User talk:Davidwr/Archives/Archive 24

Active discussions

Free Speech Flag

Hi there Davidwr, I hope you are doing well. :)

A few years ago you requested to the Wikipedia community, that someone create an article on the Free Speech Flag.

Just wanted to let you know I've gone ahead and created the article.

Now at: Free Speech Flag.

Enjoy,

Cirt (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-40

15:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-41

18:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Gabor B. Racz

Hi David - I'm in transit and limited to a cell phone. Regarding the Racz image, I asked for a local copy to be kept because of overzealous commons volunteers who keep trying to delete it. It doesn't hurt anything to keep a local copy so can't we just leave it as? Atsme📞📧 06:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 2#File:Gabor B. Racz.jpg for my reply to your comment there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-42

16:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Picture for "Up Out My Face"

Please elucidate upon your comments that the single artwork serves better than the picture I uploaded? The single artwork just shows a repeated image of Carey standing in a box. It does not show her and Minaj breaking out of their packaging, as my file did, explaining the critical commentary.  — Calvin999 18:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, for the purpose which you uploaded the image, the now-deleted file File:Up Out My Face Screenshot.png does a slightly better job than the artwork for the single, File:Up Out My Face Mariah Carey.png, for the very reason you state.
However, since File:Up Out My Face Mariah Carey.png is on the page already there is only a very small "value-add" by having both images on the page. This small "value-add" is not enough to allow the 2nd image to qualify as a non-free image in that article.
If I were forced to choose between having File:Up Out My Face Mariah Carey.png and the now-deleted file File:Up Out My Face Screenshot.png on the page, it's a no-brainer to go with the cover art for the single. Why? Because that image fits well within Wikipedia's longstanding practice of allowing official cover art for music singles and albums, and readers of the section about the music video who do not know what a "Barbie Doll box" looks like will be enlightened. If there was no official cover art for the single but the image File:Up Out My Face Mariah Carey.png was loosely associated with the single, I would seriously consider keeping the image that just got deleted and deleting File:Up Out My Face Mariah Carey.png. But as far as I know, that's not the case here.
For those talk-page stalkers out there, see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 2#File:Up Out My Face Screenshot.png and this old version of Up Out My Face#Music video for context. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
What? Artwork is artwork. We aren't here to discuss which image we would choose for the single artwork, that is superfluous to conversation. Only artwork can go in the info box, and if there is artwork, we have to add it. I uploaded a file from the music video to give an image to support the critical commentary of them breaking free of their constraints, which is not the same as the artwork. Why did you vote to delete the music video shot from "H.A.T.E.U." when that has no artwork then?  — Calvin999 11:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
1) "If there is artwork, we have to add it" - no, we may add it. Unlike removing blatant copyright violations or other violations of Wikipedia policies, we as a community are under no obligation to add artwork to an infobox.
2) As to the artwork you uploaded, the text in the article already says "Carey and Minaj play different characters, include Barbie dolls who escape from their boxes". As I said in my since-struck remarks in the file's deletion discussion, I basically agree with both you and the editor who nominated the file for deletion: I agree with the nominator when I said "if this were an encyclopedia only an audience that knew what this packaging looked like then I would be saying 'delete.'" I agree with you when I said "While the segment is already described in the prose, I would argue that it is not adequately described to people who are unfamiliar with what 'Barbie-doll' packaging looks like, and 'adequately describing it' would take so many words that it would weaken the article as a whole." After making that remark, I realized there was already another image in the article that showed what a Barbie-Doll box looked like (that image also happened to be the cover art for the single), so the combination of that image and the text meant that item 3.a. of the Non-free content policy, which reads "Minimal number of items," would be violated if both non-free images and the sentence "Carey and Minaj play different characters, include Barbie dolls who escape from their boxes" all appeared on the page, since the single-cover (not free) plus the sentence (free) serves the same useful purpose as the deleted non-free image.
3) If I recall correctly, Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 2#File:H.A.T.E.U. Screenshot.png was a clip from a video in which the two artists were playing the piano. I saw no evidence that this particular clip (out of the many possible clips) would be identified by your average listener who was aware of the artists and aware of the existence of the video as being uniquely associated with that video. Therefore, it was a poor choice if it was to be used as cover art. In short - even if Wikipedia allowed non-free art without any restrictions, editorially I would have either tried to determine which image, if any, was strongly associated with the single (not the video) in the public mind. If there was no such image, or if that image didn't have anything to do with the video, then I would have repeated the process with the video. For the video, I would probably have settled on one of the 2 or 3 images I saw the publisher using in online promotional videos. But since Wikipedia has strong rules regarding non-free content, and since we are under no obligation to use non-free images even if they exist, I would be very hesitant to allow a non-free image for a video unless it was either clearly the official cover art for the video or it otherwise clearly satisfied Wikipedia's policies, in particular, "contextual significance," "no free equivalent" (in other words, if text you write yourself could, in principle, serve the same purpose, then don't use the image), and "minimal usage" (if another non-free image on the page serves the same purpose OR could serve the same purpose in conjunction with "free" content, then don't use the image). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
No, the image for "H.A.T.E.U." was an inscription in the sand... I think you meant to say "Angels Cry".  — Calvin999 21:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I no longer remember my entire thought process. Your best bet would be to start a discussion on the article's talk page, with a link to an off-Wiki copy of the image AND a link to the AFD, then make a very strong case why the AFD should be overturned. This will mean making a convincing argument that:

  • it does not "[fail] WP:NFCC#8 since the image is easily describable by words [part of the nominator's rationale for deletion]
  • removal is not detrimental for the article. [part of the nominator's rationale for deletion]
  • that the use of the image in the article will meet all of Wikipedia's non-free image use criteria [my comment saying I would conditionally support un-deletion]

If you can make compelling arguments and they are accepted by other editors including all participants of the deletion discussion, then a WP:Deletion review has a decent chance of being successful. However, other editors will wonder why you were not able to make the same arguments during the course of the AFD. One answer that will probably be accepted is "I didn't realize the burden of proof was on (or had shifted to) me." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Aren't all images describable by words? It's a wonder than any article even has an image. Preferably, we are to illustrate an article with media and I tried doing that with images with critical commentary. You voted to delete, so I am asking you. What I'm saying to you is what I said in the AFD's, but you nor anyone else replied. I actually replied to you directly in one of them, and you did not reply.  — Calvin999 08:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry it's taken time to get back to here - I read this earlier and didn't have time to reply then, and it got "marked as read" on my watchlist. Where is "mark as unread" when you need it :). Re: all images describable as words: Sometimes the relevant elements of an image can be described in a few words. Sometimes, it would take the full proverbial "thousand words" to do the image justice. Sometimes even that isn't enough. Can you provide a link back to the question in the AFD that I missed? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • It was the one for "H.A.T.E.U." that you provided a link to above.  — Calvin999 09:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • This one? Ah, I (mistakenly?) assumed the question was rhetorical. But honestly, there are many reasons, including perhaps being in a hurry or not having ready access to it as you are editing, that you might, for a period of time, not include cover art even if the artwork exists. So the literal answer to the question "If it had artwork, don't you think I would have included it?" is "not necessarily." Your very next sentence, "It was an airplay single, so it never got artwork," explained why you did not, so I assumed the question was rhetorical and didn't need a reply. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
          • The song was released 6 years ago. If there was artwork, I'm sure someone would have found it by now. Fact is, it never had one. We aren't getting anywhere here. You're not really listening to what I'm saying and I still think the reasoning you gave for the image for "Up Out My Face" is not valid and you still haven't answered what I asked about it being different to the artwork and worthy of inclusion.  — Calvin999 08:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
            • On the question of "what is different": Official cover art, if it exists, is more likely to be considered an "acceptable fair use image" than other images associated with a song or video. As to the difference of opinion regarding my comments on Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 2#File:Up Out My Face Screenshot.png, can we agree to disagree? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
              • That doesn't mean that images from music videos can't be uploaded. The artwork does not reflect the critical commentary given by critics saying that them breaking out of their packaging is a symbol of emancipation and freedom.  — Calvin999 08:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
                • Sometimes - as was the case with at least one of the recent AFDs, the combination of the cover art plus a small amount of text is sufficient to get the point across, and adding another image, while somewhat helpful, would not add sufficient value to overcome the minimal use rule regarding the use of non-free images. In cases where there is no cover art (and no freely-licensed art) it will be a bit easier to make the "critical commentary" claim but it's still going to be a burden if the artwork doesn't really add much information beyond what can be explained in just words. In any case, once the AFD on a particular image is closed, it's not really helpful to keep beating that dead horse. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Atlantic International University removal from Diploma Mill List and List for unaccredited colleges

Hello davidwr

We noticed you are reverting edits as to Atlantic International University. The Links you have listed for the sources from Mexico is outdated and its not a reliable source. It's from a website archive. Also, you are declining to remove Atlantic International University from List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. Is there a reason? You do know that they are now accredited right? The information wikipedia has on Atlantic International University is inaccurate. You may contact their Legal Council directly, if you need more clarity on this-->3060 Ualena St Ste A Honolulu, HI, 96819-1971 Office (808) 285-8484

We are asking kindly to reconsider and have Atlantic International University from this list mentioned. Please take into consideration that actual human beings such as its students, grads or staff at this University is directly harmed if unfair and unsupported defamatory allegations are made.

Thank again for your prompt attention in this matter as we don't want to make a big issue out of this. All we are asking is to remove the information, since AIU accredited. 2605:E000:6009:9700:B115:6497:6203:C5F8 (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Please keep comments related to List of unaccredited institutions of higher education on Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education where all editors can discuss your List of unaccredited institutions of higher education-related comments in a single location. As for the rest, if there is an out-of-date reference being used in an article, put a note on that article's talk page so all editors can talk about those requests in the appropriate location. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I thanked you, but

it was more of an apology. Sorry for undoing your removal. Philmonte101 (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Good suggestion

Coexist (bumper sticker) In ictu oculi (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Logo design

Hey Davidwr how does this look [21]? That link can also be used as the URL if you want to test the logo with your CSS. Let me know what you think. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stabila711: Nice. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-43

16:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-44

18:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Davidwr reported by User:2605:E000:6009:9700:6959:2801:24B5:F443 (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

How many Speakers?

PS: If the numbering by individual scheme is used for the Speakers? it would be strange, as the tenure of office scheme is used for the President & Vice President. I dare not ask what the numbering scheme is for the Senate's Presidents pro tempore. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

ping test

@7&6=thirteen: Did you get notified of this? You should have, I entered it as {{ping|1=7&6=thirteen}}. (see Template:Reply_to#Error_messages for details).

I'm testing this because of a note I saw on your talk page earlier today. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I got it. When I clicked on the message it brought me here. Yippee!. I do know that I had problems a long time ago as the format of my user name was prohibited, and I was grandfathered in. Thanks for your concern. 7&6=thirteen () 21:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-45

16:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Current monarchies

I have not deleted the Category. I have simply diffused some content to the lowest applicable in the tree structure. As it happens, most of the ones that I diffused were Constitutional Monarchies, which is a lower and more accurate description of the content. In the event that, say, Papua New Guinea, ceases to be part of the Commonwealth, this category can be simple overwritten with the category Former Monarchies. The "by continent" articles were likewise properly diffused to their parent "by continent" parents; this category was entirely redundant in their case. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: For every existing monarchy that is not in Category:Current monarchies, I should be able to follow a "chain of categories" and wind up in Category:Current monarchies. If any of the sub-categories that you diffused articles to, such as Category:Constitutional monarchies, are true sub-categories of Category:Current monarchies (that is, by definition every member of that category or any of its sub-categories is a current monarchy) then please add those categories to Category:Constitutional monarchies. If you diffused articles into categories that are not true sub-categories, please either re-add them to Category:Current monarchies or add them to a sub-category (or sub-sub, or sub-sub-sub, etc.) of Category:Current monarchies so that people looking at Category:Current monarchies can find them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-46

17:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

  Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
Mouth full of sweets,
Home full of lamps,
And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Orphaned non-free image File:Zee Entertainment Enterprises.jpg

 

Thanks for uploading File:Zee Entertainment Enterprises.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

I noticed at WP:PERM/R you mentioned rollback was too easy to hit on your touchscreen device? This should not happen as there is a default-enabled gadget that requires confirmation with rollback in mobile browsers. If you still don't want rollback that's of course okay, but would you mind sharing which device/browser you are using so that I can update the gadget? Thank you! MusikAnimal talk 18:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Safari/iPhone. I don't know that I have ever used it on a mobile device, it's just that avoiding it requires extra care. The mis-use was an intentional use where I had a good-faith reason to thing rollback was appropriate but a second look convinced me that I jumped the gun. Pedro already changed the user-rights and I already thanked him for it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Got it. Mobile Safari should be covered, for what it's worth, so you wouldn't need to worry about accidentally hitting it :) Additionally there's scripts like User:MusikAnimal/rollbackTouch that will hide the link altogether on mobile. If you ever would like rollback reinstated don't hesitate to ask. Cheers MusikAnimal talk 20:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Obviously if you ever want the user right added back in just let me know, no problem. Pedro :  Chat  13:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-47

19:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Notifying you of a Dispute Regarding article

See here. Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_education LRappaport (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Coexist (image)

  Hello! Your submission of Coexist (image) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-48

20:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Davidwr/Archives/Archive 24".