalized" the WP:GL/I's "Top 4" requests, by completely removing the images and the link. It's useless then. Please don't do it this way but try to keep the pages usable where you remove non-free images.


 * Sorry, but did you read my comment? You're currently continuing removing hundreds of non-free images from many articles, without leaving a link. As for infoboxes (were a link could produce unexpected results) consider commenting out the image instead. --Patrick87 (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Im not removing files from any articles. I am removing them from non-articles where they cannot be used, period. Do not re-inlcude non-free files in a manner that violates WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I know NFCC#9, but it doesn't forbid to leave links behind. Otherwise many pages are broken after your (unapproved) automated script passed.
 * Your script (I don't assume you control your edits anymore?) just commented out an image contained in GLNF – a template specifically made to use non-free images without NFUR. Stop your script! It is doing harm to articles!
 * Anyway you should create a bot account for automated edits and request approval on Bots/Requests for approval. --Patrick87 (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not a bot, I wasnt aware of how GLNF worked, I was working off a report of NFCC#9 violations and didnt realize that that had already been fixed, and I ran into a case mediawiki was providing incorrect information about the image. (It was being reported as still being used on that page by Mediawiki) Werieth (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You also removed a plain link from here. Please review your AWB settings, before continuing work. If it's really not a bot, then pleace slow a bit down and actually check what you're doing. --Patrick87 (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're responsible for the edits you make with semi-automated tools. As Patrick87 says, after your mistake has been explained, don't just blindly revert your incorrect removal in without checking. You know, you might even consider an apology for the inconvenience caused to other editors. Just a thought... Thank you. Begoon &thinsp; talk  17:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Bloodnok
It was me who put the Ernst pic on Bloodnok's page, sorry about that I didn't know it wasn't allowed. Are any pictures allowed?Keith-264 (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Can I get some more details about what you are talking about? Werieth (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Image spammer
User:86.186.153.39 keeps spamming images onto articles even after you have removed them for copyright reasons. Can you call him off on his Talk page? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN/RFC#Discussions_in_need_of_closure
If several of the discussions at WP:AN/RFC have been ongoing for more than a few months, you may wish to visit WP:A/R to file a motion instead of (or even in addition to) bumping the issue every day. I am not sure if this is the right avenue, but if it is not, you can visit WP:HD or Category:Wikimedia Foundation staff. You may also contact Sue Gardner or visit and contact a board member directly. You may contact Jimmy Wales, but only after you have exhausted all other options. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment
No-one has replied to my request at Non-free_content_review yet. As you were the party who raised objections to the use of the files can you tell me if it is now ok to repost File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg & thumb|150px|Original Anti-UDR poster given that the article text has been restored to a state where their original context is explained? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Are you an administrator? If not, you don't have any authority to block me. I'm not doing anything that warrants a block anyway. EnglishEfternamn *t/c*  20:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Repeated violations of WP:NFCC will result in you being blocked. There is no question about that. Werieth (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you add it again I will take this to ANI and have you blocked. Werieth (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Listen, you power tripping nerd, do you REALLY think that Socialist International is going to SUE you, me, or Wikimedia for displaying the SI logo on my page? You're making too big a deal of too small an issue. Go do something more productive on here, as it seems this issue is all you worry about. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  20:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Badge
Werieth it isn't up to you to decide which is the correct badge and which isn't on military articles. If you remove the free use badges I have now submitted I will consider it edit warring on a "Troubles Related Article" and ask for sanctions to be applied. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ive nominated the file for deletion as being a copyright violation and factually incorrect. Werieth (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:V is everyone's job. Displaying a known factually incorrect image shouldnt happen. Werieth (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing inaccurate about the badge. It's the maid of erin surmounted by a crown.  I have a feeling that Calil was correct.  You have let this become personal and have turned this into a WP:BATTLE because you are determined to stamp some kind of authority on me.  Fine: you play by the rules and so will I.  You get the badge deleted and I will upload another one. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you continue down that road you will be blocked. Werieth (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No I won't. Just because you've got some sort of grudge against me using military insignia doesn't mean you can block me.  What you're forgetting is that you are leaving a trail a mile wide of petulant behaviour regarding this issue.  You are totally ignoring WP:GOODFAITH.  I suggest you take a step back and consider that ALL of us, not just you, are working towards a better wiki.  If you have issues about badges then raise them at the correct venues, such as Military History.  Collegiate discussion is the way forward not Bullying. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Reposting deleted content violates WP:CSD repeated violations of that will result in you being blocked. That has nothing to do with GOODFAITH, and your whole approach seems to be WP:GAME. Werieth (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Making a situation right within Wikipedia guidelines isn't an abuse of anything. If I have made mistakes in my use of a copyright image they have been in WP:GOODFAITH. I stand by my earlier reasoning however that the term "minimal usage" is one which could be unfairly interpreted in the context of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Most articles on military units are of one page which means that minimal usage is a single use of the unit's distinctive identifying insignia. You obviously don't have a problem with that. The UDR article is very likely unique on Wikipedia because of the size of the unit, it's many large sub-divisions and the notability of the history of them all. So how does one interpret minimal usage in that situation?

To overcome the copyright problems and to properly use military info boxes as they ought to be as per Manual of Style/Infoboxes I have created a badge which is a free use image. In doing so I expected you to agree that it was the best way forward for the moment until the question of minimal use of the original image can be resolved. You seem to have taken great exception to this and why I can't understand because the image falls well within guidelines and the ultimate object is to create articles which are accurate, informative and which the worldwide public can enjoy.

As before I will ask you: do you have a better solution to resolve this situation to everyone's satisfaction? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Your attention is directed to Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Ulster_Defence_Regiment. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Painting at Kelaniya Raja Maha Vihara
Hi Werieth ,


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Painting_at_Kelaniya_Raja_Maha_Vihara.jpg

This photograph was taken by me from my camera. It is a wall painting in a public premises. I understand the error that I have done with the above file name. Pl. delete the above file & then I will again upload the photograph as File: Photograph of the wall painting at Kelaniya vihara.

Waiting for your reply & thank you.

Anuradha

අනුරාධ (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-free files
Hi Werieth,

sadly it seems you didn't bother about my suggestions offered last time. You're still removing images not satisfying NFCC#9 (which is fine, thank you for that) without any hint on the original file (which is not OK in my opinion!)

Whats wrong with either
 * just commenting out the file, e.g.  or
 * simply converting the embedded image to a file link? File links are not forbidden by NFCC#9 and prevent comments relying on a non-free file from becoming useless when the file is removed.

Please think about this again. I don't think this is much of an effort and I'd like to know your reasons for not doing this yet.

Regards, --Patrick87 (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually leaving the file in place using comments has an extremely high rate of re-violating NFCC, vs removal. I have heard your opinion and disagree with with it. leaving a link only works in a small number of cases, in most cases due to templates or other formatting removal is the best option. Unless you want to do the work please drop it. Werieth (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Start again?
It looks like the discussion at the Administrators Noticeboard has failed to produce any results whatsoever but what it has done is provide discussion time which I for one have found useful. It's also given me time to research more about copyright and my understanding is greatly improved as a result. I'd like to propose that you and I share a metaphoric handshake and start again. I'd like to have your help in resolving what copyright issues remain regarding images posted by USER:GDD1000, USER:The Thunderer and in my own identity. Is this acceptable to you? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have always been willing to help resolve these issues. Glad to see you are willing to listen and resolve these issues. Werieth (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I was always willing Werieth, I promise that. I'm 100% genuine and I hope I'm perceived as a hard working Wikipedian?   I guess I got frustrated, mainly because most of the images on articles I was working on came under scrutiny and I couldn't understand why.  I was working like a madman to assert and prove my ownership of images.  I think I've sorted most of it out now by rescanning originals and using a larger portion of the original in the case of one digital image.  What finally persuaded me to calm down though was the appearance of three "vultures" - not sure if you noticed or not?  Anyhoo - is there anything which is still outstanding in your opinion?  SonofSetanta (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Like I have said before PD-text doesnt apply to File:The Yellow Card.jpg PD-text states only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes That image has full paragraphs of text which are fully copyrighted.
 * File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg Doesnt meet the requirements set forth by WP:NFCC and should be removed.
 * At least the center of File:UDR_Sign.jpg is a Derivative work, and possibly more.
 * You might have the photograph for File:11 UDR March Past.jpg but I doubt you where the one who took the picture, and if that is correct you cannot release it under a free license.
 * File:UDR_Soldiers_in_South_Armagh.jpg should be re-uploaded and instead of using a crude cut out of the face, a traditional blur should do the same for obfuscating the identity, while not butchering the photo.
 * The copyright for File:Basic Battle Skills.jpg is fairly murky and I am unsure if it is under a free license.
 * File:UDR political poster.jpg needs removed due to not meeting the second part of WP:NFCC
 * File:CGC.jpg should probably be replaced with a better version of that File:Conspicuous Gallantry Cross obverse.jpg
 * Those are my thoughts on the UDR article. Werieth (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * How do you suggest I licence the Yellow Card image? I believe its use is very important in the article.
 * Delete the UDR join form then, I withdraw my opposition.
 * I drew the central image of the UDR sign and created the rest using Photoshop. I may do the same again though to satisfy requirements.
 * I took the picture of the UDR March past and also have other pictures from the series. I no longer have the negatives unfortunately.  I have similar pictures of other marches though - in colour, with the negatives.  Albeit different regiments.
 * I will do as you say regarding the South Armagh image - tomorrow though, I'm about to pack in for the evening.
 * I didn't restore the political poster but have advised the editor who did.
 * I will search for a better image of the CGC.
 * If there's anything else you want done just let me know. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * With regards to the book "Basic Battle Skills" - I have posted on the talk page for deleted that my own copy of it predates the supposed 1st Edition date and also examples of earlier copies. This might need a request to the Crown Office for confirmation as there is no printers information in the book.  SonofSetanta (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:UDR_Soldiers_in_South_Armagh.jpg couldn't be overwritten, at least not with my skills. File:UDR Soldiers - South Armagh.jpg has been substituted. I'm afraid I have been unable to tag the original for deletion properly through lack of understanding what I'm actually doing. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorted out the deletion problem for the redundant image. It was as simple as me trying to use a Wikipedia template instead of a Commons template.  SonofSetanta (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * File:CGC.jpg replaced with File:Conspicuous Gallantry Cross obverse.jpg as suggested. SonofSetanta (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Enquiries made re Basic Battle Skills. Awaiting response. SonofSetanta (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

birds of america guide
Hi

You reverted my edit GLAM/NHMandSM/NHM_Galleries/Treasures/The_Birds_of_America, the external link you are reverting isn't really an external link, all it does is read the header information of the browser and redirect the user to their own language Wikipedia. What I'm creating is an experimental museum guide using Wikipedia (I'm the Wikimedian in Residence for the Natural History Museum in London).

Thanks

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted it because of the file, not the external link. Please read WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm not sure how File:Audubon Birds of America.jpg is in copyright, the book was published in 1838, John James Audubon died in 1851, I think the file may be incorrectly classified. Please let me know if I've got it wrong

Thanks

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The book itself may be out of copyright but that particular cover looks like it was released in 1980's and it cites Roger Tory Peterson someone who wasnt born until 1906. Given those factors and that the cover listed isnt the first edition cover, its not out of copyright. Werieth (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Help requested
Uploaded File:Crest of the Royal Ulster Rifles.jpg on commons. Would you be kind enough to examine the methodology and copyright issues? In this instance I'm working on the basis that; if the badge was created in 1793 then copyright will no longer be valid. These Crown Copyright issues are the only ones I'm still having any bother with. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013 Madhubala Images
Hello thank you for your help and advice. Having reviewed the Non-free image critera and image uploading policies, could you possibly guide me more specifically how these images dont meet requirements, because as far as I understood they are usable for the following reasons:

Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement).

Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia. Content. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. 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. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following: Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.[1] The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.

Moreover Madhubala died in 1960. All of the photographers and people associated with her generation of film making are also dead. Where screen caps were used i took them form tailers and created themsleves, and other images are in the public domain unless stated, used in a variety of sources, be it, TV, print (books and press) and web pages.

Please understand i am not challenging you. Only trying to gain a better understanding of how they did not meet the criteria given the above, and what i need to do to make them usable as I feel the greatly enhance the articl and validate and add to points made in the body of the text. Thank you again for the trouble you have taken to keep Wikipedia proffesional and to a high standard. I look forward to hearing form you

Kind Regards

Nav Navsikand (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a free image of her, making barrier for including additional non-free files even higher. WP:NFC defines how we can use non-free media. Most of the files failed either WP:NFCC or WP:NFCC. The usage of non-free media on wikipedia is extremely strict. With a free image WP:NFCC also comes into play. Werieth (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Per your recent edits
Recently you edited List of people from Chicago and replaced several en dashes with hyphens. I'd ask that you review WP:DASH, specifically the section "In ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through". Hyphens are only used with numbers when connecting that number to a word, like 9-millimetres. Cheers, -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 05:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I didnt convert anything to hyphens. – (&ndash ;) and – are the exact same thing. just like &amp;(&amp ;) and & Werieth (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * True enough, which is why the Manual of Style prefers the coded 'en dash' to just using the symbol (–). Makes it easier to distinguish correct usage. Is there a reason you converted the code that I should be aware of? -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 12:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Its just part of Unicodifing articles as I edit them. Mixing HTML encoding, hex encoding, and normal chars just gets complex over time. Standardization is just easier. Werieth (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely disagree with you, but I have been told by multiple editors during article peer reviews that the consensus is to use the html code for en dash. WP:Dash seems to support this consensus. Do you know of any consensus that counters this, which I can refer to; or is this just your personal mission? -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 04:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

??
Forgive me but I thought you would talkback to me. I'm now depending on your advice and guidance. SonofSetanta (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to File:Crest of the Royal Ulster Rifles.jpg I havent had time to do the research. But can you confirm somewhere via a RS that that exact emblem was used 100 years ago, and that it hasnt changed since. If you can document that, copyright shouldnt be an issue. Werieth (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's all in the article. That particular badge in silver is actually the Royal Irish Rifles cap badge. The Royal Irish Rifles ceased to be in 1921 upon the partition of Ireland and although all it meant in practice was a name change, the badge changed from silver to gold.


 * It's not just about that though. I had a list of things I was sorting out and wanted your feedback.  I'm getting a little peeved at things like  File:UDR Service Medals.JPG.  The veracity of the "self" licence has been called into question and the image nominated for deletion.  I can't upload the new image (taken two or three days ago) because the facility isn't open to me on the page.  So I sent it to permissions last Friday and that hasn't been registered on the image page yet.  What I'm worried about is that the image will get deleted and I will need to post the new image to replace it, then somebody will get on my case for not doing things according to protocol. That's just one of two or three issues. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For File:UDR Service Medals.JPG there are two separate copyright issues here. There are your rights as the photographer and then the copyright of what you are photographing. You can release your part of the copyright but you cannot release that of the subject of the photo. In this case you cannot claim self, because you didnt create the entire contents of the photo. Werieth (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, so really these fall into the Open Government Licence as detailed by me on the image talk page?  If that's the case would you like me to update the licence for this image and the others I found?  SonofSetanta (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Im not saying that either, Im not sure what license they would fall under. Does the Open Government License affect works retroactively? otherwise it wouldn't fall under that category. I really don't have the time nor the interest in tracking down and verifying copyright for every one of your images. Unless you can provide provenance for the copyright of an image proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the image is under a free license, assume that its copyrighted. My best suggestion for you would be to ensure your I's are dotted and your T's are crossed, and all your ducks are in a row before you upload any image. Werieth (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the retroactive status of images under the Open Government Licence. What I do know is that images of these medals can be found at http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/fotoweb/ and that they are specifically tagged as having an Open Government Licence.  I don't have the time or interest in this either but as you and I had agreed to work together to "educate" me on copyright I thought I could depend on you for answers - or are you now saying you don't want to help?  For my part I am keen to comply with the correct licencing of images and there are barely any issues with those I have uploaded in recent times.  The issues arise from earlier posting when I was less aux fait with the guidelines.  So yes, my i's are dotted and my t's are crossed and all my ducks are in a row but I'm not a copyright expert - you are (or so you say).  In any case; given that  File:Conspicuous Gallantry Cross obverse.jpg (also on the defence imagery website) is under open licence and that website informs me that all its images are, I will now update those image pages I have identified as incorrectly licenced.  I don't have the time or interest to do so but I will - because it's the right thing to do! SonofSetanta (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Madhubala images, response
Thank you for your response. However I am even more confused. The image that you left as acceptable, is a screen shot from a film. Two of my images were also screen shots. Regarding the images failing on both points WP:NFCC or WP:NFCC, that is simply not applicable to these images: re Minimal useage, the images are not just images of Madhubala for identification. They are there to support the text on specific points (ie, break through role in a film, most significant film role, appearance on Magazine covers underlining popularity, iconography through postage stamp issued on her etc, rare public appearance, her gravestone which has been demolished etc) Re minimal extent of use, I purposly chose low resoloution and cropped images.

Contextual significance is also supported by the above points. They are all there not just to show a photo pf Madhubala but are relevant to specific points made in the text. I would request that you read the article to see the relevance of the photos I attached to it. Consequently, I really dont see how the images fail on either point at all when they are not placed randomly rather to illustrate and source specific points made in the text.

As far as the point on "No free Equivalent" you cannot generalise or equate a screen shot of madhubala's face with a photo of her on a magazine cover, her grave, a commemorative stamp, photo with her spouce etc. In view of all this, and when comparable images are rife on wikipedia on pages for Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn, Joan crawford etc, I see no rationale for excluding any of these contextually relevanent images that support the article. I would respectfully request that you reconsider, or provide further justification?

Thank you Navsikand (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Lets take a look at the three examples you quote: Bette Davis Only has 1 non-free image. Same with Katharine Hepburn. Joan Crawford has zero non-free files. In three articles you cited there are a total of 2 non-free files. So in three articles we have about 50 different files and only two of them being non-free. Madhubala had about 13 files and 12 of those where non-free. Please review WP:NFCC an image of someone's grave stone just isnt significant enough to justify a non-free file in most cases. Most of the files you included make the article more visually appealing, but are not required to understand the article about the person, especially given the fact that there is a free image of her. Werieth (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

When I sited Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis etc I was talking about WHAT the images are and the CONTEXT of them, not wether they are free or not. This was the comparison. Wikipedia does have a fair use policy and I have already demonstrated these images I uploaded meet the criterion for fair use as well as how they do not fail to meet points WP:NFCC or WP:NFCCl as you asserted earlier. Your saying theres an issue with why the images are there and their significance /context yet you have no issue of Bette Davies having a photo of her death memorial, a photo of katharine Hepburn in "break through role", famous role, later life etc... All comparable images I uploaded for Madhubala.

In brief then : You said the images were removed because they fail on both points WP:NFCC or WP:NFCC which i have shown they do actually meet these points as well as Wiki fair use policy. Then you have said it is becasue their is a free image of her which is equivalent to them. I have also shown the images are not equivalent because they demonstrate and further source key points in the article, rather than just showing a potrait of Madhubala. Lastly you questioned contextual significance without reading the article it seems, yet similar contextual photos in other articles are acceptable to you? Am just confused why its one rule for some and another for others? 92.21.202.99 (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Contextual photos when free are fine, when they are non-free is when the issue arises. Take a look at Johnny Depp he has had some very major roles and several very defining visual styles but because they are non-free we dont use them. Wikipedia's non-free content policy is actually far more strict than fair use, these uses may pass fair use but do not pass the non-free content policy. Werieth (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This is dissapointing. It seems every time I answer your reason for the deletion of the images, you change the reason they were deleted. The images ALL meet the Non-fee content policy as well as fair use. All 10 points, in fact, are met and Wikipedia is clear that, in such cases they may be used. I spent a great deal of time selecting them and sourcing them according to Wiki policy. It feesl like what ever rationale provided, will simply be rejected. A real pity because they greatly enhanced the credibility and interest of the Madhubala entry. Navsikand (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They dont meet NFC if you think they do you can get a third opinion at WP:NFCR but they will tell you the same thing, 12 non-free files showing the same person just isnt justified. Werieth (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing me with the option of a third opinion at WP:NFCR. I will certainly seek that, as I simply cannot seem to get the point accross to you that these are not simply "files showing the same person", they are a variety of images: film screen shots, magazine covers, commemorative stamps etc. None of them comparable images with a free use alternative. If they were simply 12 potraits of Madhubala with no contextual relevance, I would totally understand your point. However, they are not this at all. But I will seek the third opinion. Thanks for your time and opinions. While mildy frustrated, I do appreciate your efforts and motivations in keeping Wikipedia to a high standard. Navsikand (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * contextual relevance by itself isnt enough justification for an image. Werieth (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)