User talk:Werieth/201309

Warning of possible removal of image
Earlier today you left a warning concerning removal of an image which I uploaded onto Commons. You have also previously removed similar images which I have uploaded, ie: badges marking protected heritage sites in South Africa and Namibia. Please note that these images are all photographs of such badges taken at heritage sites and that there are other such images of similar dimension which have been on Commons for several years, eg: Gedenkplaket, Nasionale Gedenkwaardigheid.jpg. The image you are threatening to remove was erected by an organisation that has been defunct since 1969 (see and check references in National Monuments Council (South Africa and Namibia) if you need reassurance). I have updated the source information for the image to set all of this out and trust that you will leave the image where it is as I need it for several articles on which I am working.

This and other badges which I have tried to or plan to upload in the future are all very clearly in the public domain. They are photographed daily by thousands of tourists and appear in numberous books on heritage and in travel guides. I am a heritage conservationist living in South Africa and am a senior executive in a government heritage agency. I assure you that there is no risk in having these images upload to Commons. Thanks User talk:Waitabout —Preceding undated comment added 12:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Doing some digging I am just seeing removal of File:Northern_Cape-coa.png from your user page. Which isnt on commons and was removed per WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Combining removals of unlicensed images with other edits
Earlier on today you removed an image form a page in my sandbox because of licence problems. I feel that doing this seven hours after the image had been added is over-reacting, especially as there was no warning. In this case it did not matter - I had copied an entire article into my sandbox where I was working on it before returning it to main space. What does annoy me however was the cavalier manner in which you made other edits - in particular the replacing the text — and − with text equivalents – in spite of Help:Special characters saying “Use an HTML named character entity reference like à. Because it uses only ASCII characters, this approach is unambiguous even when the server does not declare its character encoding, and even when the character does not display properly on some browsers. However, it may cause difficulties with searches (see below).”

I don’t know anything about your background, but I will assume that you are not British – we Brits have a saying “If it ain’t broke, don’t mend it” – in other words, keep your fingers off these conversions.

You have run this macro on pages in my sandbox in the past. If in future you remove an image without warning, or if you combine the removal of an image with other unrelated editing, I will launch a formal complaint on ANI. Martinvl (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is fair warning I am not removing unlicensed images, I am removing non-free files that cannot be used in user-space. If you continue to use them in your user-space I will removed them. If you re-insert removed files repeatedly I will escalate this to ANI. Warning about removal is on every non-free file, you may not realize it, but failure to meet WP:NFC is grounds for removal. If you want feel free to take this to ANI and you will see policy is on my side. PS I really dont like threats from users who dont understand the policies that they are using to threaten. If needed Ill grab an admin to hand out trout's as needed. Werieth (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Werieth, your removal of NFC violating content wasn't a problem, but very little of this edit had to do with removing NFC. When you do that, do not run any other editing or cleanup tools on things in people's user space.—Kww(talk) 04:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Werieth, Kww is correct and your reply above sounds like "I don't hear that". WP:NFC does not allow you to edit the text in people's user space. Take the point and don't be disruptive. Cavarrone 04:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have taken the liberty of removing images that an IP editor had placed on your User Page and your Talk Page. Strictly I should have left that to you, but in the circumstances I believed you would have approved. At the same time you should take note that your approach towards removing non-free files has been antagonising many people (see postings on your Talk Page) and maybe you should calm down a bit. Martinvl (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

grit cookbook
Hiya! I got your message about the Grit Cookbook image being orphaned. It used to be attached to the article I'd created on The Grit, a vegetarian restaurant in Athens GA with links to the Athens music scene. The article was deleted earlier this month, following questions about noteworthiness and citations. Although I don't agree with the former concern it's not important enough to me to fuss over it... it was just a favorite part of my old life in Athens.... Long story short, the image is, in fact, now an orphan.... PurpleChez (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A thought
I must say that I was rather dismayed by the manner in which this edit, and the three that replicated it on Lithuania's youth football teams, were carried out. Instead of taking all that time removing it, why not take the thirty or so seconds it took me to correct the fault? Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 09:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The logo is of the federation, not the specific teams. See WP:NFURG. Your fix isnt valid. Werieth (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * International football teams, being as they are representative of their FA, often wear their FA's logo on their shirt and use it as their logo. This is the norm for the vast majority of national sides, but more pertinently, it is how the Lithuanian sides operate, as can be seen by this image from the association's official website. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 11:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That might be, but for someone who isnt familiar with the case citing SOFIXIT is rude. I did fix the issue, just not in the manor that you liked. The file and uses still violate WP:NFCC if its not fixed today Ill be re-removing them. Werieth (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "someone who isnt familiar with the case". I'm not convinced that the use of the file does fail NFCC, perhaps you could be less cryptic and more specific on that front? Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 14:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * NFCC#10c 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 Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. (My Bolding) What you did isnt valid. See the guide for how to write valid rationales. Werieth (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Each use of the logo has an individual fair-use rationale now. There is a template designed to flag this up: namely, which gives a grace period of a week rather than a day. In future, rather than delete immediately, if your conscience won't let you add a new FUR, simply add this. Still, I am glad we could come to an understanding and resolve this. Good day to you! Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 18:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Jeju United FC Crests
Hi, I have a question. Crests you deleted are exacately Jeju club's old crests and current crests. I think that file usage registration have some problem. Please let me know how to problem and insert crests on Jeju United FC article.Footwiks (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The files where removed due to noncompliance with WP:NFC, the policy on usage of non-free media in wikipedia. As the article stands the crests cannot be re-added. Werieth (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Scienceman
Hi, Werieth! I seem to remember that you are an expert on image permissions. If you have time, would you kindly take a look at File:Scienceman.gif? It appears to have been taken from a newspaper published in 1984, but to have been uploaded as free content. Is that correct? There's no OTRS ticket, and no fair use claim that I can see. It looks odd to me, but perhaps that is because I don't often look at such things. Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like a clear case of copyright infringement, and should be deleted as such. Werieth (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that confirmation of what I suspected. I think must have seen my post here, as the file was tagged for deletion within minutes. Thanks to both of you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

File:KAS.jpg
Thanks, looks like someone accidentally removed the picture from the article when they were cleaning up the article. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 01:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No big deal. Werieth (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Music of The Lord of the Rings film series
Thanks for the notification. I know about our NFC policy and that's exactly why I restored the images – see also my edit summary. If you think that these album covers are not used according to our guidelines and rules, it is you who should take the files to NFCR. De728631 (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now started this NFCR thread. Please feel free to comment there. De728631 (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification
May I know what this is? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See MOSFILM the cover of the sound track isnt allowed. Werieth (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Still can't get you. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read the section I linked, you cannot include the cover of the soundtrack in the article about the film. Werieth (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * May I know where exactly is it mentioned so in the link you provided? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are literally hundreds of Indian films with cover in infobox album? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then that will be my next cleanup project. Werieth (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But, they keep changing this MOSFILM thing. The last time I was working on an article, it said an article can have a topic called reception with three sub-topics: critical response, box office, accolades. But, now it shows different. How can we keep track of policies if they keep on changing? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Policies evolve over time, the MOS doesnt change dramatically that often. Werieth (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are even articles rated GA class that has cover images for soundtrack. If its against policies, why rate them GA? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Advise on uploader's Talk, not a modifier's
I do appreciate being informed of orphaned NF images I originally uploaded, and therefore figuratively shepherd. But when all I've done at an image is to reupload it reduced per WP:NFCC, I'm not the shepherd, just a good Samaritan returning another shepherd's lost sheep (image) to the fold (NFC compliance), so it's not really appropriate to notify (say) me. Anyways, when the only thing visible in the thumbnail upload history is a "reduce per NFCC", it pays to check the tab at top, to learn the original uploader's identity, to notify them. I've often expressed the need for the notification tools to automatically do this step for orphaned NF image reviewers. Until that happy day, I've moved the notice to the original uploader's page. --Lexein (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, please don't notify me if I'm not the original uploader. --Lexein (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ron Roy - The Absent Author.jpeg)
Thanks for uploading File:Ron Roy - The Absent Author.jpeg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh? Self-tagging still-in-use images which you uploaded? I've reverted the tag at File:Ron Roy - The Absent Author.jpeg. --Lexein (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually if you take a look the file was orphaned for about 20 days and was reverted after I tagged the file. . Werieth (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed pictures
You seem to have removed five pictures from Scandrett Regional Park because of "excessive non-free files". Can you explain this to me please? E James Bowman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * In Wikipedia:Non-free content Policy 3.a. says "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." There is no more that one photo per person mentioned in the article. No photo exists with all the people in the photos. So there is no one item that can convey equivalent significant info. There is one photo of the building mentioned in the article. And the photo of the building does not contain the people mentioned in the article. So there is no one item that can convey equivalent significant info. So I've added the photos back to Scandrett Regional Park as suggested to me. If there is another policy about "excessive non-free files" please let me know before deleting these photos again. Thanks. E James Bowman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ive gone ahead and re-removed them, they fail WP:NFCC on several points 1,3,8. Please do not re-add them. Werieth (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking into this, I can re-upload the three older images as copyright-free images: File:George Scandrett.jpg File:Helena Scandrett.jpg & File:Thomas Henry & Lucy Susie Scandrett.jpg because of the age of the photos. if I did that, would you be comfortable with me including the two newer ones in the article also? File:Raymond Renshaw & Frances Elizabeth Scandrett.jpg illustrates the third generation to live on the property, as outlined in the article, completing the series of photos; and File:Scandrett Homestead 1940s.jpg illustrates the historic homestead the three generations lived in. As a series they really help bring the history of the public park alive. The park was purchased because of its historical significance, so we believe historic imagery is important here. My family own the copyright to the two newer images, and would happily give the copyright away, but as we didn't take the photos, I can't see how we can do this. If you know a way around this, please let me know. E James Bowman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly I cannot see any non-free content being justified in that article, it also needs a mass-rewrite, and cleanup. Werieth (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You've removed most of the article I have created stating "mass prune of COI non-encyclopedic information". Reviewing Conflict of interest and Verifiability you are unjustified in doing this. Most of the information in the article was referenced third party historic information, with some information published by my family and provided to the Auckland Regional Authority in 2008. The article has been sent to, and reviewed by Michelle Edge, David Edge and Sue Hill of the Auckland Council. They have expressed no concern in any of the content I created, and are assisting me by providing further publicly published material to add to the article. E James Bowman (talk)
 * Reviewing Dispute resolution I don't believe you've followed the normal protocol here: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording. Be sure to include citations for any material you add, or it may be removed. If you do not know how to fix a problem, post a note on the talk page asking for help. To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in the edit summary, or if the change is potentially contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page." Please undo your mass deletion and follow the normal protocol above. E James Bowman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've undone your mass deletion for the reasons above. Please edit the article according to the protocol above or let me know which which parts you believe are "non-encyclopedic information". I've searched for this term on Wikipedia but can find no guidance. I believe the information I've provided is encyclopedic but am happy to change it if proven otherwise. E James Bowman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * With further input I've removed the listed park features & info and edited the history. FYI, the history of the farm, buildings and family is one of the major reasons the park was established and is what helps make the park unique, as you can read in the referenced material. Other Wikipedia articles about historically significant New Zealand places explain the owners names, their years of life, the companies they ran, their children, etc. Eg Linwood House, Pah Homestead, The Colonial Cottage Museum. The history is of significant local interest. Eg [Article A][Article B][Article C] E James Bowman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The material you are trying to add isnt appropriate for that article. Werieth (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I will try to weigh in on the issue. From my point of view user E James Bowman do exactly the same as user Matthew complained about. I personally understand that maybe, E James Bowman doesn't fully understand the copyright stuff, and when user Werieth tries to explain, he explains as points 1, 3 and 8, aren't met. Instead, user Werieth supposed to have explained what those points are. So, instead of him, let me explain the points:


 * 1. No free equivalent — you can use pictures which are not free but at the same time they must serve a purpose or importance to the article. Like, a photograph of Michael Jackson can show us himself, or if we have a performance of him we can see his acts, etc. But, we also need to know that if the article is small, we should have a significant amount of images. That leads us to point 3:
 * 3. Minimal usage — In my opinion, a Stub suppose to have 1 image at least, while Start and C class articles can have 2 or 3. Your article Scandrett Regional Park is a Stub and to prove it its simple. A Stub have only 1 or 2 paragraphs and anything above it is considered to be a Start. I will give you an example here, which is a Start.
 * 8. Contextual significance — This means that if it wont improve the article readability, than it isn't required.
 * Now, lets talk about user E James Bowman's files. I unfortunately would need to agree with user Werieth here, the images can't be used in the current article because they are about a park not the founders. If you want to, you can create 3 articles (each one of which will be dedicated to a member group). For that though, you still need to check if its verifiable or not. Being founders do make them notable, but not all members. Keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't a memorial, and do talk with user for more info regarding the above mentioned.--Mishae (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining that User:Mishae. Here are two articles about New Zealand historic places with biographies about and photos of the historic owners: Linwood House, The Colonial Cottage Museum. Due to the intrinsic importance of the park's history, doesn't it make sense to have something similar to this for Scandrett Regional Park? E James Bowman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not without a debate with opponents. I did read the post that user Werieth posted on your talkpage and have to agree with everything except one thing: If user Werieth believes that the article is not neutral instead of deleting it, he could use POV template. That way, the article will stay.--Mishae (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually most of what I removed was for being non-encyclopedic or inappropriate for that article. I left a COI note because the user has admitted to having a severe COI with the subject of the article. After trimming I felt it was reasonable balanced at a quick read that the template wasnt needed. Werieth (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as user E James Bowman goes, he can either move the article to his sandbox or he can file an ANI report on user Werieth where both of the users, me, and an honest and neutral admin will discuss what to do with the article. Trust me, it will be better then the 3-revert-rule violation!--Mishae (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ANI isnt needed. Werieth (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mishae, I was about to post on the article's talk page to debate this when I noticed another editor had jumped in and completely decimated the article; deleting more referenced information, making it factually incorrect, non-sensical in parts and threatening to remove more. So I'm going to leave everyone to it until I get further information that the Auckland Council is sending me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E James Bowman (talk • contribs) 23:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply
First off, nice grammar with your latest message. Second, no, I want some pictures on my user page. Why does copyright matter when on one hand, the images are on the website already, and on the other hand, there was a Wikipedia blackout that essentially protested laws and companies that whined about copyright infringement!? If no one is suing Wikipedia for having the posters on the movie-related articles in the first place, why would they sue Wikipedia for some random user that it might take awhile to find who has these posters placed harmlessly on their user page? I'm starting to get sick of you people, honestly, one day someone's reverting my edits because of copyright and unreferenced material that I wrote aeons ago (I'm talking about Trivialist here), and the next day people are taking off material from my user page due to copyright!

So, excuse me for having copyrighted material on a website that not only explains many copyrighted topics and media, but also is filled to the brim with copyrighted images and articles! And on top of all that, people are acting as though I'm a new user! I made this account a few months ago, and I had a previous account before this one! The last account I essentially used for some nonsense, and yes, I am guilty of being a vandal with that account, so charge me as you will with that one, but that was before I realized what an amazing fountain of knowledge this website is! That's why I made this account, to right my wrongs and contribute as best I could, but apparently, that's not good enough with you people! I don't even know who's actually talking to me anymore or who's just an automatic message telling me I screwed up! In case you haven't noticed, there's lists and lists of text on my user page that is basically compiled of copyrighted trademarks and brand names; are you going to go ahead and take that away too? Can't you people just LEAVE ME ALONE?

Well... ...that escalated quickly. But you guys make me furious. I'm just not really as happy with my fellow Wikipedians right now as I was before... constant reversions and undone edits... I work pretty hard on articles just to have them deleted nowadays, (Cindamuse and, again, Trivialist)... I thank people only to have reply back coldly (DragonflySixtyseven)...

...Can't you just let me be for a bit? Have a good day, mate... --Matthew (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Second reply
Of course. I give you a long, thought-out message and a barnstar. You give me a generic, seemingly-automated message that non-free media must comply with WP:FFC, which is yet another rule of Wikipedia that I never knew about and that no one was ever gracious enough to inform me about. But, fine, you won't need to block me because I'll refrain from re-adding it. This is playing out just as usual. I argue, I get threatened with a block, and whoever I'm arguing with ultimately wins the debate thanks to a random rule. I doubt you took the time to read my reply anyway, you most likely decided it was too long and simply skimmed through it, thought nothing of it, and replied to me with this. Why do I keep making more enemies than friends on here? I want to make friends, to cooperate with people, really I do, but soon enough, all the work I've done has garnered no rewards or practically no thanks, and has been reduced to an undone, unreferenced, unnecessary, piece of non-notable copyrighted garbage tossed away in the "view history" section of an article. --Matthew (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Update: Someone just gave a Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. So, yeah... --Matthew (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

3rr warning on Desire (Geri Halliwell song)
You have made three reverts in a 24-hour period on Desire (Geri Halliwell song) and any other revert to the article could result in being blocked from editing. From WP:3RR, "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." (boldfaced from the policy) In this case where two editors have added back the images and the image is being discussed at the talk page, the image is not an unquestionably violation and is not established as a violation. Since the image is being discussed at the talk page, a consensus should be reached there instead of continually removing the image. Aspects (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

KIndly dont revert the Pictures from the Punjabi people page. They are historically and factually correct and it is illogical to remove these pictures from this forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.24.51.102 (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

List of colleges for Vinoba Bhave University
A list of colleges under a university is neither cruft nor a directory of internal organization. Colleges under a university in India are not 'internal' entities. They are 'associated' entities and the relationship of a university and a college is important information. The list is encyclopedic. Please do not remove without further discussionAcsenray (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not appropriate for that article. The list that I removed was almost exclusively red links and made up 60% of the article. We dont need the list. Werieth (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also some of the wording violates WP:NPOV. Werieth (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also your last edit broke the page. Werieth (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) It's not up to you whether "we need the list." It is encyclopedic material; thus it belongs in the article. (2) If red links are a problem, then just remove the ' ' from the list item. (3) I don't know what you're talking about regarding NPOV. It's merely supposed to be a list of colleges. If there is any non-NPOV wording then edit it so it is NPOV.Acsenray (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nor is it up to you. Right now the article looks like a directory. The content isn't suitable for article-space yet. Werieth (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your jxm/sandbox edit
Thank you for making the NFCC edit on my sandbox page. However, I notice also that a link to Honorary degree page was also modified in the same edit, and I'm curious as to why.

I'm actually using the sandbox page to try and debug an occasional problem that seems to occur when using the Apple iPad browser to do section edits. Essentially, the page content gets replicated during the edit save process. (Look at the Bob Jones University edit history for a recent example.) I think the problem may be connected with the use of the redirection bar in links. If you look at the previous edit item to yours, you'll see that the actual intended text for display ("honorary doctorate") somehow morphed into "honorary degree" before your edit was made. I suspect that this may be another aspect of the iPad editing bug. Any thoughts you can shed on it would be much appreciated. Tnx! jxm (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Im not sure if you are using the Visual Editor (which I highly suspect) but it is still full of bugs. honorary degree and honorary degree both link to the same article, its just simplifying the text. Its part of AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes See AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes Werieth (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

EWO Brewery Ltd.
I have reverted your edits to the EWO Brewery Ltd. article and removed the speedy delete tags for the associated files. These images are "fair use" and comply with WP:NFCI after they were moved from Commons following your previous edits to the article. ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 06:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's rules are far stricter than fair use. These files fail WP:NFCC #1,3,8 Please do not re-add them. Werieth (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice from Technical 13
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User: Werieth and his bullying reverts.. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

HCT Picket
delete away; it's probably outlived its usefulnessNankai (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Userbox image-file removals
You removed two images from userboxes I created on my user page this morning. It would have been appreciated if you left a note/warning about this on my talk page instead of silently removing them.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(talk)  22:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was part of several hundred that I removed. Leaving a note identical to the edit summary would have doubled the task, people should have it on their watchlists and seen the edit, along with a fairly clear edit summary. I'm sorry if that isn't to your preferences but when handling such a large issue talk page notes would have easily doubled the work load. Werieth (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whats more, it would be appreciated if he would stop doing it in general.
 * Don't you see that her userpage is under construction? That should tell you that she is still working on it.--Mishae (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC violations are not acceptable at any time. We cannot leave copyright violations around until the user decides that they are done designing their user page. I make regular sweeps taking care of them. Werieth (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * She??? Anyway... I am fine with the removal of misused non-free files. I did not mean to use them without permission and am still learning about editing WP. Since I am new it just would have been better for my learning/education if something went on my talk page, just like when people revert articles to give them guidance on what was wrong and what do to in the future. Maybe that AWB tool has a talk-page notification system like some of the other tools (TW, etc.)-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(talk)  22:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There isnt such a feature of AWB. But I am glad to be able to assist you with your questions. Werieth (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Image File:Defkalion demo display of power info.png
You say this image has to be linked to an article, not a talk page. What is the reason for this restriction, which can make a comment incomprehensible if it leads to the image being removed? It is just as much 'fair use' on an image on a talk page as in an article.

I should say that I'm not bothered particularly about this since it the comment concerned is pretty ancient, but applying such a rule seems unhelpful in this kind of situation. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's rules regarding non-free content are far stricter than fair use, Non-free content criteria. We limit the usage of non-free media to only articles, usage in talk pages, templates user/user talk and other namespaces are prohibited. We also require all non-free media to be used in at least one article. (See WP:NFCC). It might seem unhelpful but the rules with regards to non-free media are very strict in this case. Werieth (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't have time to challenge illogical or unhelpful rules (of which there are many in w'pedia IMHO), but will just add a note to explain the fact that the image is no longer there. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you just link to the original source location instead of displaying it? Werieth (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The trouble is that the source is a video (archived screencast). Editors were claiming that saying the reactor generated such and such a power level was OR, and the point of the image was to show that you could just read the power level off the screen -- but you'd have to watch the screencast for a long time to be able to do that. That hardly counts as research (IMHO, though no doubt some editors would want to do that to provide a rationale for blocking the information). --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You could just note the timestamp in the video where this is taken from and tell people to look there, that would make it easy for everyone. Werieth (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try that. I don't suppose there's a nifty bit of code that could embed the video starting at just the right point, which I believe can be done with youtube? Actually, there is a clip from the screencast on youtube, so I might have a go with that. The current picture has a week's stay of execution, I gather. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media
Cover of the catalogue of the exhibition Phases de la Planisphère 1994.jpg

Cover catalogue Phases Sao Paulo 1997.jpg

Cover catalogue Bochum Museum 1993.jpg

Cover catalogue exhibition Cobra 1948-1951.jpg

Hans und Lote lessen list of artists.jpg

Thanks for bringing the orphanage of these uploaded pictures to my attention. They have now being included in the article related to Freddy Flores Knistoff biography in English Hope that now all is running fine. Please let me know if I have to do something else? Best regards Gdrouet (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed those files from that article due to NFC. Usage in a discography is not allowed. Werieth (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Question.
I want to use these images ( http://www.mischief-films.com/presse/der-weg-nach-mekka/e) in Wiki articles. Is there ANY way I can use them, since the copyright owner clearly has expressed his permission but I can't find a tag appropriate for this. --Fasi100 (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Due to the licensing of the files (NonCommercial-NoDerivs) The file isnt suitable for wikipedia's free licenses. The only way we can use those files is under the Non-free content policy Werieth (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See also File_copyright_tags/All Werieth (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks. -- Fasi100 (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: "File:Excerpt from Dave Brubeck interview by Martin Totusek in Cadence Magazine, December 1994, Vol. 20 No. 12 (PDF).pdf"
== 1) the "File:Excerpt from Dave Brubeck interview by Martin Totusek in Cadence Magazine, December 1994, Vol. 20 No. 12 (PDF).pdf" is not orphaned - it is in use with Dave Brubeck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Brubeck ) as part of the References. 2) Permission for that particular scanned excerpt (i.e. not the full article, but that excerpt) is granted - with public notification from the author, as of 17 December 2012:

from: Martin A. Totusek - Keyboardist/Bandleader ( http://www.scn.org/~bb553/ )

(snip) Martin Totusek's musician-to-musician interview with pianist/composer and W.W. II veteran Dave Brubeck was published in the December 1994 issue (Vol. 20 No. 12, pages 5 - 17) of: "CADENCE - The Review of Jazz & Blues" (Cadence Building, Redwood, New York 13679-9612 {315} 287-2852) Note: Formal permission to use a scanned to PDF excerpt - the second and third pages of the interview, is formally granted by Martin Totusek for use in Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopia, as of 17 December 2012. (snip)

(Mtq (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC))

==

(Mtq (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I have removed it from the references, it is not appropriate to reference material that is hosted on wikipedia servers as a source. Werieth (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you please point out which Wikipedia policy or guideline says so? How come User:Sfan00 IMG that file as "mistagged"? How come we use several encyclopedias and other reference material from Wikisource? How come there are whole categories on Commons like Commons:Category:Electronic books and things like Commons:Category:Iowa Official Register or Commons:File:The life of Matthew Flinders.djvu? Are you stating none of these are suitable for citations? I suggest to restore the link in the Brubeck article and remove the orphan tag from the file. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CIRCULAR states that Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources Werieth (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with that policy. However, the file in question is not an article, it is not subject to editing, it is a document, stored here for convenience. There is no reason to disallow storing or citing it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please dont take this the wrong way, but who is to say you didnt modify the document before it was uploaded? it is far better to use a independent third party source. Werieth (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Rest assured, I'm not taking that remark the wrong way; I was expecting this line of argument when I wrote above "it is not subject to editing". On the other hand, we should assume good faith on the uploader's part. I think this whole thing is a bit of a storm in a teacup, given the obscurity of the assertion supported by this source. I could of course upload the source to a web site and link there, but that would be silly. I'm going to find a replacement. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

St Paul's Cathedral
I don't know what was missing or what the problem was except that a non-essential link was broken. (File:Stpaulsblitz.jpg) I have removed the link and added more justification. Amandajm (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NFURG as it is still lacking a valid rationale for its usage. Werieth (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The Maze (painting) image
Hello, If you look under the talk page of The Maze (painting) you'll see that I provided an explanation for why I added back just the one file - File:William Kurelek's "Out of the Maze" 1971.jpg. Please read and confirm that I may add it back. Thank you TheMazeMovie (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read it, and that file does not meet WP:NFCC. Werieth (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed photo
Werieth, you seem to be experienced with these issues. So I was hoping you could look over an issue and help figure it out. The Aba Women's Riots page was edited last night with this edit from an IP claiming to be the "collector" of the photos. If you could, take a look at the photo and see if it should be removed from Commons. Thanks for any help in this matter. (note:Watching this page for any comments). AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Using a blog as a source of the image is difficult to verify. However I am going to do something I normally dont do, I located a copy of the book relatively close and am going to go physically verify this issue. Werieth (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I read the book a decade ago (haven't done any editing on the Aba riots page) and if memory serves me, which it may not, I don't recall seeing that photo until I visited the wikipedia page. Thank you for your help figuring it out. Truly appreciated. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse Invitation
I didn't know you found me BTW. BTW, welcome, Werieth! Tariqmudallal (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ploy changes
Hello Werieth, you have removed instructive figures from the Ploy (board game) article, because they infringe the non-free guidelines. Those pictures have originally been done by me, but if this is dubious then I can redo them in a stylized form using another program. Is this acceptable? Professor Spock (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-free files
Hi, Werieth. I have never added non-free files on lists on purpose. If that happened (and, unfortunately, it did), it was totally unintentional. I'm very sorry if that caused any problems, and I'll try to look more closely on information about an image which I plan to add on a list in the future. If you see any non-free image which I added on any list, and its not yet removed, please remove it according to WP policies. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Scandrett Regional Park
Hi, Werieth. Reading this: Identifying reliable sources I believe the following paper (ref #3) fulfils the Wikipedia requirements of a reliable source, but I need consensus. Do you agree that the paper is (A) a reliable/verifiable source for this article: Scandrett Regional Park and (B) one source that establishes notability of the members of the Scandrett family it details?

Here: [] is a PDF from the National Historic Heritage Workshop 2004 run by Department of Conservation (New Zealand), New Zealand Historic Places Trust and Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand. It contains links to two PDFs of the presentation [] and paper [] presented by Dave Pearson [], Conservation Architect, Auckland, describing the five year project to restore the historic buildings located on Scandretts Farm (renamed Scandrett Regional Park the following month). It contains a History of the farm, and says "It is the personal history associated with Scandretts farm that sets it apart from other places. Without these associations, the buildings could be in danger of becoming just another group of old farm buildings. The story of the people that lived there brings a place such as Scandretts to life". E James Bowman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Adam Rapp - 33 snowfish.jpeg)
Thanks for uploading File:Adam Rapp - 33 snowfish.jpeg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Re:Orphan non free images
Thanks for the heads up concerning the non free images File:Solar System II (Gundam).jpg and File:Solar Ray Cannon (Gundam).jpg. Both are in fact hold overs from a deleted (redirected?) article, and while I would love to find a place to put them these two do not really have a home outside of their now deleted article, therefore if you want to go ahead and administratively delete them I'm cool with that. Otherwise, no that they will end up axed anyway a week from today for the stated reason of being unused. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Pigs Is Pigs (1937 film)
You wrote on my talk page: "Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Pigs Is Pigs (1937 film), may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)"


 * Please explain what you are doing. This article and the images in it has been on line for years.  The issues you are raing now were raised and discussed years ago.  There is no way to illustrate the article without the use of non-free images.  There are no non-free alternatives.  Cartoons are primarily a visual medium and the images you deleted were included to illustrate what was going on.  The image of Piggy in bed thinking of food illustrates the character's personal nature.  The second picture shows him in the Feed-A-Matic machine -- would a word description really convey this to the reader by it self?  No.  The final picture shows Piggy after the feeding;  it shows the end result of what had be going on -- that cannot be conveyed just with mere words.   The final pic illustrates the use of the Feed-A-Matic machine in other works.  Words are not sufficient for this.  Each image contains the fair-use rational.  What is you problem?   Jason Palpatine (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The files do not meet WP:NFCC you do not need 5 non-free files for a single film, especially when the files lack critical commentary. Werieth (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said before, this was discussed years ago -- when the article was first posted. Each image contains the fair-use rational and it was determined by the admins at the time that they were legitimate.   You're not the only admin here.  This article has been on line for years and only NOW do you come along and start rocking the boat.   Why don't you consult with some other admins about this?  They let the article stand as it was for years -- at least find out why they did.  I know you deleted the images again.  Phhht!   Jason Palpatine (talk)


 * fact please, I reviewed the article talk page and there is nothing about the acceptable usage of 5 non-free files for a single film. Can you please source your claims? Also pre-2008 non-free content policy enforcement was far more lax. It may have been an issue the whole time and just slipped though the cracks. Feel free to create a review of the removals before you re-add Werieth (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Find template with parameter
Hello. Is something i am trying to do in Greek wikipedia but noone know there so i ask in english wikipedia. I am using a template calling ft. These template show the name of an association football team with the flag of the country, if only if the team is included in a list. I want to find the articles that have this template with a specific team. I know is sifficult and that is a problem i had in a foreign wikipedia, but if you can help me it would be really helpful. Xaris333 (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the way that the template is configured, just add a category to the same line as the parameter in the switch that is your parameter name, it will take some time to populate (can take a week or more for the job queue to process everything) Werieth (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thx! That will work! Do you know how can i find articles where the templates has a team is not on the list? Xaris333 (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the very bottom of the template: Just add a category after the last }. Anything using the default text will be assigned to that category. Werieth (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are really great! Can i ask some more things or i may be annoying? Xaris333 (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please dont ask to ask, as I find that annoying, go ahead and just ask the question :) Werieth (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well i use the Template:Infobox football biography (the greek version but they are the same so we can speak about the english one). At the end of the template there are parameter that categorize the articles in Category:Football biography using missing parameters. I did this for the greek template. But these work if a parameter in an article is empty. Is there a way to categorize the articles that haven't the template in the parameter  clubs1= or  clubs2= but may have anything else etc? Xaris333 (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Its doable, but beyond my ability. You would need to use Lua to parse the parameters, see Lua/Help. Werieth (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth David bibliography
I refer to your comments on my talk page. I am aware of the WP rules to which you refer and I cannot understand why you imagine this, for instance, does not consititute consideration of the image in the text of the article: "He commissioned a dust-jacket painting and black and white illustrations from the artist John Minton. Writers including Cyril Ray and John Arlott commented that Minton's drawings added to the attractions of the book.[17] David thought good illustration important. Although she did not like Minton's black and white drawings, she described his jacket design (right) as "stunning".[16] She was especially taken with "his beautiful Mediterranean bay, his tables spread with white cloths and bright fruit" and the way that "pitchers and jugs and bottles of wine could be seen far down the street." Please revert your deletion, as your persistent deletions are beginning to seem like deliberate disruption. Many thanks. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Werieth, please stop warring. The actions have been explained by Tim and you will be in breach of 3rr if you revert again.  Your warning to Tim on his talk page was pointless as he was aware of the problem which was due to an unintentional deletion of content.  If you had bothered to read the previous threads then you would have been more the wiser. --   Cassianto Talk   11:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFC is fairly clear, usage in list like articles are not allowed. A bibliography is defined as a list of the books of a specific author or publisher, or on a specific subject (my bolding), it is the same thing as a discography is for musicians NFC states The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8). Can you please provide evidence making Elizabeth David bibliography excluded from that rule? Otherwise this is a clear violation of NFC and exempt from 3RR. Werieth (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know, apart as we unhappily are, if English is your first language, but I cannot imagine any sane native speaker describing this article as a list. When I gave it the present title it seemed less clunky than "Works of Elizabeth David", "Books by Elizabeth David" or "Elizabeth David's Oeuvre", but it was never a mere list. It is an analytical overview of the great lady's entire output published in book form, with – as you will see if you can find time to read the article (not too painful an ordeal, I hope, as it has been judged a Good Article) – discussion of the images. As to your minatory comments in your edit summary, I am not so naïve as to fall into any 3RR trap, but kind of you to mention it. So nice to run across editors with a colleaguely and collaborative approach. – Tim riley (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The title of List of books by Elizabeth David would also apply, This is the same thing as a list of characters or a half dozen different list formats. Usage of non-free media is very restrictive, there just isnt justification for these files. Dr. Blofeld did warn you that the this would happen. Werieth (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A Featured Article that I took from scratch to FA is Piano music of Gabriel Faure which is of the same nature at the ED biblio one. You don't, I hope, imagine that everyone at PR and FAC foolishly failed to realise that the Faure article was a list? As to the present matter, as I said to the Doctor, I could chop this up into a short article on each book, but how is that helpful to the reader? (You remember readers? We have them and should aim to anticipate their needs as best we can.) Dr B is wise in the ways of WP and knows there are intransigent zealots about, and I am so glad that you are not of their number. You have, inadvertently, I'm sure, neglected to answer my question how "He commissioned a dust-jacket painting and black and white illustrations from the artist John Minton. Writers including Cyril Ray and John Arlott commented that Minton's drawings added to the attractions of the book.[17] David thought good illustration important. Although she did not like Minton's black and white drawings, she described his jacket design (right) as "stunning".[16] She was especially taken with "his beautiful Mediterranean bay, his tables spread with white cloths and bright fruit" and the way that "pitchers and jugs and bottles of wine could be seen far down the street." does not comply with the WP rules. I would like to thank you for your non-confrontational and friendly approach, and look forward to being able to do so. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to Piano music of Gabriel Fauré there are zero non-free files in that article. If they wanted they could include 100. Usage of free media vs non-free media is far different. In your case you are using non-free media and thus the restrictions on their usage are far far more restrictive than those placed on free media. Werieth (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything in that article is based of a single non-primary source, the rest are primary sources, this article really shouldnt be GA as it still need quite a bit of work. Werieth (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't seem able to make you understand. If the Fauré article is not a list then how is the ED biblio a list? Contrariwise, if the ED biblio is a list then how is the Fauré one not? As to to whether the ED biblio "shouldnt" (or even shouldn't) be a GA, you are at liberty to refer the matter to the appropriate review process. Purely as a matter of record, the GAs and FACs in which I have had the honour to contribute can be checked on my talk page. Perhaps, despite your blank user page, you would be willing to reciprocate? Meanwhile, please address the matter of taxonomy which you seem determined to avoid. Tim riley (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesnt matter if Piano music of Gabriel Fauré is a list or not, (which most of it is) as it utilized free images. You cannot compare list usage of free files and list usage of non-free files. Different rules apply to each. Werieth (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To give you credit, I believe you genuinely don't understand. It matters crucially if you - versus all the WP reviewers - don't think the Fauré article is an article, because your failure to understand that it and the ED articles are articles means that all your assumptions are based on a misunderstanding. Whatever your personal preconceptions, you must attempt to keep up with the WP consensus. Kind regards, Tim riley (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never stated that Elizabeth David bibliography or Piano music of Gabriel Fauré are not articles. Articles take many forms, including lists (or have a section(s) of a article can be a list). All lists are articles, However usage of non-free content is restricted in list or list like articles. If you disagree file a WP:NFCR and then only add the files back if it is closed supporting the usage of those files. Werieth (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If I split the article up into small articles on each book would that satisfy you? I don't think the readers (remember them?) would find it helpful, but it wouldn't be even slightly list-like and we could all sleep peacefully. Tim riley (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This discussion should be taking place on the article's page. I am copying it there. -- 38.88.200.68 (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Image warning
Hi, you recently put this image warning on my talk page:

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Elizabeth David bibliography, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

For your information, I have never uploaded an image to this article. Please check your facts in future. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * or added to an article You did re-add non-free media to the page in question. Werieth (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Labyrinth
I have added a fair use rationale for each of the images used on the Labyrinth (film) wikipedia page. All of the images are in very low resolution and accompany and reinforce points and observations made in the article. By repeatedly deleting them, you are undermining the hard work I have carried out to create a rich and engaging article on the film. The page is, in fact, listed as a 'Good Article' under the film category - the images used throughout the article to support the text helped it receive this classification. Please either desist from deleting the images, or explain to me how I can make the 'Fair Use' rationales I have attached to the images more solid. Your current actions are extremely frustrating. Rachael89 (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Response to September 2013
Well, at least you finally explicitly stated why the images are being removed. I worked extremely hard to source the images and resize them so they were of low enough resolution to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. I have no desire to be reported unjustly so will allow the photos to be removed, though I feeling it is extremely detrimental to the article and makes it appear like a long wall of unbroken text. Have fun rooting through wikipedia and finding more articles to undermine. I doubt I will bother investing anywhere near the same level of effort into articles in the future. Rachael89 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you 100%. Jason Palpatine (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Minas Tênis Clube's crest
Hi, you have recently commented out the use of Minas Tênis Clube's crest, due to non-fair use. I have updated the meta-information from the respective file, and now it contains the information for fair usage. If still you think that there is a problem, please contact me before removing the logo, so I can fix things and avoid to break the articles. Pedro 12:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcgomes (talk • contribs)
 * Please see WP:NFURG, each use requires a separate rationale. Right now there is just a rationale for Minas Tênis Clube. Werieth (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I have added a separate rationale for each article that the image is used. Pedro 20:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcgomes (talk • contribs)
 * But you failed to address a key issue, you cannot copy/paste the first rationale and just change the article name. Each rationale needs to explain why the image is required on each page. Werieth (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati)
Hi Wereith, thank you for your attention to St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati) lately. Your removal of several images the other day forced me to finally do some research and determine that three of the images were clearly in the public domain. So that's a win for the free culture movement!

Regarding Open End (1983) at St. Xavier High School.jpg, I would like clarification about your reasons for removing the image. My admittedly quick reading of Non-free content criteria leads me to believe that the inclusion of this image is justified:

 The person who originally took this photo from the third floor of St. Xavier and uploaded it to Flickr incorrectly claimed to release it under the terms of CC BY-SA 2.0. However, United States law doesn't recognize freedom of panorama (other than for buildings), and the sculpture stands on U.S. soil, so any photo of this sculpture is protected by the sculptor's copyright. Therefore, there is no way to replace this photo with a free equivalent. Only one image is used to discuss Open End in this article, or anywhere in Wikipedia for that matter. The photo is low in resolution, so that one would be hard-pressed to recreate the sculpture based on it. (Whether someone could make a passable imitation of an already amorphous work is another matter.) The photo is accompanied by a paragraph discussing the work, its history, and common reactions to it. Without the photo, the article can do no better than to belittle the work as a "curved metal beam" that students facetiously compare to Gumby. (This critical commentary is well-sourced, by the way.) But a photo places these descriptions in a much more positive light. One sees the sculpture, then, as a two-pronged free form rather than a bent, green, smiling humanoid. Would it be necessary for the commentary to be placed in the image's caption, where it would be unwieldy? 

I would like to eventually write a standalone article on Open End, similar to the ones that have been written about Meadmore's public art installations in Milwaukee. But I'm not sure how the community feels about the notability of a public art installation that no longer stands in a high-traffic downtown area.

Anyhow, I'd appreciate further guidance on how I could improve the article to meet the NFCC.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The issue is that yes there are 4 sentences discussing the image, its not important to the article as a whole. WP:NFCC is a double edged sword, the file you want to include must be significant to the article as a whole, otherwise just writing a sentence or two could justify just about any non-free file. If at some point down the road the notability of the piece can be established, usage of that image in the article about the piece would be justified, however its just an interesting foot note in the current article. Werieth (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Logo removal
Hello Werieth,

Thanks for removing the bus logo -Was planning on updating it all but completely forgot about it So thanks :)

Regards - Davey 2010  T  18:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Again I Say
I am an uploader of images to Wikpiedia. As you might be aware, the materials I upload are generally NON-free. I have been observing a growing trend of the year of images I have uploaded to the site being orphaned and then deleted. This latest round involves images I uploaded years ago. "This is the last straw, that broke the camel's hump!" How do I go about requesting deletion of ALL remaining images uploaded by me? I see no reason for delay. It's obviously going to happen -- let's just get it over with! -- Jason Palpatine (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)  This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

Answer me! Jason Palpatine (talk)

"Polygon formed by spinning electron" drawing
Hello,

There is next licensing for the drawing: " I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. If this is not legally possible: I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."

No reason to delete the drawing.

The picture cannot be substituted by another existing drawing because considered draft contains specific angles $$ {\frac{\pi}{n}},\psi.$$

Mikhail Vlasov

Korablino (talk) 23:28, 23 September 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioNovi (talk • contribs) 07:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Deep Down and Dirty image
Hi Werieth. Got your message on my talk page re: above image. Once my AFC gets accepted, will I be allowed to upload it again and then add it to that article? Best  Rob van  vee  05:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the artcle is accepted the file can be used there, until then the file is considered orphaned. Werieth (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Rob van  vee  11:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Note again on non-free removals
On this edit, while I agree that 3 of the 4 image removals were proper (two alternate game screenshots and the second cover image), the remove of the first screenshot from the Gameplay section was inappropriate. For video game articles, as established by past discussion and through FA processes, a single image of the game in a sourced section about gameplay is appropriate to show how the game looks on screen and other facets like art elements; the critical commentary is from the fact that sources have discussed the gameplay and the screenshot is used for visual aid of those descriptions. If you encounter situations where an article is using excessive non-free and there are two or more screenshots, I would tag the article for that issue so that the editors can figure out which one should be kept or if they can find sources to justify more, rather than remove these outright (other images in the same article can be removed without that concern). --M ASEM (t) 16:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Leonid Mikhailovich Kharitonov
Please could you kindly explain why you removed the sound recordings from this article? User:MKharitonov who uploaded the sound recordings is the owner of the copyright. Also, in the article the commentaries about the videos of the same songs (same soundtrack) discuss the vocal techniques used in those same sound recordings. Before you removed them, the sound recordings were paired with those commentaries.--Storye book (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If MKharitonov is the copyright owner they shouldnt have an issue releasing those short samples under a free license. Usage of 5 non-free files is excessive. 1 Could be justified but not all 5, especially when the uploader owns the copyright. Werieth (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't realise that he'd uploaded them under the wrong licence, English not being his first language. I'm busy for a few days, but will correct the licences next week.  Thanks for the info. --Storye book (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Images your removed from the Wizkid discography article

 * Greetings, I see you removed the images from Wizkid's discography . Why did you remove it and then tagged it for deletion? versace1608 (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesnt allow non-free media in discographies. Werieth (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that If I create seperate articles for each single, you will restore it? I didn't create seperate articles because Wikipedia will either tagged it as "it doesnt meet the notability requirements for music" or its a "stub". Plus, the artists that featured Wizkid on their records don't have Wikipedia articles yet and it wouldn't make much sense to make seperate articles. I can create seperate articles for each single Wizkid is featured on but I'd like to know if that's okay to do. versace1608 (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the albums dont meet the notability guidelines then splitting off separate articles would be a bad idea. Werieth (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It proabably will meet the requirements. Sometimes users who review articles that are short in length put the aforementioned tag there for one reason or the other. Can you please check Wizkid's discography article and tell me if the singles (the ones with infoboxes) he's featured on deserve to have an article of its own. I would appreciate that. versace1608 (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the notability requirements, none of the songs listed come close to meeting the requirements. Werieth (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will just leave it the way you left it and won't bother adding non free images. By the way, what does an article need to have before it meets Wikipedia's notability requirements for music? I know awards, chart history, background recording, and release history are things every article (relating to singles) need. versace1608 (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG and WP:NSONG are good starting points. Werieth (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate the help. Quick question, I recently contacted a user on flickr asking him to send an email to Wikipedia's OTRS. The person sent it and forwarded me the email he sent. Should I contact OTRS and ask them to upload the image to the page? versace1608 (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It wouldnt hurt, but give them a few days, they may have a backlog. Werieth (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks once again. versace1608 (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Image help
You said my uploaded image File:Ozzy and Drix.jpg could be taken down due to being orphaned. However, when I copied its name into the Ozzy & Drix page, it wouldn't display. How can this be fixed? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ozzy_%26_Drix&diff=574542447&oldid=574398431 fixed] Werieth (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Judgeking
You're welcome. We really need to do a better job of enforcing NFCC noncompliance as the copyright infringement that it is. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are preaching to the choir about that. Werieth (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay :-) I've recently been in a bit of a struggle with someone who for months has been ignoring NFCC for quotations, using them as body text when they're easily replaceable with self-written words (and edit-warring when I replace them properly!), so I really wish that we could get additionally active enforcement.  Nyttend (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me know where it is and Ill take a look. Werieth (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind. The editor in question was doing this in numerous articles in the same topic, and I just discovered (after leaving the previous message) that he's been topicbanned from the whole field for unrelated issues.  We've never interacted except in this specific field, so if he begins doing this somewhere else, I won't notice.  Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Lemme get this straight... You went through twenty-three (23) reverts and un-reverts with a user. Regardless of who is on the side of the copyright angels, refresh me on why you are not also blocked for edit warring... This should not have gone past two reverts before you sought assistance. You might take that under advisement if something like this pops up in the future. Carrite (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * NFCC enforcement and copyright violation enforcement are exempt from the edit warring policy, just like obvious vandalism. Werieth (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Example, If a vandal replaces Barack Obama with racist vandalism you can only revert 3 times and you must leave the offensive material up until someone else steps in? No,. because policy is defined and ensures that such things dont happen. Werieth (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I came extremely close to blocking you for editwarring — but then I realised that I'd put the wrong username into the block screen; I always intended not to block the NFCC enforcer. Had I clicked the block button, I would have self-reverted very quickly, since this is a clear copyright-compliance issue.  Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is merely a copyright flagged image calling for presentation of a valid fair use rationale by Sept. 27 or the image will be deleted. This was a content fight at root, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia
My understanding of the situation at Uncyclopedia (and it's been a while since I've looked at it) is that it is a mess analogous to the Wikitravel/Wikivoyage situation, where the community has moved but the old site is still online in direct competition to the original authors of the material. As such, removing "uncyclopedia.co" and leaving "uncyclopedia.wikia.com" (or vice versa) does violate WP:NPOV by taking sides on this issue. Doing this is therefore not "This is about as neutral as you can get". Please do not leave misleading edit summaries. K7L (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The original site is now hosted on wikia, If a group has splintered off, unless there was reliable outside notability of that and that it has associated critical commentary their splinter group isn't notable and shouldn't be included. Taking a neutral point, the only link that should be included is the official site. Adding the links to alternate sites would be like trying to document every attempted fork of wikipedia on the wikipedia article, just not notable. Werieth (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Picture
So, which windows seven pic can i use? Jiawhein (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * None. Werieth (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC Closing
Werieth,

I see you closed my RFC. First, you're involved and should not have closed it on your own. Second, you closed it too quickly. This RFC started on Friday, it's now Sunday. If you strongly believe this RFC should be closed, ask that it be done. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh  16:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Its a broken proposal, fix it and re-submit it if you want. Right now its severely broken and needs a mass re-write to be feasible. Werieth (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You believe it to be, however, because you've voted, y ou are incorrect to close it. I will not revert you again, however, I will ask, that you revert and request it be closed.  Yes, I see that three people have voted to close the RFC, however, if three people voted to keep the policy and it was closed as consensus, I'm sure you'd agree that on something as important as NFCC, three people do not make a consensus.  KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh   16:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * KoshVorlon, take my advice, listen to what was said at the RfC, structure it in a method that doesnt re-number criteria due to it breaking so much historical links and would cause a lot of confusion. Once you get your thoughts together and re-structured please re-file so we can actually analyze the issues you are trying to raise. Right now your proposal is just too broken. Werieth (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * PS Im not trying to closed down debate at all, just stating that in its current form the proposal needs a re-write to be more coherent. If you want to copy the idea to your user-space so we can work out the kinks and re-file it Ill try and lend a hand. When proposing such a massive re-write to policy its better to get your ducks in a row, dot your I's and cross your T's before submitting it. The close had nothing to do with the merit of the proposed changes you are proposing but rather it was reflecting the broken manner in which they where being made. Werieth (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, I asked for admin eyes on it, and they closed it down as well.  So, no I won't try to re-open that at all. By the way, that RFC  did start in my userspace   here       feel free to tweak it if you think it has any chance.   KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh   17:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dont take this the wrong way, but I think the proposal as a whole has lower odds than a snowball in hell taking a hot springs bath. However I think that your proposal should still be re-worked and proposed as it will have side-effects. Notably, discussions will spawn about a particular issue that might end up with improvements to the existing policy as a result. I think the fallout of such a discussion would merit it, but when going into it you need to understand that such a massive re-write of a extremely complex policy is by definition destined to fail from the outset. Werieth (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it! I appreciate the honesty.  So, if I hear (read) you correctly, you're advising, a piece-by-piece approach (assuming a better re-write , of course)  rather than all at once, correct ?  KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh   18:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

deletion of unused image
. Thank you.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 20:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN/RFC
Hi Werieth, I saw that the first couple of discussions you listed recently were from May and June, and didn't need to be closed, so I've removed the list. Please only add recent discussions that really do need uninvolved closure, or better still allow the participants to decide whether to ask for outside closure. Otherwise the page gets clogged up (and it's transcluded on WP:AN), which means that discussions that need to be closed formally, and perhaps urgently, are overlooked or delayed. If you feel that a discussion you find needs to be closed, you can always close it yourself rather than listing it. I hope this is okay with you. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I will be reverting your removal, I added those pages there for a reason, those discussions need to be closed. Please stop ignoring NFCR request for closes. Werieth (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)