User talk:Δ/20110501

Image deletion notice

If you delete an image from a user subpage, please leave a notice on the user's talk page. Otherwise the image will be deleted from the article, when the user subpage is moved back into article space. Alternatively, rather than delete the image from the user subpage, consider placing the image within a comment, so that it can be restored when returned to article space. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Nobody is under any requirement to post a notice to a talk page, of a removal of an NFCC violating image from a user's userspace page. A user's subpage isn't an "article", and there's no entitlement to it holding non-free content indefinitely while the subpage exists. NFCC #9 is clear and precise. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am making a suggestion, because I did not notice that the deletion had been made. If it image was not at the top of the article, I would have missed your deletion entirely, but fortunately caught it when I moved the article back. I agree that an indefinite use would be a problem, but we were talking about the period from 21:21, 21 April 2011 until 04:24, 26 April 2011. It is not as though I want to use subpages, but as long as I must, let's try to work together to keep the operation as smooth as possible. If you could give me notices in the future, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and give you a notice now, any NFC usage in your userspace will be removed. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• @Racepacket: I started an RfC a long time ago about allowing a special exemption for NFCC #9 for articles in userspace that are obviously in development, and permitting a specific window in which to permit the use. The RfC never reached consensus, and so there is no special exclusion for userspace development articles. Δ acted properly. No notice is required. A descriptive edit summary can be useful, which Δ did]. That's all that is expected. In the future, please avoid using non-free content outside of article space. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Gentlemen: It’s not a question of what is required; it’s a question of what makes sense and what improves articles in Wikipedia. The practice to plow through articles and delete images without notice does the following:

1) It makes the relevant part of the article incomprehensible.

2) It screws up the layout of the article.

3) It upsets the author of the article (me), who does not discover the mutilation except by chance.

Clearly, through this practice the quality of what is presented in Wikipedia suffers, as well as harmonious collaboration. In my case, I need instructions on what status to assign an image so it is welcome. The image in question was figure 8 in “Loss estimates in real time for earthquakes worldwide”. I own the copyright and do not care what status the image has. I apologize for my inexperience concerning images.

Footnote: Your inexperience with how to treat people is probably more serious than my inexperience in assigning a status to an image, as your aggressive talk page shows.MaxWyss (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

If you are uploading anything you create yourself, you should release it under a free license. I am not removing images from articles. I am removing them from the userspace, it does not become an article until it is in the mainspace. according to policy non-free content cannot be used in the user space, PERIOD. Routine removal with a clear edit summary is standard procedure. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 09:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

@MaxWyss: I'm sorry but your complaint has no traction. WP:NFCC is not concerned that a userspace draft is incomprehensible. As I previously noted, an RfC to seek special status for draft articles failed to achieve that. If you want to change that status quo, then start another RfC. Until such time as the policy is changed to permit a special exclusion to draft articles in userspace, such draft articles MUST adhere to WP:NFCC. There is zero wiggle room on this. None. Nada. Zip. It's not happening. I hope I've been clear. If it screws up the layout of the article, use File:Example.jpg as a placeholder. If it upsets the author of an article, then don't place non-free content on the article and comply with WP:NFCC. Blaming Δ for upsetting you is attributing blame to someone who is doing exactly what the project wants us to do. The blame lies with _you_. Don't violate WP:NFCC and this won't be a problem, simple as that. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's much simpler than that: Don't do things that mutilate and degrade articles in wikipedia. Find another way to correct what does not conform to a rule. Being strident about it does not helpMaxWyss (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

• Allow me to be more succinct and crystal clear: NO. If that doesn't convey the point, please be precisely specific with a question. Otherwise, repeating your admonition that we should stop doing what we have done in support of WP:NFCC is beating a dead horse. If you seriously think there's some violation of guidelines/policy/whatever happening, please feel free to take it up at places like WT:NFC, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, WP:AN/I, etc. Your grievance is gaining zero traction here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how my request for assistance is unreasonable. If you are taking the time to delete the image from my user subpage, either comment it out (<!-- -->) or please leave a message on my talk page so that I will know to restore the image when I move it back into article space. Otherwise, I will assume that you intend to have the image deleted from the article space version as well at the time of the new version is moved back to article space. I do not have an opinion or want to differ with you on whether the individual image should be used or not, I am just trying to come up with a procedure that will work smoothly for all concerned. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• You assume wrongly. The edit summary Δ used in removing the image is clear and precise. All it takes is a bit of reading to understand the policy in question. It is one sentence long. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not clear why Hammersoft is responding on behalf of Δ. We are trying to design a process that works smoothly. It takes just as much effort to use comments (<!-- -->) as it does to physically delete the image/file tag, and it has the same effect. As for the edit summary, Δ would be the only person to ever read the edit summary, so I am unclear as to how it would provide the necessary communication to people who do not know that the edit summary had been left. Hammersoft and Δ are focusing on the copyright status of the image (I am not and don't check to see how the image is licensed or if it is just fair use). I am focused on just the copyright status of the text (and they are not.) Once the text is cleared, I want to move the article back into article space as quickly as possible and would not have noticed that the image was deleted because I don't have a specific memory of the image that would cause me to realize that it was missing. So unless the image was commented out or there is a message on my talk page, I will assume that whatever image deletions you are preforming are intended for the article space as well. You are free to add or delete whatever images you wish to whatever Wikipedia article that you desire. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Some of the areas Δ and I work in overlap. Having a common interest, our knowledge sets and ability to respond to questions in those areas have similarities. Δ has never forbidden me from responding to queries on his talk page. If he does, I'll stop. As to your points; if you want to modify the WP:NFC guideline to indicate that an image should be commented out rather than removed, you may feel free to suggest such a change at WT:NFC. For now, there's no such guideline in that respect, and your admonition that Δ should be more "smooth" by commenting rather than removing is simply an opinion unsupported by guideline. As for the edit summary, it makes total sense that a person developing an article in userspace would pay attention to the edit history if they find someone else has edited it. It's why we have edit summaries. If you choose not to read them, that's your business. If you don't check to see if an image is used under terms of WP:NFCC here, you hardly have grounds to complain when someone removes images from subpages in your userspace for failure to abide by WP:NFCC. If you don't have a specific memory of a non-free image in the article you are developing, that would seem to be an argument against inclusion at all; if the article reads fine with out it, it's a failure of WP:NFCC #8. If you're not going to read edit summaries, it isn't reasonable that we should expect you'd read comments. Your assumptions with regards to why an image is removed are yours and yours alone. You've been given an edit summary and been told several times now why the image was removed. Do you remain unclear on anything? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that Δ silence speaks for itself. I promise to not read edit summaries on user subpages. I will see the comments because they are in the text that I am selecting as a part of the move and they preserve the file name and image/file tag. I am asking for a "smooth" operation, I am not asking that any person be "smooth." Using comments would help the process. Again, I am not disputing your decision to delete or add images and appreciate all that you do for Wikipedia. Racepacket (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you cannot read edit summaries that is not my fault. They exist for a reason, so use them. If you cannot/will not use them it will probably result in you being blocked. There is a bot that currently goes around and comments out NFC, but it is often reverted. I find that image removal (vs just commenting out) has a higher success rate with repeat offenders. As for Hammersoft on my talk page I welcome it, It gets really boring repeating my self over and over to those who are un-willing to follow WP:NFCC ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 10:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Δ. Again, I did not add the image/file tags to the article and am only using the user page for the purpose of clearing the text of any copyright problems. I think that Hammersoft made an excellent point about WP:NFCC #8. So, unless there is a compelling reason to restore the NFCC image, I will not do so. Just to be clear, if you comment out the image/file tag, I will restore it only after the article is moved back into article space, not while it is in user space. Thank you for your continued cooperation and hard work to benefit Wikipedia. Racepacket (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Image removal

Hi you appear to have deleted a photo from my user page Hipeople1231 (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, he did. As his edit summary noted, it was removed per WP:NFCC #9. Did you have a specific question? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• I dont see wh it should have been Hipeople1231 (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Because the image is non-free. As I said above, using it on your userpage violates WP:NFCC #9. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• I know you said already! I dont have a degree in law so to me WP:NFCC #9. Isn't very clear! Hipeople1231 (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• WP:NFCC#9 is about as clear as you can get Non-free content is allowed only in articles which means any copyrighted file cannot be used on your userpage. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 10:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ahh! thats much clearer or i i missed that part when i read it) Hipeople1231 (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Template images

Hi Delta. Regarding this edit: please remember that complex templates like Template:GamesSport may have redlinks in the template space, but it might be a necessary part of the template code for their mainspace usage. If you are unfamiliar with complex parser functions then it is a good idea to ask before making any changes. Thanks! SFB 12:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You'd only need to review things in the Template, Wikipedia, and possibly File namespaces, though, which should simplify the issue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FSCnom/init&curid=30860032&diff=427053072&oldid=424354068 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AFSCnom%2Finit-delist&action=historysubmit&diff=427053074&oldid=422885720

These should not have been removed; that they don't exist is kind of the point when giving an example.

That said, there's only maybe a few dozen preloader templates on Wikipedia, so it's not surprising you aren't familiar with them. They're a way to allow processes, mainly featured content processes, to provide some pre-rendered text in the edit box when a new nomination is started, which the nominator can then change to reflect his or her specific nomination. As such, they're full of example names, Foo.jpg, Bar.jpg, Name of File.ogg, "Insert text here" and the like, as easy ways to show how they should be filled out. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I picked up instances of this, including this one here. It would be well worth reviewing your edits from yesterday to make sure no other problems were caused. Thanks. SFB 14:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, while not causing a problem, this edit didn't actually fix anything either. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but there's also a lot of bad edit summaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:PD-HungarianGov&diff=prev&oldid=427053637 does not reflect what was done.

Those aren't really important, though. I'd suggest that reviewing just your edits to the Template mainspace (there's an option to filter your contributions by mainspace at the top of Special:Contributions) would catch almost all of the major problems. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

I responded to you on my talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

• News and notes: Picture of the Year voting begins; Internet culture covered in Sweden and consulted in Russia; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia users name "superinjunction celebrities"; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Physics of a WikiProject: WikiProject Physics

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Two new cases open – including Tree shaping case

• Technology report: Call for RTL developers, varied sign-up pages and news in brief

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know

Unfortunately, I've been busy with school lately thanks to it being the end of the semester, but I've started removing the NFC uniform images from the schools' main pages and have been relegating them to the individual season pages where they belong. This will probably be a somewhat lengthy process, but I just wanted you to know that the process is proceeding smoothly. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 22:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

NALFO

Hi, you removed some of the shields and crest on the NALFO page but left others. I read the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. but didn't see any reason why they should be excluded but others kept. Each shield or crest is representative of a different member organization of NALFO. I just want a little clarification of where my mistake was made. Thank you. Monarca7 (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• The shields that were removed were non-free images. They were used on the article in violation of WP:NFLISTS. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• I still don't see how it violates anything. Can you please specify which it is actually violating? Thank you. Monarca7 (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Forget it, I got it now you deemed it over use. Thanks. Monarca7 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New Zealand dollar. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

enforcing WP:NFCC is exempt. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Read #2 - even if you are right, it still applies. and it is not an infringement of WP:NFCC if you read carefully Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why that would mean that I left a violation of the non-free content policy stand. In cases where copyright are concerned removal is default and you need to get consensus to add the material back in. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

PS I am probably one of the top 10 people on wikipedia who knows the non-free content policy the best, using 1 NFC is normally acceptable, 2 or more the bar rises quickly, using 10+ without a dam good reason is a violation. take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics#Usage_of_non-free_images ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember WP:V - where is the source to your ranking? Otherwise, like non-free images, it can be deleted! Lcmortensen (mailbox) 10:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:V only applies to articles. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

But still, I can't go round saying that "I'm probably one of the top 10 people on Wikipedia that knows the consequences of sucking up hot ashes with a vacuum cleaner" - I do actually know the consequences of sucking up hot ashes with a vacuum cleaner very well from my youth, but because there are 14 million Wikipedians, there must be at least another 100 Wikipedians who have done the same thing and are permanently disabled due to the consequences! Lcmortensen (mailbox) 21:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No no, sorry but I'm still thinking you are playing with rules avoiding to find any kind of consensus, Wikipedia is not your personal site, is not a game, and last but not least is not compulsory. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• You're certainly welcome to your opinion. But, it should be understood that consensus is already expressed at WP:NFLISTS, which took a long time to hammer out among people knowledgeable about NFCC issues. It is not necessary to seek consensus on every article where this is applied anymore than it is necessary to seek consensus to apply any other guideline or policy to any other article. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ive tried. Please note that WP:NFCC is exempt from WP:3RR ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The important word there is "unquestionably"... which is not the case at all. You've forced me to protect the page. It's clear that this is a disruptive pattern of yours. You need to discuss these issues and come to consensus, not assume that a fascist interpretation of policy will grant you carte blanche to do whatever you want. If you still feel that the unfree images need to go, go to the article's talk page and discuss it there. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

take a look at what I have linked to, usage in this manner is clear violation of the non-free policy. I have reported you for violating 3RR. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:FUEXPLAIN#Prior_debates ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That link does nothing except prove that there have been other disputes. The number of non-free images you deem to be excessive is not in line with previous consensus. You're not even willing to discuss the matter to possibly change consensus, which is a clear violation of policies which you are familiar with. The fact that you think none is the only acceptable number is not a policy, nor can you disregard previous consensus to implement it. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In prior discussions it was deemed 1 or 2 group shots where acceptable for list articles, 10 has never been acceptable. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

One more example where a list of characters had NFC removed Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_40#Another_character_article ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[1] I Agree with Bahamut0013, You are still playing with rules misleading policies, and it seems several user are saying you this. So first stop, then ask and discute! --Nicola Romani (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And you keep pointing to discussions about different articles, as if that consensus applied to all articles. They don't, or else they'd be in the policy. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

see WP:NFLISTS which covers what Im doing. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. "are strongly preferred over individual images" doesn't say "remove all images when they number over x". The policy allows for flexibility. Why don't you? bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I do have flexibility, using 10 non-free files is not flexibility, its lets ignore the non-free policy and place as many pretty pictures as we can in this article. 1-2 images are acceptable, 3-5 questionable if really needed, 10 or more clearly over usage. If this was within the 3-6 range I would be a lot more easy about how I removed it, however when Im removing 10 or more the only way people will listen is by force, this has been proven many many many times. People want to debate it until people loose interest so that they can continue to over use non-free materiel. However there has never been a successful modification of policy to enable such abuse. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me make this clear, Delta: I would be willing to entertain your interpretation of policy if you're willing to go to the talk page and compromise with me. My issue with you is your heavy-handed tactics, and I'm willing to let that go if you just discuss the matter. But if you wnat to try to use force, then you're never going to get what you want. I hate bullies, and my sympathy for what you think should be diminishes the more you try to force it on me. I'm a well-respected editor, not some floozy, and you shouldn't be trying to pick a fight with an admin like this. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't be trying to pick a fight with an admin? Why? Pray tell, what possible consequences does an editor face when in dispute with an administrator that they don't face when in dispute with any other editor? Don't threaten people with your administrator privileges Bahamut. You are way out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's well established that picking a fight with anyone on Wikipedia is a bad idea, but to offer such disrespect to a member who is tasked with enforcing community standards adds a certain level of insult to it. He knows damn well that he's in the wrong, and when an admin tries to stop him form being disruptive, he thumbs his nose. If you want to interpret that as a threat, fine, it's not my problem what you think, but you can't sit there and quail about me trying to do my job and stop disruptive editing. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Its not disruptive until you ignore policy and blindly revert. I am also a former administrator myself, and I know the policy a hell of a lot better than you do. So please dont feed me any crap about being wrong, (my point has now been proven multiple times by multiple editors). When in fact you violated WP:NFC and the rules for being an administrator by using the sysop tools during a dispute that you are involved with. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• You are no more entitled to respect because you are an administrator/checkuser/oversight than any other editor here. If you really think you're more entitled to respect here because of your positions, all the more reason you should step down. Your position entitles you to nothing except the privilege of the tools the server permits you to use. As to him being in the wrong, hardly. He's absolutely right. The prohibition of overuse of non-free images on list type articles is well documented and supported by policy and guideline. Asserting he is thumbing is nose is not supported by any facts in evidence. And I will sit here and tell you to stop abusing your admin privileges. If you still think you made no error in your use of the privileges (and your threats here), you really do need to step down. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as the article goes

I believe that can be considered resolved. Beta/Delta said that 1-2 images is acceptable. Considering the images of the warriors contained the same characters as many of the individual character images, that (I believe) violated NFCC by including more than one image of the same character. Thus, I have included the images of the light and dark warriors. That's two images each with four warriors. Thus, it keeps the use of non-free images to a minimum while maximizing the number of characters shown. Hopefully this will resolve the article issue.

As for the abuse of adminship and the overly-bold editing without discussion, that probably won't be resolved for several days, many pages, and an obscene amount of kb. Lara 14:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I admit it. I'm confused.

Dear Delta, I am not here to, and I do not wish to, pick a fight with you.
There are some things I do not understand, and I am here to ask you if you will explain them to me, please.
Due to previous explanations from you, I now have almost as good knowledge (if not understanding) of WP:NFCC as you do.
But there are a few matters I would appreciate if you would clarify for me, please.
In particular, when an image has been uploaded for a specific use on a specific page, a FUR has been provided for use on that page, and it is not used on any other page, what are the other issues that make use of that image a problem?
By way of example, (because it does not feature in the above "conversations", and hence by referring to it I'm not buying into existing "disagreements"), I'll mention the page Australian commemorative coins. You have created its current state with the edit comment: remove non-free content overuse.
By this, I am guessing that you are referring to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy, specifically clauses 3a & 3b?
If not, please advise.
If so:

3a says: Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information

On the page mentioned, "one item can" not "convey equivalent significant information", so I am guessing that 3a is not the justification you are using. (Please advise if I have come to the "wrong" conclusion, and if so, please explain why.)

3b says: Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

Breaking it up into bits:

An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. - I don't see how "a portion will suffice". By virtue of the FACT that you have removed ALL of the images, I am assuming that you, also, do not believe "a portion will suffice". Am I correct?

However, I do NOT understand how removing ALL of the images addresses, much less "solves" the problem. Simple logic suggests to me that if "a portion will" NOT "suffice", then one would include ALL of them. Can you help me understand your POV please?

The rest of the criteria do not seem relevant.

Awaiting your informative and helpful reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Pdfpdf, allow me to explain if I may. There's a number of policies and guidelines that synthesize together to form an understanding of why list type articles (whether called a list in name or not) should not contain any more non-free image use than necessary. First, look at m:Mission and understand from it that our purpose is working towards "develop[ing] educational content under a free license". Non-free content isn't under a free license, and its use on the project detracts from our mission and must be used only when truly necessary. Next, have a look at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, specifically point #3. The Foundation is our governing body, and here they are emphatically telling us that non-free content must be used minimally. This isn't a suggestion. It's a requirement. This sets the stage for us. Simply because under fair use law we can use non-free media doesn't mean we should. Typically in a list type article, non-free images fail minimal use requirements as outlined in WP:NFCC #3a. We have to keep use minimal. So where do we draw the line? WP:NFCC #8 covers this. In particular, if you have 20 images of all the units of currency in a currency system, there's really no argument that all 20 of them are significant such that the article is functionally impaired by their absence. Wikipedia:NFLISTS#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles point #2 addresses this in that it notes "Images which are discussed in detail in the context of the article body, such as a discussion of the art style, or a contentious element of the work", and also noting this must be done in concert with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Just because something is true doesn't make it acceptable to Wikipedia. We know it's true that there N units of currency in X currency system. That doesn't give us leave to include non-free images of every unit of that currency. What synthesizes from this is that we need to have verifiable secondary sources to support discussion of the appearance being represented in a given image in order to merit inclusion in most cases. List articles routinely fail this important requirement. Instead, we typically get long article texts with hardly any references and non-free images to "visually identify" each subelement within the entire set. In the case of Australian commemorative coins we had a number of images with the purpose of use rationale "illustration only for completing an index of all commemorative coins viewed together against the other". But, there's no sourced discussion (or in fact ANY discussion) on the difference of appearance between coins such that we need images in order for the reader to understand the difference in designs. This is just a slavish list of the coins with the coin images being used for illustration only. This isn't what Wikipedia is about. This entire article is a failure of WP:NOTCATALOG. It is probably hard to fathom that, and understand the unacceptability of such an article given the presence of so many other likewise failing articles, but it's true. This isn't a Wikipedia article. It's a slavish catalog of the entire set with virtually no references and no encyclopedic content. I hope that helps clarify things. Thanks for writing and asking! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Hammersoft! I found that to be very useful. I'm not sure whether it answers all of my questions, but I now actually understand the significance of my questions, and the significance of at least some of the issues. Not wanting to sound like a slimy sycophant, but in my (no-doubt biassed) opinion, the addition of information like the above as an annotation to the policy page would serve a useful purpose. I will now go away and think about the topic. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ironholds (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahem

Hello, Δ. You have new messages at Postdlf's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

postdlf (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain why you reverted this edit. Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You are repeatedly re-adding non-free content against policy. see WP:OVERUSE and WP:NFLISTS ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Errr. No. I'm not. Check your facts before shooting from the hip sunshine. Nite-nite, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sunshine? How sweet. Well, as long as you're not going to inform yourself on non-free image use policy, don't make edits involving non-free images. Also, since you want to be disrespectful and uncivil, consider the assumption of good faith exhausted. Lara 16:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Before going on, I do wish to point out that WP:OVERUSE is an essay and is NOT an official Wikipedia policy. WP:NFLISTS is an official policy and the only one to this that is applies. This user thinks Delta should stop citing non-policy essays. 115.189.240.194 (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • However WP:OVERUSE is a really good example and explanation of current policy and practice. Policy is WP:NFCC#3 "Minimal usage" which most people do not understand what that term means in regard to NFC. WP:OVERUSE is a good detailed explanation of policy. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Referring to essays to explain a position is entirely appropriate. I see nothing wrong with referring to an essay to do so. If an essay were cited as policy, there would be a problem. That's not the case here. You might not like WP:OVERUSE, but it is an explanatory essay and is useful for understanding the abstract issue of non-free content overuse. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand dollar images

Can you please explain why you deleted all the coin and banknote images from the New Zealand dollar articles? They are all compliant, and no other currency images have the problem (the NFUR is required to say that we comply with the Reserve Bank's guidelines). Lcmortensen (mailbox) 21:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The same question is about military ranks and coins image of worldwide countries in their specific pages. It seems you had not read the specific file page where is specifically written where they can be used. --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Please see WP:NFLISTS WP:NFCC#3 WP:NFCC#9 WP:NFCC#8 and WP:FUEXPLAIN, such overuse is a violation of our non-free content policy. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this is absolutely not overuse, is written on their specific (file)pages were use is permitted, you are deleting everything without reading their specific rationale use! ...Next time will be useful to open a discuss before to use this massive deleting system. And it seem also that I'm not the only one to telling you so, now I'm going to rollback. This is not a collaborative editing. --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

if you rollback you will be blocked from editing for inserting copyvios. Rationales do not give you carte blanche to use NFC. they are just one part needed to defend the usage of NFC in articles. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not see consensus first, then you are also making an a edit-war and last but not least, as already told to you on their specific file page there is the rationale use were use is permitted if you not agree, I'm sorry but you had to discuss before doing this kind of a massive/disrupting editing without a previous consensus. --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus means nothing, WP:NFCC trumps your statement, and just because you have a rationale does not mean the usage is valid, see WP:FUEXPLAIN ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but consensus (one of Wikipedia Pillars) means nothing is just your personal opinion, especially when you are removing rank insignia like the British Army ones from the same British Army rank insignia page e.g. even in presence of a rationale use for a British Army ranks on a Brithish Army ranks page! You are proceding in a massive disruptive editing, this is called vandalism. --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You need to review what WP:VAND states, you are talking to an editor with over 115,000 edits, and former administrator. My actions are no where NEAR vandalism. I am enforcing our non-free content policy and our m:Mission. Just because a group of users thinks its OK to rob a bank does not make it legal. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not an answer, I'm an editor too, and if on the file page is written that British Army ranks are just for a rationale use on British Army rank page this means that British Army rank have a rationale use like an educational purpose to explain on the British Army rank page wich ranks are currently in use, is not so difficult to understand. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just I could write a rationale for anything. That does not make the usage valid. Please read the links that I have provided. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The images on the New Zealand Dollar articles are all compliant with all policies

• WP:NFLISTS applies to list articles - the articles you deleted the images from are not list articles.
• WP:NFCC#3: An image of a 10c coin cannot can convey equivalent significant information for all five coins, so is compliant
• WP:NFCC#9: The images are displayed in article namespace, so are compliant
• WP:FUEXPLAIN: Meets WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8 (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.). No specific mention of coins or banknotes.

It is uncalled for and non-consensus removal of content, so unfortunately rules are rules, regardless of who you claim to be, and I do have to give you a vandalism warning. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

that should have been WP:NFCC#8 not 9. Using 10+ non-free images are not needed. you do not have to include every image. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because the work "List" is not in the title it may still be a list, which is what the currency articles are. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lcmortensen, because you are removing everything from everywhere, the purpose of a rationale use is an educational purpose, this is called "playing with rules" misleading the free rationale use for coins and ranks. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Take a read at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics#Usage_of_non-free_images this usage violates our non-free content policy. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And an editor of your experience should know NEVER to remove vandalism template. Any more reverts on the articles will result in breaking WP:3RR so please stop and get consensus first! Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:DTTR, your "warnings" are incorrect and thus can be removed as invalid. you need to read WP:VAND NONE of my edits can be considered vandalism. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, reverting violations of NFCC is specifically exempted from WP:3RR. [stwalkerster|talk] 22:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I Agree with this and your answer is not valid about military ranks on military rank page! this is called "playing with rules" and you are not searching consensus, just reverting vandalizing! --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Enforcing WP:NFCC not vandalism, Im not playing with the rules, they are fairly clear. such over usage of non-free content is not allowed. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No man sorry, you are amking disruptive editing, edit war, and playing with rules avoiding to find any sort of consensus, military ranks fell on WP:NFCC#1. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

NFCC#3 is minimal which you are failing. the ranks also fall into WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFLISTS does apply here. NFC must meet ALL 10 criteria ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted New Zealand dollar with only 10 NF images (the 5 backs of the coins and 5 fronts of the notes). Happy now? Or do I have to continue to sing Cee Lo Green? Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, why did you revert the ten-image version? It was compliant according to your rules - only ten images that showed the basics of the currency! Can you please follow your own rules! Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I never stated that 10 was acceptable. On some articles 1 is too much. See WP:NFLISTS and WP:OVERUSE. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Using 10+ non-free images are not needed" is the same as saying "maximum of 10" Lcmortensen (mailbox) 02:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding onto that, why didn't you just trim the number of images rather than remove them all? We wouldn't have gotten into this discussion if you did the right thing in the first place. And your infringing WP:NFCC#7 (one article minimum) if you remove the images - not every note and coin has its own page. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 23:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Outside opinion: "Trimming the number of images" gives rise to WP:NPOV debates, which are open to even more edit-warring and therefore inadvisable. There is no consistent rule on Wikipedia for images in lists, and even more so when each element in the list does not have its own article, and I've recently seen, although not contributed to, a recent similar debate in Deaths in 2011. My basis is that debates about interpretation of WP:NFCC and the sufficiency of a Fair use rationale should be referred to WP:IFD rather than being taken by one editor, however experienced. Only in that way can consensus be established, and precedent established, despite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, etc. Hengist Pod (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There is a consistent rule for images in lists, namely WP:NFLISTS which states that there should not be a non-free image for each entry in a list. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think that the rule is consistent, since we are talking about representative images in a list, rather than one image per entry- that, I would concede, would breach policy. It's perhaps difficult here, and elsewhere, since not every entry in a list might be independently notable, which raises the question of why it should be in the list to begin with. To avoid WP:NPOV concerns, I would think that lists should have either NO images, or ALL images, but to be honest, I consider that against that consideration, WP:NFCC would militate against the latter, and enthusiasm and creativity would militate against the former. Sometimes, I feel that we are bending the rules against creating a useful encyclopedia in favour of compliance with rules that are admittedly stricter than normal "fair-use" rules. Some slack would be welcome, because the reality is that we have very little trouble with images, which tells me that we are more than not getting it right. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• WP:NFLISTS is the rule, it does apply, and it is consistent. List articles routinely fail WP:NFCC requirements, specifically #8. Δ is absolutely right in his application of policy and guideline in trimming out the overuse of non-free images. Further, taking each individual image to IfD is tedious. List usages of non-free images are routinely removed. I've done tons of them myself. Occasionally some images can be used, but they are by far the exception rather than the rule. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's another thing - why target New Zealand notes and coins, when under New Zealand law, US notes and bills are required to comply with WP:NFCC (see [2]). Should I go ahead and remove all the US notes and bills?

It's money. It's freely available and easily reproduced (just needs $188.80 in cash to reproduce). The only problem is with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand's restriction on reproduction for fear of counterfeiting (although if you ever try to counterfeit a New Zealand banknote using Wikipedia, you're going to get caught - New Zealand banknotes are polymer and very difficult and expensive to counterfeit. The best even the most skilled counterfeiters can do is paper with clear adhesive tape for the transparencies!)

Can we please hold off the mass culling for the moment until we can find images compliant with WP:NFLISTS? After all, that's what WP:IAR (the fifth pillar) is all about! If you really want to help in this, please put NZD 188.80 in my ANZ bank account . Lcmortensen (mailbox) 02:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I will not hold off, if you take a look at all of my previous comments you will see that I said using 1 NFC is normally acceptable, 2 or more the bar rises quickly, using 10+ without a dam good reason is a violation I never stated that 10 was acceptable. I stated that one image for a topic related to non-free content is normally acceptable (used for identification), the bar of acceptable usage rises quickly along with the number of images. If you read WP:OVERUSE which I have pointed to multiple times you will see where it states that even one non-free file may violate WP:NFCC. I am not just targeting NZ related money, I am an equal opportunity offender. I removed 100+ from euro related pages, and more from other places where the images of their currency is non-free. Take a read at commons:COM:MONEY#New Zealand which shows that NZ currency is non-free. However most United States currency is within the public domain (see commons:COM:MONEY#United States) and thus NFC does not apply. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 07:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I worded that wrong - can we hold of the deleting EVERY SINGLE NON-FREE IMAGE. I would understand if the page had 114, but not six that complied with WP:NFCC (if you ignored the overuse part for the interim) and of which I could reproduce and replace in a week's time with a compliant NFC image (it actually took me 8 hours). And why is the US getting away with its hundreds of images despite New Zealand law saying they are copyrighted and comply with NFCC. I can go and wipe them because of RBNZ rules saying any foreign currency in New Zealand is subject to the same rules as local currency. We need one rule for money images, not two hundred.

If you are so devoted to reducing the number of non-free images in an article, do something about it yourself, rather than just deleting them and letting other have to clean up the mess. Be bold - take a moment to assess the situation and remedy it. If you have problems with your girlfriend (I'm assuming you're male and straight - but according to you, I'm wrong - shesus, if you told me you were a girl in the first place, I would have gone easy!), you would sort the problems out with her and try to remedy them, rather than stab her 216 times with a pair of scissors and leave the mess to her mother (and yes, that has happened). Same goes for Wikipedia. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 08:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Per WP:NFCC there is no need for Δ "to do something about it himself". The use of non-free content on Wikipedia is not routinely permitted and the use of multiple non-free images in an article violates WP:NFCC#Policy#3. I don't see any good reason why there would be a pressing need in a currency article to have multiple non-free images. It is quite possible to create a single image carrying the same meaning. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have done that already with a single picture. All I'm saying is for Δ to be more CONstructive than DEstructive: sure there is NFCC, but that's only one part of the argument. We are supposed to be helping to construct a high-quality online encyclopedia, so Δ is expected to help towards that goal by helping to find suitable replacements before going through articles like a bull in a china shop. It's not like that NFCC compliance has to be done right there, right now - what's more important, complying with NFCC or eating dinner? We get a seven-day "death row" period for NFC deletion, so why can't he/she/they help.

I did find a suitable replacement image for the coins, but none for the notes yet.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 10:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:VEGAN might me a good read, its possible to create a good encyclopedia without any non-free content, just ask the Germans what you see as constructive, I see as destructive and against both our non-free content policy and our m:Mission. Take a look at the line below every page title, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Every usage of non-free material goes against that. However I agree that a limited usage is acceptable, however please always remember our mission is to create free content, not only free to read, but free to re-use and distribute as people want. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 09:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is not "free", as it is under CC-BY-SA 3.0, which means it is only free as long as you attribute and share-alike. You can't redistribute Wikipedia willy nilly!

I have been a Wikipedian longer than you have (21 August 2005 vs. 12 July 2010), so I know a few more things than you. The first thing is all of five pillars and the m:Values have to be taken in whole and each part equally - you cannot focus on one part and expect everyone to do the rest. Wikipedia is "free" ("free" like local phone calls - there's a catch - CC-BY-SA in Wikipedia's case), but there is also Accessibility, Quality and Independence. It's like McDonald's - "Quality, Service, Cleanliness, Value" - they only work together and everyone is expected to support all four principles, not one.

Why do we go to the cenotaph every 25 April? "For freedom, there is always a price." We need non-free content to keep Wikipedia alive, but of course, too much of it is actually ruining the Mission of Wikipedia.

Take that all into account - NFCC is only a small part of the Freedom part - you need to work on the other parts as well.

So, here's the thing. We have articles with multiple non-free content. Obviously you're not fully capable of balancing between Freedom and Quality, but there are millions of other Wikipedians out there that can help. That's the working together to achieve the goal part. Rather than going through each article and deleting the images, place a banner on the top of the article concerned warning about WP:OVERUSE (one may have to be made), let the people who know the article try to remedy the problem before taking action by removal of overused images (72 hours should be more than enough). It's not like the Mission of Wikipedia is so important that it must be followed to the letter at every second of the day or else!

See, that's my bit on how you can be more constructive while helping to achieve the Mission of Wikipedia. This is a community, and people need to work together to achieve their goals.

Sorry for the essay (I've been waiting ages to write one!). If you don't agree with me, then.... We'll come to that later (I don't mind the warning for what I would say)

Lcmortensen (mailbox) 10:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You need to check your facts and stop the personal attacks. Ive been editing since 7 November 2005, Im a former administrator and I have over 115,000 edits. So I really doubt you know more about non-free content or wikipedia as a whole. I was also flown to WMF headquarters back when they where in St Petersburg, FL for a conference with Danny and the board. I really do not like to brag but your disrespectful comments require a response. Wikipedia is free, Lets say I am mayor of town XYZ, and wikipedia has a really good article on my town, If I wanted I could print it up in brochure format and do what ever I wanted with it. The only requirement is that I include a note stating that it is from wikipedia and provide a link back to the article. People sell wikipedia articles on Amazon [3] it is 100% legal, (and quite crafty) even though I may not agree with it, it allowable. However if an article includes non-free content as mayor of town XYZ I cannot publish it. I would need to remove that material first, or I would be sued for violating the copyright of the owner of the NFCC. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

PS there was a note left on Talk:Banknotes of the New Zealand dollar about the over use of NFC and it was ignored. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There was an note, but it was left over Easter Weekend - I was away with no internet so had no time to respond. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I make mistakes - I'm human, unlike you. Special:Contributions/Δ only go back as far as 12 July 2010. Anyway, 21 August beats 7 November, not to mention I was 14 when I started editing, way earlier than you.

If you are not happy with the way I am talking to you, then fine: Get off your chair, go for a walk, have something to eat and a rest, and stay off Wikipedia for 24 hours. Some time to cool off for both of us would be best. This is the end of the discussion. No if, or buts. I will personally have the pleasure of removing any of your Liberal-borderline-Fascist NFCC rubbish. GOODNIGHT!!! (i need sleep) Lcmortensen (mailbox) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Whether Δ started editing first or you did Lcmortensen, it's completely irrelevant. It's equivalent to sandbox arguments about who threw the sand first. Enough. Further, reacting to Δ by saying "your Liberal-borderline-Fascist NFCC rubbish", especially in the context of asking him to cool off, is both ironic and out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I meat that for both of us - I worded that wrong, which means it is not ironic.

And what part of "end of discussion" do you not understand? I do not want to continue this discussion anymore. Ka kite kaore ano. Lcmortensen (mailbox 22:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.189.240.194 (talk)

Approach

As you know, I do not agree with attempts by editors to force non-free content onto list articles and have conducted many removals myself ([4][5][6] for recent examples). It is unquestionable that Bahamut0013 abused his administrator privileges in his dispute with you. In this dispute specifically, I 100% agree with you that the images on List of characters of 8-Bit Theater were inappropriate. Further, they had laughably weak rationales that are blatant failures of WP:NFCC.

However, a rapid fire edit war which both you and Bahamut conducted is out of line in any case. Whether there is a special exclusion in 3RR for such a case is really irrelevant. An edit war, regardless of whether it is violating policy or not, fans flames and makes the situation hotter. This does no service to anyone. I've encountered such problems before with editors refusing to permit the removal of images. When faced with such a situation, I often report the situation to WT:NFC or WP:AN/I for assistance. I strongly, in the most animated terms, encourage you to do the same. You are too valuable here to fall victim to more sanctions on your editing, and make no mistake; if the edit warring continues across articles in support of image removals off of lists, somebody (or more likely multiple somebodies) will be coming after you with the Wikipedia version of pitchforks. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Every frickin time I try to do the right thing I get bitched at kinda of a boomerang effect where instead of focusing on the issues people attack me. If Im going to get bitched at either way whats the point? people need to stop the drama on AN/ANI and focus on the issues. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Just copy/paste the paragraph about NFCC and why the images you've removed are inappropriate on the article talk page of articles you remove images from. If they revert without discussion after that, do your thing and then report them to whatever noticeboard for editing or warring against policy, whichever. That way, you're editing within policy, doing the right thing, and your butt is covered! Lara 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Δ; believe me, I know damn well that the lynch mobs come after you almost every time there's even a mouse squeak of an issue with regards to you. That is why I sooooo frequently come to your defense when you are in the right. That, plus the fact the work you do here is invaluable. Nobody else has done what you've done here. Some people have developed tools to fill in some of what you've done, but not even a significant minority of all the work you've done here. Nobody does it. Just you. You are routinely taken to task over the silliest of things. So frequently people are abjectly wrong in their accusations of you, and/or have their facts completely wrong. Yet, those people get credence and support not because they are right but because they are commenting on _you_. I can and will defend you at every opportunity I have when you are right. I can't and won't defend you when you are wrong. I strongly encourage you to not violate 3RR, even if specifically exempted, and instead bring the issue to a noticeboard. The only time I've ever been blocked was because (a now defrocked) administrator decided to block me when I had exited a dispute and asked for assistance at the 3RR noticeboard. That's the kind of knee-jerk reaction that happens all too frequently around here. Unfortunately, with your history it's an order of magnitude more silly. If you don't want to take the time to report it to a noticeboard (I know you're not the most verbose person around), drop me a note on my talk page alerting me just to the name of the article in question and I'll investigate and happily instruct the editor who is reverting you, and make a report myself if need be. Just don't violate 3RR again, regardless of cause, ok? Please? Pretty please? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess its time for another try at that approach, I hope I get better responses this time around that what I did last time. If you can create a template style for adding to talk pages of articles about NFC over usage that would be appreciated, for the next time we need to do large scale enforcements. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I don't know what your past is, and I don't care to learn, because it's probably not relevant. I didn't know you changed your username, nor that you were an admin, or anything like that. This wasn't me acting in a lynch-mob mindset or anything, so please don't feel frustrated about your edits. I came along because Courcelles had tagged an image I uploaded, and investigating that, it seemed like there was a disruptive trend coming from you. I got trigger-happy, and for that, I apologize. Notwithstanding, I encourage you to soften your approach. This whole mess would have been diverted if you had sat down with me like I asked; I probably would have come around to your point of view if you had a lighter touch. I don't hold ill will toward you, and hope that you can see this a a way to work with other editors more effectively to fix those image problems. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, at least one editor may be using this incident as a vehicle. User_talk:Bahamut0013#User:Delta. This is exactly the kind of thing that can be avoided. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

template you asked for

Here's the template you asked for. Feel free to improve/correct/reword as you think appropriate. User:Hammersoft/3. Enjoy, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Image removals from articles

British army ranks are infact 'free' images - despite being listed as Non-Free since the original author (Pavel Močoch) and the site listed do not hold the copyright to the image, they are themselves reproducing a free image. The originals are copy-free works produced by the MOD - you can see an example of the original work here (which is part of a much larger set) - http://www.battlefield-site.co.uk/ranks.htm.

I don't know why you have embarked on such a destructive campaign of edits over such a petty matter - the images have been on here for years and never once has anyone complained that we are violating their copyright. You seem embroiled in a personal and emotionally charged thought-debate about the philosophical use of non-free images on Wikipedia. If you are going to make such sweeping and destructive edits I would suggest (and it is just a friendly suggestion) you explain in depth your rationale on your front page or somewhere similar. Simply throwing policy article URLs at anyone who questions your edits does not encourage constructive debate on the topic and will not help us in finding a mutually acceptable solution. It is all very well to say we are overusing non-free images (and I don't necessarily disagree), but without knowing specifically 'HOW' we are overusing the images in your opinion stifles any sort of progress on this matter. In essence I'm asking you to justify your edits - because I have just justified mine. 80.176.136.41 (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• take a read though WP:OVERUSE it should explain why I consider it overuse. The article in question uses 11 non-free images. IF source of the images are in fact released under a free license (we need proof of that) then Ill tag them as replaceable NFC. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not keen on picking through policy articles trying to empathise with why you think it's a violation (as I mentioned). The only way to constructively talk about this is for you to spell out to the rest of us, comprehensively, why you think this is a violation. Heres an example situation (ignoring these particular images may be 'free'). We could merge those images into a single file, we could also reduce the dimensions of that file. Does it now constitute overuse? Who decides? Why is having 11 seperate files such an issue? Intrinsically it is the 'minimal' amount of files needed to comprehensively convey each of the ranks (ignoring the single file argument). It seems at the moment you have become judge, jury and executioner of non-free-content based on your own interpretation of our various and often-contradictory policy documents. I don't doubt your actions are sincere or necessarily wrong, but simply that as a relative bystander to all this you don't seem prepared to have much discussion about it, and when you do there is very much a "shoot-first, ask question later, assume everyone else doesnt have a clue" approach. 80.176.136.41 (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:OVERUSE it will answer your questions Wikipedia:Fair_use_overuse#Q:_Including_one_image_for_each_character_on_a_.22List_of_....22_type_article_IS_minimal_use.3B_it.27s_one_image_per_character.21 and Wikipedia:Fair_use_overuse#Q:_Would_creating_a_montage_image_of_all_the_disputed_images_together_clear_up_this_problem.3F ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

But in theory each of these images could be used as it's own article. As it stands we don't currently have national ranks on the rank pages (because so many nations use similar rank names linking to the same articles). That article isn't even a policy document, it's almost entirely the work of a single user (Durin) who... left wikipedia.... some time ago after receieving legal threats. This is precisely what I mean about simply quoting various essays and policy documents. At some stage there has to be some in depth discussion and justification on this subject between those of us that disagree with your edits and those of us that agree (including yourself), ideally spanning more than a sentence of links. 80.176.136.41 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

there have been megabytes and megabytes of discussion about this spanning WP:AN WP:ANI and WT:NFC. that essay is a nice summary of said discussions and a simple explanation of our current policy and practices. If you want to change the policy WT:NFC is the third door on your left. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There was an extensive discussion by one person... Durin... in 2007. Are you totally unprepared to discuss this? You seem to be using polic and essays as a sort of firewall to prevent any constructive discussion. I'm less concerend about whether your edits are 'right or wrong' and more concerned about finding a way that we can include this content is some form or at least ameliorate for its loss somehow. I hope other users will come to my defence on this, as it seems entirely unacceptable that you would make such drastic edits and be so avoidant when it comes to talking about them. I desperately hope your response is not another sentence populated with vague deflecting comments and links to essays and policy documents. 80.176.136.41 (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You cannot decorate articles with non-free content just because you want to. Neither I nor Durin wrote the policy. There have been many many people involved in this over a long period of time, take a read though:Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 1 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 2 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 3 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 4 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 5 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 6 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 7 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 8 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 9 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 10 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 11 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 12 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 13 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 14 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 15 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 16 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 17 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 18 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 19 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 20 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 21 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 22 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 23 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 24 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 25 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 26 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 27 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 28 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 29 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 30 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 31 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 32 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 33 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 34 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 35 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 36 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 37 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 38 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 39 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 40 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 41 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 42 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 43 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 44 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 45 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 46 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 47 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 48 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 49 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 50 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 51 if you think that me and Durin are the only two. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That was an obviously provocative response, linking me to 50 archived documents after I have already told you I have no interest in being batted off onto articles you claim justify your edits when infact they do nothing of the sort. Since you aren't willing to discuss this in any depth will you answer simple questions - Where is the document in which policy explicity states that 2 images is THE unquestionable acceptable limit. Because so far as I can see this is a limit which you alone have decided upon as being acceptable, and have promoted yourself to judge, jury and executioner of your own policy. 80.176.136.41 (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have never stated that two images are the limit. Example: Mario (series) contains 5 non-free images, which I dont see their usage as an issue. The reason that NFC does not give exact numbers is because you cannot set exact numbers on such a subjective issue. Policy states minimal usage. Which means use as few, and as little NFC as possible. It has been deemed that NFC in lists is extremely limited if allowed at all. The consensus that was reached was that one (possibly two if absolutely needed) where acceptable for list of.. style articles. Lets take a list of characters example, lets say you have 15 characters, None of them have their own article because they are not notable enough for it to exist. Why then would you need individual pictures of each if they are not notable enough for their own article, normally a group shot is sufficient, per NFCC#3 minimal usage. How would you define it? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• @80.176.136.41; If you're not willing to educate yourself on the underlying discussions supporting our policies and guidelines on this issue, yet are willing to find fault with them, you place yourself in a situation that is untenable. Δ happens to be right. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Editwar at FPC

I don't know why you reverted my edit. Previous nominations on this image lead to long, unclear discussions/comments. I just split the two sections to provide a cleaner discussion. Why can't i do it this way and need to be reverted? --Niabot (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"adjusting filename after rename"

Hi. I noticed that you're bypassing functional image redirects, and I'm just wondering why. Thanks. —David Levy 01:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Makes running DB queries for image related issues a lot easier, and assists in tracking down orphaned non-free images. Right now the image table links them to the old filename, making it difficult to do maintenance with any file with a redirect. Bypassing them makes followups and image related issues easier to keep a handle on. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. —David Levy 02:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Currency images

Can you point me to any existing discussion showing a consensus in favor of removing thumbnails of fair use images of currency notes from currency articles? Because if you can't, edits like this are going way overboard. (I've raised this on the talk page for WP:OVERUSE.) Jpatokal (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

take a look at the talk page, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics#Usage_of_non-free_images and WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLE, and please do not leave comments at OVERUSE, if you have questions the note on the talkpage asks that you leave them at WT:NFC the policy page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

NOVA Roller Derby

Can you let me know why instead of feedback on your visits to what I was creating you instead tagged it for deletion? I'm happy to add more to the article, but it's difficult when rather than feedback on a page you had seen at least twice before you just asked for the work to be deleted. Imperialgrrl (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Its a non-notable group, which you have a conflict of interest with. I was tempted to either WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#G12 it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't truly answer my question regarding why you did not leave that feedback on my user page, rather than just tagging for speedy delete. Also, this same could be said about almost any other derby page out there. Most users edit pages they have information about, and I believe that it's informative, and not a biased entry. Thoughts? Imperialgrrl (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, point them out and I will be happy to address the issues with them. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If you happen upon them feel free. Also from that page "(This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept.)" - my question was to why you did not leave feedback, but tagged for speedy delete. I'm more than happy to talk about why the article may not be suitable, but to just tag for speedy delete - per your link - may not be the right thing to do, yes? If you have feedback on the page I'm very interested in hearing it. Thanks.Imperialgrrl (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:CSD#A7 and WP:N ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you also explain the removal of this team on the List of Roller Derby Leagues page? Why would this team not count for this list? Imperialgrrl (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Its not notable, and doesn't warrant inclusion. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

By definition it is a list of all leagues, not of all NOTABLE leagues. Its existence dictates its inclusion. At this point you're sort of targeting this page. I am reverting the edit with the understanding that if you revert it back I will be registering a complaint. 70.109.60.26 (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed quite a few spamish items from that list. please do not blindly revert. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw you did that, and will only add back the specific entry. Does that sit with you? I would rather talk and come to an agreement about this and not worry you will revert it. Imperialgrrl (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No, stop spamming your pet derby league. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Your assertion is inappropriate and emotional. I will be reverting and filing for a Third Option prior to a user complaint. You're just getting personal now and seem to want to "win". Imperialgrrl (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

its not emotional, you obviously work for or with the league and its obvious that you are pushing their material onto wikipedia against policy. I will re-remove your spam as needed. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You're targeted edits that I make specifically and wildly assuming things. If you remove my valid entries I will go down the road of a formal complaint. The original listing on that list wasn't even made by me, but you want in after dealing with me and took ONLY that league out. Your actions are clear and verifiable incorrect here. Imperialgrrl (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed quite a few groups that where listed on that page, I missed some on my first edit so I went back and took care of that for my second edit. Feel free, I will then file a WP:SPAM and a WP:COI reports. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

And now you're just going through anything I've done and removing it. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperialgrrl (talk • contribs) 03:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed another non-notable article that you posted, and thus tagged it as so. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

• News and notes: More research on newbie editors; Baidu plagiarism; bin Laden coverage; brief news

• In the news: Billionaire trying to sue Wikipedians; "Critical Point of View" book published; World Bank contest; brief news

• WikiProject report: Game Night at WikiProject Board and Table Games

• Features and admins: Featured articles bounce back

• Arbitration report: AEsh case comes to a close - what does the decision tell us?

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.16.5, 1.17b1; 1.18 branched; UploadWizard the default; Berlin Hackathon; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Fair use overuse

You do not own Wikipedia talk:Fair use overuse and have absolutely no right to remove my questions about the policy's applicability on its Talk page -- even if, or rather especially when, those questions raise issues you do not like. Jpatokal (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Most people do not watch that page, I moved the discussion to the relevant policy talk page, WT:NFC because you where using the wrong venue. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Currency images

Can you please tell my why are you removing currency pictures from Bangladeshi taka ? I, myself scanned those notes+coins and uploaded them to wikipedia. why are you keep doing like this ? This is really unfortunate. Souvik.arko (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Excessive usage of non-free content violates our policy see WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLE ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please prove they are non free! Thankyou Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

read File:1000 taka front.JPG it clearly states that the image is non-free. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What does the government of Bangladesh have to say on the policy, Indonesian currency is not copyrighted under their laws, what about other countries? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Currency is a good place to start. and the issue with Indonesian currency is not that simple, its fairly complex. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Reversions

I corrected the tags of various images, to indicate that they are public domain, as clearly stated on the page, using the standard Wikipedia Indonesia PD template, and in accordance with Indonesian law, which you could easily verify by reading before reaching for the 'revert' tool, but you have reverted them all. Please undo your changes, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.32.97 (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you prove that they are in fact released under pd? They are published by Bank Indonesia which is a private company, NOT Indonesian government ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

You need to look more closely. The images in question are in fact all published by the government, which prior to about 1965 had the right to issue currency of less than 5 rupiah/gulden. The images are clearly marked 'Republik Indonesia', 'Republic Indonesia Serikat', etc., whereas those published by Bank Indonesia display the same.

Separately, Bank Indonesia is certainly not a private company; until 1953 it was a private basically Dutch-owned bank, however it was nationalised then by the new Indonesian state. In 1999, it was distanced somewhat from the state, a reform intended to stabilise the currency/economy. Under that law, 'Bank Indonesia is an independent state -institution'. This was amended in 2004 to provide that 'Bank Indonesia exists as an independent public entity'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.32.97 (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please either provide proof that they are released under a PD license, As it stands it looks like they are publications from a non-governmental source and are thus not PD. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

PS independent public entity means not controlled by the government, thus your PD-gov claim is invalid. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read more carefully.

I have explained this already once, I do not intend to explain it again:

Prior to 1965 there were two bodies issuing money - 1: the government, issuing small denomations (as well as large denominations during the revolutionary period), and 2: the central bank issuing larger denominations.

The notes tagged with public domain were issued by the government, and are nothing to do with Bank Indonesia, and once again if you bothered to look rather than reverting everything on sight you would see that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.32.97 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

again you need to check your facts the PD-gov only applies to items created after 2002, because the law you are citing does not back date its effectiveness. and anything previously published is still under its previous copyright. And the bank in question has been separate from the government since before that act. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ive looked for proof to back your claims up and I cannot find it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that's bad news for your deletionist zeal, because the 2002 law is merely a restatement of the 1982 law, which in turn originates from the 1912 Dutch Copyright Act, which makes the same provision. So it was there all along.

And what is more, Bank Indonesia was nationalised in 1953, and it was only given independence as a public body in 1999, so all those banknotes published between 1953 and 1999 are most certainly public domain images too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.32.97 (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please provide third party reliable source stating what you are claiming. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

LMGTFY? I suggest you start off by reading Dutch copyright law, which links to the 1912 Act. There is a brief summary here on Indonesian law: [7], which explains that the copyright law originates from 1912, was replaced in 1982 [8] and then again in 2002, you can also read this [9]

It is explained at [10] about government and Bank Indonesia money - those notes I tagged were issued by the government and are therefore unquestionably public domain.

As for the status of Bank Indonesia itself [11] 'BI was originally conceived of as very much a part of the government – central bank independence in Indonesia would come much later', with the footnote 'The lack of independence of the Bank Indonesia from the government would raise alarms repeatedly as banking and financial developments became more complex over the next three decades. In fact recommendations to create an independent Central Bank feature regularly in World Bank reports issued between 1968 and May 1997. In the end, an independent Central Bank was not created until May 17, 1999 (Law No. 23/1999 on Bank Indonesia) after the damage to the financial sector by the 1997 crisis was done.'

So it is clear that all money prior to 1999 is public domain, and the status of that issued post-1999 is more ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.32.97 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the proof, I have restored the PD-gov related licenses to all affected images (I dont think I missed any), and restored them to the article. Next time please be able to produce evidence to back your statements up with proof before claiming a particular license on an image. With regards to images copyright statuses the default is to assume that they are copyrighted until it is proven otherwise. Unfortunately because you do not have an account, it is difficult to take you at your word because you have no history on the project. I would recommend that you create an account so that we can avoid issues like this in the future. (if you have a track record/background working with a particular area your word is easier to accept once you have proven that you know what you are talking about). I am sorry that I had to take such a harsh approach with this, however our policy is clear, those who wish to include non-free media, or change the license, the burden is on you to prove your claims. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you did not "have" to take such a harsh approach, and in fact an apology for the massive amount of time wasted by many editors due to your disruptive behavior is in order. Jpatokal (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It was not wasted time, for any user to claim something they need to be able to back it with third party reliable sources, until that happens, said content should be removed, take a look at our BLP and NFC policies the burden is on the users wishing to include content to prove that it is acceptable, not those who remove it for being un-based. My actions where not disruptive, those of the IP where because they needed to prove their claims and not revert. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If your actions are not disruptive, why have you been banned from editing over and over and over and over again? Jpatokal (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You made no effort to verify the status of the images, claiming that the banknotes were published by 'Bank Indonesia', when a brief look at the (stable) article or the images themselves would have shown this was nonsense. I do not care to take an account here because I don't plan to devote my life to silly battles with wikiwarriors.

When someone tells you something that you might doubt, it is reasonable to ask first and engage in discussion BEFORE reverting, especially when the 'problem' was at worst, exceededing your own personal interpretation of 'overuse'. BLP is utterly irrelevant and your interpretation of the NFC policies are just that - yours - there was no emergency here.

I explained the situation with the images from the very beginning, your insistence on a level of 'proof' greatly exceeding that which would normally be expected, all the while reverting the article while the discussion was still in progress could only be described as disruptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.117.177 (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at User talk:Jpatokal#Indonesia banknotes doesnt look like they are all PD after all. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of this: [12] ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on image deletions

You may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 52/Archives/ 39#RfC: Did recent currency image deletions go beyond the proper aims and objectives of the NFC image policy? about these recent image deletions. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 01:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Blue

ANZ's color blue is a trademark of ANZ. To protect Wikipedia from violating copyright, I hereby assert my right to remove similar shades of the color blue as I see fit. Reverting my actions may be considered vandalism. Jpatokal (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Trademarks are different than copyright. you cannot assert your claim. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you seem to be playing the "stop that or I'll block you" card a lot lately, I do believe that this edit of yours qualifies as a personal attack. But, being endowed with vast reserves of grandmotherly kindness, I'm content to say "tut tut" and remove it for you. Jpatokal (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Indonesian banknotes considered PD

It seems that Mr Anon has found the proverbial smoking gun, and that your proverbial goose is proverbially cooked. Please do share your opinion: Talk:Indonesian rupiah#Copyright status of Indonesian banknotes. Jpatokal (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

again you are mistaken. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Congrats

		The Original Barnstar
		For your efforts to keep the encyclopedia in tip-top shape. Cheers! —Eustress talk 00:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

iamamiwhoami

Borderings (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Regarding iamamiwhoami: How do you think I can go about displaying about two-three pictures regarding the project? Most music videos typically have one screenshot, and iamamiwhoami's music videos are all combined in one wikipedia article. Additionally, the images used are also important in identifying the specific environment and person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borderings (talk • contribs) 17:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You cant. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

So how do I go about doing something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LG_%26_B_telephone_MV_02.jpg without getting my images removed? Borderings (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't. I agree with Δ, here. There is no possible fair-use justification, and fair-use images aren't allowed on project pages, only in articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What restrictions are in place?

I've been looking over Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Community-imposed_restrictions, and note from the related discussion this was enacted three years ago. I know there are some restrictions still in place from ArbCom, but the community imposed restrictions? I can't find any evidence they are still active. If they're not active, when did they expire? I see a lot of people trying to criminalize you based on editing restrictions which I don't think are actually active. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that to be incorrect. The community restrictions weren't time-limited; unless they were repealed or overriden by ArbCom, they should remain in effect. (I don't if it is wise to have time-unlimited restrictions without a central repository, but no one has ever accused the community of being wise.) Δ may, of course, remove this without comment, but it doesn't necessarily reflect facts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As someone who was involved with placing the original restrictions, I can also say they were not intended to be time limited. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• I recall there being a date cap on at least one portion of those restrictions, but can't find it. That's what I was hoping to clarify. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Ive been planning a formal request for all the restrictions to be lifted. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    • So they're still in place? As to the request; it will be a very hard road to travel. Possibly the best argument is that since August of 2009 (nearly two years ago) you've been blocked just once, and that more than half a year ago. Given the block history before then, and how many people have been after your head and have been attempting to have you blocked, the fact that you haven't been blocked but the one time since August 2009 is very illuminating on the true status of your behavior. Another point; the ArbCom case closed three years ago now. Another point; the time limited aspects of the provisional suspension of the community ban [13] expired almost a year ago. Also more than 15,000 edits since your last block, without any blocks happening through those thousands of edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thinking back I'm quite certain there was a restriction on the use of scripts that was in place but is not now. Any idea where that restriction was originally discussed and put in place? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no restriction on scripts per se. Instead there is this:

Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.

The point is that we cannot tell if someone uses a script, but this restriction can be violated if it is clear that there is a pattern of edits that do not seem to have been carefully reviewed before they were made because they have problems we could expect a careful editor to notice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• The point actually is this thread was to help me remember what the editing restrictions were and/or are. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, the "original" sanctions [14] "are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate". The ArbCom motion [15] addressed a different issue (operating a second account I think) and as far as I know did not lift the community-imposed restrictions, only the ban. And lifting the sanctions was discussed just last fall [16] and rejected, so it's not as though this is lost in the dusty halls of memory. As far as I know, the santcions logged here continue until it is the pleasure of the community that they be changed. Franamax (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Franamax. Do you have any idea on when the restriction on the use of scripts was dropped? I'm 99.9% certain there was one, and is not now. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• There never was a restriction on using scripts in the community sanctions, as Carl says, we can't really tell if someone is using them or not. Actually there may have been some "no scripts" wording at some point that got dropped as untenable. Instead we developed a set of parameters around pattern and rate of edits and set a requirement that Beta manually review the edits, i.e. there better not be a series of careless errors. That is what the community set as a duck test. The AC/N motion had a one-year prohibition on running scripts, but again, that was lifting the ban and I see nothing that indicates that ArbCom intended to overturn the pre-existing sanctions. Maybe you should ask for an ArbCom clarification? Certainly, going by the discussion from last October the community thinks the restrictions are still in place, regardless of what ArbCom might think. Franamax (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Restrictions - link request

Could you please give a link to the VPR discussion for the task whose edit summary is "adjusting filename after rename"? I count at least 70 edits with that summary, which exceeds the limit of 25 without a VPR discussion under your editing restrictions.

Also, between the times of 2011-05-12T13:40:00 and 2011-05-12T13:49:50 you made 56 edits, which exceeds the limit of 40 in any ten minute period. This is a patent violation of your edit restriction, but I will not block you this time. If you break that limit again, I will block this account, even if I do not notice the edits until later. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There is not one, Ive made over 2,000 edits cleaning up the mess without any issues. In fact Ive gotten one thank you, and a barnstar for doing it. Cleanup up the file names makes it easier to track NFC usage, unused NFC, and makes wiki code cleaner by using the correct filenames. I invoked WP:IAR and other than your complaint about not following exactly to my restrictions progress has been made. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case you must cease this activity immediately, per your editing restrictions. The point of your editing restrictions is that they are not optional. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that an editing restriction wasn't violated (or was), but attacking him based on these edits is frankly absurd. The edits in this work have all been to change references in articles to images from redirects to the actual names of the images. This has been tremendously helpful in identifying non-free images that have been used in violation of policy. For example, File:Ltte emblem.jpg was used more than 50 times across a dizzying array of articles. In almost every case, it was used as a tiny 18px icon in the infobox, in violation of WP:NFCC #8 and lacking a rationale for use under WP:NFCC #10c. With this mass overuse, it was (until I removed all the violations) the most overused non-free file on the project. This was not discoverable while the image was used as a redirect from File:Tamil-tigers-flag.svg. This is not isolated. This work is completely uncontroversial, and helps to avoid a known server bug in identification of the uses of an item. Threatening a block over this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You might as well arrest someone for helping old ladies cross the street. Definitely a Reichstag moment :) (please, take as humor). --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets keep this discisson in one place please Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Δ#Unauthorized bot job to replaceimage redirects 16:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Article decimation

Thanks for ruining this article, this article, this article, and no doubt others too. Can't you find something constructive to do instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.111.174 (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry you see it that way, I was just enforcing our non-free content policy ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the WebCiteBot work

Hi Beta, I just need to take a moment and thank you very kindly for your work on your version of WebCiteBot. It has been very generous of you to take on the task—but more importantly, it is an extremely difficult task and you have mastered it with flying color. You bot has been working flawlessly for months. Thanks very much. From what i understand, ThaddeusB's original WebCiteBOT is unrepairable and Tim1357 has not moved forward with his bot. So I believe you are the only one in the running for the $500 reward. Your bot is certainly worth that—and much, much more in my opinion. I hope you are able to claim the prize as you certainly deserve it. Thanks again for all your help and your incredible programming skills. They are awesome. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I second that. You might remember that I tested your script for WebCite archiving once and I was very satisfied with the result. That's really awesome. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Since Toshio has commented also, I'm going to bring this up. @Beta, I would like to ask about getting your bot approved and an excemption from your restrictions. If I'm overstepping my bounds, just say so and I'll drop it. I'm going to be frank, you are the only person that has been able to get a WebCiteBot to work, and there have been many talented people working on this problem. There have also been many alternate solutions proposed to the dead link problem and they have all stalled. You are the only person that has a solution, and, in my opinion, your bot is extremely valuable to Wikipedia. Therefore, I would like to push this forward and try to get your bot approved and in full operation. I want to get your OK before I do anything. If you're not comfortable with it, just say the word, and that will be the end. But if you are willing, I would like your solution to work and you to get credit for your incredible software engineering expertise. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 22:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Im waiting on a response to the webcite team. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I know you've been under a magnifying glass for a long time and people are often critical. They don't seem to acknowledge all the great work you've done for the project and I don't think that's fair. I'm hoping your WebCiteBot can change that and that people will acknowledge your valuable work and software engineering expertise. Maybe this will lead to reducing some of the restrictions placed on you. That's my hope. I just need to let you know there are some of us that truly appreciate the work you have done and find it exrtemely valuable. Thanks again. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for adjusting file names in my user space. I missed on it.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

• News and notes: Geographical distribution of Wikipedia edits; Sue Gardner interviewed; brief news

• In the news: Education minister's speech copied from Wikipedia; Jimmy Wales interviewed; brief news

• WikiProject report: Back to Life: Reviving WikiProjects

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Motions - hyphens and dashes dispute

• Technology report: Berlin Hackathon; April Engineering Report; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Kindly revert your vandalism to the Indonesian rupiah images immediately. Indocopy (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

its not vandalism, you have zero proof that those images are free. If you change the licenses without proof again, you will be blocked. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 08:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You're a vandal, plain and simple. The images clearly describe why they are free - they are more than 50 years old and therefore public domain under Indonesian law. This is very easily verifiable by looking at the images and the helpfully hyperlinked Indonesian copyright law, however you repeatedly fail to look before acting, reverting free content. Indocopy (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indocopy (talk • contribs) 09:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

7 Brides for 7 Bros

Your recent edit on this page to change the name of the included picture resulted in a blank box. Upon trying to revert, the previous version is also a blank box (i.e. the file is no longer there). Since I'm not sure what was done to the file, I was wondering if you could either fix it or tell me and I'll fix it. Ckruschke (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

If you are referring to Seven Brides for Seven Brothers#Stage adaptation the file appears correct. Looks like it may be a caching issue on your end. Take a look at this and get back to me. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Editing my User:Works in Progress

Why are you editing my works in progress page? Aren't people supposed to reserve edits for pages that actually exist. Also, you're not helping me create this page by deleting its images without saying anything. I have permission from the IUSAFS to use that image - maybe you can tell me how I should express that on this image so it doesn't get deleted again.T.Whetsell (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You can't use non-free images in your user space, even if you are incubating an article for the mainspace. The best solution is to use invalid filenames for the images so they show up as an empty box when you save the page, but change them into valid filenames when you want to check the page layout just before moving it into mainspace. You can develop the new article without the images and only put them in when it goes live too. Franamax (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed with Franamax. Also be aware that permission to use an image on Wikipedia doesn't affect how we treat it here. If it's not available under a free license or public domain, then it must adhere to WP:NFCC which forbids the use of non-free content on userpages, even those that are articles in development. A long time ago, I attempted to get an exception to the policy for articles in development, but it failed. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support such an exemption, provided the article-to-be had an appropriate template (+category) notice at the top. As with my view of attack-page/evidence-for-DR userpages, I would say 2 weeks to use it or lose it. The image upload would of course have to satisfy all the NFCC rules, except the mainspace-only one. Franamax (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• That's essentially what I proposed. It would be a hell of a lot less hostile to new users. Didn't matter. Got shot down. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

First, i'd like to say I appreciate this conversation on my conundrum. Second, I probably overreacted to Hammersoft earlier at my own user page, but i'm beginning to see why people choose anonymity. Finally, I don't get why people are so preoccupied with upholding ridiculous copyright laws on wikipedia, specifically concerning images. Has Wikipedia been subject to legal action recently or something as a result of this. Seriously, copyright is only relevant if the copyright holder chooses to bring a lawsuit. T.Whetsell (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Is not Wikipedia a free encyclopedia? We cannot be free if there are non-free copyrighted fair-use images everywhere. --Σ _☭^★ 05:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

First, we don't want even a single lawsuit, or at least one that actually gets heard in a court. Figure on $250,000 by the time you appear that first day. Add on from there. I don't send my $20 in every year so the WMF can spend a million arguing about whether or not copyright laws are ridiculous. Many other donors might feel the same way. Secondly, people are not preoccupied with upholding copyrighr laws, they are trying to uphold a resolution of the WMF Board of Trustees, them wot' run the servers. Our choice is to comply or shut down. The exact specifics are always open to debate, but the Foundation laid down very clearly that we need to be paying attentiun to this. Franamax (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahem, although I agree with both Hammersoft (as to what the policy should be) and Franamax (as to what the policy is), it's not trying to uphold the Board resolution. Our "fair use" requirements go far beyond what the resolution requires. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Excuse me? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for donating your time and expertise to Wikipedia

	Valued Contributor Award
	You have been identified as a valued contributor and your efforts are appreciated. We are honored to present you with the Valued Contributor Award and we thank you for donating your time, expertise and effort to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. Thanks. (more details)

Just wanted to say thank you for donating your free time to Wikipedia. I feel lucky to have such a talented software engineer giving your free time to help this project. It is very generous of you, so I need to let you know I appreciate your efforts and the countless hours you have helped on the project. I hope the encouragement you get from others is enough to keep you going as I feel your participation is important to the project. Thanks very much. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit restriction block

Between 2011-05-18T11:07:41 and 2011-05-18T11:14:54 you made 50 edits. This is a violation of your editing restriction, which limits you to no more than 40 edits in any 10 minute period. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Community-imposed_restrictions you may not exceed 40 edits in any ten minute period. I reminded you about this on May 13 [17], when you also exceeded your maximum edit rate. Accordingly, I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your contribs again, you also made 50 edits between 2011-05-18T11:19:52 and 2011-05-18T11:25:23, which underscores the violation of the editing restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Really, your getting this low? Ive made all of the relevant requests and everyone supports my edits, so your blocking on a technicality? Enjoy your power trip, I guess it is the only way you can have fun. The rest of use prefer to improve the encyclopedia, not play politics. Which you obviously do. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not "a technicality". It is one of the four points of your edit restrictions, and it is just as important as the others. Because I was involved in the discussions that led to the edit restrictions, I remember that the speed restriction was deliberately chosen to stop you from making large bot-like runs at high speed, which has been a problem with your editing in the past. In other words, the speed restriction was designed exactly to limit the sort of editing you were doing this morning.

The deeper question is why you would violate the restriction again just a few days after a discussion of the edit restriction on your talk page. You made over 100 edits in a half hour. That can't be an accident; you must have noticed you were making a large number of edits in a row. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, this was earlier already described as absurd, and that is what it is, Carl. Nice way to go. Delta was so nicely showing that he could perform responsibly at a high speed, even got compliments for this work .. a low point in your blocking history, CBM. Very .. considerate of you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The editing restrictions are in place for good reason. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

For a reason .. :-) .. yes. Probably to prevent disruption .. so .. where is the disruption? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The disruption caused by large-scale bot-like runs on Beta's main account are discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand, which is also the place where the community sanctions were imposed. That page itself was created in response to Beta violating a previous set of sanctions against running bots or bot-like processes on his main account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The point is, Carl, with this block you are causing more disruption (and keeping copyright violations in place) than what you think to prevent, even if you follow rules to the letter ... (see WP:BUREAU and WP:IAR). I see your basic point, I know the restrictions, but what you did here was not the solution. Absurd. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Dirk, you as an admin should know that when you are restricted, you don't only get blocked when your edits are a problem, but also when you violate your restrictions, which were imposed because of earlier problems. If you are topic banned and you make contructive edits which violate your topic ban, you get warned and blocked if you continue. Good-hand socks get blocked together with bad hand socks if the user is no longer wanted. If Twinkle access is removed, you don't get to add it again yourself to make good Twinkle edits. In this case, the edit restriction was not installed because all Beta's semi-automated edits were problematic, but because too many were. The restriction is not to make any sych edits again, not that he can only make good semi-automated edits (which would be a ridiculous restriction, no one is suposed to make bad ones). He was warned, and choose to continue, instead of asking for a removal of the restriction, or an exception for this task, ro looking for someone else to solve the problems. It then shouldn't come as a suprise that he swiftly gets blocked again.

Basically, you can disagree with the restriction, and can try to get it lifted or modified: but as long as it is in place, and considering that he was warned for the exact same behaviour just days ago, the block is perfectly logical and forseeable. Fram (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I stay with the point Fram, that a block was not the solution, even when according to the letter. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

And what was the solution then? I note that the reply to the block was "Ive made all of the relevant requests and everyone supports my edits, so your blocking on a technicality?" A pointer to those requests and those discussions where "everyone supports the edits" can be useful, as all I can find is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ#Unauthorized bot job to replaceimage redirects, where apart from CBM also Franamax and Jpatokal were clearly not supportive, and Titoxd isn't really supportive either, more neutral (or sceptical, hard to tell in writing). When an editor knows that he is restricted, knows that he is violating that restriction, knows that he will be blocked for this, and then after the block incorrectly claims that "everyone supported" those edits, then the problem is not with the block... Fram (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Delta did post at Wikipedia:VPR#Heads_up, where people generally supported the request (and I did not participate). So I think that part of the editing restriction was satisfied here. But the speed restriction was not an afterthought in the restrictions, it was viewed as necessary because of a history of problematical editing. In this case, I was hoping to resolve the problem by only warning him (on May 13) for clearly breaking two parts of the restriction, which he acknowledged doing. But apparently he has continued to violate the speed restriction, which is why I blocked today.— Carl (CBM · talk) 13:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes Fram, he did make the necessary requests, and yes, everybody was supportive of the edits (or maybe, everyone - 1 .. although maybe CBM is even supportive of the edits that were made, except not the way they were made, CBM did not disclose that).

Still, there would have been other solutions .. but well, if the first chosen way is the way of an unconditional warning, yeah, then maybe all is left is to block. Too bad. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while I support what Delta was trying to do, it is a violation, one he was warned about a few days earlier. The solution in the future needs to be for Delta, in making the VPR request, to also request that he may have to go above the 4 edits/min rate, and possibly work out an acceptable number of edits per day for the task so that, such as this case, he may have gone above 4 edits/min, he ultimately did not exceed the request X edits/day or something. (eg in this present task he's doing, I don't know how many he needs to fix, but if there's, say 50,000 of these, having Delta ask to do 2,500/day which may include periods where 4/min is exceeded would seem to be in line with keep with the community restrictions and the necessary requests). --MASEM (t) 13:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If there are 50,000 of them, or even just 2,500, they should be done by a bot instead of manually. Given Delta's chronic editing problems, it would be a mistake, I think, to use VPR as a forum to change his editing restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the complexity of our wiki-syntax too many errors will occur if you use a bot. As Ive been doing this I have seen multiple cases where a bot would completely fuck a page up. I dont have any chronic editing issues. Prior to your little fit, Ive made over 20,000 edits in the last year without any major issues. Ive been running Δbot without any real issues, and most of the issues that you cite are over 3 years old. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, CBM, that there are 50,000 of them is not a reason to do it with a bot .. some things can not be done with a bot, and/or need constant human attention anyway. And seen that these edits have only given him praise that this work was done so well, and the only thing that you are negative about is about the actual rate, shows me that Delta is capable of doing these things. I think that it is a mistake to use the banhammer on that. But well, I see that you only want to see the edit restriction, and not the good work that is being done. Again, too bad. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody gets an edit restriction of this sort based on lavish praise. Few editors have an entire subpage of the administrator's noticeboard devoted to them (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ). Looking at the block logs is also informative [18] [19]. The present situation is very similar to previous ones. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• So, since he has a subboard of WP:AN/I devoted to him, he's therefore shite? If that's true, it will be impossible for Δ to EVER escape his history, and editors like you will forever attack him for having a bad history. Double jeopardy anyone? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • He is on probation, so to speak, and he knows the terms of the probation very clearly. If he wants to escape his history, a better strategy would be to start by following his edit restrictions, rather than violating them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that he did for a long time .. and now you punish him for not following the restrictions, even though there is not a single little bit of disruption shown. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that it is very similar. In the other cases, there were mistakes in the edits, and there was no response .. in this case there is no mistake .. I've not heard of one. If it would have stayed under 4 edits per minute, there would not have been a single problem. So the only thing you are blocking on, is that a perfectly running task is having a too high a speed. Good work, CBM. See also my post below, as you seem to dodge that point here. Still .. I think you only want to see the edit restriction, and not the good work that is being done. Still, too bad. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

How long ago was that, by the way, that Delta was restricted. Maybe this is an interesting part of reading, and if this actually can change, then why not this (and I think that this last run was a good display of the latter possibility, until you .. used excessive (IMHO) force to stop it) .. ?? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I see this situation as confirmation that things have not changed. Delta is still running jobs that he knows he should not run - I had to warn him on May 13 to bring up the task on VPR as he was required to do before he started it [20]. At that time he admitted he had already made a few thousand edits on the job, in violation of his restriction. Even after the VPR discussion, he continued today to violate the speed restriction in his editing restrictions. To me, this appears to be recidivism, rather than improvement. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

WHAT? 'Delta is still running jobs that he knows he should not run' .. now what did you block him for, passing an edit rate, or for doing something that you did not like? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

And please note, that I did already say that this is indeed a violation of the edit restriction, but that using the use of administrative force here in this way is excessive. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

By "still" I mean "after years of doing it". This is the sort of thing that led to the original restrictions: he would run unapproved jobs on his main account, and draw lots of complaints. The present job was also unapproved on May 13 when I warned him to go to VPR with it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but he did that after being warned. But it is not the reason for this block, Carl. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Masem. And I do not disagree that this is a violation, but it looks to me that outside of Delta's account there is box with a banhammer ready (with inscription on the glass 'break glass and apply hammer at first sight'). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Carl; You've previously made a claim that a task requiring 2,000 edits should be done by a bot [21]. I asked you at the time to block me for similar behavior. Since you raise the point again above [22], and you are an administrator, I'm presuming you are correct that such large scale edits must be done by a bot. Since this seems to be part of the reason you blocked Δ, I'm hereby formally requesting you block me for doing similar sorts of large scale edits. I've made in excess of 2200 edits removing non-compliant NFCC media in the main article namespace alone (search my last 5000 mainspace edits for "This media does not comply with NFCC") without the aid of a bot, or even a script. I also fully intend on continuing this work. Please block me for this reason. Either that, or drop the accusation that repetitive tasks should be done by a bot, not an editor. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Carl, similar to Hammersoft, I have been making, god forbid, using my admin account, thousands of script assisted edits, which, due to the complexity of the edits, need constant supervision. I have not heard anyone complain about it, and I don't think I made any mistakes in breaking pages (if there are errors, then it is the input databases that I use which are wrong, so I would have made them wrong anyway), however, it involves over 10,000 pages, so it must have been way over 5,000 edits that I made (some pages I have hit two, three, four times .. maybe it is even 20,000 edits ..) .. I fully intent on continuing this work, but as you said, if it involves more than 2,000 edits, it must be done by a bot. As I also presume you are correct, I also ask you to block me for that same reason. Either that, or drop the accusation that repetitive tasks should be done by a bot, not by a (thoughtful) editor. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not block Delta for not using a bot, I blocked him for failing to follow his edit restriction by exceeding his maximum edit rate. Because he posted on VPR, he would be permitted to make the edits if he followed the other terms of his editing restriction. My advice to him to find a way for a bot to do the edits was simply advice, as a way he could avoid this situation in the future. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Then are you going to drop your insistence regarding bot like edits being performed by a bot? It would also be nice if you acknowledged Δ's twice repeated defense that it is better for a bot NOT to do this work. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  Nah, CBM still thinks that 'Delta is ... running jobs that he knows he should not run' [23], it is not about the speed of editing alone, Hammersoft. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  When Delta started this job he did not bring it to VPR. When I pointed out on May 13 that he was violating his edit restriction by doing so, he finally complied with that part of his restriction. That is what I was referring to: he know he should not run jobs that have not been pre-approved on VPR. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  So, you warned him, and he did afterwards. But that is NOT the reason for this block, Carl. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Delta is free to insist that a bot cannot do the work; that's neither here nor there, since I am not involved in the technical aspects of the task and I don't plan to look into them. Perhaps he or you should post on the bot requests board to see if someone else can develop a bot to do it. However, I can say unequivocally that if Delta has to violate his editing restrictions while pursuing this task manually, he needs to let someone else do it. IMHO, the pattern where he continues to do tasks like this even when it is clearly in his interest to let someone else do them is is what led to the edit restriction in the first place. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Let me get this straight; you're ready and willing to accuse Δ of running a bot [24], but haven't looked into the technical aspects of this job? Further, you think he should make a request for a bot to do the task, even though Δ has told you several times that a bot is inappropriate for the task? Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I think you are being a little credulous with Delta's claims. He hasn't provided any evidence apart from claiming that diffs such as [25] [26] cannot be done by a bot. But in the end the "bot" issue is a red herring. The basis for the block is the edit restriction, which does not use the word "bot" at all. So if you want you can simply ignore me if I mention the word "bot", and we can just talk about the edit restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Not at all. I do think your assertions regarding bots, bot like edits, or edits that should be done by a bot should be entirely dropped. You're not helping your argument. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Carl, from following this discussion, it seems to me you're continually changing the reason for this block. Please can you let me know exactly why you blocked Delta? Is it the edit rate? Is it running bots? Is it making bad edits? Or is it simply because he's doing something you didn't like? I can't seem to figure out which it is from the above discussion. Thanks, [stwalkerster|talk] 15:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have never changed the reason for this block: it was for violating his edit restrictions. The edit restrictions are completely objective: Delta cannot exceed 40 edits in 10 minutes. Later in the discussion I advised him to let a bot do the task, but that was after I had already justified the block in the first comment of this thread. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, thanks for clarifying that. Given the above discussion, perhaps this is a reasonable time to consider a review of the editing restrictions? [stwalkerster|talk] 15:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • ... after all, they appear unchanged after THREE years. [stwalkerster|talk] 15:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I think that a review of the restrictions, whether it results in them being lifted or them being reconfirmed, would be very reasonable. The most recent discussion on that topic was in October 2010 [27] and the sanctions were not lifted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Recap

Carl, your block is solely because Delta was passing the speed limit. There is absolutely no other reason which you can make credible, all the other things you throw in are unrelated, or, at the very best, maybe advice. And if the block is solely on passing the speed limit (without making mistakes, editing which needs a high level of attention) then it is absurd - you give the feeling that you only block because you expect Delta to make a mess out of it, that you expect disruption &c. You even claim recidive, after thousands of non-problematic errors, you keep claiming that this should be done by a bot, or if Delta can't do it via bot, that someone else should do it by bot, or that someone else should do it without bot .. the truth is, Carl, you do not want Delta to edit, even if he does it without causing problems, but, in letter, just in violation of a old restriction (of which he shows that he can pass it without causing problems). So, seen that we use blocks to prevent disruption, and there is no disruption shown, or detected, and after thousands of similar edits disruption is highly unlikely (OK, a mistake may slip in .. but disruption?) - Delta was even complimented for his work here - I fail to see how this block is preventing disruption. The only other conclusion is hence, that this block is to punish Delta for not listening to the community restrictions. And to make cases worse, the only disruption that is caused, is by blocking a hard working editor who is doing a lot of good (see again the compliments) - Bad, bad Carl! Did I just say, that we block for disruption, or do you think that we block to punish editors who do bad things? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. He often passed that limits without problems before the restriction was in place: it is not introduced because he always caused problems with his speed editing, but becayse he too often caused such problems. Arguing that he shouldn't be blocked when violating a restriction (immediately after being warned for this), only because on this occasion, the actual edits didn't cause any problems, is backwards reasoning. First argue for the restriction to be lifted or changed, and then edit according to the result; don't just ignore the restriction. This block prevents disruption by stopping BetaDelta before he can cause problems again: he has often shown a disregard for community consensus, and the violation of the restriction is another instance of this. This time he disregarded the restriction to make decent edits, what will it be next time? Bad, bad Dirk, for supporting an editor in violating his editing restriction, instead of directing him to the correct form of dispute resolution. Fram (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes .. 'prevents disruption by stopping Beta (sic) before he can cause problems again' - Fram, Carl, I do not disagree that things should have been done differently .. I am even arguing it should have been. But I know where we stand, it is totally clear from these threads. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the Beta / Delta error, I have changed this in the above post. Fram (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, Fram, maybe you are right .. maybe we can't expect people to change ... And I think that Carl thinks along exactly the same lines. In that light, I don't think that a request to lift the speed limit, even before this latest violation, would have gained your (pl) support anyway (people will repeat their old mistakes, right, even after 3 years?), let alone after he shows that he can use his tools responsibly (no matter what, at some point Delta will make mistakes, so he will always be guilty). Maybe Delta really needs to be shown the banhammer at first sight, and that banhammer should be applied immediately on next offenses (and we should expect the worst from him until the heat death of the universe). People don't change, there are no other solutions, too bad. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

So because I noticed Delta making some of his same old errors in September 2010, I am ... what exactly? Not supposed to comment here? Biased? I don't think that I a more biased than you, who are here arguing that he can violate his editing restrictions as much as he wants, and who is at the same time defending him at ANI when he accuses another user of vandalism in an editing dispute where at least the other user has a good argument for his case. Is there any particular reason why you post a link to an edit I made in September 2010 here? Does it mean that suddenly his editing restriction was not violated? Does it mean that because I commented then, I will surely oppose a lifting of his editing restriction now? Please don't lecture people on assuming bad faith if this is the kind of poisoning-the-well tactics you try to use to win an argument. Perhaps the fact that Delta was in September still making the type of edits that, when coupled before with high-speed editing, was one of the reasons for the edit restriction, should be a reason for worry, not the fact that I commented on them. Fram (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Fram, it is clear that editors do not expect Delta to change, that is what I mean. Your argument is that Delta should be blocked before he can create problems again - because you know that those problems will return - and even if those problems in the end do not return, that does not matter. I have acknowledged that Delta should not have gone over the limit, and yes, Delta himself could have gone to the noticeboards (especially after being reminded) to lift it .. but I do not see any indication that you, or Carl, have thought 'hmm .. maybe he can edit responsibly .. OK, he is breaking a three year old restriction, maybe I should point him (friendly?) to that and maybe we could work out a way to see if we can loosen the restrictions' (keeping in the back of your mind, that we can always re-apply/re-block if he really gets into trouble) .. no, first threaten with the banhammer (by Carl) .. not the faintest clue that other solutions have been passing your thoughts. Well, maybe now I am assuming bad faith on you (pl), but I recall that you said that you (Fram) wanted others (me?) to suggest other solutions, which suggests (again an assumption) that you do not see them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I see one solution, the obvious one, that he requests a lifting of or a change to his restrictions. He could have done this before making these mass edits, he should have done this after he was reminded of them, but he choose to ignore this. I have no idea why he acted like that, it gives the impression that he doesn't care about community consensus, which is not really giving any hope that he has really changed. But while this episode may have harmed his chances of getting his restrictions lifted in the near future, there is still nothing stopping him from doing this. But until these restrictions get lifted, he should be blocked for violating them, no matter how many people encourage him in ignoring community-imposed restrictions. If the support for his actions truly is so widespread, it shouldn't be a problem to get the restrictions lifted, isn't it? Fram (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this post earlier. It is a solution, Fram, but not a realistic one, unfortunately. I think most of my thoughts regarding solutions are below. Note that I am not encouraging him in ignoring community-imposed restrictions, they are there, they should be followed. I disagree however that he should immediately be cornered and blocked if he breaks them (while not having broken anything for a long time/many edits, etc. etc.). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC) (may get expansion later).

He was not immediately blocked: I warned him on May 13th. He resumed the same behavior on the 18th which is why he was blocked. In fact he made 110 edits between 8:35 and 8:45am that day. It's hard to call that an accident. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant .. cornered ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Δ just got another barnstar. This has to stop. Apply the banhammer now before he gets any more! If he gains too much credibility, he'll be free of his restrictions and then all hell will break loose! <humor people, humor>. To be honest, I'm well, well past assuming bad faith in abstract regarding the body politic that would like to see Δ drawn and quartered. Even the slightest whimper of impropriety gains rabid attention from the hate club. Sooo many times I see editors screaming at him because of his past and keep dredging it up to make him look bad. It's well past double jeopardy at this point. How many of us can go 20,000 edits without making a mistake? It's time to start giving credit where credit is due, and recognize the incredible asset that Δ is to this project now. Checkered past? Absolutely. Stellar performance of late? Equally so. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there any actual reason that he couldn't just ask for his restrictions to be lifted or altered, instead of simply ignoring them? Fram (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Technically, no. Realistically, yes. There's a perspective here that I can imagine. I'm not saying this is Δ's view, just a possible view. You've been under these restrictions for years now. You've tried your damndest to cooperate. You're not perfect, but it feels like you have to walk on water in order not to have the world rain down on you. Even then, they're trying to crucify you. You've tried to get the restrictions lifted after having a long track record of compliance. Didn't matter. Got shot down. No matter what you do, at almost every turn there's pitchforks waiting to skewer your hide. Despite all the hate, all the derision, all the users out to get you over the tiniest of technicalities, you're still devoted to the project. But, you just can't make headway anymore. If you behave poorly, people come after you. If you behave well, people come after you. If you ask for the restrictions to be lifted, it gets rejected. If you comply with policy, people hate you. If you do an incredible amount of work behind the scenes (think; toolserver) people come after you with pitchforks for violating nobots terms (that claim was rejected, btw). You've been pummeled, attacked, insulted, had your efforts treated like dirt, and there is nothing you can do to end it. Nothing. So your choices are; leave the project, and give up. Or, since you have no option left, just try to edit like a normal editor doing your best to remain under the radar, do good work, and try like hell to make sure you do everything perfectly. 20,000 edits later, things are comparatively quiet. And then, you hit a landmine over a speed limit. Let's face reality here people; short of being banned from the project, Δ's sanctions have lasted longer than anyone's on the project. He is THE most put upon editor here, bar none. The reality? His sanctions will NEVER be lifted, no matter what he does. Asking for them to be lifted is an exercise in futility. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  Nicely said, Hammersoft. And I think that the immediate show of the banhammer that was applied here just showed that, and that is what I was trying to get through earlier as well. Fram, how did you say it 'This block prevents disruption by stopping Delta before he can cause problems again' - it shows exactly what Beta is up to, you all expect that the problems will come back.

  The only chance of these sanctions being lifted, is for those who are there up front with the pitchforks and banhammers to gather together, see that Delta is actually doing good work (at high speed, being responsive when mistakes are made, though still firm in his beliefs and what he is working for, following core policy and the mission), decide that maybe they should give the leeway, and they should start the suggestion to lift the sanctions (and maybe you (pl) will be shown to be right in the end, but I have not been presented by large scale damage by Delta in the last thousands of edits (and not small single mistakes - he probably has a similar error rate as I), and if we then end up in this discussion a next time, yes, I can believe that the bar will be even higher then).

  And that was the solution I was alluding to that could have been chosen ('wow, he is doing high speed edits without mistakes, what, he even gets barnstars and compliments for it, maybe we could consider to give him more space, or even lift the santions'), in stead, the glass was broken, the banhammer applied. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed. It's high time the people with the pitchforks take a step back and realize they are a VERY significant part of the problem. You take an editor, shove him into a (well deserved at the time) corner, then over the next several years every time he even twitches with a tiny mistake you go after him. Calls for his head, constant dredging up of the past, coming after him on en.wiki for his work on the toolserver, rampant accusations he's using scripts and/or bots, and on and on and on. Far many other editors would have absolutely cracked under this pressure and departed LONG ago. Δ doesn't deserve a block. He deserves praise for the hell he's been put through. You want perfection, but what is being asked for and the way in which people come after him makes it utterly impossible for any reasonable editor to comply. The outcome is utterly predictable. Eventually, the carriers of the pitchforks will get there way. They will hound Δ to wikideath. For some, it most emphatically is their goal. This idiocy has to stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It would be easy to comply with his edit restriction. It was very intentionally designed so that it would not affect anyone who simply writes and edits articles in the usual way. The first three points in the restriction are all related to one thing: running large-scale jobs that make the same sort of edit repeatedly. If Delta simply avoided such jobs and edited article content he would have no problem with those points in his restriction. On the other hand, if Delta chooses to push up against the edit restriction by continuing to run multiple-thousands-of-pages maintenance jobs, when these are exactly what the restriction is intended to restrict, that's his decision and the blame is his if he crosses the line. You wrote above "You've tried your damndest to cooperate" but that seems far from the case here. If doing 2,000 edits in violation of the restriction (before May 13) is "trying your hardest" then there really is a problem here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• And part of the responsibility of the creation of that problem is the people seeking his hide on a platter. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In what way did those people induce him to start replacing image redirects? — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Carl, I tried my best to get the point across to you. I failed. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Quick! Block him before he does something!

OH MY GOD! HE'S AT IT AGAIN!!!!!! 16 edits in six minutes! (17:32-17:37). Quick! Get right on that block button before the universe implodes because Δ's editing again!!!!! --Hammersoft (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

He can make up to 40 edits in any 10 minute period under his editing restriction. However there are only about 232 image redirects still transcluded, so this job should be done soon anyway. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Really Hammersoft? How obnoxious, it's no wonder you're having difficulty getting your point across to Carl if this is how you go about it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Really Kingpin, how obvious does it need to be to convey a point? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, regardless of how obvious you make your point, the more aggressive you are about it the less likely others will be to accept it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• You have your means, I have mine. Certainly plenty of other people around here use the former, and plenty others use the latter. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

But the end result is that people have a good discussion with Dirk or Kingpin, and mostly ignore you. Fram (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks that you, despite my sarcastic and cynical remarks above (which indeed also did not get the (right) point across ...), still think that you have a good discussion with me, but Fram, I would not be worried that people ignore me, and I don't think that Hammersoft is worried that he gets ignored. But people here are ignoring the point. And that is what does worry me, and it disappoints me (and not just because of Δ .. but because of the whole of Wikipedia; this situation with Δ is just an example of it). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

When I discuss this with you, I consider the point. When Hammersoft, makes a comment, I don't even consider his point (or try to decipher it). It doesn't come across as a rational argument, and I am not going to see whether his hyperbole reflects anything worth considering. Instead of making his point exageratingly clear, it obscures it and ridicules it. That I don't agree with your point of view is another aspect, and more a philosophical one, similar to the people reverting all edits by banned users vs. those wanting to keep the good edits they may make. "What's the point in stopping good edits" vs. "What's the point in having restrictions if you don't enforce them". (Note: if someone would have started reverting Delta because he violated his restriction, I would agree that that would have taken things too far). Some of us are arguing that he should make his edits within the boundaries of the restriction, or try to get it changed/removed: others argue that the restriction is old and doesn't help the encyclopedia at this point, and can thus be ignored. If there was no way of getting the restrictions lifted, I would probably agree: but not under the current circumstances. All this to say that I don't believe that I'm ignoring your point, just that I disagree with the precedence you give it over my point of view. Fram (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes Fram, my arguments are always irrational. You may feel free to ignore me at any time. I am, afterall, a certified idiot. I'm also not an administrator, like you, Dirk, and Kingpin. So I can safely be ignored. Except, I'll keep working on the project despite you, and you and the rest of the administrators can keep ignoring the reality that you work for the editors, not the other way around. The way you (abstract you) are keeping Δ down is deplorable. You keep paying the cost of it, but refuse to recognize your own role in it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider you a "certified idiot" or any of the other things you claim here. A number of posts made by you in this thread (starting from around the "Even the slightest whimper of impropriety gains rabid attention from the hate club." comment) are such extreme caricatures that they can hardly be described as rational arguments in an adult discussion, but that doesn't make you an idiot, and doesn't mean that your arguments are always or mostly irrational (in general). I have also no idea why you think that I only listen to admins and not to other editors, I have disagreed with and pissed off enough admins to show that this is not really correct. Finally, I don't work for the editors, and the editors don't work for me. I'm mostly an editor, and much less an admin, and my comments here wouldn't be different if I wasn't an admin. You act as if you are working for the project, and admins aren't, while many admins, me included, are working just as hard for the project, both administratively and by "regular" editing. Fram (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• There are times when hyperbole is a useful tool ala reductio ad absurdum. When I think it is, I use it. There are times when reasoned, calm arguments are a useful tool. When I think it is, I use that too. You apparently don't use hyperbole as a tool, and find fault with people who do. That's your choice. Your method of interaction isn't the only one that is successful. I've found success with using hyperbole at times. Your mileage may vary. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Nono, I am not arguing, and never have argued, that the restrictions should be ignored. What I am trying to get across is, that Wikipedia is here stuck, and that the reason for being stuck here is the same as for other processes on Wikipedia that are stuck. 'If there was no way of getting the restrictions lifted' .. well .. I have no faith in it, and I don't think that ∆ has any faith in it.

But I think we should close these threads now (unless ∆ himself wants to say something). We should get back to normal, the restrictions on ∆ stay, and maybe somewhere in the future, we will get here again. For now, any further discussions about lifting ∆'s restrictions is certainly futile. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Getting the restrictions lifted is permanently futile. It will never happen. As to Δ commenting, I give him major kudos for NOT responding to this thread. Many another editor would comment, and those trying so hard to keep him down would treat it as fuel for the fire. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

External link to official site deleted

Hi, just wondering why you made this edit. Is there a problem with webnode. What specific part of WP:EL do you have a problem with? Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Further to the above question, another user has since reverted your change and the article shows the website again. However, I am still wondering why you made the revision in the first place. The edit was one of four you made on 22 April around 0400, and having also checked the Barkerend entry I couldn't obviously see why that one was removed, although it seems someone has also reverted that. Could you explain the rationale for the changes you made, and then perhaps the websites need to be re-added for those sites affected? Eldumpo (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is likely a mistake, though a bit understandable, as there is a move in the official website of them (and the new official website is actually a redirect .. to this). Webnode.com and similar free hosting sites are often not suitable (most of the time the hosted 'official' pages are actually fanpages, not thé official page). However, I presume that this is likely a mistake removal. The original removal was reverted, and subsequently self-reverted, I have re-insterted the page again. I hope this helps and explains a bit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, although I don't fully understand the reasoning behind the changes made. I have checked and 3 of the 4 edits have been reverted already. The 4th relates to myfdb.com for Edward Davenport, which I have not come across before, but it looks like it could be a site which is open to edit by users, so perhaps this isn't reliable? Eldumpo (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Toolserver lag

Hi there, did you find out what the problem was last time with the toolserver lag issue? It's happening again. There is a particular article Aaron Sanders, that appears to be stuck in a weeks old version according to toolserver and DashBot. It was deleted on May 8, recreated and redeleted a few days ago, and then I recreated it as a redirect, but it still shows up in searches such as this, this or Dashbot's list. Very strange. Are you able to help, or forward it on to someone who can help? Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for WebCite archiving

I sent a request to archive the references in an article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln Town Car

Hi. I was just wondering if renames like this have to be done manually. I moved the file (and noted it). I could have changed the ref myself in Lincoln Town Car but as I've not done this before I thought I'd see what happened/what comments/advice I received. The automatically created redirect worked OK too, at the time. I don't have a lot of time to move files but if/when I do, I can do adjustments to the articles as I go, unless there's a semi-automated process which handles this instead. Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be preferred if you updated the associated uses, however I just ran through and cleaned them all up, because it makes it a lot easier to work with files that way. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

List of county roads in Alachua County, Florida

The redlinks in List of county roads in Alachua County, Florida might be necessary in order to make the shields that are supposed to be there. If not, I'm okay with the clean-up. ----DanTD (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The list itself should be enough. Until the files are uploaded you shouldnt leave missing files in articles. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I'll leave it alone for the time being. ----DanTD (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Dzhetyasar culture

Dear Δ, thank you for going over the Dzhetyasar culture. For some reasons you removed the images shown on the Russian version; I could not fix them and asked for help; removing them is no help, can you please assist me with making the images work, they are informative and useful, and are already used in the Russian WP. Thanks, Barefact (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The files ru:Файл:Ghetyasar26.jpg and ru:Файл:Ghetyasar27.jpg do not exist on either en.wiki or commons and thus cannot be used here. Given the lack of information the uploader has provided I doubt that either could be uploaded to commons either. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to get the user to make the files available here.Barefact (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Autogenerated citations

On 21 March you spent considerable time going through Battle of Jerusalem and adding 'autogenerated' citations. Can you explain why you did this because from my point of view they make it very difficult to make future edits. --Rskp (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

19% of the references where duplicates (57 out of 204) merging duplicates makes things cleaner. Feel free to rename them I just merged duplicates. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As I'm working on a re-edit of the article I will change all the autogenerated citations back to plain English. This will involve me in considerable time wasting duplication of effort which is disappointing. But it will be worth it as they will still clearly be duplicates but it will make it easier to re-edit. Please don't insert autogenerated citations in any other articles that are connected to the Sinai and Palestine Campaign as they are all works in progress and the citations need to be in plain English so others can re-edit the pages. I appreciate your cooperation in this regard. --Rskp (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

• News and notes: GLAM workshop; legal policies; brief news

• In the news: Death of the expert?; superinjunctions saga continues; World Heritage status petitioned and debated; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Formula One

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Injunction – preliminary protection levels for BLP articles when removing PC

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Article start date

You might be able to help the user generate the list of articles requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#find_all_articles_with_same_start_date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Autogenerated citations

The 39 autogenerated citations you edited into the Battle of Jerusalem article took over 5 hours to change back into English. Please, if you are tempted to do this to any other page on Wikipedia, for the sake of wiki, DO'NT. --Rskp (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

New Tool

Outstanding, please keep a link to it on your user page or elsewhere easily found for others. 208.85.0.114 (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

overuse?

Since when are the album covers considered overuse? Last I checked wikipedia has 118,091 of them, are you going to remove them all? --Muhandes (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Album covers used in list or discographies articles where the individual albums are non-notable for their own article is considered overuse, per WP:NFLISTS. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

How are the albums not notable? They were just combined for convenience. Do you want me to break them into 14 articles? --Muhandes (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If you do, they will be deleted. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

More specifically, none of the individual albums appear to meet our notability guidelines, so they will be deleted unless you can provide secondary sources for the articles. Instead, when combined in a list, the album images are only decorative and do not serve the same purpose that album art on standalone articles serves, and thus are inappropriate to include. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Did any of you two actually look at the article? We seem to be discussing two different articles. Most of these albums have two independent sources - allmusic and Musique Machine. I can probably dig more, but that should be more than enough for notability per WP:NALBUMS - "In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia". And if you insist on templating regulars, and in the middle of a discussion, I can do that too. --Muhandes (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did, and I would argue that with only two sources for each, you likely would fail notability requirements; in other words, separate articles would not be acceptable. In fact, it is really the collection of CDs that is notable, so one respesentative cover would be ok, but not for individual articles. --MASEM (t) 06:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a collection of albums which were released individually, each receiving media reviews. You could argue they fail notability with two sources, but that would be against WP:NALBUMS and more importantly against the consensus at WP:ALBUMS. --Muhandes (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

NALBUMS requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, just like WP:N. As NALBUMS points out, receiving reviews may (the operative word) indicate an album to be notable. But knowing how people see notability, if you try to create an individual article for any single one of these albums, you will likely find people ready to delete it if you can't back it with more secondary, reliable coverage. This is not to say that the lsit collection is bad - it is probably the better way to group it since it seems to be a project to release an album a month with a centralized theme. But in that fashion, you simply cannot use images for each album cover. One is acceptable for general representation, but not any more without significant commentary on the images themselves. --MASEM (t) 07:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. If an album is notable, its identification is fair use. If you are arguing that a studio album from a notable artist with discogs listing, a rateyourmusic listing, an allmusic review and a Musique Machine review don't together amount to notability, I am willing to take this to WT:ALBUM or any other venue and check, but this would result in deletion of (in a very conservative estimate) thousands of articles. If the albums are notable on their own and are only listed together for convenience and to create additional notability, then their covers fall under fair use and WP:NFLISTS does not apply. --Muhandes (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Being simply listed at a site is not an aspect of notability. I am aware that NABLUMS does assert that an album from a notable artist is presumed notable for a standalone article -- however, this is based that more sources can be found in the future to expand the article to an encyclopedic topic as opposed to just a listing. But ignoring that issue and working that you are grouping the albums together as one because it is easier to handle that way, past consensus on this is that no, image-per-album is still not appropriate, unless each image is specifically discussed from sources in detail - the article is still a discography and falls under WP:NFLISTS. Its understood that one album image is appropriate for identifying the branding of a set of related works, but cannot be used to support identification per album. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. If an album is notable, using an image for identification is fair use. If albums are notable enough to be listed on a separate article, where the image is used for identification, I don't see how putting them together deprives them of that. There is no consensus to the opposite, as it would be ridiculous. It would force editors to split articles just so a cover could be added. WP:NFLISTS is not meant to be used as means to force editors to split articles. --Muhandes (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Using an album cover to identify an album certainly falls in US fair use law, but WP's non-free content policy is purposely more restrictive. We seek minimal use of non-free images. Cover art barely meets the requirement of WP:NFCC#8 for significance for the reader - we allow it on standalone articles for a single work by consensus, but on lists of works, like a discography that this article is, there is no allowance for it because such uses fail "minimal use" of NFCC#3a, and rarely meet NFCC#8. (see WP:NFC#UUI in addition to WP:NFLISTS, and you can search the archives at WT:NFC for "lists" to see lengthy past discussion on this issue).

I understand the situation you're in - I will tell you that if you split out the articles to individual albums, they won't be deleted immediately - but knowing what you have there for these albums in terms of sourcing and knowing they are thematically tied, I would not be surprised in a year or more that someone will come along to suggest deletion or merging back to a single article, barring the discovery of new secondary sources. But standard consensus for non-free images explicitly prevents illustrating every album in a discography like this is. One representative cover (This being likely the woodbox one) makes complete sense to include, but any other cover image will be removed per policy -- unless that cover image meets NFCC#8 through commentary about the cover art itself. If you think this needs to be changed, you can likely open discussion at WT:NFC, but given how many times the issue has come up, it is unlikely you'll gain any new traction on it. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Muhandes, Masem happens to be right. These images have to go. It's not a question of fair use. If it were, we could use every album cover on every discography here. If you peruse Category:Discographies of Japanese artists, you will note a distinct lack of covers in any of the articles in that category. You may think this article is somehow different, but it isn't. Further, the ability of any of these CDs to stand alone is highly suspect. There's plenty of "series" articles like this one that have just one image as Masem suggests. These images need to be removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind if a copy of this discussion remains here, but I hope we all agree the correct place for it is the article's talk page, where it was copied. Please continue discussion there. --Muhandes (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Discussion regarding your community imposed sanctions. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 48 hours. Honestly, by now, you should know when to walk away from a contentious situation, or at least that inviting another editor "shut the fuck up" is not behaviour that is tolerated by the community here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC).

The block is being contested by a number of uninvolved editors. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Reduced to 24 hours, which is 3 hours short of time served, per this. Please take this as a reminder how short the community's patience is with you; future civility breaches in anything like the near future are more likely to lead to blocks, and the blocks will be longer. Rd232 ^talk 02:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't let the political maneuverings of BQZip01 get you down. Everyone is uncivil sometimes. You need to be especially careful because people are gunning for you, but something tells me that this isn't the first time you've been through this. Pull though this, there are people rooting for you. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparent violation of edit restriction

You made 46 edits in ten minutes between 10:03 today[28] and 10:12 today[29]. This seems to be a violation of your editing restriction: "Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time." Fram (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for 1 week for violation of the speed restriction noted in the community restriction here. For the length of the block I take into both that you've just come off a block (albeit for a different issue), and had a recent block for violating the speed restriction - in addition to the long history. I don't know how you can stay sane trying to do AWB edits within the speed restriction (how do you count them while doing them?), but that's the challenge the community requires you to deal with, and if you can't, then don't use AWB.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rd232 ^talk 14:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

 

I didn't get round to notifying you of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:.CE.94_editing_restrictions_on_NFCC yet, so here's killing two birds with one stone. As part of that discussion there was talk of an NFCC bot you used to operate. Would you be willing to help resurrect that (with someone else operating it)? Also, if you have any comments you want to add to that discussion, you can make them here, and I'm sure someone will copy them for you. Rd232 ^talk 18:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC) 

my old code just wont work anymore. That code had a very limited life cycle and it basically out lived its self life. Its purpose was to identify and tag for deletion files that had zero valid rationales. The number of files that now falls into that category is going to be a LOT smaller than the big problem. Take a look at a report about Patras which uses 12 different files, 3 of which do not have a rationale for that article. And take a look at File:KostisPalamas.jpg which does have a rationale for its usage on Kostis Palamas but not on Patras. I cant tag it for deletion, I dont see a valid rationale for Patras, so there is a problem there. The only real solution would be to remove the file from Patras which is what WP:NFCC#10c requires. This issue is fairly widespread and is not limited to just a few hundred files either. In the case of the Disney logo that I removed, I could not justify its repeated use across 35+ pages, when per WP:NFCC#1, a comment like "is a subsidiary of Disney Channel and uses their logo for branding" or something along those lines would do the same thing as the logo.

Yes I fucked up here and exceeded my edit throttle and will quietly take my lumps for that, because I was not paying close enough attention to the clock. Yes I find the throttle really annoying but I should have been paying closer attention to the clock.

As for my enforcement of NFC, My actions have been proven time in and time out. I do my best to explain thing to users. I have kept my tongue in check, pretty well except the one recent outburst which yes was over the line, but was provoked with multiple comments which in themselves where borderline personal attacks, (which where veiled) which made some pretty insulting comments about me. After multiple cases, multiple noticeboards and countless snide comments I snapped and let them have a piece of my thoughts. It was out of line, however even the tamest dog will bite if poked hard enough, often enough. There was one user (Ill be dammed if I can find the right link for the discussion) where I was trying to explain NFC to them and an admin was also assisting, the discussion was ongoing but the admin actually blocked the user because the admin had had enough, while I was still calmly trying to explain NFC to the user.

As for banning my enforcement of NFC I see it as wholly uncalled for, The cases where I have claimed overuse have all been backed by other, editors. My other removals are clear cut, file doesn't have a rationale it gets removed. Ive got a list of over 2,000 violations to our non-free content and Ive only check a small part of the total issue. I right now, if I look at projections I'm seeing between 30-50,000 file uses that violate our basic NFC requirements. This doesn't take into consideration any files with a "rationale" that doesn't hold water.

Im working on a variant of my tools:~betacommand/check_files.html script to check all uses of a image for valid rationales. But I doubt that you will find a single bot operator who is willing to take the shit-storm that will happen if they start up a NFC enforcement bot. Enforcing NFC pisses a lot of people off regardless of how civil, and correct your are, because a lot of people bitch when you remove/tag their pet article because they think that NFC shouldn't apply to their case because their article is special, or they don't like seeing eye candy removed from their articles.

Having one person write the code and a second person run the code is very difficult, and unfeasible. However If I was allowed to use bots I could make the process a lot easier with more notifications (removals would still need to be done manually) however given the large vocal group of uses who want NFC overturned and want liberal usage of non-free content, I really doubt any automation on this issue will get anywhere due to abuse the operator will receive along with the other headaches and complex issues that occur when working with wikitext. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And you have pages like Fox International Channels which has 22 non-free files of which all are missing a rationale. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you bring this up. How many of those alleged "non-free images" are just incorrectly labeled and should be {{PD-textlogo}} + {{trademarked}}? Answer: 70+%:

File:Channel V Logo.svg, File:Disney XD.svg, File:FX Italia logo.svg, File:Fox Life logo.svg, File:Fox Retro.svg, File:Fox Sports Australia Logos.png, File:Fox-Crime.png, File:Fox-History.png, File:Foxclassics.svg, File:Foxnext.png, File:History Channel logo.svg, File:Logo cult.png, File:Nat Geo Wild logo.svg, and File:Natgeoadv.svg.

While it is incumbent upon their respective uploaders to tag them appropriately, it is also appropriate to actually take the time to realize there are other mistakes than NFCC violations. Instead of removing all those images wholesale, why not simply improve the image pages and only remove those that are actually non-free? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The determination if images fail to pass the threshold of originality is a subjective measure. You may be right these would be ineligible for copyright , but that is not a determination that you should expect others to make for you. Not a trivial fix, and thus we can't expect Delta to correct that. --MASEM (t) 04:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's just use File:FX Italia logo.svg as an example. That image is only two letters. There is nothing subjective about it. It is completely objective. There are some logos that can require some discussion, but none of these are it. They ALL consist of pure text or text and a single rectangle. They cannot be copyrighted and that is an objective fact.

Continuing with the aforementioned image, Δ right now is only checking to see if the image has a FUR but doesn't have one for the specified article. In this case, the image is labeled properly with regards to copyrights, but uses a FUR template instead of an information template. Nominating something like this for deletion or removing the image from a page is disruptive. It's saying "well, I'm not going to use any judgement here. Since it doesn't meet all the criteria for NFCC, we have to remove it." Rubbish. That kind of "logic" pisses people off. I'm not saying some of those images don't belong, but common sense needs to prevail. Nominators need to make a good faith effort to correct obvious mistakes instead of nominating for deletion (especially en masse) and hope that someone else will fix it before it gets deleted amongst the other scores of images.

Yes, if anyone uploads something and makes a mistake (the upload procedures are VERY problematic and do not offer enough templates in the upload process), we should expect that someone would fix it if it were wrong. It shouldn't be deleted or removed just because a template isn't in the right place or another template is used.

It should be noted that Δ never did nominate these images for deletion in any way. They are strictly a hypothetical situation. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

True, there are many images where everybody could, based on common sense, make that decision. However, it is the best that the editors who know about the images do it. For very simple cases, it is fine that an unknowing editor does it, for very difficult cases, the uploader or a very select few have to do it. And the grey area inbetween? Do you expect an unknowing editor to repair those because they may look obvious, but they actually are more complicated, or should it be done by a specialist. What if the unknowing editor tags it as PD while it is copyrighted, that would significantly worsen the situation as opposed to not having it on display for a couple of days, or having it accidentally deleted (and a lot of these alledgedly non-free images are taken from a certain place on internet .. they can be uploaded again, the world has not ended) .. it is even worse than having it on display under a false/incomplete fair-use rationale.

Having wrong fair-use rationales is a copyright violation, having images tagged as free while they are copyrighted is also a copyright violation. They should not be on display, and in some cases, should not even be on the server. As I explained, Δ can not repair those, that is up to the ones who know about the article and image the best, and it should not be displayed if it is not properly tagged - hence removal from display is not disruptive, and even if deletion is a result that is not disruptive - keeping a copyright violation stand is disruptive. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

At least part of the problem is that the issues are highly complex, and the handful of relative experts focus on policing what all the non-experts do. I created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement to discuss how to try and improve things so that more people can understand enough to be helpful. Rd232 ^talk 10:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were allowed to run a particular bot? If you'd be willing to do it, maybe you'd be allowed, if the bot parameters are appropriately drawn. Rd232 ^talk 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Right now its just the SPI bot, and nothing else. (that was a very basic request that took moving mountains to get done, even though those involved in the process all supported it) ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if the bot is just warnings, it might be feasible. Rd232 ^talk 10:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom referendum goes live; US National Archives residency; financial planning; brief news

• In the news: Collaboration with academia; world heritage; xkcd; eG8 summit; ISP subpoena; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Royal Railway

• Featured content: Whipping fantasies, American–British naval rivalry, and a medieval mix of purity and eroticism

• Arbitration report: Update – injunction from last week has expired

• Technology report: Wikimedia down for an hour; What is: Wikipedia Offline?

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)