User talk:Werieth/201308

Martin E. Trapp photo
I have no problem with the photo being removed, but I just want to learn, so could you tell me what was wrong with it so I don't repeat the mistake. Okheric (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Martin Trapp.jpg is a non-free file and thus its usage is very restricted. Basically it can only be used on his article. Non-free media is only used when absolutely needed. Including it on every election/ and list of governors makes those articles more visually appealing but does not meet the criteria of WP:NFC specifically WP:NFCC. Also using the file multiple times across wikipedia also raises WP:NFCC issues. Werieth (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki
Since he didn't notify you of the discussion at WP:ANI, here it is. There's a lot more video stills and alternate covers where that lot came from, too. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see he did, but Drmies accidentally removed it whilst removing his threats. Not to worry. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, oops. Happy hunting, you two. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and checked all pages where Hotwiki has uploaded files to, and removed quite a bit. Werieth (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Werieth. There's a new thread by this editor at the main dramaboard: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. He mentions you by name, hence the courtesy noification. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Slow
Hi! I just want to thank you for that warning and now I understand why you removed the image from the article Slow (song). I'm often being told by more experienced editors that a music video still in a music video section is often helpful in showing the reader the look of the main artist concerned. I would like to ask you if there is anyway I can upload a still for the article in a way which doesn't fail the policy? Do you think I can removed the "Balenciaga dress" part from the section text and instead move it into the image caption to tell the readers that Minogue wore a blue Balenciaga through a visual? Thanks! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I really doubt it, WP:NFCC is fairly strict. You should only include non-free media when absolutely needed. Almost all music video screen caps wont pass that bar. Unless there is something unique that third party reliable sources have discussed that needs to be displayed (Example extra album cover for Virgin Killer) it shouldn't be added. Werieth (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh my, I just saw that you've been removing all music video stills from Kylie articles. I think that's a fairly wrong way of implementing the policy because I've seen that almost all GA and FA song articles have music video stills in it, and why do you think no one else has been removing them? I think you should consent an admin or someone more experienced on this before removing all non free images. Also do you edit articles or just keep on removing non free content? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents & Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive806 I am not removing all non-free images, in fact I often leave 2 non-free pieces of media (cover and sound clip).  I pretty much lost the enthusiasm for it around the 1,000th insult (and the fact that most other admins, understandably, run away from those issues like someone just took the stopper out of a test-tube of Ebola). Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC) is a quote from an admin who used to enforce NFCC, they stopped due to the abuse that editors who dont understand NFC subjected them to. (Countless personal attacks, stalking, and harassment) Most users just dont want to deal with that headache and thus leave the issue un-addressed. Werieth (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see, but I'm not sure that music video grabs still need to be removed. They after all are critical in showing the reader the look sported by the artist in question as words don't convey everything. Anyway I think my Balenciaga caption would help. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The video screen grabs are no where near meeting WP:NFCC. Yes they are attractive and make the article more visually appealing. But keep in mind the article is about the song, not the music video, and thus justification for including a screen grab is extreamly high. Wikipedia's Mission is to create a free content, and to do that we need to minimize the usage of non-free media to only where it is required (See WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC). Most music video screenshots fall into the category of "eye candy". Werieth (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Photos on page Muhammad Asad
Hi,

Kindly read the descriptions of all of those file, go to their mentioned source and translated the page into English. Doing so you will be able to read the explicit permission of Free-Use granted by copyright holders of these photos. If there is a change of licensing type needed, you can point me to that, but kindly don't remove photos without discussing first. -- Thinking Mind 17:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasi100 (talk • contribs)
 * The files are licensed as non-free and thus cannot be used. Werieth (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the statement from copyright holder

"'Please note the following copyright: When you use proof of 'photo: Mischief Films' the use of the images provided here is free of charge.'".
 * In view of this statement, can you point me to a relevant license tag that I can use. Thanks in advance --Fasi100 (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I just checked File:Muhammad Asad in Jerusalem.jpg for one example and it is still completely under copyright. Werieth (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You must have seen the source link, kindly see the copyright description link i.e. http://www.derwegnachmekka.com/jart/prj3/poool/movie.jart?rel=de&content-id=1248152316145&reserve-mode=active I believe the right tag for this particular image will be Non-free promotional. For other images, Kindly visit this link (this is where the statement from copyright owner, which I posted in previous reply, can be found): http://www.mischief-films.com/presse/der-weg-nach-mekka  and tell if the PD-link tag will be suitable for this. Cheers. --Fasi100 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the translation as but it is strictly forbidden, redistribute which means the files are non-free and not PD. Werieth (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS free of charge doesnt mean free of copyright. Werieth (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

WWE Raw edits
Any reason you reverted my edits with the WWE Raw pics? They've been used for ages.--Evil Yugi (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesnt mean that they comply with policy (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). The files I removed where because of WP:NFC issues. Werieth (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

3RR reported
Given that two editors, myself and Cavarrone, warned you that another reversion would put you in violation of WP:3RR and the two of us plus KWW saying that these reversions are not exempt from WP:3RR since they are not unquestionably violating WP:NFCC due to the discussion above and the number of editors you reverted. This reversion at I Love Rock 'n' Roll, , where you reverted a third editor at that article and the fourth overall in your similar reversions, that while just outside the 24 hour time span by 43 minutes seems like an attempt to game the system so I reported you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Please join the discussion if you want to add any information. Aspects (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the page has been protected. I further see that neither of the editors edit-warring to reinsert the images have posted on the talkpage explaining exactly how these images pass all the criteria of NFCC.  I would expect, therefore, that the images will stay out of the article once the protection expires unless some discussion takes place. Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason I only listed I Love Rock 'n' Roll at the noticeboard is because that is the only article he reverted again after being warned by two different editors, reverting a total of three editors at the article. There is a general discussion in the section above about notable cover version singles covers because Werieth has deleted these images from nine articles for the same reason, his interpretation of WP:NFCC policy, which in this case four different editors have disagreed with that he edit warred with.  Two different editors explained how the images met all the criteria of WP:NFCC.  I felt it was better to start a discussion here instead of having the same basic discussions across nine different talk pages. Aspects (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have asked several times for a policy level discussion permitting your usage of files and have been met with silence. However I have pointed out several relevant discussions supporting mine. Just because an issue goes unnoticed doesn't mean its acceptable. Werieth (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not unusual for editors to disagree with NFCC policy when images are removed from articles they edit on a regular basis. Disputed images, however, should stay out of the articles until the dispute is settled; NFCC is quite clear about that. Black Kite (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (to Werieth) Two different editors asked you to provide links to a discussion and you provided one link that was not a discussion and one discussion about alternate images of the same work and not about alternate images of the same recording and not about images of different recordings that did not apply in this sitation. So failing to provide a discussion that backs up your interpretation, we asked you numerous times to start a discussion at WP:NFCC.  Instead of doing so, you just turned it around on us saying that it was our responsibility when you are the one who wants to change the policy, which smacks of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
 * (to Black Kite) Except for the fact that Werieth refuses to point out a discussion backing up his interpretation or taking the issue to WP:NFCC to see if his position is correct. Since he is trying to delete images across numerous articles based on his interpretation of WP:NFCC and he wants to change the policy there, he should be the one who has to start the discussion there. Aspects (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (to Black Kite) I am perfectly fine if the images will be deleted/removed after a specific discussion at WP:NFCC, at WP:FFD or at WP:NFCR, or even deleted (if suitable) as F7 speedy deletions. The main problem is the refusal by Werieth to discuss the images in the proper venues, even after he was asked to do this way by three admins (Kww, Masem and Diannaa). Cavarrone 21:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Please take a short break from removing non-fair use images
I see from your contributions that are still removing non-fair use images from articles, thankfully not any relating to the discussion above, but I feel that your continued use of doing so and your editing behavior could end up with you being blocked.

Diannaa suggested that you start taking images that you think fail WP:NFCC to WP:FFD or taking the articles to WP:NFCR. This would especially be helpful in the situations where you are reverted. I will quote what Masem said above, "Removing such images boldly when you see them on articles for the first time is fine, but any subsequent re-reversions to remove them without gaining consensus is against edit warring policy." In these cases the images might not be unquestionably violating WP:NFCC and you could avoid being blocked for edit warring.

SuperHotWiki has posted two notices at WP:ANI about your editing behavior. Foetusized complained about your editing behavior. I complained about your editing behavior and one of my issues is still ongoing. You need to stop templating the regulars here and if you need to give them a message, you need to personalize it and fully explain why you feel your edit is correct. I also note that you template anyone who reverts you, which in a way feel like non-good faith edits to me. Someone disagrees with your interpretation of WP:NFCC and sometimes explains why they revert, and you suddenly jump on them with a template when all they did was revert your edit and keeping the article the way it previously was.

You need to stop reverting other editors and take other avenues instead of edit warring. Please at least follow Diannaa and Masem's advice and start taking these images to other venues if challenged on your interpretation of WP:NFCC policy. Aspects (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You missed a third admin, Kww, who said "Werieth, you know that I'm generally your ally on this one, but I really think you should go for discussion on this. The WP:NFCC cover for WP:3RR is not sufficiently clear in this case to give you much protection. I can assure you that I wouldn't unblock you on those grounds if another admin blocked you." Cavarrone 21:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In non-obvious cases I do take it to NFCR, these cases are fairly clear cut. Werieth (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If even one editor is reverting you then these are not clear cut cases, let alone three different editors reverting you on the same article. The length of discussion above should also show you that those images were not clear cut cases.  Despite my advice in this section to take a short break, you engaged in edit warring again and got reported to the edit warring noticeboard again.  While I think both of you could get blocked for edit warring, I am worried that if you keep going down this track I could see a WP:RFC/USER or another WP:ANI being opened up about you for continuing your edits/edit warring without listening to the advice that many editors are telling you that could result in you being topic banned from NFCC images or blocked for a length of time. Aspects (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Rail-interchange
Re File:AMTnewlogo.png, isn't “In addition to the fair-use assertion shown on this page, the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia.” clear enough? Useddenim (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For wikipedia only licenses mean nothing, that file is non-free and will be treated as such. Werieth (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Useddenim (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Citing WP:NFCC is meaningless: templates are used IN articles! Useddenim (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read policy Useddenim (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC) templates cannot use non-free media. Werieth (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC and WP:NFC are good places to start. Non-free media's usage is very restricted. Usage in templates is never allowed. Werieth (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Notable cover version single covers that pass WP:NFCC
I see that you recently started editing some articles to reduce the number of fair use images in them, but I feel you are holding the images to a stricter standard than WP:NFCC currently enforces. Single covers in section infoboxes to represent notable cover versions pass all the points of WP:NFCC. They also pass the first example of acceptable use of fair images at WP:NFCI: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." Each of the images that you removed that I then replaced were for identification in the context of critical commentary as to how the cover versions are notable cover versions. If these cover versions had been original songs, they would have their own articles and the images would be acceptable there, so they are acceptable in the sections.

A few notes on your editing/behavior. First, please WP:DTTR, in general you should use your own words to discuss with another editor the issue. Second, you should start using edit summaries for each of your edits, especially when you making a reversion, so other editors know why you are making your edit. Third, I would like to know if there is any particular reason why you reverted my recent edits to director navigational templates in film articles. From my perspective, it seems like you did not like my reversions to your image deletions and you figured you would revert a number of my edits not related to those image deletions. Since you did not use any edit summaries to explain these reversions, I am only left to speculate.

In summary, if you feel that WP:NFCC needs to be stricter in its enforcement, you need to start a discussion at the talk page to gain a consensus for such a change. Until that consensus is found, you should stop deleting single covers of notable cover versions. Aspects (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont need to get consensus, it already exists. Take a look at the two links I provided in the warning. Werieth (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but you did need to get a consensus at WP:NFCC because you are not applying it properly to these images. And thank you for ignoring the entire post I spent about an hour composing by ignoring what I said and for repeating the same notes on your editing/behavior.  You even reverted the edits to the film articles and then reverted back.


 * The first link is one person agreeing with you, which is definitely not consensus to change WP:NFCC, and the second link does not even deal with single covers of notable cover versions so it does not matter for this discussion. If you think I should be blocked, then bring me up because I am trying to discuss the issue with you and get you to start a discussion at the appropriate place, while something might WP:BOOMERANG back at you.  You need to start a discussion at WP:NFCC because you are the one who is misapplying the enforcement and a couple of editors have stated as much.  If you feel confident that you are correct in your enforcement, then you should fear nothing from a discussion there. Aspects (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually please review WP:NFC, There have been countless discussions at NFC about this. There is a defacto allowance for one cover, for visual identification. Beyond that there must be sourced critical commentary on the cover itself. If you want to change policy start a discussion yourself. Werieth (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Noticed the edit warring, I echo Aspects' sound arguments here. Covers for notable cover versions are defacto allowed since time immemorial. What is surely not allowed are multiple cover versions for the same song version (eg reissue covers or dvd covers). Cavarrone 21:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (to Werieth) If this was the de facto allowance then there would not be hundreds or thousands of single articles with one cover version for each notable version and editors would be removing these all the time, but they are in the articles and editors are not removing them. Please read what I quoted above from WP:NFCI: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)."  The cover versions have single covers for visual identification in the context of critical commentary of those cover versions.  There does not need to be critical commentary of those images in these cases.  Before I started this section, I tried to find a discussion specifically regarding notable cover versions of singles, but I could not find one.  If you can, please link to them.  If you cannot that is another reason why you should start a discussion. Aspects (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That creates a single acceptable image. There have been discussions at WT:NFC that more than one file isnt needed for visual identification. Any additional images require critical cometary. Werieth (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Werieth, you know that I'm generally your ally on this one, but I really think you should go for discussion on this. The WP:NFCC cover for WP:3RR is not sufficiently clear in this case to give you much protection. I can assure you that I wouldn't unblock you on those grounds if another admin blocked you.—Kww(talk) 22:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it is crystal clear, There is an allowance of 1 image "for visual identification", any additional images need to meet WP:NFCC and have critical commentary. Take a look at Give Me Just a Little More Time the file I removed doesn't meet WP:NFCC or WP:NFCC. Just because someone created their version of a song doesn't mean we need to display their cover. Werieth (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Three quite experienced editors are saying you that in their opinion/"maybe"/probably you are wrong but you keep saying that your interpretation of NFCC is "crystal clear". So please, as required above, provide us evidences of a discussion specifically regarding notable cover versions of singles and evidences of a clear consensus of them violating WP:NFCC, otherwise don't be surprised if you will be reverted again (and, if you will keep on edit warring, even reported in the proper places). Cavarrone 22:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually Kww isnt taking your side. Im about to log off for a few hours (Real life plans) But Ill get a list of previous discussions that support my actions when I get back. Werieth (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * and associated WP:NFCR is one example, now I really do need to log. Werieth (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_54 another example. Werieth (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The first link should have been about three different images for the same recording that were pretty much identical. I would have removed the second and third images, leaving the first.  By your opinion here and recent edits, the first image should have stayed since there is no image used to represent the Beatles version, similar to your edits to I Think We're Alone Now leaving the Tiffany image since there is no image used to represent the Tommy James and the Shondells version.
 * The second link is about alternate images of the same recording and not about images of different recordings. That discussion would have called for the removal of the second and third images from Revolution (Beatles song) because the other two images were not "significantly different from the original."
 * I will say a big problem I have with your stance of one image per article no matter how many notable cover versions there are is that it would lead to a lot of edit wars as to which image to keep. Your edits show leaving the original and if there is not an image for the original, then the first one that comes chronologically.  I Love Rock 'n' Roll has the front of the single itself and not a single cover that most readers would not recognize and that version would not even have an article if not for later notable cover versions.  Why have the one version listed in the article that is not notable have an identification image when the clearly more notable cover versions do not? Aspects (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If as you say there are other notable covers (and not just the song it refers to) there should be third party reliable sources about the contents of the cover. If that is established my concerns tend to go away. As for which cover I left, if you feel that a particular cover is more notable I am not against having it replace the one that I left. WP:NFCC requires us to keep to a minimum the number of non-free files we use, Which is why the cover art discussions (there are quite a few that explain my point of view at the archives of WT:NFC) have established that it is OK to use 1 file for visual identification. Any beyond the first must be supported with critical commentary and sources to establish grounds for including the file. Werieth (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I started this section quoting what WP:NFCI stated, it means critical commentary of the version/song/album and not critical commentary of the cover image. WP:NFCC does not apply here because an image used for identification of one version of a song cannot convey equivalent significant information and/or identification of other notable versions. The discussions you see are about using multiple images for the same version/song/album and not for using one image for each notable version of the same song.  If you could find a discussion that talks about that, you should link it. Aspects (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Aspects, I don't think you could get an agreement over this issue with Werieth, because he's just gonna delete the single covers again and again and he might threaten you with blocking like what he did to me. And he also reverted my edit in a film article w/c had nothing with single cover and I got the feeling like he did that just to piss me off. I think the best thing we could is hold a consensus about this issue, if single cover for cover versions should be deleted or not. I just don't know where it should be posted. I went to ANI and didn't get any help.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Aspects asked me to comment here. There's some information in the footnote NFCI. If you look at the RFC dated January 2011, the closing statement says that "Stronger discouragement of alternate cover art just because it exists. More an issue in the music projects, but NFCI#1 should only apply to one cover image, no more. Secondary and alternative covers should require good demonstration of meeting NFCC completely and cannot rely on simply meeting NFCI#1. In terms of wording, all we need to say for now is that NFCI#1 only gives a maximum of one allowance of a cover image per article; any further uses must be justified another way." This is the way the policy has been enforced since I started helping with image deletions about 6 months ago. One non-free image per article, no image for cover versions of a song, no soundtrack image in a film article, no album covers in an article about a band, no book covers in an article about an author. Unless the imagery itself is the subject of commentary, such as we see in Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It); Yesterday and Today; and Virgin Killer. I gotta log off now and will check back here tomorrow -- Diannaa (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that single cover notable versions are not alternate covers. Numerous discussions show that this is about different covers for the same recording.  These images are primary covers for their notable cover versions.  These images meet WP:NFCC completely and so far Wereith has only mentioned WP:NFCC, which I have already shown to have been met. Unless single covers of notable cover  versions are being deleted through WP:FFD, which I check regularly, they are not being deleted through F5, as would eventually happen in this case]], because I check all of those tagged images. Aspects (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Most of the music video stills that Wereith deleted from Kylie Minogue single articles were the subject of commentary. But to him, it doesn't matter. And those weren't just the pictures that I uploaded. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I wrote hours ago "Covers for notable cover versions are defacto allowed since time immemorial. What is surely not allowed are multiple cover versions for the same song version (eg reissue covers or dvd covers)". Aspect raised the same argument from the start. All the examples given above show that there were no discussion nor a "crystal clear" consensus denying this assumption. I just remember that there were discussions about soundtracks, and the point was that the covers of soundtrack albums were pretty identical to the relevant film posters and that subsequently the poster was sufficient in the main part of the cases. "No album covers in an article about a band, no book covers in an article about an author" was not a result of an enforcement but a rule that exists from years and that has nothing to do with the current discussion. There was any specific discussion about a second cover for a totally different recording by a different artist. The main part of these articles consists in two sections of similar size about two different subjects, two songs that are merged together per WP:NSONG requirement but that are independently notable from each other. Obviously these cases don't "rely on simply meeting NFCI#1" as the second cover has a clear contextual significance, and there is no chance that a second image would violate WP:NFCC.
 * Side note, we have a larger problem with Werieth's disruptive conduct. Even if he was correct in his interpretation, once he was reverted for the second time, he should had raised a discussion at Non-free content review. Instead he edit warred, templated the regulars, threatened and canvassed too to have the images deleted without any discussion in the proper places. This behavior is unacceptable. Cavarrone 06:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * defacto allowed doesnt mean meets policy, it just means no one has taken a look at the issue, NFCR isnt needed Ive removed a file of the same article 12 times. Just because a user like yourself refuses to get the point or doesnt like the policy isnt a reason to start a discussion in every case. with one user I actully had to take it to ANI and seek a topic ban/block because they refused to comply with policy. They barely avoided the sanctions by agreeing to comply with the policy. And just because something has existed for a long time does not mean it should have, take a look at List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Gaius Flavius Antoninus which existed for a little over 8 years before being addressed.
 * If you guys think that single covers need an exception to policy for alt covers please start a discussion at NFC and ask for just exemption. Werieth (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Noone refuses to comply with policy, on the contrary several editors explained you that in their views these images respect the policy. You aren't dealing with newbies, and your actions are NOT crystal clear as you stated, maybe are correct, maybe are wrong, but surely are defacto controversial. You have no excuses for having preferred edit warring than listing a few files at Non-free content review. When your actions were questioned you answered not with dialogue but with edit warring, warnings and threats, your interaction with others and your tone just show your unwillingness/inability to collaborate with others, and outside the specific issue "you" and your way of working within the project are the main problem here. No one elected you as a supreme judge, and many editors raised several doubts about your competence. You stated that several discussion specifically regarding notable cover versions of singles supported your actions, then, what a surprise! you were unable to link such discussions.
 * Soooooo... let me say, what is crystal clear here is that you Mr. Werieth are acting disruptively to illustrate a point, AGF without realizing it. And keeping saying "I'm right because I'm right" does not help your cause. My best, Cavarrone 11:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Werieth, removing the image from the article and listing it as F5 is not the best way to tackle the problem when you see an image that you think does not meet the NFCC. If you unilaterally strip images from articles it will often result in disagreements. Better you should list any files with inadequate rationales as F7 speedy deletions or at WP:FFD. Another option is to list the article at WP:NFCR. These methods are better, as the interested parties have designated venues to post their reasons why they think the images belong in the article. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Diannaa, I am not stripping articles of all images, in fact in my most recent edits I have left on average two non-free files in each article. I am not nominating them as F5, and if people disagree with my removals they can either go to WT:NFC or WP:NFCR. Any NFC work will create disagreements, even when the offending party is indisputably violating NFC. (See EnglishEfternamn case for example). If people disagree with policy or think it doesnt apply I have suggested alternate venues, to establish their wanted change in policy. You yourself have stated that NFCI#1 only allows 1 image by default and any others need sourced cometary.
 * @Cavarrone, Ill ignore your personal attacks and point you to WT:NFC to create the exception you want for excessive single covers. Werieth (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it humorous that I stated many times that it was you who was misapplying enforcement, needing to start a discussion at WP:NFCC and getting no response, that it is now our responsibility to start a discussion there. In a roundabout way you are nominating these images as F5, because they are now orphaned, are on a list as such and there is a bot that will eventually tag them as F5 (except that the bot has had some false positives recently and is not running as regularly.)  Once the uploaders of these images get the speedy deletion notification, I except you would get even more pushback.  I would think that the length of discussion, the number of experienced editors discussing it and the disagreement of policy shows that you need to be the one to take this to WP:NFCC since you are trying to change the policy. Aspects (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Aspects is right - stripping the image from the article is in effect an F5 speedy deletion nomination, as a bot will tag it as an unused non-free file. It's better to nominate the excess images as F7 using the template and list the specific criterion you think are not being met and give specific reasons why you think the criteria has not been met. For example, you might say "The image is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article and thus fails NFCC #8" or "The image tells us nothing that cannot be described in words alone, and thus fails NFCC #1". If you find an article with a lot of non-free images, it's best to list the article at NFCR to generate discussion about which images should be kept. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A couple of answers. Saying that you have "left on average two non-free files in each article" is blatantly false (provide evidences if otherwise). I never called for a NFCC exception, because in my view these images don't need any exception. Marking several specific concerns as a personal attack is just your way to assert once again "I am always in the right". I don't care too much about these images, I care more about an editor who raises fuss, creates large disagreements and yet continues to rant about how everyone else is wrong except himself. This specific "incident" can even stop here and now, but I easily predict you will stumble again and again in similar incidents in the near future, making the editing for this encyclopedia an unpleseant experience for others and (maybe) for yourself, not for a specific interpretation of a rule but for your refusal of using the proper venues for discussion as well as your poor way of interacting with others, acting as "I AM THE LAW" with no care if you are talking with an experienced editor or you are biting a newbie. Cavarrone 15:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay that's enough Cavarrone. You've said your piece, please stop now. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop assuming bad faith, and stop calling me a liar. These are clear violations of policy. Just one example of at least a dozen articles that I left two non-free files on is I Love Rock 'n' Roll. For the people that say my actions are against policy please show me a policy level discussion and not a wikiproject discussion (wikiprojects cannot override policy) which clearly allows for multiple album images and that states that there is no need to meet WP:NFCC, and that a lack of critical commentary on the covers themselves is acceptable. I have pointed out multiple relevant discussions which go counter your position. Werieth (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sooooo you left two non-free files on I Love Rock 'n' Roll, correct?? Do you think I am so lazy to not checking your words? Cavarrone 04:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Werieth did leave two non-free files, the first is the single cover for Arrows single and the second is the sound file for the Joan Jett and The Blackhearts single. Aspects (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, you are true, I missed that one. Sorry. Cavarrone 04:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You have missed a lot, that has happened quite often, Ill leave a cover and a sound file. I would suggest you step back, cool down and stop making personal attacks directed at me, I have asked several times for policy related discussions that support your position and you refuse to back your claims up with those. I however have linked several and an RfC was also linked to supporting my position. If you cant put your money where your mouth is, I suggest you exit this conversation due to lacking ground to stand on. Werieth (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr. Werieth, raising concerns about contributions and actions are not personal attacks. Simply here we have two issues, a not-so-special dispute about the interpretation of NFCC policy (the "merits") and the method, an editor who keeps on edit warring and who refuses to use the correct venues for discussion even when it is almost clear his actions are considered controversial by a significant number of editors, even when asked to do so by the other editor who agrees with him on the merits. Could you explain why you still refuse so strong the Diannaa's suggestion of discussing such images at WP:FFD or at WP:NFCR? How many negative feedbacks you need to collect before reconsidering your method? So, my final suggestion is, change your method and your actions will be well-received, being or not you in the wrong/correct side. You could had stopped this discussions days ago just acting differently. Cavarrone 11:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick visit to let others know that I found Werieth's behavior in issuing warnings to others (including myself) that didn't agree with his interpretation of NFCC to be an issue. The proper interpretation of NFCC might be up for discussion (not that I'll be around for that), but Werieth's poor behavior is an issue that also needs to be dealt with, at least from where I sit. I cam close to blowing my top on Thursday, but instead just walked away. Now I'll go back to finding better things to do with my time online, resuming my break from Wikipedia. In the end, this project is only as good as the people that take part. Thanks -- Foetusized (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Section Break
(in response to Werieth's edits to the 3RR noticeboard) I am replying here instead of the noticedboard because the issue there should be about the edit warring and rehashing the arguments listed here. Neither of the comments argue against the fact you are edit warring and tried to game the system to slightly not violate WP:3RR. The images do meet WP:NFCC and you are the one trying to change the policy, therefore you should be the one finding discussions backing up your interpretation and starting a discussion there. I find it humorous that we ask you to find something or start something and you just turn it back around on us. You did not link "multiple" discussions, you linked one review that was an edit and you linked one discussion that was not discussing what we are discussing here. I also like how you wrote "user" when you have reverted four different editors, some of which have dealt with WP:NFCC images longer than you have been editing let alone your newness to WP:NFCC images. If four different editors revert your edits, maybe the problem is with your reading of WP:NFCC and not everyone else's readings. Aspects (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Aspects, I am kinda confused here. Werieth is not trying to change the policy; he is trying to enforce it., Werieth's interpretation is in line with the way the policy is currently being interpreted. A second non-free image fails to meet the NFCC unless the image itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. That's true for cover versions of songs, alternate album art, soundtracks, and the other examples I gave above. So I am really unclear why you are asking him to link to multiple discussions backing up what we are saying. You really need only the one discussion, and it has already been linked to by me. Here is the link again: Non-free content/Cover art RfC. It was the RFC that made the decision to interpret the NFCC this way. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Werieth is trying to change the policy and his enforcement is not in line with the way policy is currently being interpreted. I explained above how that RFC is for alternate images of the same version and not for primary images of different versions.  If there have been no discussions to say these notable cover versions single covers do not pass WP:NFCC and the current consensus is to allow them, then it it would be trying to change policy to delete them based on WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-free content/Cover art RfC esplicitally refers to alternate covers, summarizing it says two things "In general, artwork used in infoboxes qualifies under non-free content criteria #8 in that the article and image work together to justify its use. Therefore detailed dicussion of the artwork itself is not necessarily required in the body of the article." and "Stronger discouragement of alternate cover art just because it exists. More an issue in the music projects, but NFCI#1 should only apply to one cover image, no more. Secondary and alternative covers should require good demonstration of meeting NFCC completely and cannot rely on simply meeting NFCI#1." This result absolutely does not support Werieth's actions. The "decision to interpret the NFCC this way" about covers of notable cover versions used in infoboxes was decided a few days ago by Werieth himself, not by others, surely not two years ago after that RFC. Cavarrone 04:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it does along with the other discussions I referenced (there my not have been specifically for singles, but the general rule still applies) their is a general rule that there is 1 image allowed for "visual identification and branding purposes" per article, any beyond that needs to meet NFC (specifically NFC#8 and have the subject of critical commentary).
 * Lets take a look at I Love Rock 'n' Roll. It is a song written and introduced by Arrows (British band) Per NFC the file File:RAK Records label.JPG gets to be used for identification. (Because this is the article on the song by the Arrows). Just because Joan Jett re-released it does not mean we need another non-free cover. (I would understand multiple sound clips if they where used to highlight critical differences and where backed up by third party sources ) The article isnt about Joan Jett's song but rather the fact that she re-released a preexisting song (thus NFCI#1 really doesnt apply because the subject of the article isnt Joan Jett's song). Just because someone re-releases a song doesnt mean we need to have the cover in the article about the song. This same principle about minimizing excessive covers is discussed in the links provided above. Werieth (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Per NFC the file File:RAK Records label.JPG gets to be used for identification. (Because this is the article on the song by the Arrows)" and "The article isnt about Joan Jett's song but rather the fact that she re-released a preexisting song" are your legitimate opinion, not an indisputable truth. The article currently is more about the Joan Jett version than about the Arrows songs. The Arrows song, without the Joan Jett cover, would had been patently non-notable (and non-eligible for an article). I see just a couple of lines about the Arrows version while a large part of the article focuses on Joan Jett's and Spears' versions. If a single image should survive, it is highty questionable this image should be the one you chose. Cavarrone  11:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually those two points are indisputable. The arrows created the song I Love Rock 'n' Roll. You cannot dispute that fact. And Jett re-released the re-existing song (there may have been minor changes but it is the same song). Those two facts are a matter of record not opinion. If you think one over should replace the other I am not going to argue that, however there isnt a need for every cover of a single/album that has that song. The NFC usage allows 1 cover, which one is chosen I really don't care too much about, I just kept the first one as a matter of practice. Again you need to stop mis-characterizing my position, The points that I made are not opinion, they are fact. Please either back your position about the acceptability of excessive covers with a policy level discussion or drop it as your opinion. Werieth (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I never disputed that "The arrows created the song I Love Rock 'n' Roll", in fact my quotes are not disputing that. I disputed your characterization that the article "is on the song by the Arrows" and that "the subject of the article isnt Joan Jett's song" (obviously, if it was so, your actions were never questioned). On the contrary, the article focuses primarly about Jett's and Spers' singles, both of them are the main topic of the article, not the Arrow's recording. Cavarrone 13:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is the song written by the Arrows, and the fact that it has been re-released by two other artist. Information about those releases are included, however the primary subject of the article is the song not the releases. (They may make up a disproportionate size of the article and make it appear to change the subject) but when you take a look at it from a neutral point of view the subject is the song, regardless of who released it. If you want to highlight the differences and changes each as made it would be far more effective to include sound samples instead of multiple covers. A song only needs one cover for visual identification, however multiple sound files might be justifiable given sourced discussions on those differences. But 3 covers for the same song are excessive. If you think that one particular cover represents the song as the primary visual identification feel free to use 1. The other two are not required and fail WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. Werieth (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to ignore a lot of what I have posted here, I am just going to quote what I already said about WP:NFCC: "WP:NFCC does not apply here because an image used for identification of one version of a song cannot convey equivalent significant information and/or identification of other notable versions." As for WP:NFCC since the covers are being used for identification, the images increase readers understanding and not having it would be detrimental to the understanding of the cover version.  They pass WP:NFCI #1 because they are being used as identification of the notable cover version of which there is critical commentary of the cover version and critical commentary of the single cover image is not needed in this case.  There is a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria about how images should not be removed solely based on WP:NFCC since it is a subjective and in these cases they should be taken to WP:FFD. Aspects (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC: "WP:NFCC does not apply is complete BS, all 10 NFC apply to every non-free file. NFCI#1 doesn't apply because the articles are not about the singles, they are about a song. Please back your statements up with policy related discussions that support your point. I have pointed to several discussions which state that more than 1 cover is excessive for identification. Werieth (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? I Love Rock 'n' Roll only has one non-free image, but that image happens to violate WP:NFCC in this article. Special:PermanentLink/567036127 has more images, and some or all of the extra images seem to violate WP:NFCC for the same reason as stated in MOS:FILM: some or all of the images illustrate non-notable secondary products. That said, I would have proceeded differently if I would have tried to remove the images myself, using WP:FFD or WP:NFCR for this matter. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While I agree you (Werieth) are right to target these images of covers as inappropriate NFC, this is the wrong way to do it - this is the same attitude that got Beta/Delta blocked/restricted/banned from WP. To wit, while NFCI#1 allows for one piece of cover art to be used for identification (irregardless of any discussion on the image), it does not say mulitple covers can't be used, though we all agree that beyond that first cover art, secondary covers really need critical commentary about the cover art itself to be used. Importantly, we do not have official policy that says that you may not use additional cover art without critical commentary. With an affirmative statement in policy of that situation, edit warring on removal of such images is very much inappropriate as long as all the other parts of NFCC are met.  This is why we have WP:NFCR and WP:FFD to review when such images are appropriate, if other dispute means don't work.  Removing such images boldly when you see them on articles for the first time is fine, but any subsequent re-reversions to remove them without gaining consensus is against edit warring policy.  Tag and bring them to NFCR if you get resistance in removing them, but please don't edit war over them even though I believe you are right. --M ASEM  (t) 15:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that you've begun removing sound samples too, like in "Better Than Today". I hope you know that atleast samples are not for "decorative" purposes and are indeed helpful. I thought that I was the only one who noticed your improper and excessive behaviour but that doesn't seem to be the case. Good luck with that.--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Film soundtrack cover image deletions
I saw you removed soundtrack cover images from Halo 3: ODST and Tomb Raider (2013 video game), but I feel you are misreading the consensus at the RFC you are quoting. In these cases the images are acceptable because the soundtracks are different than the video game covers, are notable soundtracks, have critical commentary based on numerous reliable sources, could be split off from the main article and pass WP:GNG. This is the one situation the RfC found that film soundtrack cover images could be used in video game/film articles. I am not going to revert you because I do not want to get into any edit wars with you, but I see that you have already reverted ProtoDrake's reversion at Tomb Raider. Aspects (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If the sound tracks where notible they would have their own article. Since they dont the covers fail NFC in the primary articles. Werieth (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See also MOS:FILM. Soundtrack covers are not suitable in articles about films, so why are articles about video and computer games different? There was a recent RfC about the film situation at WT:NFC (possibly this year). --Stefan2 (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Rio Grande Rivalry
Why can't the non-free logos be used in Rio Grande Rivalry? I'm not understanding, after I have read though the article and source you gave me. 174.50.71.19 (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Usage of non-free media is very restricted, because we have free word-marks the usage of non-free logos in any article other than the primary article fails WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC See also WP:NFC. Let me know if you still have questions. Werieth (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Witnesses and testimonies photographs
I already said in an edit-summary that the photographs have been reuploaded in a PD tag through commons. They are no longer Non-free material. If you beg to differ, please refer to commons. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The files that are being used on that page are listed as non-free, if the files are in fact free please either change the tag (or if on commons delete the local version). As they are currently tagged as non-free they will be treated as such. Werieth (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What's the tag I need to place for deleting them on Wikipedia? Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See CSD Werieth (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Im going to have to revert soon. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't change my Sandbox
You appear to have run a BOT that removed an unlicenced image from my Sandbox. I have no problem with that, I inadvertently copied it to my page when I was working on a piece of text. The BOT also made numerous other changes to my Sandbox. I don't care how many spelling errors I have in my sandbox, I will correct them in my own time - if I need your help, I will ask. If you are going to have BOTS looking for unlicenced images, they should do that and nothing more. Martinvl (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasnt a bot, I was just using WP:AWB. Most of the time people thank me for fixing issues, and I dont think I was fixing any typos just AWB general fixes. Werieth (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Your removal of images from the Vietnam MOH List
I'm not going to revert it again because frankly its not that important to me anymore to fight over Wikipedia's broken and disfunctional image rules (which is why I don't upload or work with them anymore). I also have a pretty low impression of the project these days so I'm not even editing outside of a few discussions. But I wanted to let you know that you did mess up the table by improperly removing those images. Go back and take a look at the rows with no image and you'll see a - where the image is missing. You need to put that in the images place if you are going to remove them from the table. Kumioko (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify my last comment the - generally is only needed for Featured lists. Kumioko (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ive gone ahead and fixed the missing -. I wouldnt consider that breaking anything its more a style preference. Werieth (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks unfortunately it a style preference required on Featured lists. But your right. Kumioko (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been finding photos for these MOH recipients on the net and uploading them to Wikipedia. I have only found a few free use pics, the vast majority are located on sites that indicate the the photo may or may not be copyright protected.  In such cases, I contact that site owner by email, request permission to use the photo, and usually receive the OK.  I then upload the photo (which is not easy as the upload process does not seem to accommodate this situation), indicating that the permission was granted for use in the Wikipedia article(s).  In some cases, those photos are allowed to remain on the page(s), but in other cases, particularly the article about which I was primarily concerned - the Vietnam MOH List, they are promptly removed without notification or explanation.  I have requested help from a Wikipedia editor regarding these issues, and I was merely told another higher level person is the expert, but she is very busy and should not be bothered.  Who do I contact to be mentored in this matter?  Thanks--DrCDCamp (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ill be glad to lend a hand. There are several factors that you need to be aware of, wikipedia only permissions are not accepted under any conditions. A file is either free or non-free. If you find a picture on the internet the website owner may have nothing to do with the copyright. They may have just found it on another site and copied it. What you need to look for is the person who took the picture and ask them for permission (unless it is a employee of the US government which automatically makes it free). Once the copyright holder is willing to release the file under a free license OTRS should be contacted by the copyright holder and a confirmation of free license must be established. Once that is done a file is considered free and can be used any way you want. However in a lot of cases that will not happen, and the file must be treated as non-free (see WP:NFC) in that case the usage of the file is very restricted and a rule of thumb would be that it is only acceptable on the article of the individual (and they cannot still be alive to use non-free media). Hopefully that helps. Werieth (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick and detailed response! Now I get it.  Okay. Typically, the site has received the image from a family member or member of the MOH recipient's military unit.  Often these pics are offered during a remembrance gathering or other special situation decades after the picture was taken...no attribution or details provided.  I have been reluctant to try to establish direct contact with a family member, but that sounds like what would be required.  Can you provide any other guidance about how to dig deeper, or refer me to a "wiki pic detective."  Thanks again.--DrCDCamp (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are a few suggestions, you need to identify the photographer, not the person with the photo. The photographer is the one who holds the copyright regardless of who has the physical photo. You might want to look on US government websites for images, as anything produced by the US gov is free and there isnt a need to track down and contact the photographer. Werieth (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Notable cover version single covers that pass WP:NFCC (again)
Since you had archived the last discussion that was actually still ongoing, I thought that was a sign that you were going to stop edit warring if someone contested one of these image deletions and take the image to a discussion. I saw that you reverted at It's Raining Men after a fourth editor added the image back. Clearly, four different editors reverting you in one article, the length of the previous discussion with everyone telling you that you need to discuss these images if reverted and the disagreement regarding policy shows that these images need to be discussed. You need to stop edit warring to remove these images and start discussing them if needed individually at WP:FFD since they can be closed in a week if consensus is achieved as opposed to WP:NFR, since images there can sit without being closed for months or if you want to discuss the entire idea of notable cover single covers in song articles then you need to start a discussion at WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think these pass NFC take it to NFCR. Otherwise they need to stay out. Werieth (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are the one who wants the image(s) to be deleted and edit warring to remove them against at least five different editors and had a discussion where everyone said that YOU need to take the image to discussion if you get reverted. And six reversions in about five and a half hours is definitely edit warring and in this case has already been explained to you to not be an exception to WP:3RR. Aspects (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NFCC the burden is on those wanting to include, not remove. Take it to NFCR. Werieth (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously this is getting old, the file needs to stay out until you take this to NFRC and get told that it fails NFC. Werieth (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

3RR report for It's Raining Men
Since you were warned previously that these image removals are not exempt under WP:3RR and everyone in the previous discussion stating that if reverting you need to discuss the images This reversion at It's Raining Men, , where you reverted a fourth editor at that article, five reversions within five and a half fours and four reversions within a half hour shows you are edit warring here and I felt I had no choice but to report you again at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Aspects (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Please wholesale STOP removing NFC.
This removal is completely wrong. I'm the primary editor on this article, so I know what and what does not meet NFC, and all the images you deleted are the subject of discussion in the text (add to the fact this is a FA). From several other complaints, you are being far too aggressive on image removal. You need to use a lot more discretion in such image removals. --M ASEM (t) 00:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not wholesale removal, I missed the text tied to File:Okami-wii.jpg because the paragraph referencing it is at lease one screen below the image. I would suggest moving it down to accompany said text. Werieth (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With File:Okami hd comparison screenshot.png the only relevant text is that a high def version was created. Nothing beyond that in regards to the graphics, and really could be replaced with text as HD versions can always be assumed to have better quality graphics than the original. Werieth (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Hd comparison one, that could be argued but you removed the screenshot of the game's core mechanic which is discussed in text, and the comparison of the original photorealistic version and the final version, also which is discussed in text via sources. That's blind wholesale removal. That's the problem that several of the last points made on your talk page and other places have addressed. You know what happened to Beta, and you're heading down that same road, and I will not hesitate to start an ANI if you keep being as aggressive as you are in "enforcing" it. --M ASEM (t) 00:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Okami-compare.jpg was a mistake. Not sure how that happened. Werieth (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Wyscout
Hi, I'm an employee of Wyscout, I've just noticed that you've just removed an image from the article "Wyscout".

I read that you did this because you the image is copyrighted, I talk in name of Wyscout, it's no problem to use that pic in the Wikipedia article; I can proof that I work for Wyscout and I talk in name of the company, let me know what parameter I have to change in the licence of the Wyscout Forum Summer 2013 Edition.jpg.

Thanks! Marco P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djsnake86 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:COI. Werieth (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Which sentencies in this article aren't considered NPOV in your opinion? 46.249.50.254 (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Its a COI tag not a NPOV tag, it is in fact a Conflict of Interest tag, which identifies the primary authors as being closely tied to the subject. I havent spent the time researching the company, but I doubt that someone employed by the company will include negative commentary. Werieth (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote a lot of sentences in the article and I checked the (international only) sources, it's ok now. I'm removing the COI template since there aren't problems described in the talk page of that article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:COI#When_to_use). 46.249.50.254 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No its not, Like I said right now the article looks like a PR release from the company. It needs reviewed and copy edited by someone not paid to do so. Werieth (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "User talk:Werieth". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  16:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

URL refinements
Could you check your URL adjustments in this edit. At least one of them (Marter) sent the reader to a completely different resource.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like I figured out the issue, Its the same resource, but for some reason Google has changed their page linking process. It still works for most cases but a few like you highlighted broke. Ill take a look and see what I can do to straighten this out, but it might be a day or two. Werieth (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct removal of non-free images from Vrak.TV
Where to start... I checked your contribs history. You created your account mid-2012 and you've been removing images non-stop since then, always linking to the same wiki rules page, acting like a religious freak trying to justify his actions by citing something from his holy book, regardless of the consequences. Auto-archiving/deleting his own Talk page is typical behavior from abusing contributors, as they have something to hide. Threatening messages on others talk pages following a revert is some form of cyberbullying. That is why I labeled you as a "known abusive user who hates images".

As for Vrak.TV, which is a french-canadian television channel with a history, and a name change. Let's be honest, you don't care about the content, the context, the location, you only care about non-free images put together netween "gallery" tags. So, you decided to flush the station's image identification history and are encyclopedic in this context, but you're probably not even able to tell apart because it's not your language neither your country or culture, you haven't bother reading a single line in the history section, you just went on with your bulldozer behavior, stating a Wiki rules page that you haven't bother fully reading : exceptions. Let me rephrase it to you: Why flush a station's image history ? And answer this : if the images were spread along in the article instead of together at the bottom of the article, would you have flush them as well ? Are we supposed to improve wikipedia ? Is what you are doing really improving wiki ? (I ain't reffering to the articles in subjects that interests you where you actually added content).

Therefor, you should read this : Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. InMontreal (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not making a point, WP:NFCC dictates the very limited usage of non-free media, One of the major criteria is #8 and Contextual significance. The current article cannot justify the usage of the non-free media that I removed. I havent been just removing media, in fact I have uploaded over 200 non-free files and added them to articles myself. (There are fewer than 500 users who have uploaded that much non-free media). Please review The policy on no personal attacks. WP:NFC are the rules which control how we use non-free media, it makes sure what we stay both within fair use law and Wikipedia's Mission to create a free encyclopedia. The usage of non-free media must be kept minimal and comply with WP:NFCC the article in question cannot justify the inclusion of the media you are adding. If you think your article should be exempt from WP:NFG take it to WP:NFCR and get the exception. Exceptions are not given just because an editor wants one, there must be a valid well defined rationale and justification for the exception. In the case of Vrak.TV the only reason given is WP:ILIKEIT. PS if you continue to make personal attacks I will take this to ANI and seek your block. Werieth (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As expected, you haven't adresses any of my questions, you just hammered justification of your actions by quoting your holy bible instead of engaging a conversation with a human person, and finished with a threat. I knew I'd waste my time.
 * Oh, by the way, the WP:TVS begs to differ, see section Use of images in articles, galleries paragraphe. The project do refer to the NFCC sections you linked so much, then reads "Remember that the purpose of a historical logo gallery is to illustrate the evolution of a television station's branding over the years, so there should be noticeable difference between logos and clear critical commentary on each logo. Do not add a logo if the only thing that has changed from the previous logo is the finish of the image.". In the matter of Vrak.tv, the Canal Famille logos are allowed to stay since they serve a historical purpose. InMontreal (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * May I quote from your link? Galleries (meaning multiple images, whether they are enclosed in tags or not) of non-free images are generally not allowed. It also states that NFCC #3a and #8 need to be met, something that hasnt been done in this case. Werieth (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS also see the phrase clear critical commentary on each logo on the wikiproject page. This article lacks that. Werieth (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Due to your lack of cooperation and your high sense of pride, this issue is going nowhere. I filed a dispute resolution request at WP:DRN in order to get a clearer idea on how to deal with it. This resolution process is in no way related to your behavior, but rather to the benefit of affected articles.
 * You cannot take only portions of sentences in a paragraphe and turn it into your advantage. You must take the paragraphe as a whole. In the case of Vrak.TV, the presence of logos is there to illustrate the evolution of the TV channel, yet, you qualify the quantity of images on the article as "over-use" and you delete them all. No compromise, no alternative solution, just bulldozer everything, which is unacceptable.
 * Also, on my talk page, you erronously held me responsible for uploading and adding the images to the article. The images were already there before your visit, I simply reverted your butchery. Don't give credits where they don't belong. You also post threats on my talk page, but then you state that I "throw multiple personal attacks" at you when it's not the case. InMontreal (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually you need to review your own edits, Calling me abusive, a religious freak, calling my enforcing policy butchery and others. Those are personal attacks. Im not cherry picking anything I acknowledge that what you are cherry picking makes it seem the files are acceptable, however you often ignore the other parts of the relevant policies that contradict what point you are making. With WP:NFCC all parts must be met, it doesnt matter if 9 of 10 are met if any point isnt met the file is unacceptable. Once a file was removed per policy, you did in fact re-add the file, making the warning justified. I am not deleting all the files, I am in fact only deleting those files that are not compliant with policy. Just because you disagree with policy does not give you the right to make personal attacks, and ignore said policy. Werieth (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

He's keeping removing images, I've just taken a look at his archivied talk page, that's impressive. He keeps to hide his talk page (legit) to hide his edits and the discussions with disappointed users by his furious images removal behavior. Djsnake86 (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He is never gonna change, he did the same thing to me!--SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Leave my sandbox alone
Thank you Rossbud (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The only reason I edited your sandbox was because it was violating WP:NFCC. Please avoid using non-free media in user space. Werieth (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

poke
Just in case, I got around to fixing the script. Thanks for your patience. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, I completely understand now chaotic life can be. The wiki is always a lower priority. Werieth (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Help me with non-free content image
As I know quite evidently (lol) you know what you are talking about in regards to images and copyrights. I accept I was in the wrong about the Race and Soul image on the Nazi themes propaganda article and I now have to ask you about the image of the woman showing one of the youth the differences in Germans and Jews whether or not anyway this can be used in the article.

http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/nazi/innenpolitik/rassenpolitik/ As you know it is copyrighted but where do I go to see if it can be used still in Wikipedia?

How do I go about resolving this?--Andrew Dorsons (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ask that here. Can you explain the rationale for needing the image, what purpose it fulfills, and why it cannot be replaced with text explaining that? Werieth (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The rationale for using this example is because this was one of the Nazis biggest things 'racial purity' and maintaining the 'German/Aryan blood', many books that are written by people who were members of the Hitler Youth or a child during Hitler's Germany often mention that when they were in schools the main thing was the differences between Germans and Jews. The education of Nazi Germany books also mention this and emphasize on it quite a lot - especially the Nordic Germans (ideal image) - for the maintaining of the Aryan race. The purpose of the image is quite clear, it shows that child being shown by a teacher the differences between Germans and Jews and the actual importance of this, it shows one that the Nazis went to great extents (mentioned in article) to actually teach the youth this and this picture shows the reader this. There is text that mentions that schools taught the differences between such of racial differences but the image actually shows the physical differences and will show the reader that the Nazis went to showing photographs of the Germans and what they all should be and what a person who they should all regard as parasites and subhumans (their words not mine) to avoid - the Jews.--Andrew Dorsons (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The first thing that needs to be asked is - what article would you be considering using it in? We cannot get an idea of its relevance and importance without knowing that. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Themes in Nazi propaganda is the article in question, this is just the fallout of a previous issue. Werieth (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have uploaded the photograph at File:Biology teaching in the Third Reich.jpg, how do I know when/if it will be approved, what do I do next? Thanks.--Andrew Dorsons (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Errol Flynn
If you want to discuss it let's do it here, I don't understand why you are so intent on removing those images?
 * They fail WP:NFCC on several points. #1 as we have several free images of his looks, #3 because we dont need that many non-free files so describe how he looks. and #8 as the files I removed fail the second clause of 8.
 * Take File:Errol Flynn & Olivia de Havilland.jpg for example. It can be replaced with text, shows nothing critical, nothing visually unique, and its removal isnt detrimental to understanding the biography. Werieth (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's take some time out for a day or so & come back to it. I'm sure yr a reasonable guy & did the edit in good faith, & you left the pic of Flynn in school in, so it's not an issue of vandalism I see. I'm tied up on some work right now, so I'll come back to you & we can debate over it tomorrow & try to find a way around it, & I'll try to explain why I attached those images & hear yr side of it?
 * As long as you dont re-insert the files before we agree I will gladly discuss why the files I removed do not comply with policy. Werieth (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, I'm here now. Perhaps we can start with a few questions, as I'm somewhat confused as to yr editing decision here, & why you have taken such a fierce line on it?

Why did you leave in the pic of Flynn at school, & the still of 'Objective Burma', the marriage photo, the body arriving at the station & the grave, & how are the photos you removed different from those?

You rat, running around Wikipedia on a ridiculous power trip wrecking others' work with yr bullying pal on call when some1 stands up to you, because you have nothing to offer yourself. You were losing that debate & you knew it & couldn't take it. If yr under 14 fair enough u don't know any better, but if yr older ... get a life ffs =/ - Bardrick.
 * Ill ignore your personal attacks. Please remember that not everyone editing Wikipedia lives in the same time zone. The reason I quit discussing it with you was due to real life engagements which made me unavailable to finish discussing the issues. Please avoid using what ever short hand you are using as it makes it difficult to read what you say. Ill break down every image (Images I removed and the ones that I left) and why I either removed them or left them.


 * File:Errol Flynn - young actor.jpg
 * File:Errol Flynn - Charge of the Light Brigade climax.jpg
 * File:Errol Flynn & Olivia de Havilland.jpg
 * File:Errol Flynn at sea.jpg
 * File:'Montana' movie poster (1950).jpg
 * File:Errol Flynn in 1958.jpg
 * File:Flynn at the court hearing February 1943.jpg
 * All of those files are non-free (See WP:NONFREE) and the usage of such material is very restricted. Because these images are still under copyright we need to be very careful how we use them (both from a legal perspective and from the perspective of our Mission) These files dont give anything that either cant be replaced with text or visually demonstrates something unique that is important to the article as a whole. (PS a lot of how Flynn in these images is duplicated in the free images listed below.) In fact almost all of them are purely decorative and have completely invalid non-free use rationales. Werieth (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Errol Flynn at South West London College (1923).jpg
 * Is the only non-free file that I left in the article. I need to do a little research but I am fairly sure that the file is actually under a free license and can thus be used however you want to use it (Free images are not subject to WP:NONFREE)Werieth (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Update I was mistaken the file just misses the pd-1923 claim that I thought would make it free. Werieth (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Damita & Flynn.jpg
 * File:Errol Flynn grave at Forest Lawn Cemetery in Glendale, California.JPG
 * File:Errol Flynn in Operation Burma.jpg
 * File:Errol Flynn's coffin on Los Angeles Union Station train platform, California, 1959.jpg
 * File:Errol Flynn1.jpg
 * All of these files are under a free license and thus not subject to WP:NONFREE and thus not an issue, and you can use them however you want. Werieth (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-free and 3RR
Please don't go over 3RR again even in the most obvious circumstances - let me know instead, it makes things much easier. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Re Orphaned non-free media (File:Tring.jpg)
Thank you for your message on my talk page. I am editing from work and am unable to log in to my account at work. I'm afraid I do not understand why this image is not used. If you click on the article that I uploaded it for (Tring Brewery) you can see that the image is clearly used on that page. However File:Tring.jpg doesn't seem to acknowledge this for some reason, and I don;t understand why. If the image can't be used even on an article about the company represented in the image then so be it, but I don't understand why not. -- 194.80.135.203 (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I took care of it. A WP:NULL edit to the article fixed the issue with the file page not showing the usage. Its a known bug that is rare but known. Werieth (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

WeAreReasonablePeople.jpg
Hi, Werieth. Responding to your message on, I would have thought it was pretty clear that the image was in use in the article We Are Reasonable People as per the file description! Maybe it was a bot error... I've reverted accordingly. Regards, Kaini (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Its the same glitch as above, Mediawiki doesnt see the file in use in the article (See File:WeAreReasonablePeople.jpg for what I am talking about.) I went ahead and WP:NULL edited We Are Reasonable People to force the software to register the use. That way this shouldnt happen again with this file. Werieth (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To echo what other people are saying,please have a proper look at what bots are recommending, or the conclusions you derive from a script. I've been here ages, so it doesn't bother me particularly - my fear is that you'll scare off new editors. Kaini (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The root cause of this is a mediawiki bug, thats not that common. The bug makes it look like the file isnt being used, so that is why I tagged the file. Werieth (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but just clicking on the link, having a look at the description, and clicking on where the file is used to verify... anyway, never mind. My point is editors are in decline. I know that manually checking is a pain in the ass, but that's why I don't use bots! Kaini (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Im not using a bot either, in 99% of cases checking the section titled File usage on the image discription page will tell you if a file is used. (it should be 100% of the time but there is a bug causing these rare errors) Thats what I use to see if a file is orphan before tagging it. Werieth (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Friendly advice
Look, I know what you're trying to do but popping off with "Please stop adding non-free files to that list." might seem a little harsh and could drive people away from this project. It also might come across that you're not assuming good faith in my editing. You see, most of ship images were of military or navy ships and I assumed that they were government photos taken of the vessels and not from their prior use in the private sector. I will say that once you notified me about certain images couldn't be used I found alternate versions where possible. At least two of those images, namely File:Clallam (steamship) .jpg and File:Dix (steamboat).jpeg, are most likely mistagged and should be in the public domain since the ships sunk in 1904 and 1907 respectively. So thanks for your concern and I'll try to be a little more cautious. Shine runner  (talk)   22:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought that was fairly nice way of staying it. In most cases where I have removed non-free files multiple times I normally give the user a uw-nonfree. There was no assumption about the faith of your actions. I noticed that your edits where not in compliance with policy and left you a short note about it. (my edit summaries had already stated why I removed the files and linked to the relevant policy) Werieth (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned non-free media (File:City-of-Gilroy-seal-350px.png)
OK to delete. The PNG image is no longer needed, as it has been replaced by a better-quality SVG file. — QuicksilverT @ 07:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

`

File:Playboy 0603.jpg
Currently nominated for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ghostbusters comic files
Instead of deleting the pictures from the article wouldn't it be best to just tag them accordingly so the uploader can try to fix the issues rather than simply deleting them and slapping an orphan template on the file? Of course they are orphaned because you are the one who orphaned them!! Furthermore the points you made about the image failing points 1, 3 and 8 don't make any sense. Point #1 states that the file should have no free equivalent. The file specifically states "No free use image available" under replaceable twice under 2 different templates. Point #8 states that it should have contextual significance. It states on the upload under purpose "Illustration of a specific point within the article". This is to help readers see a representation of the particular series from a particular publisher to help readers understand the differences from the different series which all had various different publishers licensing the property. As for point #3b it states Minimal extent of use stating Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate should be used. One of the pictures you deleted had a low resolution image and the others simply need a reduction template if the pictures are consider too high resolution.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * NFCC#1 is about replaceability, which can be replaces with text as nothing is notable about the covers themselves. 3 is minimal usage, and 8 requires contextual significance. Only one image is allowed for visual identification, since there is nothing really notable about the other covers, thus they dont meet the second part of #8. Werieth (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For NFCC#1, the covers give a physical representation of the article's topic. This help readers see for themselves the various publications. Since comic books are primarily a visual medium this in turn makes the uploads notable in that regard over simple text. Since the pictures are clearly tagged as non-free media and that there is no free use image available, there is no failing that particular point. For #8, its to illustrate a specific point within the article. This is too help readers see a representation of the particular series from a particular publisher and to see the differences/interpretations from each publisher which all had licensed the property through the years. This isn't just a blanket article about a a particular series from one particular publisher (lets say a Spider-Man series from Marvel Comics). This deals with various different entities that have acquired the license through the years and each upload is too illustrate that particular point thus giving a better visual to readers and to help them understand and see the different adaptations by these differing companies. This would apply to point #3 as well. If these were multiple covers in regards to one particular series then fine, but these are covers from various different series (based on a particular property) from entities that are all independent from one another. One of the uploads is low resolution and the others can be replaced with such which will then satisfy #3b.Giantdevilfish (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Regarding the List of Prime Ministers of Greece: It states that the "non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic", which they are. They are a very main part of the visual aspects of the topic. It also states that "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section", not that it is not allowed whatsoever. It is merely inadvisable, and given that the images improve the article greatly, I think we should keep them in. Kupraios (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * NFCC in lists especially lists where the items have their own articles will always fail NFC. Usage in that list is not acceptable. Werieth (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please quote this. Kupraios (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFTABLE The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered. If you want an exception WT:NFC is where you go. Werieth (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Lieutenant General Pak Army.jpg
  - I could have done that. My apologies. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not a big deal, I saw you blanked it and that you had done similar G7 deletions in the past for the same issue. I thought it would be more work for everyone to remind you to G7 it, than to just add the tag myself and move on. Werieth (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you were right, weren't you! Never-the-less, thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

orphaned files
I dont know why the photos File:Prizren 1943.jpg were removed but there are some people working on destroying wikipedia, and I dont have the time to stop them. Why dont you look at who removed them, I bet it was one of the radicals. James Michael DuPont (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reported the fighting and media removal on this article to the admins Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Prizren_article_fighting James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Able2Extract Images
I am wondering why the screenshots for the Able2extract page are considered "excessive"? I think I kept it to a reasonable amount thus far (before they were deleted). Each screenshot was carefully chosen to illustrate only the major product features being described; not all of them. And I believe that each one added to the value of the article. I think it would benefit readers to visually see the product's functionality in action, or at least see the box cover of it. So if you can provide me with a link to Wikipedia's policy on the exact number of non-free images allowed in an article, I will adjust accordingly. Perhaps I may have missed it. I wasn't finished editing the article yet, so I can take that into consideration. Thanks TorBel80 (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We dont have an exact number for non-free content. Our Mission is to provide free content, and minimize the usage of non-free content to only where absolutely needed. Given the way that Able2extract may I ask if you are associated with them? Taking a random software example Microsoft Visio only has two non-free files, 1 logo, and 1 screenshot. Werieth (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I see. Okay, I'll adjust and keep the number of non-free images down to that same level. I’m still getting the hang of Wikipedia, so that example helps. And yes, I am associated with them--just updated my talk page with an editing disclosure. Saw the page on Able2extract and it was only a stub orphan article, which wasn't too helpful in terms of information. So following the likes of Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat, yrying to provide the same kind of complete and informative overview. If you have any other feedback for the page, please do get in touch. I'll be adding the bare minimum of images back in to better comply with non-free file usage. Thank you for letting me know about this TorBel80 (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

File:TintinBlackIsland.jpg
When you tagged File:TintinBlackIsland.jpg as an orphan, I assume you noticed I had already tagged it for deletion? See the discussion on AfD (link at file). —Prhartcom  (talk)  04:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)