User talk:Werieth/201403

Question
I know we don't always agree, and there have been a few occasions that you have had to help me focus as well as a few times that you've stood up for me. I respect you and your opinion. In my recent successful RfA, I promised to be opened to recall with specific terms similar to User:TParis/Recall. Before I make any edits that require the mop, I wanted to cement my own recall process, including a list of editors who can specifically call for the recall of my administrative rights. Due to my high level of respect for you and your opinion, I wanted to know if I could include you on said list. Thanks, --  TLSuda (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure Werieth (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States
Regarding your [removal of images] at Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States; it was a bit premature. Do you even bother to figure out what is going on? Your application of WP:NFLISTS as discussion was under way at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting for redirects. As you can see no one objects to the redirect, but the discussion has gone on tangents. So, if the redirect nor are in place immediately, you are just going to pounce. WP:NFLISTS mostly applies to closer related topics so items 1-3 don't apply as the Scout like organization "article" is more like bunch of "subarticles". Item 4 is what I assume your are basing your judgment which if you would have let redirect be put in place over the unsourced articles, the images would not be in another article (not that WP image policy understands how images are handled on a webserver, but that is another story). Now you have frozen the change over to redirects as the article has been locked to another editor throwing tantrums. Spshu (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC sets the bar fairly high for usage of non-free media. There is an allowance for a company/organization logo on the article about the company, but that doesnt apply to a list of companies/organizations. Im sorry if you disagree with WP:NFCC but its policy. Werieth (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * One image cannot meet "8. Contextual significance." or "3. Minimal usage: a. Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." in a multi-organizational article as one logo cannot represent all these organizations. So, your statement isn't true that it "doesnt apply to a list of companies/organizations." Spshu (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are not reading what I am saying. I have no clue what point you are trying to make, but a non-free image must meet all 10 points of WP:NFCC. As I stated there is generally an acceptance that displaying a logo of a company/organization is acceptable on the article about that group. However when the group no longer has their own article the de facto allowance for usage of their logo becomes invalid. If a company isnt notable enough for their own article they are not notable enough to justify the inclusion of their logo. Werieth (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am reading what you are saying. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I am point out that multiple images in an article does meet WP:NFCC (the item you claimed above is the one reason for the rejection) particularly in this case. Because, the organizations are not closely enough related it is such that each image would have its own "contextual significance". Item 3 specify and directly denies your statement: "As I stated there is generally an acceptance that displaying a logo of a company/organization is acceptable on the article about that group. However when the group no longer has their own article the de facto allowance for usage of their logo becomes invalid." as it does allow multiple image to be used. Spshu (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to include the images at all? They are not required to understand that there are a number of scout like groups. If any one group is notable enough to justify a logo, they are notable enough for their own article and if they are not notable enough for a stand alone article, they are not notable enough to include the logo. Just because we discuss the group doesnt mean we need to display their logo. Werieth (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Because, perhaps the "subarticles" are on the cusp of being notable, but just missing that one other publication of general interest source that publishing an article on that. The images are already in the "system" and the WP editor(s) don't have to go through the process of re adding the image when they find that notable article source is already out there but have not been found.  Also, one editor gave provisional support with the proviso of image retention in the merger. Also, you would have notice that several of the groups that have images are in article that are not notable as is. Why are you not remove the images from those article? But not one of the 10 NFCC items is notability or has to do with notability. Logos would help readers to identify the different groups of scouts or scout like groups ie. meet requirement 8. "contextual significance".
 * In effect your argument leads to "Why have any images any where on Wikipedia?" Take them all down, why do I need the WP and "a Wikimedia project" logos on every page. Isn't copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation? Are we not in violation then every time we start a new article? Spshu (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Chevalier de Saint-Georges
Hello Werieth, I just sent you an e-mailDsteveb (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Wiener Lokalbahn.svg
Thanks for your removal of this non-free logo from the template. I didn't know that is was non-free here, and I still would consider it as PD because it only consists of simple geometric shapes (commons:Template:PD-textlogo). Do you have any objections against uploading it to Commons? | FDMS 19:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would consider that beyond basic shapes, and above the TOO. Werieth (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why? I just noticed that on the German description page it says that it doesn't meet TOO (Erreicht nicht die nötige Schöpfungshöhe, um Urheberrechtsschutz zu genießen [...])... | FDMS 18:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The german wiki is very very liberal with claiming things are below the TOO. The graphics that are used are not just simple shapes, (Circles, lines, squares, triangles) and is actually a fairly original work. Lets take File:Bronze.Olimpicorder.png as a counter example. It is just a group of 5 circles. There is some thought about the placement but overall its a fairly simple logo. Now look at File:Wiener Lokalbahn.svg it has unique edges, the corners are trimmed to interlock the two sides, and other minor artistic elements. If you want another opinion you can take it to WP:NFCR but I would classify it beyond the TOO. Werieth (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We could also take File:Best Western logo.svg as an example ... Anyway, as you recommended, I'll nominate it for NFCR, so please don't archive this section. | FDMS 19:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the DR? The user requesting deletion is now talking about the copyright status of the vectorisation, no longer about the image itself. That means that if the DR results in deletion, I could simply use our local File:Wiener Lokalbahn.svg instead (as long as it is doesn't get tagged as "vectorisation copyvio"). | FDMS 22:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Which it will. Werieth (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So you want me to remove the non-free-content-rationale from File:Wiener Lokalbahn.svg? | FDMS 22:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Lets just wait for the NFCR and the FFD at commons to finish first. Werieth (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, nobody considered the file as meeting TOO at NFCR so far. | FDMS 22:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * NFCR's run for at least 7 days. Giving it ~2 hours and calling that consensus is a bad idea. Werieth (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't call it a consensus. | FDMS 22:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

American Tractor Corp.
Werieth, Please stop taking down the images I've added to this article. The company has been out of business since 1957, Case Corp dropped the name in 1959. They are from a publicly distributed sales brochure and are posted to illustrate the product line of short lived but influential manufacturer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njchronicaler (talk • contribs) 12:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Britain images
What is the rationale for removing images based on a "belief", "feeling" that only three images should prevail. You have also removed relevant information in your haste to excise images. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the files for several reasons. A WP:NFCR discussion, WP:NFCC, and WP:NFCC. That's boiling it down to the primary points of the issues. You re-added non-existent images, and images in direct opposition to a WP:NFCR discussion. Thats the same thing as saying I disagree with an AfD so I will re-create the article after it gets deleted. My actions where based off policy, not personal opinion. Werieth (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that admins and editors are making arbitrary decisions such as simply declaring that an image is orphaned which was the case in this article, is very disconcerting. When the discussion simply revolved around your comment in January that seven images was excessive and did not involve any of the editors who created or contributed regularly to the article, calls into question a very deceptive practice. See other film articles of significant films such as Gone With the Wind, as example where non-free images are used. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was actually the one who requested that we add the non-free review to articles in order to make discussions more transparent and provide plenty of notification. If users go to the length of an RfC to have those notifications not be made I cannot just ignore the outcome of the RfC. You are citing Gone With the Wind it has a total of 1 non-free file. So that wouldnt be an example. Werieth (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And if you are trying to cite Gone with the Wind (film), that article has zero non-free files. Werieth (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but is there a hint of crusading going on here? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Just because you are unaware of the complete picture, and I am attempting to fill you in. You complained about no notification in regards to the NFCR. That was not my decision, in fact I prefer to get input from all sides. To that extent I had the template changed, and had both added to WP:TW in order to ensure that proper notification and discussion could take place. (Both issues you accused me of not doing). However other users disagreed with the usage of notification templates. Ignoring the outcome of a RfC because I disagree with the results would not end well. If you want to have non-free review added to articles while a NFCR is being conducted feel free to do so. You suggested the article talk page, but that is far from a good place to review NFCC issues as it is decentralized and by far a majority of those involved will be those who work with the article and added the files in the first place. Not really a neutral place for such a discussion. NFCR was created exactly for that purpose. To provide a centralized neutral place to discuss and review the usage of non-free media. Werieth (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Hello user Werieth,

A Rensselaer engraving was removed. It's copyright expired long ago. Please restore it.Snowfalcon cu (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The file in question may have been created in 1904, but there is a lack of information regarding its publication history. Thus we cannot establish that copyright has expired. Take File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg as a similar example from 1887 which is still under copyright. Werieth (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. What specific details do I need to dig up in order to have it restored? I am looking at that Pound photo and its details. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If I personally email Rensselaer Polytechic Institute and receive approval in written form, is that enough for restoration? Thanks. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We need to establish the author and date of first publication. Werieth (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC
 * Hi Werieth. I looked at that Ezra Pound photo. She lived until 1972. That is why it is still under copyright.  The Rensselaer image uploaded is a 19th century engraving.  A similar case is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sorbonne_17thc.jpg.  Thanks and take care. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesnt matter when she died, it matters when the photo was first published. Depending on when and how a photo was published determines the copyright status of the image. Werieth (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It most certainly does matter when the person dies, as attested by the two copyright templates of 50 and 70 years after death on Wikipedia.Snowfalcon cu (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please re-review those templates. Those reference the death of the copyright holder, not that of the subject. Werieth (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * * Photo looking east at Rensselaer Polytechnic is of 1904. The engraver is no longer alive.  The subject, Rensselaer, does not hold the copyright.  Thanks and take care.Snowfalcon cu (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are mixing your points and using circular logic. As I have stated depending on when a work was published. (even though it may have been created in 1904) it may not have been published until 1930, or some other unknown date. We need to know when the work was published. Werieth (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The templates and PD-old-70 do not refer to the copyright law of the United States but to the copyright laws of other countries. This is why we also have the templates Non-free Old-50 and Non-free Old-70 which tell that a file is in the public domain in some countries but not in the United States. In the United States, the usual term is 95 years from publication, although the term life+70 years is used for some very old unpublished material. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Werieth and Stefan. I will write straight away that understanding the details of Wiki idiosyncrasy is often harder than studying for an exam in quantum mechanics.  I emailed the library-archives staff at Rensselaer.  Response is thus. I will triple check the date on this image Monday morning for you. This was an photograph though, not an engraving. It was published in a few different Rensselaer sources right around 1904. One source in particular was the RPI Bulletin. The image was then created as a postcard which is what we have on our site, and what you are using. It's unlikely a name (photographer) can be attributed to this image. I'll get right back to you Monday. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Werieth and Stefan. I will write straight away that understanding the details of Wiki idiosyncrasy is often harder than studying for an exam in quantum mechanics.  I emailed the library-archives staff at Rensselaer.  Response is thus. I will triple check the date on this image Monday morning for you. This was an photograph though, not an engraving. It was published in a few different Rensselaer sources right around 1904. One source in particular was the RPI Bulletin. The image was then created as a postcard which is what we have on our site, and what you are using. It's unlikely a name (photographer) can be attributed to this image. I'll get right back to you Monday. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

SBS One
Ok, I can't get though to you, you seem to be blindly ignoring any communication I try to make with you regarding the gallery on SBS One. The gallery specifically shows the progression of logos of the SBS brand which the article is describing, and the gallery presents in the most concise and understandable format. For this reason, it should be exempt from WP:NFG and stay there. Please stop reverting the changes without a proper discussion weighted in by all major parties. Adammw 00:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adammw (talk • contribs)

Chevalier de Saint-Georges
Hello Werieth, I have reloaded the Dumouriez Arrests Commissioners illustration. It is from a book by Arthur Chuquet, La triason de Dumouriez, Paris, E. Plon, 1852, and should be on Wiki commons. If memory serves, on March 4th or thereabouts I understood you to say that, and that it should be PD-1923. Just like some of the others, I erroneously placed it in the unlicensed category. It is still in there, and I just found a message in my talk box that as it is "not posted in any Wiki article it would be deleted March 14." Therefore, I am posting it again, so that it can be accepted as off-licensed. The other three files, rejected before I uploaded again, having gotten notice that they were re-licensed and may be used. I also added two more files from Wiki commons. Please advise me if I should be mistaken in any of the above, Sincerely, Dsteveb (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello again Werieth, More problems

This morning, checking on my article we found the flag changed to the old one by “Omnipedista.” Please take a look as it is now. I know there is no point to put ours back, just to have it replaced over and over as in a war. According to your rules as I understand them, I am pasting the letter below to Omnipedista’s talk page and, at the same time, take the liberty to forward it to you, asking how I can be protected from this major incursion in case he refuses to comply with my plea. Not knowing what else to do, but gratified by your help with our illustrations, I am turning to you asking your advise of how to protect the integrity of my husband’s work. Below find my letter to Omnipedista’s talk page, hoping that it is within Wiki’s standards.

Good day Omnipedista,

I am a performing violinist and musicologist by profession. Very sorry to have to contradict you, but I have to tell you: Saint-Georges was not a “Caribbean- French figure” but a French fencer and musician living and performing in Paris, since he was 7 years old. Calling him a “Caribbean” without mentioning that his mother was a slave of African ancestry, does not serve our common purpose well. Saint-Georges was not only famous on the “Paris musical scene” but on the athletic “scene” as well. He was active in both those fields not only “prior to the French Revolution,” as you put it in your flag, but also during and after the Revolution, giving concerts and fencing matches in Lille in 1790 and 1791, and conducting an orchestra in Paris once again, from 1797, up to his death. All these facts are documented by Notes in my Saint-Georges article.

Contrary to some modern authors, Saint-Georges was never called “Le Mozart Noir” until 2008 by a CBC docudrama on which I was featured as commentator, but was unable to change that presumptuous title they used to help promote the DVD. There is no such category as, “… musicians of the European classical type,” and Saint-Georges was not just one of them [the earliest musicians of the European capital type], but, to quote my flag, “The chevalier de St.-Georges IS the first classical composer of African ancestry.”

I do think it rather unethical of you to use the result of my years of research in various European Archives to legitimize your flag formerly referenced solely with the aforementioned modern DVD, including its commercialized title, “ Mozart Noir” or “Black Mozart,” which Saint-Georges himself would have rejected.

In view of the above, as the author of articles, including the entry on the subject in The New Grove, Dictionary of music and musicians 2000, a monograph in The Black Music Research Journal of 11/1990, and an acclaimed biography in 2007, and having published his violin concertos in 1982, and premiered them in 1984 and 85 in New York and Japan, I appeal to you, esteemed Omnipedista, to restore or permit me to restore my flag to its painstakingly researched article.

Sincerely, Dsteveb (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Impossible object‎
Please note that your recent edit to this page, removing the Escher images, seems to have lost the titles too (I presume they are supposed to appear: otherwise why list them). They are inside a table or something... Imaginatorium (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Cosenza Calcio
Hi, so how can I keep the logos on the page History of Cosenza Calcio 1914 .... all those logos until the last one made in 2008 are not used anymore by the team... maybe they are free to use now but I can't prove that as it's difficult to find out which designer or what company might own the copyrights. if you see on any big football team like juventus for example you will find a badge 50px. so how can I do that for the cosenza page? --Kiwi (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In order to use non-free media we require sourced critical commentary about the images themselves. Given the current article there is no way it can support the inclusion of 7 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop deleting others' contributs
Stop deleting my contributs in the List of flying aces of WWII without a reason, that's is regarded as vandalism --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if you disagree with Wikipedia's policy on non-free media but I did cite a reason for removal. Werieth (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * All images that I used are already in other wikipedia articles, I just changed the sizes of them to make them fit, have a look before acting and please put back the images or I shall charge you level 2 of vandalism --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , Just because a file is used on a different article doesnt mean that you can include it in another article. Especially when those files are non-free. Once that happens they are subject to WP:NFCC. Usage on List of World War II flying aces is prohibited. Werieth (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you checked that all the pictures that I inserted are NON-free? Otherwise your rollback is a vandalism, you can remove ONLY the contents that are prohibited.--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , I checked that every file that I removed was non-free. I left the free files alone. Werieth (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I have authorization to use a picture for the article of Leonardo Ferrulli but I am not able to upload it, could you help? --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , depending on the type of authorization and source of the image sure, however I need more information. Werieth (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What more information you need? --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * the type of authorization, source, copyright that its under, and if its being released under a free license. Werieth (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I dont know who you really are, behind that exotic nickname, but let me tell you that all this annoying burocracy discourages people from contributing, that's one of the major shortcomings of wikipedia! Are you joking?  You need "the type of authorization, source, copyright that its under, and if its being released under a free license", anything else? I got that picture from the Associazione4stormo, the 4th Stormo was the unit of that pilot and the person that gave it to me is the archivist of the association, he wrote me  that the picture comes from the historic archive and  is of free domain, I am not going to ask all these things you are talking about, let's stop it here, I am really disappointed with all this iper-ruling! I am really fed up and I stop contributing to wikipedia. Enjoy yourself! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , you might think that its annoying bureaucracy, but verifying the copyright status and source of an image must be done before using an image in any publication, including Wikipedia. Sometimes when someone dontates a work to wikipedia they also change the license that the work is under. That is why I was asking. Werieth (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you realize what are you asking for??? I should ask to the association of the 4th Stormo all those data and information? Do you have the slightest idea of how the pictures arrives to the units' archives? They got them from families or relative often several if not many years ago, and it is impossible to get all those data. I think you are exaggerating and that you discourage people from enrich the article, do you realize that all we contributors are working gratis for wikipedia? Bah...
 * Everything and everyone has his/her/its shortcomings, wikipedia is no exception. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , I know exactly what Wikipedia requires. Getting source and basic copyright status is a requirement that cannot be ignored. That information is a requirement to ensure that we dont violate copyright law and get sued. Werieth (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello I contacted the "Associazione4stormo" about the allowance of using Leonardo Ferrulli picture and here is the answer: "Egregio sig. Milanetti,le foto di Ferrulli le ho avute dal figlio e sono comunque foto di oltre 70 anni fa che non sono soggette a copyright.

Fulvio Chianese Messaggio originale Da: milanetti...@...it Data: 13-mar-2014 16.28 A: "4°Stormo Chianese" .......@libero.it> Ogg: RE: Ferrulli" I am sure you can translat it by yourself. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, that is fairly useful. Im going to make a few assumptions but it shouldnt be that much of a leap. Given that statement I would assume that the photos where taken it Italy. If so that means that the copyright status falls under Italian laws. Given Italy's laws in regards to photographs of people, and that Leonardo Ferrulli died in 1943, the photo is about 71 years old at the newest. Italian copyright (in regards to the 70 year term) is based off the death of the author of the work. Given that the photo is barely 70 years old I suspect that they author probably lived several years longer and thus this work would still be covered under that clause. However Italian law has a shorter term for what is defined as simple photographs to which photographs of people fall into. Given those details I would say that as long as you provide the needed information and tag it with PD-Italy there shouldnt be an issue. Werieth (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of Facebook page
See Dougweller (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

hometown.aol.co.uk/glamrockbear moved to Expired requests (not done due to lack of reply)
Hi,

I am puzzled about why you moved my request to whitelist hometown.aol.co.uk/glamrockbear to the "Expired requests (not done due to lack of reply)" section,.

The reason I am puzzled is that there has only been one query about the request (at 04:49, 15 January 2014) and I replied at 17:05 the same day. Best wishes, Peter Loader (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved it as a stale request, there wasnt any discussion on it for about 60 days so I tagged it as stale. Werieth (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Question
Isn't the non-free pictures on the infobox of Turkish people not allowed? For example, Sabiha Gokcen's picture? Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * They keep adding that non-free picture back to the article. Does this not merit a warning or even a block? Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is that its multiple non-related users who are acting in good faith. If it was a single user or even a few users repeatedly re-adding then there would be a case, however in this case there isn't justification for warning users since the individual users are not repeating the behavior. Werieth (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you ask me, it appears to be a one-man show ( Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are several other users that I noticed too, including KylieTastic. However given that KazekageTR has contributed multiple times (They added it after I took my last look) I did give them a warning. Werieth (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Question about ESU Template
Hello,

I have a question. I would like to add a file in the Emporia State University template. Could you please explain what can and can't go in it. Obviously, a non-free file can't go in it, as you have said before. Can something like File:Emporia State Athletics secondary logo.png, or File:EmporiaStatelogo.png be used in it? I think the template would look better with an image in it, but am not sure what to put in it. Hope you can help! Corkythehornetfan(talk) 21:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with wikiproject guidelines (if there are any in this case) and cant give you much more guidance than dont use non-free files. Often it is at the editor's discretion. Werieth (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, thanks! I'll look around for the guidelines. Corkythehornetfan(talk) 22:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are the files I listed above non-free? I am pretty sure the second one is, but I'm not sure at those things. Corkythehornetfan(talk) 01:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

?
how does SabihaGökçen.jpg fails to comply with NFCC, can you enlighten me ? KazekageTR (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fairly simple, they dont have their own article so notability is already in question, and inclusion in Turkish people fails WP:NFCC#1,3,8. Werieth (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No actually she has. See Sabiha Gökçen.KazekageTR (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Then WP:NFCC is even more relevant, we can just link to her article if someone needs to see a picture of her. Werieth (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Commentary of non-free content
Hi, Are there any guidelines, tips, examples or whatever how much and which kind of (sourced) commentary is needed for non-free content to meet WP:NFCC, in particular logos? --Egel Reaction? 14:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are several factors in play. If you can give me some kind of idea what your trying to do I would be able to give your more specific advice. As your question is very vague. Werieth (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox!
Dude, at least leave my sandbox in peace! I already wrote the Greek Army and asked under what license they would be willing to release the images for use on wikipedia. Until they answer I parked the article on my sandbox. Please don't edit in my sandbox. Thanks. noclador (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Non-free media isnt allowed in a user sandbox, see WP:NFCC. The license must be a general release, because for Wikipedia only licenses are not permitted. Werieth (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, Ok... I asked for a cc-by-sa license, but did not hear yet back from the Greek Army. Hopefully they will answer soon. noclador (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Naipaul
Thank you for removing the two Non-Free images in Naipaul. I noticed thought that you had removed the commented out images as well, which are not Non Free. Is there a reason for that? Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  20:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just general housekeeping. Articles often get bloated with deleted/junk comments and make editing the articles more complex. Werieth (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

sandbox
Thanks for the help on the references on my sandbox article. I'm adding them back a bit at a time and I get now how the 'ref name' tag works.MlaneNYIT (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Lois Betteridge - removal of non-free content
Hi, there I see that you have removed the photograph of the artist who is the subject of this article, as well as images of her work. I believe the photographs meet the policies for fair use [] because:


 * 1) No free equivalent: They are the only photographs that exist of these works, and there are no free equivalents. The author (Keith Betteridge) is the only person who photographs the subject's work. The individual pieces are now held in various private collections in Canada and the US and are not available to be photographed formally in a way that would be appropriate for encyclopedic use. The photograph of the subject, Lois Betteridge, is also not replaceable by a free equivalent. Keith Betteridge is the only person that photographs her, and this is the only current image of her in her studio, suitable for encyclopedic use, that exists.
 * 2) Respect commercial opportunities: The images are low-resolution, and cannot be reprinted or in any other way interfere with the author's use of the images.
 * 3) Minimal usage: In case this was a concern, I have reduced the number of images in the article, to the minimum number needed to depict the  various phases of the subject's career. It is necessary to show whole images (rather than details or partial images) since the point is to provide encyclopedic documentation of the work discussed.
 * 4) Previous publication: Digital versions of these images (of the subject and of her work) were obtained from the subject's own website. The images have also been published in articles written about the subject (I cite these publications in the Wiki article), and are credited in those publications.
 * 5) Content: The images are documentary in nature, appropriate to encyclopedic use.
 * 6) Media-specific policy: The images meet  Wikipedia's policy:  I specified the image source and author and, since I used the upload template, the images automatically got tagged appropriately.
 * 7) One-article minimum: The images accompany the article Lois Betteridge.
 * 8) Contextual significance: The images provide visual documentation of 3D works that can't be described adequately in text alone. This is particularly important in this case: Wikipedia policy for biographical article of living persons requires a neutral tone, which rules out the kind of evocative language that might otherwise be used to describe the qualities and uniqueness of the artist's work.
 * 9) Restriction on location: The images are used only on Lois Betteridge, as required.
 * 10) Image description page: As mentioned above, I used the image upload template, and included all the info required: source, artist, copyright holder, year, the tag for 3D work, the name of the work and the rationale for its use. All that info is available by clicking on each image.

I think I've covered the bases here, but if you have other concerns, perhaps you can share them with me and I'll do my best to address them.

Thanks,Mary K McIntyre (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the files for several reasons. File:Lois Betteridge, 2010.jpeg is replaceable because she is still alive. We do not allow non-free images of living people. As for the images of the 4 works that where removed, there is zero sourced critical commentary about those images, in fact the works are not referenced in the article text at all. Without the needed critical commentary the files fail WP:NFCC. Werieth (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Qalamoun
First, Wikipedia:RS actually does not exclude Facebook as a source. Facebook is talked about in the context of self-published sources. These are official posts from official news sites on their official facebook pages (opposition and government) and not individual ones. Second, the talk you linked me to talks about a separate article, not this one. Third, you also removed a non-Facebook source without reason. Fourth, reliability of the SOHR has been discussed multiple times over the last two years and consensus was reached they are an authoritative source on the conflict as stated by reliable news media as AFP, AP, Reuters, Guardian, Telegraph, BBC News, etc. So, if you have doubts about their reliability I would open a discussion at the MAIN Syrian civil war article page. Although, you should check the Syrian civil war map talk page where the same issue was once again raised recently and the result was once again the same....SOHR stays as a source. Fifth, Syrian perspective represents an alternative POV to SOHR for sake of neutrality. So please, instead of removing sourced content, open up a discussion. Thank you in advance! EkoGraf (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The source was taken to WP:RSN and determined to be a non-reliable source. See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_167. Werieth (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I see it, none of the dozen or so editors of the Syrian civil war articles, who use SOHR on a daily basis, were involved in the discussion to present their arguments. The only ones who discussed it are editors who are minimaly involved or not at all. The wider editorial community of the Syrian civil war articles should be included. One guy even says If SOHR only exists on facebook, then SOHR is not an RS. We don't cite materical on facebook, and certainly not for controversial material. This shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about SOHR from someone who has not been involved in the Syria war articles. SOHR is not only on Facebook, but has its own site as well. Also, how is it controversial when all of the reliable western news media call it an authoritative source on the conflict? P.S. If SOHR would be exluded as a source than 80 percent of all material on this conflict would be removed because all of it is based on SOHR which is quoted daily by the reliable news media and taken in by them as facts. So I seriously have doubts that the wider Syria war editorial community will go along with this. Wider consultation is needed. EkoGraf (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For sake of compromise and to cool down any possible tensions I removed some of the material sourced with refs that you keep removing, and the refs themselves, since it was all non-consequencial material. EkoGraf (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Gosport and Fareham IRS.gif)
Hello Werieth You are mistaken! The logo is currently being used on the article Gosport Lifeboat Station. It may have got lost for sometime whilst JakeJRobinson was moving the page but it is in use now. I have removed your deletion notice tag.Cheeseladder (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not mistaken there are two specific files in question here File:Gosport and Fareham IRS.gif and File:GAFIRS Lifeboat Charity Logo.gif. The first is unused and I tagged it for deletion. The second is the file that is actually used in the article. Werieth (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected I had not looked that closely at the re-arrangment that JakeJRobinson has made to the original file description which I had previously uploaded. All has become clearCheeseladder (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Charmed Season 4-8 Main Characters.jpg
Hey, you can go ahead and delete File:Charmed Season 4-8 Main Characters.jpg. I don't need it anymore because I've uploaded the original version of the image here - File:Charmed Season 4-8 Main Characters Full Image.jpg. Thanks, Lesahna01 (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Slowking4
He's only made two edits in the last two months, and neither are personal attacks: one criticises you in an unusual manner, and the other criticises admins in general, but neither one warrants a block. If he were editing more, making more comments, I might do something, but this kind of thing this rarely doesn't warrant any sanctions. Nyttend (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)