User talk:Werieth/201404

Julia de Burgos image
Could you take a look at the new write up for Julia de Burgos at Puerto Rico on stamps? It includes a clean up and additional narrative from the New York Daily News on the stamp and the poet herself. The goal is to meet critical commentary for USPS fair use license of the entire stamp image. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Im sorry but you just havent met the needed critical commentary yet. That blurb is just a basic biography of the woman, and not the stamp. Werieth (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The stamp features the poet with blue water flowing behind her, evoking one of her best known poems, “Río Grande de Loíza,” a sensuous ode to the Puerto Rican river where she was raised. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again thats just a basic description of the stamp. Critical commentary is more than that. Was there any type of lobbying to get her on a stamp? Where there any reactions either socially or politically to the stamp? (Im just trying to come up with ideas for critical commentary beyond a basic description) Werieth (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Where was the opposition described for the Breast cancer research stamp article? There is no "critical" commentary in this new sense for our exemplary article.


 * In this new sense, the Breast cancer research stamp article is just a press release puff piece from a Congressman's office for the local weekly newspapers back home in the district.


 * In this new application, it seems "critical" must be hostile, --- but that is not my understanding of the term. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I said nothing about opposition. With regards to Breast cancer research stamp it had a fairly major impact. It was a prime example of conscientious consumption in cause marketing, and has had quite a bit of financial impact, providing support to almost 40 different research projects in regards to breast cancer research. It also highlights different marketing strategies over a 16 year period where they where not having much success until this stamp. Those types of discussion are forms that critical commentary may take. A basic discription of the stamp isnt. Werieth (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The description of breast cancer research has nothing to do with the stamp per se, the research would have been carried out regardless of the stamp issue. Likewise, the poetry and notability of Julia de Burgos exists independently of the stamp per se, so it meets the requirement for critical analysis related to the stamp. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the stamp had a direct impact and raised about 16 million dollars for breast cancer research. A brief biographical blurb has nothing to do with the stamp. Werieth (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

File:KLOVE 2014.png
Really? In the time you spent commenting out the logo from the various pages, you could have added the FURs to the logo page itself. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 14:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * there is no way that the image will pass NFCC when its used on 84 articles besides the article about the primary subject. Adding a invalid rationales wont do anything. Werieth (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Really (again)? Because the previous logo was used on 84 seperate pages without a single issue.  I don't think an FUR can be "invalid" when it shows permission for the image to be used on a page.  Most of the pages are of radio stations owned by the company that owns KLOVE.  The others are simply affiliates of the network, but owned by local companies.  Still, they would be covered by FURs for each page.


 * Adding those FURs, instead of commenting them out or assuming, would save us all time and patience. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 17:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It all depends on what the previous logo was. I can tell you that the previous logo was not labeled as non-free. If a logo is used on 85 articles it would have serous issues meeting the requirements set forth by policy. Which is why I didnt bother placing obviously invalid NFURs. You might want to list it at WP:NFCR as it might be pd-text, but I am not going to call that as it is more than just pure text. Werieth (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How about you do me a big favor, go through and take all the commented out logos (logo and all) and leave it just on the K-LOVE page. Right now, we have 88 pages that look like a mess.  Would save me and other editors alot of work. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 20:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It makes no difference visually since I used HTML comments. Werieth (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It does in the WikiCode. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 21:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Maarthaanda Varma Amar Chithra Katha.jpeg)
Hi Werieth, Thanks for intimating.

The file is intended to be used in the Marthandavarma (novel) under the comic book adaptation of the novel, however the due to the other circumstances the corresponding write-up is not ready yet and also it may take some time than expected and so won't be able to meet the required deadline as mentioned. I hope we could delete the same as per the procedures as of now, and shall use another image of same type at the right time of adding the Adaptations section. Thanks again.

(harith (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC))


 * Hi Werieth,
 * The file is used in the appropriate section of the article Marthandavarma (novel). Kindly refrain from removing it.


 * (harith (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC))

Logo removals from lifeboat station template
Hello Werieth

I have to ask you why you keep removing the logos from the Location template on the lifeboat stations articles. I see you have put your reason as (WP:NFC). The logo has the correct licence on its page and as the explanations clearly explains; the logos have been used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image and only to help browsers to identify the organization on the location template. It is only used on a minimal basis on the neighbouring stations location templates. I suggest that you should get some consensus on this subject before removing the logos. And before you claim minimal use guideline, you need to define what you think minimal use covers. Your method of just removing them is frankly not operating in the usual good faith way of doing thing here, especially without any sort of dialogue with the original contributor.Cheeseladder (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The logos are allowed on the article about the specific station, but as they are being used as a navigational aid on the rest they fail WP:NFCC, points 1,3,8. Werieth (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Image removal
Thanks for removing that image from []. I was not aware of that rule. E m a n 2 3 5 (talk)  20:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, if other userboxes can have pictures of people, how come User:Eman235/Original UBX/User Grant Green guitar can't have a picture of Grant Green? I see other people have been complaining about your deletion of pictures, giving the reason as that (IMHO silly) rule. E m a n 2 3 5  (talk)  20:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Main difference? Those people use free pictures, File:Grant Green guitarist.jpg is non-free. The usage of non-free media is very restricted. User boxes and user space is unacceptable usage. If you disagree with the policy feel free to try and change it. You wont get anywhere with that. Werieth (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ok. I honestly can't see how it is harmful to use a picture in a userbox, but ok. How does one tell if something's free or not? E m a n 2 3 5  (talk)  00:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Its a matter of copyright. Usage of the picture in your user box violates the copyright holders rights and can get wikipedia sued. If you have hidden categories all non-free files should have Category:All non-free media.
 * PS the length of your signature is too long. You are about %30 over the limit that is allowed. Werieth (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. You don't have too be so grouchy. Cheer up! :) I will change the signature, I didn't know about the limit. (Shouldn't there be a bot that alerts you to that or something?) Anyway, I'll read about the copyright stuff, and hopefully I will never have to shake my head in confusion at the copyright info again. Eman 235 (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Im not grouchy at all, that is one of the issues with text. I was just stating a fact. Im actually in a very good mood. With regards to your sig, I suspect that you are substituting templates in your sig to create it. If you just use the box in your preferences it limits you to 255 characters. Werieth (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Syrian-Kurdish conflict
I think you missed the fact that there is 1RR restriction on this article, you shouldn't have reverted the 2nd time - you are both now at 2RR and both could be blocked if reported. If the IP reverts again, do not revert them but report to WP:AIV mentioning the restriction. Perhaps you can dig up the RSN discussion on this and tell the IP, they may cooperate. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_167 for records purposes. Werieth (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Flags
Thank you for your work in removing unjustified non-free content, however could you please stop removing these flag images from articles. These images have been part of these articles for a long time, and are currently in the process of migrating from Commons as copyrighted works were uploaded under free licences, and are in the middle of editing. If you could either help/allow time for proper justifications to be added it would be much appreciated. trackratte (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * if you are referring to File:Flag of the Royal Military College of Canada.svg.png, WP:NFCC limits the usage of non-free files. For the most part the file is limited to Royal Military College of Canada. Werieth (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree the file is too widespread. However, I think it should be used at the Flag of Canada article as it illustrates the basis of the design, ie what inspired the design of the current flag. I though the template would be acceptable as it's essentially part of its parent article, used to connect topics within RMC covered in greater detail within their own article space. In any event, I agree with limiting the file to these two articles, and I think this readily meets the intent behind WP:NFCC. I would like to avoid overly restrictive interpratations like what was done for the Arms of Canada. trackratte (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That restrictiveness is set by policy, not by interpretation. In Flag of Canada its used in a gallery, which also violates WP:NFG Werieth (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, it is a restrictiveness, not a blanket refusal to allow a non-free image in more than one article. Also, WP:NFG states such an image in a gallery "is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis". Policies such as WP:RRULE and WP:RAP leave us with "Wikipedia's rules are principles, not civil code or exacting law". I think the basic question is, is the fair-use rationale good enough? Is it reasonable to have this image on the RMC article and the Flag of Canada article? I obviously think that yes, it is reasonable and offers quite a bit to the reader. trackratte (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Its a matter of WP:NFCC#1,3,8. Fair use has no meaning on wikipedia, wikipedia's policy on non-free media is far more strict than that of fair use. Its a matter of meeting WP:NFCC and I honestly dont see it doing that. Why must an article on the Flag of Canada include a copy of the flag of the Royal Military College? why wouldnt a link to the article about the Royal Military College work? How does it make the article non-understandable? Werieth (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see the merits here. NFCC#1: There is no free equivalent, as Crown Copyright states, copyright protection is maintained when "copyright protected Work held by DND/CAF is being revised, adapted, modified or translated, whether for personal or public non-commercial use". Also, the policy at Commons is "do not upload works derived from other copyrighted works onto Commons, or they will be deleted". For NFCC #3a: We're not talking about using multiple numbers of items only one, so I don't see how it applies. For NFCC #3b: I don't see how we could use only a portion here, and I'm completely on-board with using a low-res image. For NFCC #8: It is not about making an "article non-understandable" as you put it, but about whether or not "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Having the image of the RMC Flag next to the Canadian Flag clearly and succinctly illustrates where the design came from and how it was used to create the current flag, far better and more efficiently than words ever could. trackratte (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1 refers to not just other images, but could text or links to other content provide the same information? In this case yes, we have a complete article on the subject. As for #3 minimal usage. This comes into play in several ways using a work on as few pages as needed, using as little of the work as needed, and at as low a resolution that you can without compromising the usefulness of the image. The phrase I used How does it make the article non-understandable? is a fairly simplified version of NFCC#8. Why does the article on the Canadian flag require (which is what the second part of #8 really means)? If you want we can take this to WP:NFCR where you will be told the same thing. Werieth (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I imagine so, I'm familiar with how interpretations have been applied (although never been involved in). We can wait out on WP:NFCR as its copyright status is currently under discussion. What I am merely pointing out though, is that the intent behind the policy is to minimise, not to eliminate. Second, the letter of the policy does not limit non-free images to only one article. The question in my mind isn't is this image necessary to the article (almost any article would still be comprehensible without any images), but does the inclusion of the image substantially aid in understanding the topic in question. Granted, my opinion that the inclusion of the flag used as the basis behind the Canadian flag greatly aids understanding of the topic may not be universally held. trackratte (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

International Journal of Modern Physics
Hi Werieth, please review an image that I just uploaded for International Journal of Modern Physics. Is it still violating the non-free content policy? Thanks. User talk:WPratiwi — Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Using one cover is acceptable, but that is a list article and per WP:NFLIST we shouldnt use every cover. Werieth (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are these even "non-free"? They only contain text, so I'd think this falls under PD-text. --Randykitty (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed this, can you have a look again? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You might want to take this to WP:NFCR, Im not 100% sure if they would qualify or not. Werieth (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Werieth (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi and, I am planning to re-work the International Journal Modern Physics page to follow the style of Physical Review. So, it won't be necessary to upload each of the journal covers. However, if there is any updates on the possibilities to do so, please do let me know. Thank you! User talk:WPratiwi

April 2014
hi and im Zackdichens12 now i really want to keep ITV Blue Logo.png and today i will also put it on a article ok.Zackdichens12 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Image removal...continued
Did that discussion get archived? I wasn't able to get to a computer for a little while so that's why I'm replying now.

Really I was just joking about the grouchiness. I agree, that is a problem with text, especially, as you said, when it simply states facts. One of the ways to tell good encyclopedic writing seems to be "how insensitive is it?"

About the sig: I have no idea what you mean by substituting templates. I was using the preferences box, and the box wasn't limiting me. There were a few things in there that said SUBST:color and stuff like that, if that's what you mean...I really just created it by copy and pasting other stuff into my sandbox, editing it, and hitting "preview". Eman 235 (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah the subst:color when expanded and similar substing would easily put you over the limit. In your case the pre-subst size was below limit while post-subst you where well over it. By default the limit is 255 characters. Werieth (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. Is it fine now?
 * P.S. If a picture says that anyone can use it, modify it, etc., even for commercial purposes, does that mean it can be used in a userbox? Just making sure. Eman 235 (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Gerald Fried
Why did you put a space between the double stars and the quotes on the entire list of items on Gerald Fried's page.....it looks no different...just wondering why you would put in all that effort if nothing changed....is there a technical reason, that I should know about for future submissions??? Anetek3D (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I find that it makes reading the edit box much easier, that's just one of several minor changes that I make via a grease-monkey script while editing. Werieth (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Battle of 33rd Street
Why do you keep removing these images? They are already used multiple times on Wikipedia pages. --Zach Pepsin (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the use on that page doesnt meet wikipedia's policy on non-free media. Werieth (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But then why are they used on all of the other sports rivalry pages? --Zach Pepsin (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That particular file isnt. Werieth (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Then what images do you suppose belong there? --Zach Pepsin (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Who says an article needs an image? If you really think it does need an image, look for a free wordmark for the school. However non-free files are not permitted. Werieth (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So would an image like this work? File:Drexel_Dragons_Wordmark.gif --Zach Pepsin (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * that would be fine, if you take a look at the file description page you will note that the file is below the threshold for copyright and can be used without running into non-free content issue. In the future when someone removes files citing NFC you really shouldnt re-add them, without understanding the situation. Werieth (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok great! Sorry for that, and thank you for your help! --Zach Pepsin (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Help with templates
Hello. I need help again. Here is our previous conversation. . You said ''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. '' I did it then and works fine. Now, I put the template calling ft into the template Template:Infobox football biography. But now, almost all the articles are in the category el:Κατηγορία:Πρότυπο:Football teams για ομάδα που δεν υπάρχει στον κατάλογο and I can't find why. Let me give you an example:
 * 1) I have made this change
 * 2) Then I remove from the article
 * And now the article is in the category. But it shouldn't since all the teams are corrects written.

Any ideas? Xaris333 (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Kane Is Able, Inc.
Why did all the edits I completed get deleted? Including information that has been on the page before my editing. Everything I obtained was done so through the Kane Is Able website and I was authorized by the Marketing department to perform these edits to the Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colleen.carter (talk • contribs) 12:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * authorized by the Marketing department Thats the issue. It reads as an advert. Wikipedia policies do not allow that. Since you have a WP:COI I would suggest not editing the article. Werieth (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

How do I change that so that I could edit the article?

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colleen.carter (talk • contribs) 15:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You have a fairly large conflict of interest, and it means that you probably shouldnt be editing the article at all. Werieth (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Your war with me
Look for 8 years I have had only one other problem with a user. Please do not lecture me and do not threaten me. I believe that the image is covered under two criteria and it is in conflict with you opinion. 2. Team and corporate logos: For identification 8. Images with iconic status So why is your opinion on where this image lies the right one. Again thank you for your good faith edits, but I firmly believe you are wrong. Repeated edits constitute and edit war and must be moderated. Nolephin (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually policy is fairly clear on this issue, pages like 2014 Florida State Seminoles football team are subject to WP:NFC #14. Which means that the file usage is not allowed. This isn't a matter of discussion, its already been set in policy. Im not disputing the 6 other uses but usage of non-free media on annual pages just doesnt meet the requirements of policy. You can believe that the sky is green, or that elephants can fly, it doesnt mean that your beliefs are correct. In this case the issue has been discussed ad nauseam. The outcome was that usage on those pages isnt allowed. Continued violations of WP:NFCC will result in you being blocked. Werieth (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.- →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  19:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Velvet Rope Tour
Hello, The Velvet Rope Tour photos were added again due to no free alternatives existing. A few publication were contacted but refused to allow usage of their photos, and no photos of it are available on Flickr, only for her last two tours. The discussion said the consensus was the images could be replaced by concertgoers, but in this case there doesn't seem to be any replacements aside from the images from a music video containing tour footage (which are acceptable per WP:NFCC). The several images are all discussed within the article. Can they be added to the page again? Regards, User5482 (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the files cannot be re-added. It may take some time and it probably wont be easy to get those pictures but its fairly probable that free files can be uploaded at some point. Have you reached out for anyone who was at the concert, not companies as they are often greedy and wont share, but individuals? Just because a quick google search doesnt pull up a usable photo doesnt mean you can use non-free media instead. Werieth (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone who has truly useable photos aside from the larger companies since it took place in the nineties. There's many freely licensed photos of her latest tours but not this one. I've searched extensively and there doesn't seem to be many alternatives.. wouldn't one or two images be useable since they came from a music video (which is acceptable NFC)? User5482 (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Werieth (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Non-Free Images
Thanks for your edits to British Virgin Islands general election, 1967 and similar articles removing the image of Lavity Stoutt. Although I read through WP:NFC, I am still a little fuzzy about it. As I understand it: because the image is Non-Free, there are limits to which articles it can be used in, specifically, only those directly relating to the subject? Is that correct? Thanks for taking the time. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NFC limits the usage of non-free media to specific pages, in the case of Hamilton Lavity Stoutt, we can include a picture on his article, but not election articles. A rule of thumb is that non-free media can only be used on the primary article about the subject. Related articles may reference the subject but dont meet the bar for what justifies usage of non-free media. Werieth (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Crystal clear. Thanks.--Legis (talk - contribs) 14:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: File:Hillary.png
This should not be categorized as a "non-free file". This is a collection of unoriginal elements assembled in an unoriginal way, and there is no way that this would qualify for copyright protection in the first place. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the file it passes commons:COM:TOO and it may not be that "creative" but it does qualify for copyright. Werieth (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. I've been an intellectual property lawyer for nearly a decade, and I have worked on plenty of copyright matters; this falls well below the threshold (it is probably closest to the Best Western logo at commons:COM:TOO in this respect). The specific stars-and-stripes banner used is a reproduction of a common motif that has long since fallen out of copyright, if it ever was eligible. The rest of the content is text arranged in the way that text is usually arranged on campaign banners. bd2412  T 17:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you believe that, make a case at WP:NFCR to have it re-licensed. Werieth (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Lotus Improv images
You've removed all images from the Lotus Improv article, citing "remove files lacking critical commentary see WP:NFCC". The WP:NFCC article contains neither the word "critical" nor "commentary"; as such, I cannot deduce the problem. Can you please help me understand if this is a resolvable issue or if screenshots of non-free software are universally banned? wfaulk (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Critical commentary stems from WP:NFCC. There is almost zero sourced discussion about the visual elements of the UI. The few references to the design fall far short of meeting WP:NFCC. I'll also note that 5 images is excessive. In most cases 1-2 are all that are needed. Werieth (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've updated the rationale at File:Lotus_Improv_screenshot,_NeXTSTEP_version.jpg. Does this seem sufficient for reinclusion, assuming reference to the unique features was mentioned in the image caption in the article? wfaulk (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If its just in the image caption that means its not meeting WP:NFCC. Werieth (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The feature being illustrated is already talked about extensively in the article. I just meant including it in the caption to make it clear exactly what was being intended to illustrate.  (Thanks for fixing the accidental embed here, BTW.)  wfaulk (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Re:Replaceable fair use File:Chamaeleo calyptratus, (male), by Megan Best.jpeg and other
Yes, this file can be replaced with File:Chamaelio calyptratus.jpg. For whatever reason I was having trouble finding a picture with those yellow stripes in Commons. Also thanks for the cleanup in my sandbox. Jacedc (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible mistake edit?
Hi Werieth, I saw this edit in my watchlist but didn't quite understand it, as it seems to remove embedded comments and some other auto-generated comments/warnings. I looked at WP:NFCC but still don't get it. Anyhow, I didn't want to mess with it, since I didn't understand it. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Australian flags
Hi there,

I see several edits at List of Australian flags, providing the followed edit summary: "See WP:NFC". That link refers to Non-free content setting out Wikipedia's guideline, which states that non-free content can be used if certain conditions are met. You have not explained on what basis the reverted changes do not comply with this guideline. Conversely, there is a detailed explanation for the majority of changes that you reverted at Talk:List of Australian flags with specific reference to the relevant criteria point by point. If you disagree, please comment there rather than simply reverting without discussion or explanation specific to the case at hand.

Thank you. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 11:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Picture with logo
Would you like to take a look at file:Brookside Theatre at Night.jpg, used in 3 articles? It seems so unusual to me to use an image with a logo superimposed that I'm guessing there are policies that rule it out, but image policy is ... complicated. You seem like someone who'd know and know what to do - if anything. NebY (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

File & Media
Hi Werieth,

I see you changed "Media" to "File" on my userpage,

I was just wondering - What's the difference between them both?, I assumed "File would've actually shown the images hence why I put Media,

Anyway thanks for amending them :) ,

Regards, →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  14:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are three ways of linking to a file, [[File: [[Media: and [[:File:. The first two result in file uses being created. Prefixing it with : turns it into a wiki link. [[User:Werieth|Werieth]] (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahh right, Thanks for that :),
 * Thanks, →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  14:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

List of living Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients
Sorry I just recognized that the Picture was already removed after I already changed it. But I still do not understand why the picture of Waldemar von Gazen should not be published here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_Knight%27s_Cross_of_the_Iron_Cross_recipients you can already find it on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldemar_von_Gazen so what is the differnce? You wrote "WP:NFC" but under NFC "Images" there is nothing said about this content, probably you mean WP:NFTABLE "Non-free image use in galleries or tables" ..."the use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered." So it is not strictly forbidden to use it, I think this is an exception, cause like Czolgolz said:"this edit screws up the formatting". And he is already dead and the last living Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords recipient from the Heer. --Nikolaus27 (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * screws up the formatting is no where close to meeting WP:NFCC. Non-free files have very restrictive usage, for the most part they can only be used in the article about the person. Given that the person has their own stand alone article the file should be used only there. Werieth (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted with extreme speed
Hello ! You never gave me any opportunity to contest the speedy deletion of the three pictures. Regarding "Sonny Johansson scores at Sandvikens IF in 1970" (picture is already gone), I would like to argue that althow I may have been wrong in putting text ON the picture, I would argue that the picture is a historical moment of great significance whithin the scope of Landskrona BoIS article. And there is no possibility of showing that moment elsewise. Boeing720 (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Placing the spam in the picture is absolutely uncalled for, and we dont accept for Wikipedia only pictures. It was tagged and then deleted by an admin according to policy. If you want to illustrate these events and you have someone willing to donate the pictures to wikipedia its not that difficult to properly explain our mission and goals and to get the files released under a copyleft license that is acceptable. Werieth (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * But like I have attempted to explain, (regarding Sonny Johansson scores in the very importaint qualification to Allsvenskan game, in 1970) I have first contacted the copyright owners, Landskrona Stadsmuseum ("Landskrona's Town Museum") and their archive, called Minnesbanken ("The Memory Bank"). http://www.landskrona.se/Landskrona-museum/Minnesbanken.aspx I then asked for permission to use a few Landskrona BoIS - related pictures. They answered "just chose some photos and their number" and so I did. And through e-mail from Ingmar Sund (ingmar.sund@landskrona.se) I recieved the four pictures (in larger versions), this took almost two weeks, but included Easter. Anyone may obtain this picture for free by


 * 1) go to http://www.landskronaminnesbanken.se/Foto.asp
 * 2) (since I already have found the archive number) just wright 3663 below "Bildnummer" (Picture number) at the top  (all other search help must be blank, I think) and press "Sök" ("Search").
 * 3) Then (for unknown reasons) three blue link numbers appears in the upper part of the right column. And just press at "1970" (followed by Swedish text "Landskrona Bois. Sonny Johansson gör 2-0 i den all" the text is truncated, and full last words ought to be "allsvenska  kvalmatchen mot Sandvikens IF in 1970" or something like that.
 * 4) Then look down and right of the picture, and below the blue picture number b3663.jpg, ther is a "link-line" labeled as "Beställa bild" , which mean "Order Image". Unfortunatly the information is only in Swedish, but I presume that by wrighting in English to "Janne Jönsson" (which I did), You can use English and ask for the photo in question, and for what purpose.(I  explained for use at English Wikipedia for Fair Use)


 * I did it in a different way, not knowing how things worked. I e-mailed Janne Jönnson after a phone call to the museum. He then directed me to "Minnesbanken" ("The Memory Bank") and I didn't need to use the fourth step, as explained above. I just wrote up the picture numbers, and mailed him back. And about a fourthnight later, a reply came from Ingmar Sund (at behalf of the museum) which included the pictures in large size. (But the proper way is to do as explained above. Their search engine is quite demanding to learn. However pictures may even be used comercially, but then for a fee. Likewise, if You want a physical picture, some charge naturally must be payed, and if wanting the image in frame, the price gets higher, and then there are postal charges and VAT-tax added. But for private use, and through e-mail digital pictures are free. But You have to explain why You want a certain photo. Especially (I imagine), if asking for many photos. In my case, I wrote that the pictures was intended for use at English Wikipedia as Fair use, not becomming Public Domain. (Just as already had done with the photos from locally well-known photographer Bertil Persson, but after his approval, the photos came from another archive http://www.arkivet-landskrona.se/ Bertil Persson gave me permission to use "some photos", and they were chosen by Björn G. Chebrell, the archiver at that archive.


 * Regarding the Spam ON the pictures, as You state, I did this only since Bertil Persson and later the Museum also wanted their name in the Image text. And such names in image texts, are often removed, have I noticed. And "pure users" of Wikipedia (excluding us, editors) rarely reads the summary, that's atleast what I reckon. The part "for use at Wikipedia only" is entirelly my fault, also in the summary. I just wanted to ensure that my uploadings didn't cause the pictures to become Public Domain, since I had promised both Bertil Persson and the museum of that. And as You may have noticed, I have found this matters to be rather complicated. One only want's to make the best possible improvements to the articles


 * I'm sorry for not have knowing how to deal with these pictures. I've also been alerted on a public domain photo, that I had uploaded incorrectly. However a user at Wikimedia was kind enough to help me. And now I think I understand the essential parts of how to make Public Domain uploads at Wikimedia. But since You state " a copyleft license that is acceptable " I get the impression that it may, after all, be possible to use this picture (from 1970) as Fair Use somehow. But to be frank, I cannot manage this without some help. What is a "copyleft" liecence, is the first obstacle for me to come across. I mainly care for this single 1970-picture, but for use in the two articles Landskrona BoIS and Sonny Johansson. So all possible help would be very much appriciated. I'm not very familiar with this kind of issues. So, should I for instance return to the museum (?) and ask for which liecence ? I assume that everything but Public Domain could be accepted from their perspective. But I really am keen to know what kind of liecence You would recommend. I only know Public Domain and Fair Use (and a little about NFCC's and the Swedish 1967-rule for Public Domain). But if I just could get help with one single photo, I would learn from that, for the future. There were no other demands from Ingmar Sund (the plausible manager of "Minnesbanken", The Memory Bank at the museum, who e-mailed me the photos in larger size). The museum isn't a commercial institution in itself (but runned by the Municipality of Landskrona Town). Or perhaps I just did an error at the upload ?. Or is the problem only about the spam, now that I've explained how to obtain the shot ? Once again - I humbly ask for any kind of help, directions or other hints. Best Regards Boeing720 (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * a copyleft license is a copyright license which allows others to re-use and modify the work freely as long as you properly attribute and license the subsequent work under a similar license. (See the CC-BY licenses except for the NC and ND clauses for one example).
 * When communicating with a copyright holder, if you can properly explain the mission and goals of wikipedia, along with the pros, cons and trade offs of the different licensing and why Wikipedia wants freely licensed material (Which PD is only one of dozens of acceptable licenses) most copyright owners are more likely to release the media if we give them all the facts and provide both sides of the case. Often copyright holders misunderstand what rights they are giving up and which rights that they can maintain. Because of this confusion most copyright holders choose the easier solution and keep all the rights. But if you can make a proper case they are more likely to give us a freely licensed file.
 * As for embedding text spam into the image itself, if we are claiming fair use (IE under WP:NFCC) adding that text is obnoxious and spam.
 * Given that what you want to display doesnt meet the criteria set forth by WP:NFCC we cannot use them under a non-free license.
 * commons:Commons:Licensing, commons:Commons:Copyright tags, and commons:Commons:Choosing a license are a good place to get started understanding the differences between the licenses. Werieth (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * First thanks for Your reply and explinations. I fully understand the spam question, no text on the image. A copyleft licence gives other users possibility to use the picture, as long as they give credit to [in this case] "Landskrona Stadsmuseum" ("Landskrona's Town-museum") - and everyone that there after may use the picture (or changed picture), must also give credit to the copyright holder. Users may change the original, but the credit to the copyright holder always must remain. I've actually heard something about such licences before, but can't recall from where. I will study your suggested pages thoroghly, though. May I also ask what "pros & cons " are, shortening of what [sorry to ask this, but shortenings are often a main obsticle when attempting to learn something new from scratch] ? I will attempt to do my best in explaining this matters to the museum, and then ask for only two of the four pictures. I assume it will take me some time, and then also some time at the museum to reply. So if You could correct me if I'm all wrong about copyleft [so far], and possibly the shortenings aswell, then I hope to be able to first learn it good enough in order to explain it. Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Just as a procedural point, and in fairness to Boeing720: these items probably should not have been tagged and deleted under the WP:CSD criterion, because in addition to the Wikipedia-only permission they also had an explicit claim to NFC status, so their deletion should stand and fall according to their compliance with NFCC. I do agree though that the ones I saw would have ultimately failed the criteria, so the end result is right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)