Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Impru20/sandbox

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  No further actions needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Impru20/sandbox


The owner of this sandbox is being disruptive by reposting non-free images on the page. I've had to spend a lot of time on bringing this page in compliance with policy, but this apparently doesn't work as the owner of the sandbox brings the page into non-compliance with policy more or less immediately after fixing the page. We can't have pages which violate policy, and if the page can't be made to comply with policy, then the only remaining option is deletion of the page. Stefan2 (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've asked user Stefan2 twice to tell me which images are non-free so I can remove them myself. This user is not only not entering into discussion, but has repeteadly reverted the User:Impru20/sandbox page to earlier versions, removing lots of current data along the way. Now he has nominated the page for deletion, because somehow is not able to enter into a discussion and tell me which images should I remove, despite being something I offered to do myself. The page can be made to comply to policy, I just asked him to care to discuss with me how should I do it instead of entering into a disruptive behaviour by removing lots of entirely compliant content just because him, somehow, is not willing to identify the non-compliant images so those can be removed. This is excessive and entirely disproportionate. I already told Stefan2 that I was entirely willing to discuss the issue so we could both reach an understanding in how to best to improve the page without disrupting it. As a result, his claims on this issue do not match reality. He spent a lot of time on removing lots of content from that page, yes, but not a single effort to discuss with me. The images occupy a very small fraction of the entire page, so I can't really see what justification there is for removing the whole of it or for changing the content which is compliant. Impru20 (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Identifying the non-free files is your responsibility. I can't go through the page everyday and spend a lot of time identifying them myself as it takes a lot of time for me. If you are simply reverting the efforts by others to bring the page in compliance with policy, the only other option is deletion of the page, unless you bring it in compliance with policy yourself. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and trout the nom: the problem that Stefan refers to is this page contains several political party logos. Some of these logos are non-free (ie they are neither public domain nor freely licensed). On 27 March, Stefan removed the logos. Then, as part of adding new information to the page, Impru restored the logos. Stefan reverted this citing the WP:Non-free content criteria, which state that non-free images cannot be used outside of article space. Impru reverted this revert, causing Stefan to re-revert and issue a boilerplate warning, whereupon Impru posted a good faith question on Stefan's talk page (and re-re-reverted). If, in response to this, Stefan had explained the problem in plain English, not template-ese - that is, that the logos need to be removed because they are non-free - it seems Impru would have complied, but not Stefan had to POINTily nominate the page for deletion. Impru, the page is fine, just remove the non-free logos. BethNaught (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The page should not contain any non-free files, as that is against policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And if you had explained the issue in response to the good-faith question, I bet the non-free images would have been removed. This seems to me a very clear case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Note many of the logos are actually free. BethNaught (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Guys, I'd like to note that these logos are compliant and in the public domain: this, this, this, this and this.

On the other hand, this one uses a Creative Commons licensing.

I've detected now that the KKE logo (this one) was indeed copyrighted, have removed it and will proceed to remove this from any other page that uses it. However, I don't see what is the problem with the remainder of these. Or, in other words, there was one remaining image with a non-free licensing in the article. The suggestion to solve this, on Stefan2's opinion, is to delete the whole article. Which would not be required anyway, since the issue has been solved. Impru20 (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.