User talk:Werieth/201312

Serbian American
Greetings!

May i ask you why have you removed pictures and names (persons); Pete Maravich, Brad Dexter and Bill Vukovich, from the "Serbian American" infobox of prominent Serbian Americans? They are known to be famous Americans of Serbian origin (as also described on each of their articles) and would really deserve their place in that infobox, i anway saw pictures of those persons on many articles. Regards (Правичност (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC))
 * The files I removed where non-free and their usage is controlled fairly heavily, usage in an infobox just doesnt meet the policy on non-free media. I removed File:Bill Vukovich.jpg, File:Brad Dexter.JPG and File:Pete maravich.jpg, Those files are only used on the article about their respective person (which does meet policy), usage in an infobox however doesnt. Werieth (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop messing with relevant Media-files
The files you deleted are important to get a deeper understanding of Clara Bow, her life and career. Your sudden onslaught of numerous contributions is unbalanced. Parrotistic (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed the files again, do not re-add them. Because we have multiple free files we cannot justify the usage of those non-free files. Werieth (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback
14:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ian Scott (artist)
Hi, you rightly removed the images from this article yesterday. I have now done the Summary/Licensing information thoroughly and properly, and amended the relevant parts of the article to make sure the specific references are present and correct. The use of these images is now consistent with the way copyrighted images are used on the majority of artist pages, and they are absolutely essential to making it a good article (in truth are few more are probably required for other series). In future I will also expande the commentary on them (and others will too) as there is much to draw from.

Thanks for your help and I hope you find the improvements satisfactory. Chriscs26 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I re-removed the files, WP:NFCC just wasnt being met, there is one section that could justify an image but it doesnt have one. Werieth (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

How is it any different to the use of files at the following pages?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Louis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PicassoGuernica.jpg

Chriscs26 (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Morris Louis is a good example, there is 1 non-free file, not the 4-5 that you where using. Given that there is sourced commentary and discussion (Like I previously said) Ian Scott (artist) could justify one image. Otherwise there just isnt the critical commentary needed to justify the rest. Werieth (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Morris Louis is an example of an incomplete article. He is famous for at least 3 styles (or periods) of work. By only illustrating one the article is surely incomplete?
 * Please explain which points of the Wikipedia:NFCC policy are not met? As far as I can see the ones I used met all points 1-10.
 * It's essential to have at least 3 images in this article to illustrate those 3 different 'main' periods. Chriscs26 (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:NFCC #1,3,8. there just isnt justification for those files. Do not re-add. If you want the removals reviewed see WP:NFCR Werieth (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "1) No free equivalent" There are no free equivalent images because all works by the artist are copyright. As it is an article about an artist who produces visual art key examples of that work are essential to their discussion. This is the case on literally thousands of similar wikipedia pages on artists.
 * "3) Minimal usage" The article is using 4 images to represent the work of a 50 year art career which spans many styles and periods. 3 illustrate the major/most famous works from the 3 most famous series, and the 4th is essential for showing the variation in one of those series. All of them are discussed directly, and representative of series discussed in detail.
 * "8) Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The article is a total failure without the images which you have repeatedly removed, as one needs to see at least some examples of visual art, and talk only goes so far.
 * I wish you would back off here, as no one else has found it problematic, and I have twice run it by multiple people in the help chatroom.Chriscs26 (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt that they are that familiar with WP:NFCC. If you want the removals reviewed file a WP:NFCR, until that time the article cannot justify 4+ non-free files. Werieth (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I truly fail to see how my address of those points is wrong.Chriscs26 (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We dont include images just to provide examples. Taking a random image as an example File:Ian Scott Track 1968.jpg has 3 sentences supporting it, almost zero critical commentary, and fails the second part of #8. Werieth (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Your actions seem very harsh, to immediately give a final warning, particularly with an editor who appears to be a 'newbie' with generally good intentions. This edit added a commentary about the images that were added back, for example. Throwing acronyms around the place, like WP:NFCR is hardly helpful either. Sionk (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not start with a final warning, I posted the final warning after leaving the first warning on their talk page, and discussion here where the user didnt get the point, and continued to re-insert NFCC violations. None of the added commentary is what is defined as critical commentary (IE the type of commentary that justifies non-free media). There is just a very little bit in the controversies section discussion the artistic and visual contents of the image (which is the type of thing needed to justify an image, as just because an artist had several styles or multiple works we dont need to display more than a very limited number for "examples". However if there is other notable, and sourcable critical commentary about the images justification becomes easier). Werieth (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.
User:MichaelQSchmidt 19:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Images at Jeff Wall
That is strictly your interpretation of fair use rules, which are controversial to begin with. Both those images have fair use rationales attached, the images Re critically discussed in the text and that discussion is sourced. Articles on artists need images and those images comply with guidelines. Do not remove the images based on your own interpretation of guidelines. You are not the final word on these guidelines. If you disagree, you discuss, not revert. I have restored the images per fair use. Leave them. freshacconci talk to me  13:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, 1,3 and 8? Those criteria actually point to why these images fall under fair use and can be used. They are used minimally -- two small images, they are necessary for an understanding of the work and are discussed in the sourced text, and their are no free alternative images available. So the actual policy you quote backs me up. freshacconci talk to me  13:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is about the artist not the works, minimal is zero, Just because something is discussed doesn't mean we need an image. File:Jeff Wall Mimic.jpg can and is fairly easily replaced with plain text (#1,#8). The other image that was removed falls into the same category. Werieth (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:3RR still applies to you. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Jeff Wall. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive edits déjà vu
You tried a series of disruptive edits of Duke Ellington at Fargo, 1940 Live earlier this year and it didn't fly then. You got no support for your nonconstructive adventures within the wider Wikipedia community then and yet you're trying the same thing with the same article now with no new rationale. Do you really need to waste time with this again? In case you have forgotten, below is the discussion from your own talk page history as a reminder. —  AjaxSmack  02:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ill be filing a NFCR for this abuse of NFC. Werieth (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

In an earlier example of this issue, I gave the following reply to Werieth at Talk:Titus Andronicus: "I understand that it is not possible to fully explain every action taken, but anyone enforcing an obscure policy like WP:NFCC should have some boilerplate or a link to provide as an explanation when opposition is encountered. Bear in mind that the issue is not that urgent that it must be resolved in the next five minutes, and by just edit warring you are sucking good editors into a trap. This is an excellent article maintained by excellent editors, and they deserve a little more care than is possible when dealing with new accounts advocating for a garage band. It's likely that editors of topics related to Shakespeare have never heard of NFCC, and it's hard to tell the difference between an enforcer and the random warriors that are often seen at Wikipedia. Fortunately the admins who saw your attempt at ANI are smarter than average. Johnuniq (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)"

My reference to the "smarter" admin is that the article was fully protected to avoid blocking the participants. There must be a better way of enforcing NFCC that does not involve major disruption—excellent content builders should not be sucked into edit wars, and should be persuaded rather than steamrolled. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Need help again
Hello. Before 3 months you help me with this User talk:Werieth/201309. I did as you had said Just add a category after the last }. Is there a way not the template not be in this category?

Template: el:Πρότυπο:Football teams/Κατάλογος ομάδων Category: el:Κατηγορία:Πρότυπο:Football teams για ομάδα που δεν υπάρχει στον κατάλογο

Thx. Xaris333 (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Im not sure what you are asking for. Werieth (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Transclusions of Special:ListFiles and Special:NewFiles
I found out that you can transclude special pages such as and. See for example Special:PermanentLink/562555956. This is a clear violation of WP:NFCC, but pages transcluding these special pages do not appear in database reports such as Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files. I see that User:Vanischenu/specials has transcluded the special pages since July, so this would definitely have been spotted earlier if the database reports had listed this page. Do you know if there is some other way to find pages using non-free files by transcluding special pages? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no clue how to look for those kinds of things. Werieth (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of people from Bradford. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * are you stupid or just being a WP:DICK? Also please stop stalking my edits. The removals in question are exempt from 3RR, Please see WP:3RRNO#5. The next time you warn me/revert without understanding NFCC I will be forced to seek a topic ban for you. Werieth (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't you seek a topic ban for me last week, after your other two final warnings? As I recall, it ended with you being blocked again for edit-warring over NFCC.
 * Edit-warring is edit-warring. It is disruptive to the smooth running of WP, including the NFCR board. Your edit-warring (which is self-evident, I'm not going to mince words) does nothing to further your assumed aim of ensuring that WP appropriately complies with its relevant policies, it merely sends everyone around in circles.
 * NFCC is complex and subjective. These images include at least one major artwork by a notable artist, of a substantially notable individual subject. It's relevance per NFC is not cut and dried, it is precisely the sort of issue that does not "unquestionably violate" NFCC and 3RRNO#5. In addition, you have been frequently warned and even blocked over precisely that issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually List of people from Bradford is a cut and try case of unquestionable violation. I know the complexity of NFCC far far more than you do. Given your driveby WP:NFCR actions and failure to understand NFCC, your stalking and harassment I will file a ban request for you if you continue your inappropriate actions. I have not requested any bans yet for you, just brought up the possibility several times given WP:CIR in regards to NFCC which you seem to be lacking. Werieth (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Or on what grounds are you going to say that my actions where questionable? I can point several different parts of policy for removal that would place it solidly within the realm of unquestionable for each of them. Werieth (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN
Hi, I've pinged you to let you know about this discussion. Posting here too in case the ping doesn't work. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

One revert
Hi Werieth, I see has closed the thread at WP:AN, saying "Werieth has agreed to limit himself to one revert." This is ambiguous, but rather than re-opening the thread, I'm hoping you can just clarify.

My understanding is that you agreed to remove fair-use images (of the non-urgent kind) just once from an article. Not one revert, where you can remove and if reverted remove again, and not 1RR, where you can remove every 24 hours, but just once per article (whether it's one image or a group of images). Then if someone restores the image(s) you would open a discussion somewhere. Is that what you've agreed?

As I said, this won't solve the problem entirely, but it will go a good way to reducing frustration. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The way you phrased the question is hard to follow, But let me repeat what I said on AN. I will only remove a file once if it is a case where the removal is questionable or subjective if it is re-added Ill file a NFCR (aka 1R). However in cases where the removal isnt subjective (WP:NFC#14, NFCC#10c,#9 and other similar cases) multiple removals are often needed before the user re-adding the file gets the point. I think this is a very reasonable middle ground where both sides can move forward from there. Werieth (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you. I think you should stick to your "one removal only" for any enforcement of the guideline (NFC). As for enforcing the policy (NFCC), be careful not to violate 3RR (unless there's a serious copyright violation, but even then it's better to ask for help than to continue reverting). I think simply not complying with one aspect of the policy – e.g. not having a clear-enough rationale – would not be enough to claim a 3RR exemption. I know what NOT3RR says on that point, but it's worded a little broadly.


 * The key point is that the less you revert, the happier people will be with you. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

harassment by Andy Dingley
I see edits like this (to Asian American) as broadly disruptive. Similarly and. True, it is absolutely within policy. I would even agree with your (assumed) point here, that decorative galleries shouldn't use NFC media. However the overall effect of your edit is faintly ridiculous: you leave an article with glaring holes in it. As is evident from your editing history, you have negligible interest in improving articles or in encyclopedia quality, you simply act like a 'bot and bulk delete NFC material (see also Tweenies).

Better editing would be to replace these images. If your point is that these images are so commonplace that they have no value to justify the use of NFC, then this would be an easy task for you.

WP has no consensus of pressure to remove NFC images in the way that you clearly edit to achieve. If it did, then it would be a simple 'bot task to do so. Instead WP's overall position is that NFC blanking is too subtle to be done by a crude 'bot and so requires the conscious effort of an editor to apply judgement and to replace content (not simply blanking by rote) of it. You clearly take no interest in such matters: encyclopedia quality is an unimportant matter for the other editors to worry about instead.

As I noted, you are absolutely within policy here. Yet these are also much less than impressive edits. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually a bot could do it and be within consensus, however no bot operator is willing to put up with that level of abuse. I have zero obligation to find replacements for NFC violations, and I dont plan to do so. This is your final warning stop stalking my edits /harassing me. Werieth (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this your fourth "final warning" of me now? If you're so convinced that you're in the right, then you know where WP:ANI is, otherwise please stop with the empty threats. Your baseless bullying works on some editors (you have a dreadful history), but I'm not falling for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have given you warnings for different issues, I really dont care if you "fall for it" or not your behavior is unacceptable and if it continues I will take it to ANI. Werieth (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Renee Orta Salgado.jpg
Please undelete the image now that article is in mainspace. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin, thus I cannot delete or undelete the file for you. If you poke an admin they should do it for you without any hassle. Werieth (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Nanette Hanson
Hi, I originally put killed but then i was looking at other people that had been killed doing their jobs on the Bradfordians list and came across Sharon Beshenivsky, she was also tragically murdered, I'm surmising that term has been there as long as the piece regarding Sharon's murder has been on Wikipedia, don't see a problem with either Bradfordians having the term 'tragically murdered', but puzzeled how my term has been removed within hours of posting it yet it's obvious that the term has been on wikipedia describing one brave souls murder for years, without being removed, which seems to indicate to me the term is simply a softer description, not as stark as killed but certainly imo both descriptions are neutral.

Something strange has happened regarding the reference i used, it doesn't seem to exist on the link that I supplied this afternoon, will try to get another reference linked sometime tomorrow.2.100.37.249 (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The term tragically murdered places both an undue and non-neutral tone to those entries. I have pruned the entire article of similar phrases. See WP:NPOV. Werieth (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In who's opinion, yours? You've no more right to prune than i have.89.243.23.66 (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPOV Wikipedia takes a neutral view, and our articles should reflect that. Werieth (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's all interpretation, I certainly interpret it differently, tragically murdered is neutral as is the description 'killed'89.243.23.66 (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Who defines what qualifies as tragic? why are some called tragic and others not? It is a very biased term. Killed is a fact. Werieth (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The act its self defines the context in which 'tragically murdered' is deemed neutral. The link you posted simply backs that up. 89.243.23.66 (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it doesnt, see WP:EDITORIALIZING. Werieth (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I note it says 'usually' avoided, regarding tragically, that is hardly set in stone and seems to open up a case for using that term on occasions, given the context. I certainly wouldn't class the term as vandalism or not neutral in regards to my edit as there are occasions when it's used on wikipedia, the very idea that i'd vadalise anything is absurd.89.243.23.66 (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not given you any warnings for vandalism, I have given you POV warnings. Multiple users have told you that your edits are not acceptable. Werieth (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And so you shouldn't.... but we have it here from someone else.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2.100.37.249, I've read links which are vague regarding using various terms including tragically...the 'usually' avoided is not definitive. So if it's not definitive and the word's neutral in the context of the edit then i need a few more independent minds looking at the edit in question. The reason I'm questioning the independence of the editor above is the quickness of him backing your revert and point of view. I apologize for the delay but I'm new to this and I also work. I know two gentlemen who are wikipedia editors but it would make a mockery of the site to ask them to look at my edit as they may back point of view. 89.243.23.66 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Forgive me butting in, but let me take a moment to remind the IP that the three-revert rule is a bright-line rule. S/He may not be familiar with that, but s/he just broke it at List of people from Bradford. Please continue discussing the merits of the edit here (or at Talk:List of people from Bradford), but I caution the IP that s/he is in great peril of having her/his account blocked for edit warring if s/he keeps making the wording changes to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Does the three revert rule apply to everyone? 16:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)89.243.23.66 (talk)

About you "commenting out" your images
I fixed the rationales and readded a couple of them, but I have one question; you never heard of a backspace button before? Tom Danson (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by the backspace comment? Werieth (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Do What's Good for Me - 2 Unlimited
Hi

Do What's Good for Me was released via different record labels in different territories. Each one had a different cover.

Kids Like You and Me on the same page was a completely different release. This could technically have its own page as a separate release so at "the very least" should be reinstated in my opinion.

I do not understand how showing the cover art for each release is excessive use of non-free content? I would understand if more than one page of CD cover art was used per release, but not one for each territory.

Also, there are many many articles within wiki where this practice is used to show the different releases in different countries from many artists. Should all of these be deleted too?

Wozza20 (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NFCC, we restrict the usage of non-free media, Just because it had multiple covers doesn't mean we need to or should display all of them. Given that there where 5 covers of what is essentially a glorified track listing, There isnt justification for more than the 1 cover that remains. (See WP:NFCC). If there was reliably sourced commentary of the graphics used on the cover that would be a different story, but as the article currently is the files cannot be justified. Werieth (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to go through all artists where there is more than one cover and delete them? I do not understand why this one article should be different. Stop deleting the cover art which references the fact there were different releases across the globe. I see from previous edits others have argued with you about this. I have had approved items from wiki-registered editors where this has been done with the words "Good Job" left on my talk page.
 * I have filed a NFCR, after which those files will be removed. Werieth (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The files may be removed if they agree with you. If they decide this is the case, then approved wiki-editors will have their work cut out doing the same to "every" article within wiki with more than one cover image.

December 2013
Sorry about erasing the Mandela page, my browser had an error, I was only supposed to edit one section and my browser seems to have deleted all the other sections. Thanks for reverting. Nathan121212 (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , No problem I figured something like that probably happened. Werieth (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"Adore You"
Hello - That is not the official Adore You cover. Miley tweeted the official here: https://twitter.com/MileyCyrus/status/413466996979040256 please fix it if you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGirlw&things (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can I please have a little more context? Werieth (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

About your edit at Cut the Rope article
Thanks for your edit at Cut the Rope, but if you has cleared, , and  lines, administrators can think that those files aren't used in any article, and they can be deleted, even they have non-free logo copyright option. So I have reverted to the last version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhatlinh1704 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have re-removed the files, they do not meet our criteria for usage under our non-free content policy Werieth (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but... But those files are used to demonstrate Cut the Rope games, I suggest keeping those files. If you delete those files, Cut the Rope article won't be interesting. I love Cut the Rope games, and I want to contribute Cut the Rope article in order to improve its information. You can ask other users whether keep those files or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhatlinh1704 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Usage of non-free media is restricted, yes it may make the article more visually interesting but wikipedia's requirements for usage of those icons requires a lot more than that. Werieth (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

So what can I do in order to keep those files? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhatlinh1704 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing, the files are unacceptable. Werieth (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Werieth against images
Why you are doing this? In those discution about Chelsea logos thay was all kept. Why you want to delete my images and remove gallery from article? My personal hater? XXN (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is nothing personal at all, usage of non-free media (which most logos are) Must meet WP:NFC, the files where removed by both myself and because they failed to meet that policy. Werieth (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of File:AmbisonicLogo.svg
Hi *! You commented out the logos on most Ambisonics sub-pages because of a missing free-use rationale. Please see File:AmbisonicLogo.svg for why I think the minimal use imperative does not apply here (and why I've written a blanket fair-use rationale). Let me know what you think of this reasoning. Maybe you can suggest how to handle this most effectively, to avoid automatic removals of this logo in the future? Thanks, --Nettings (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Blanket and widespread usage of non-free material violates WP:NFC. Do not re-add them. Werieth (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Werieth, I'm a bit thin-skinned at the moment because I've had exactly the same thing over at Commons. Please do not just post template replies, but actually consider my arguments. I'm very much interested in solving this, but it's not obvious to me how. Standard Wikipedia procedure seems unable to handle the use of logos on multiple related pages. I can always just copy that fair use rationale X times for each of the pages I intend to use it on, but that seems a bit crufty. I believe the use of the logo is absolutely warranted, and that less strict criteria should apply since there is no possible commercial interest for this logo. Nettings (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and can't we first discuss this and then edit? Nobody likes extra work, right?Nettings (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The usage of non-free media is highly restricted, Wikipedia's Mission is to provide free content. File:AmbisonicLogo.svg is allowed on Ambisonics and only that page. Usage of their logo on other pages violations WP:NFC on several points. Even if you copy/paste the rationales the underlying issues in regards to WP:NFC remain. I could have listed half a dozen reasons for removal in each case, but I just listed the most obvious reason. Werieth (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is just rhetoric. What are the "half dozen reasons"? You make it sound like I have this evil corporate agenda and the case is totally undefendable. All I'm trying to do is make a series of articles visually coherent, and the issues around this logo are very weak to begin with: A) This trademark is dead, dead, dead commercially (still is a widely known logo for the Ambisonic technology, which makes it useful for wikipedia to have it). B) Others have argued that its design is very close to not being copyrightable at all. C) I have tried to point out why the Minimal use imperative is not applicable and why the chance that its use on wikipedia will ever be contested is practically nil.
 * I would like to address your complaint of a missing fair use rationale, but at the same time contest your decision to remove the logos from all but the main page. How do I do that? I believe the use of this logo several times is warranted, and your arguments do not convince me (mostly template wielding again).Nettings (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC #1,3,8,9 WP:NFCI#8, 14 sorta applies. That is half a dozen reasons. If you want a review WP:NFCR is where you file it. Werieth (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Werieth also removed it from the main article. I restored it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That was an accident, and thank you for restoring it. Werieth (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Werieth, thanks for giving more detail and explaining your reasoning. However, it does not change my own assessment of the situation. Thanks for pointing me to WP:NFCR, I will think about the matter some more and then probably take it there. No ill feelings, though. Happy holidays, --Nettings (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikistalking
Please stop stalking me. --evrik (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not stalking you at all, the only reason I saw your user draft was due to the non-free media in it. It had 5+ non-free files and was outside of article space. Werieth (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, how would you know that I was editing a draft of that page if you weren't wikistaking me. Please stop, or I will have to take action. --evrik (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are several reports that your draft came up on. (Pages with 5 or more non-free images, and two WP:NFCC reports) Werieth (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Must be super secret stalker reports then, because I see no public reports where this information is available. In case case, I would have less of a problem if you had "commented out" the images so they would have been left in place, or if you hadn't reverted the document while I was working on it, or if you hadn't issued a "final" warning. It's all very stalkerish, and very unfriendly. --evrik (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really, they are standard database reports. the only reason I gave a final warning was after you re-added the files multiple times. Given your history with non-free content I felt that a final warning was justified. Werieth (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, proof that you were stalking me. You reverted one of the changes within minutes of me starting work on the draft again. Your insinuations about my edits and your lack of Good Faith in my edits are more proof that you have an axe to grind against anyone who doesn't agree with you. Please just go away. --evrik (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Its called Echo, when you made [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Evrik/draft&oldid=587425485&diff=prev this edit] I got pinged, I took a look and reverted your violation of WP:NFCC. Werieth (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you follow my working draft so you can swoop in and pick fights over minor issues? You can justify it anyway you'd like. Please stop following my draft page, it's the first step in not being a wikistalker. --evrik (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Im not following anything I saw a textbook violation of WP:NFCC and fixed it. The same thing I have done [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=1000&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Werieth&namespace=2&tagfilter=&year=2013&month=-1 thousands of times before] Werieth (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should find a new hobby. --evrik (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should stop violating WP:NFCC and making false claims of wikistalking. If I wanted to I could go over every single article you have edited for NFC issues and I would be 100% in the correct, but you know what? I'm not that spiteful. I tend to focus on the bigger issues. Werieth (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * While I would love to debate the finer points of wikistalking with you, perhaps I should just say that you violate WP:Dick. Now, I am signing off for a while and going to a holiday party. I think you should do that as well. --evrik (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Syntax in a template.
I have this syntax in a template.

| label7     = Height | data7      =

I want, if the parameter height is complete with a number, to show, automatically m. For example, by put 1,73 will show 1,73 m. Please don't suggest the use of any other templmte. Thx. Xaris333 (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You would need to use the or something similar (have havent tested that sample) Werieth (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Question
How do you delete sandbox? Not that I want my deleted. JoeCool950 (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)]]
 * db-user should work Werieth (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Maria Pitillo Publicity Photo.png
Quick question. Are there any issues with the image that I posted? Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maria_Pitillo_Publicity_Photo.png  Djfitzgerald111 (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * that photo will be deleted soon, it fails WP:NFCC as replaceable. Given the person is still living a free image can be created. Werieth (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What am I missing then? I cannot find a free image anywhere.  Djfitzgerald111 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * NFCC#1 does not require that a free file be available, or even currently exist, just that a free file can be created and replace the non-free version. See WP:NFC#1 Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images. Werieth (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Have at it, let me know how that works out. Djfitzgerald111 (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I deeply regret having written this article for Wikipedia. I wish that I could undo it all. Djfitzgerald111 (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that? the odds are we will be able to get a free image. Werieth (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have worked on this article for eight months. What you are asking for simply does NOT exist.  I have two photos taken by a family friend.  Both include other people.  http://www.pinterest.com/pin/379006124862387069/  http://www.pinterest.com/pin/379006124862387066/ Pitillo is very very very resentful of the article and will NOT consent to providing a licensed photo.  Djfitzgerald111 (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is she the one in the black or white top? Werieth (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * She's the one in white. The little girl is her daughter Eva. I can provide her agents info if someone from Wikipedia wants to solve the issue.  I'm not an academic, I do this because I want to.  Djfitzgerald111 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can get your friend to upload and email WP:OTRS and release http://www.pinterest.com/pin/379006124862387066/ under a free license we can get a fairly good crop from that for her article. Werieth (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The person who took the photo is family of Pitillo. That person will go to her and ask if it's ok.  Pitillo will say No.  If Pitillo could erase the article, she would do so.  Djfitzgerald111 (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Morning. I intend to continue to make my claim of "fair use" of this photograph to illustrate the article that I have written. I have demonstrated good faith and exhausted all efforts to locate either a free image, or a licensed photo from a film distribution company. I contacted the person who owns the alternate photo that we discussed last night, with no success. There simply is no alternative at this point and I believe a photograph is important to the article. The fact that Pitillo is still alive, does in fact mean that a free photo MAY become available at some point. Today however, one does NOT exist, thus is my basis for claiming Fair Use. Merry Christmas! Djfitzgerald111 (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Another option: I have contacted the studio responsible for this photo Red Tricycle Awards 2013 Maria Pitillo is on the left. I have asked them for permission to use this photo, or if we are lucky, a better one from their portfolio.  Djfitzgerald111 (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Werieth Don't know if you're just away for the holiday or if I should respond elsewhere. I have attempted to contact cousin via facebook.  She has the only free photos that I have ever found.  We would still need her permission to use any, and she has yet to reply.  Djfitzgerald111 (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont mean to sound harsh, but regardless of the fact that you cannot find a free photo, one can still be created, and thus WP:NFC prohibits the usage of non-free media. Werieth (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fine. I will not contribute any more time or effort to Wikipedia.  It's not worth it.  Djfitzgerald111 (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

FAU Owls logo
Please explain your deletion of the team's logo from the each seasons' page.FAUowl (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:NFC #14 Werieth (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Zahara
Hi Werieth, the images placed in the sections of the Zahara article were discussed few months ago. Other users said it was okay to keep. There was a discussion template placed at the top of the article regarding the removal of the images from the article. If you go through the article's history, you'll see that the template was removed by an administrator. I'll wait for your response. If you tell me those images can't be there, I would create two separate articles. Can't believe I'm going over this again. versace1608 (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)