User talk:TLSuda/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

File:McCann right eye.jpg

This discussion was resolved by editors working together for find a common solution, and I have much respect for that. It looks as if this discussion has opened a much larger can of worms, one I'm not interested in being a party to. For those interested, or those who have further comments that are not directly related to me or my edits, please put further discussion at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257#Madeleine McCann's right eye. Thanks, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Further information: Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 40 § File:McCann right eye.jpg

Hi, I'm wondering whether your closure of the above reflected consensus, and would appreciate it if you'd take a second look. Werieth initiated the discussion, and six others commented – in order, Stefan2, Masem, SlimVirgin, Betty Logan, Stfg and Evrik. Four wanted to keep and three remove.

The image was used in this section of the article, Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, where the significance of the image is discussed, supported by sources that discuss it. See the image page for more sources.

The discussion of the image in the article serves to satisfy (it seems to me) section 4.1.3, point 9 ("Images that are themselves subject of commentary"), of the non-free guideline, and whether the image might be said to have iconic status (4.1.3, point 8). So from both a guideline/policy perspective, and a consensus perspective, I'm not sure your closure was correct. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Be aware that the removal was undone [1] by Betty Logan claiming that there was no consensus on the discussion. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

And to add, but less an issue, that SV reverted the CSD tag given that it technically no longer applied after Betty's revision [2]. I would assume if Betty's revision was incorrect (against closer's decision) then the SV tag removal has to be undone too. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I've self-reverted on the image page while this is discussed, as I assume the tag's presence or absence makes no difference to the outcome. The question is only whether the close reflected consensus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, I'm not disagreeing with your change, given Betty's revert. I don't believe Betty has the right to revert a decision closed in an forum like NFCR (even if non-admin closure), which needs to be highlighted, and if that reversion was wrong, ТимофейЛееСуда should be aware that the image page was also changed; but you were probably right in removing the CSD tag just in case that was an okay reversion. --MASEM (t) 01:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments and keeping a centralized discussion here. I do have all of the relevant pages on my watchlist. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention.

My quick response is that I stand by my closure of consensus. Let us remember that consensus is not determined by number of votes, kilobytes of text or who responded last. Let us also remember that WP:NFCC is our only policy when discussing Non-Free files and WP:NFC is our main guideline.

To respond to all queries, I maintain that my closure was in compliance with WP:NFCR, WP:NAC and WP:CONSENSUS. Basically, non-admin closure is allowed when there is a clear consensus and no administrative tools are required to take action. As WP:NFCR is discussions purely about inclusion, no mop is needed. Discussions of deletion belong at more appropriate venues like WP:FFD. Also as an aside, we often wait many moons before any admin takes action at WP:NFCR even after repeated posts to WP:ANRFC. Oddly we have many admins participate in discussions, but few close discussions (even ones that they do not participate in). This leaves the question of clear consensus. I believe there is a clear consensus, and while that is my opinion, and you are entitled to a different opinion, it is sufficient to close the discussion.

As for the consensus, let us remember in discussions on the use of non-free files, “it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale.” In this case, two arguments were put through for removal, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#1. Remember again that all points of WP:NFCC must be met for the inclusion of non-free content. This is also the case for WP:NFCI#8. As for that point, there is not much discussion of the image itself in that section. The article generally states that an image of a close up of her iris were pasted across Europe. One does not need to see said photo to know it exists. Although many of the sources in that section of the article use the image, or discuss the iris, few actually discuss the image itself. This would allow the image to potentially pass WP:NFCI#8 but all criteria of WP:NFCC are required to be met. As this above information was not included in the discussion, I did not include in my closure. Here on my talk page was the first time that was brought up.

This leaves the two criteria that are discussed as not being met. WP:NFCC#3a is a clear cut case. There are multiple times in the discussion where it is shown that the image is a crop of another non-free file, so we are basically using two copies of a non-free file which is in direct violation of WP:NFCC#3a. As there was literally no discussion from those “voting” keep as to why this was not a violation, we have here a clear policy backed consensus of remove. Remember that “Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.” Policy (WP:NFCC) says this image fails, and as there is no discussion as to how it does not, the quality, policy based consensus is to remove. Now WP:NFCC#1 is a bit less cut and dry. The argument for removal said that a free image of the type of iris marking the young lady has could replace the image. A well written caption would show that this was not the girls actual eye, but rather a similar view. This situation happens across Wikipedia, and also in the mainstream news when the specific image is not readily available news outlets put a similar one in showing the image. No one is saying that the current file isn’t better, just that text and a free example image could replace it without taking away from the article. The keep discussion hinged on the idea that the family wanted the image widely distributed and that there are no legal issues with its use. Law and Wikipedia policy often differ as we all know, and usually Wikipedia is much stricter, as is the case with non-free content. The discussion does claim that the image shows something that cannot be described by text alone, and no one on either side disputes this. It can, as the discussion for removal shows, be replaced by text and an example image. Even if there were not as clear of an outcome with the discussion on WP:NFCC#1, the image still fails WP:NFCC#3a and should be removed.

Generally when I close a discussion, I try to not be as verbose as I have been in this explanation, as this is now nearly as long as the original discussion. Obviously, others feel the need for me to give more thorough explanations, and I will try my best in the future. If you disagree with the outcome of this discussion, and my closure, feel free to open a new discussion. I would advise against opening a new discussion if your sole reasoning is similar to a time when WP:DRV should not be used (see WP:DRVPURPOSE). If you disagree with my actual closure with regards to the process or whether I have made an error in my interpretation, please find an uninvolved administrator, and I will reverse my closure, or they can reopen it. I am not perfect, but I do my best to follow Wikipedia policy. Thanks, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explanation of the reasoning, Тимофей. I understand that consensus is interpreted through the lens of policy, but your reading of how the policy applies to this crop is clearly contested in the discussion, including by a very long-standing administrator, so this discussion does not belong in the category of "non-contentious or withdrawn discussions" that qualify for non-admin closure. By closing on the basis of your understanding of the policy, you have effectively overruled other editors' understanding of it. I am not certain that your reading is correct, so I've asked uninvolved administrator Diannaa to review it. My request to her is here. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi ТимофейЛееСуда, thanks for the response. Would you mind summarizing why you closed it as remove, i.e. what the key issue was for you? I found the above a bit too long to digest. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I do mind summarizing this for you. I don't know why you hid this comment up here when the discussion has already progressed. I summarized my close in the close description. That wasn't enough for you, so I gave you a more verbose version. I'm not going to write yet another explanation that takes into account all points of the discussion, including new points you attempt to push. You obviously aren't going to read my responses to your questions as they are not what you want to hear. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

First, thank you to sticking to an appropriate process when contesting a closure. Discussion is always healthy, and the alternative does nobody any justice. Just to note, over half of the discussion on crop was about a misunderstanding in response. The remaining half was on whether or not there is a policy specifically forbidding crops (which there is not). You were the one that confirmed that it was a crop of the same exact image, and that is why it fails WP:NFCC#3a. Crops of non-free files can be used, just simply not when both the crop and the main image are used. (This was all thoroughly explained by a trusted administrator in the discussion). Aside from that, I'm glad that you've chosen Diannaa, and I hope she is willing to take the time. She is one of the most trusted administrators that I interact with. She's level-headed, trustworthy and understanding. She is also one of the few administrators left working in the nasty file namespace, and one of the even fewer who does administrative tasks such as deletion. (For those that don't know, quite a few admins have left the project due to the constant fight of enforcing policy on image use). Whatever is Diannaa's decision, I will happily abide to. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

As will I. Thank you, Тимофей. --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The number of !votes is 3 for deletion and 4 to keep.

• User:SlimVirgin's main arguments are that the image has been the subject of extensive commentary and that the feature is not possible to describe in words alone. The remainder of her argument does not come into play, as the parents' wishes, the odds of Wikipedia being sued, and the desire to help resolve a cold case are not policy-based reasons for making NFC decisions.
• User:Betty Logan makes the argument that the image is the subject of sourced commentary, not replaceable by a free image, and conveys visual information about Madeleine that cannot be described by text alone.
• User:Stfg explains that the image at coloboma is nothing like McCann's eye, and therefore the image has no free substitute. He states that he doesn't believe 3a has been violated, but he doesn't adequately explain why not. Whether or not our readers will think to click on a photo to enlarge it can be resolved by suggesting they do so in the caption.
• User:Evrik says Keep, per SlimVirgin.
• User:Werieth was the nominator; he states that the image violates NFCC but he doesn't say which points.
• User:Stefan2 believes the image is replaceable with the free file from the Coloboma article.
• User:Masem points out that the image fails NFCC #3a, as it is a duplicate of a portion of the image in the info box. And he's right. This point is never adequately rebutted, and all the points of the NFCC must be met, or the image is in violation. So I agree that the close is a valid one. My suggestion is to get rid of the half of the image that projects how she might look at age nine. This would allow for a larger version (268 x 370 rather than 200 x 248) of the photo at age three, and the eye feature would be more visible. Then amend the caption to suggest that the reader click on the image to see a larger version. Another suggestion is for Тимофей to revert his close and wait for an admin closer, someone experienced in assessing consensus on contentious closes. That would not be me. There's no rush to close this, as the image has been hosted here since 2007. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• To note, I said I would be comfortable with using a atypically larger resolution of the profile pic so that the eye is clearer, since that is a detail of discussion, as to reduce the amount of non-free used. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Just noting here that I've requested an uninvolved review at WP:AN/RFC (permalink). The idea that we should remove Scotland Yard's age-progressed image from the lead to make way for a larger image of her at three where we can see the eye better – just so that we can satisfy this very strict interpretation of fair use – is to my mind an example of the tail wagging the dog.

The close-up shot of the eye needs to be in the section where the image of the eye is discussed, how ubiquitous it became and why the Portuguese police were worried about that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No, really, it doesn't. When we have non-free images in an infobox for identification, and in cases where the image is the subject of discussion later in the article, we don't repeat that image later to be closer to the discussion; if needed, we simply refer the reader to the top. And in this case, the discussion of the eye is only one or two page-scrolls away from the top, so it's not like a trek across the entire article. And I did say that the two-photo piece can be used in a larger resolution; I agree the age-regressed version can be kept along side the photo. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand why all of this is such a big deal. It seems like everyone participating in the discussion is willing to compromise except one. We have many alternatives solutions, but none are apparently good enough for some. Also, for my first actual opinion (not an interpretation of a consensus), there are already seven "external images links" on the page with description of the image and its relevance. Why cant we just link the eye image like the rest? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, in an effort not to dig my heels in about a minor issue, I've replaced the eye for now with an external link (though whether others on that article will agree, I don't know). I do think a discussion needs to take place about extreme interpretations of the fair-use guideline, and the person-hours that are expended trying to remove completely harmless images, not to mention that it makes content creators feel that WP is not a good place to be. But thankfully that's a discussion for another day. I still wouldn't mind having an independent review of that closure, because I'm not convinced that it was a reflection of consensus, but as Diannaa says there is no rush for that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It's absolutely not extreme. You have two images that show the same thing (her eye mark), while one of them also shows many other things. That's duplicative, and not minimal use. Certainly having the singular-facet image next to the text would be more pleasing to look at, but NFC policy and the goals of creating free content override visual pleasantries. That's the entire point of the #3a problem. And again, we have non-free guidelines that are purpusely more restrictive than fair use so we can support the Foundation in meeting the free content mission. Did we say to strip out all the non-free from the article? No, just be more judicial about its use and recognizing that image use one might find in newspapers and other publications cannot apply to WP. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revert deletion of Google Play images

Hi, ТимофейЛееСуда. I've reverted your edits on Google Play based on your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Google Play, that had no consensus - the argument you made for deletion was directly contested, and certainly is not supported by WP:NFCC#8 that says nothing about having separate articles. I'd suggest that you re-open the discussion and let it run until completion. Diego (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, Diego, you're involved. That's not an appropriate action. Get a second-non-involved admin to review that. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@Diego:, find a non-involved admin to show me where I've broken policy in my closure, and I will be more than happy to revert it myself. I can see though that I wasn't extremely clear in my closure as those were meant to be two separate pieces. It should have read: ": The policy-backed consensus shows that the images fail WP:NFCC#8 in the Google Play article. Consensus also finds the images would be acceptable in standalone use within their own respective articles (if those exist), per WP:NFCI#2. I apologize for not being more clear, and would happily amend my closing statement, if you please, but the closure still stands. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Side note, the discussion was opened on November 17, so its run past the traditional 30 day mark, and it has been two weeks since the most recent comment. I waited plenty of time for the discussion to be complete. Simply not liking the outcome is not justification enough to revert my closure. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

More todo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahvain/5566881526/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/79442882@N03/8870573431/in/photolist-evS1re http://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwssoutheast/8044213544/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/runder/4636909612/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/minijoegreen/7159746284/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/statelibrarync/8634530907/ -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Done. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

GA recruitment

T, as per your request on my talk page, I've started a page for us at the Centre: [3]. You should also know that even though I'm not as busy right now as I am during other parts of the year, I can tend to be scattered, so I highly recommend that you ping me from time to time to make sure that I stay focused. Have fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. Thank you. I noticed that this applies to you: Add the following to the file's caption(s): {{tl:Pufc|1=Xeno series logo (2013).png|log=2013 December 28}}! You are supposed to tag the image's caption, as you indicated you know, and yet you (still!) haven't. BOTH the captions and the images need to be tagged, though you claim otherwise at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leoboudv#December_2013 , where you asked for this warning; see further comments there (shortly). In future, you should warn others who set a bad example by failing to notify properly. Agreed? Or do you intend to keep violating policy, with your excuse that everyone does?

Elvey (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Elvey

Please consider staying off each other's talk pages. That ought to solve the problem. Deal? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(I posted the same message at Elvey's page. He responded by deleting it (and a few other, related posts) with the edit summary "Enough of that") Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw that. I am trying my hardest to stay out of it. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

List of Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/11396832834/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/11396471086/ -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Figureskatingfan -- Figureskatingfan (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles characters. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jonesy702 (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center

The article Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Figureskatingfan -- Figureskatingfan (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Some coconut water for you

	GA Reviewer's Treat
	Congratulations on completing your first GA review! It was nice and thorough, and you helped polish the article considerably. Here, have a nice refreshing drink of coconut water and some hot sun to help relax!  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You are the one to be congratulated. You got the article to GA, and made it very easy for me to review. And you put up with my process patiently. So cheers to you my friend! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 05:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Michael Collins

Could you make it clear on the page, whether you support the image or not? I don't want to guess your intention at the time of the closure. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

'Move to Commons' template

Possibility 1: image is renamed prior to being moved to Commons. Multiple pages on other WMF projects are subsequently edited so as to include the image on Commons. Total number of edits: 1 rename + 1 move + (x) additions = (2+x).

Possibility 2: image is not renamed prior to being moved to Commons. Multiple pages on other WMF projects are subsequently edited so as to include the image on Commons. The image is then renamed. Delinkerbot goes to all the other WMF projects using that image, and edits those pages so as to update the filename. Total number of edits: 1 move + (x) additions + 1 rename + (x) updates = (2 + 2x).

Admittedly, possibility 2 is a worst-case scenario -- the file could be renamed immediately after being uploaded to Commons, so that it does not get added to articles under the wrong name. But it would be simpler to just upload the image to Commons with a proper name in the first place. DS (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Dove

That discussion is still opened...Modernist (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No it is not, you need to stop reverting discussion closures simply because you do not agree. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ive given a final warning. If they continue I will seek their block. Werieth (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that regardless of outcome there will always be those who disagree with policy and will do whatever it takes to get their way. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no agreement - don't push it; until there is an agreement...Modernist (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)NFCR's dont need an agreement. Modernist, given your position you will never agree to any removals, which would place it at an indefinite stale mate. That is why we have NFCRs. Werieth (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There is obvious consensus that is policy backed. You just don't agree with the policy because you don't like it. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Back in 2006 the visual arts project and your project came to an understanding regarding the use of fair use imagery and your project changed your standard after our agreement; Ex Post Facto...Modernist (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

What actually happened is post 2006, WP:NFCC (a POLICY) changed. Policy ALWAYS trumps any other agreement. You don't like the policy, so discuss that. Open an RFC on the policy and what parts you don't agree with. There was consensus to change the policy in 2006. Holding old grudges gets you nowhere. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not about grudges - it's about creating great articles that show visual art - paintings and works of sculpture - that need to be seen in order to be understood. The dynamic is that works from the 20th century and works from the 21st century need to be seen. We came to an understanding in 2006 - because the foundation understood that exceptions must be made for paintings - because they need to be seen to be understood by our readers...Modernist (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what "foundation" you are talking about, but if there was a decision made about the use of visual art by the WMF, where is the policy that shows that? There isn't one. But there is policy that allows non-free images, if they meet all criteria of WP:NFCC. Those two images do not. So, you could keep arguing that you don't like the policy, or you could start an RFC to change the policy, or you could conform to the policy and actually create content that provides contextual significance. I think you should stop whining and actually do one of those. As I said on ColdCreation's talk page which has since been moved to Dove's talk page: you could fix the article and then gain consensus for the inclusion. Its that simple. If you cannot be productive in one of those ways, please kindly see yourself away from my talk page. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Wikimedia foundation that owns this website - this is a particularly interesting read - [4]...Modernist (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in that article that you've linked that shows that the WMF says that non-free content of paintings can be used. Also, the last few paragraphs (which actually are about non-free content) basically defer to the individual projects (en.wp included) for use of non-free files. That's why we have the policy at WP:NFCC. At this point you are now unwelcome on my talkpage. Further comments from you are considered to be harassment and therefore will be reported and handled through the dispute resolution process. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!

Hello ТимофейЛееСуда, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition began on 1 January. There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close imminently, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Logo Contributor Calls It Quits For A While…

For a while, I was getting very enthusiastic about adding "Former Logos" of various TV/Radio Stations but after realizing that there are plenty of Policies and Regulations regarding what content can be featured on Wikipedia, I got discouraged and decided that maybe I should look elsewhere to take my interests. I just visited This Page and I get it now. I'm not gonna be naïve now. I recognize that this is a friendly warning. I'm feeling embarrassed and don't feel like my contributions are wanted so, that being said, I'm not sure whether I should be contributing to Wikipedia. It would save me plenty of embarrassment and humiliation to just look into other websites. Isn't there a website called "Logopedia" or something like that? "Logopedia" features libraries of logos from various businesses and whatnot. I'm in doubt about whether that website is in violation of a lot of things and could get into trouble. I don't know why all the fun stuff has to be the things that are not allowed. I've always been one to go for the forbidden stuff.

Don't think I'm gonna be writing all over your page (just so you know). I don't typically write on Talk Pages. I was just doing this because I had some questions but I cannot remember the last time I ever wrote on somebody's Talk Page. I'm so sorry to be bothering you and I apologize if you feel that I'm a "Talk Page Stalker" and now I feel that it would be best if I just get out of Wikipedia. I'm gonna go now. It depresses me that I've caused people so much frustration.

50.138.170.28 (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I truly hope that you do not quit editing Wikipedia. You've made a bunch of good contributions on finding logos for stations that don't have them. Also, I should have reached out to you to explain everything instead of giving you a big "no." As for talk page stalker, I was talking about myself. I was explaining that I butted in to that conversation because I watch Armbrust's talk page. If there is anything else I can help with, please don't hesitate to reach out to me. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Woodland Scenics Catalog Pdf.

Thank you so much! I did not upload the PDF of our original catalog correctly, and should have uploaded it with a free-use license option, but did not understand. I am uploading it correctly this time, under the Creative Commons Attribution (cc-by)license, and am forwarding the proper evidence for this upload on our letterhead. Thanks. Mitch2018 (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Gallery of country coats of arms

Why did you close the discussion before it was finished? Arms Jones (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was started on January 11, and these discussions usually run a week, whereas it had been almost a month since the discussion started. There had not been any new comments since February 3, so it was almost a week without comments by the time I closed the discussion. Most of all I closed it because there was a policy-backed consensus to not include non-free files, even with the various changes that have been made to the article throughout the discussion. The discussion about the actual style of the "gallery" (your word) is a content discussion and should be discussed on the article's talk page. Based on your arguments, you seem to be willing to attempt to find a common ground with using the non-free coat of arms, and I find that commendable. As it stands right now though, based on consensus in the discussion, any use of non-free files seems to violate WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFG, WP:NFCC#8, and WP:NFCC#3a. My recommendation would be if you still think the non-free files should be included, you should fix the entire article first. You should then come up with a reasonable argument for why using the files does not violate those policies that I listed above, then start a new discussion about the inclusion of those files at WP:NFCR. Right now, there is consensus against you, and it does not help that you are still working out details on how you are going to accomplish meeting the requirements in the policy. Trial and error is not a way to solve non-free content usage issues. If you can get the article cleaned up and have a reasonable argument, I would be happy to support it. Cheers and good luck. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The consensus was earlier, that the article has to be developed so that the text is comparing the images against eachother. That is how it is now. The article is cleaned up and we are still waiting for some people to say it is OK - if you read, you see that not everyone has answered that yet. But if you think it is OK to use all the files now, I am OK with that. There has also been a discussion at the article's talk page. Arms Jones (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The consensus in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 31 was that the image File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg fails WP:NFCC#1, except in the article Arms of Canada. What part of the consensus is it that you do not understand? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That discussion is obsolete, since the article is not a plain image gallery anymore, which it was when that discussion started. You can't remove images based on an obsolete discussion. Arms Jones (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Stefan is correct, the reasoning behind the consensus hasn't changed. Also, the consensus in the discussion on WP:NFCR was made for the non-free files to not be included, but never refuted. Just because you don't agree with the consensus, does not mean there isn't one. Also, I don't think its fine to use the non-free files now as you still haven't made a compelling argument to change the consensus. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the consensus is dealing with the gallery the way it looked before, so you can't remove the image based on that discussion only. You have to take the present state of the article into consideration and the discussion which has been present since then. I can't see either of you has even bothered about this before, so why are you suddenly so interested in it now? The deletion discussion is obsolete. Read the following discussions. Arms Jones (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The present state is how the sections under A, B & C were on February 3rd, and you still could not gain consensus. The only difference is you've applied the same style and structure to the remaining of the article. I'm not interested in the article itself. If I were, I would not be able to close the discussion per WP:INVOLVED. I closed the discussion based on consensus. There are now two separate discussions that have a consensus against inclusion of non-free files. Period. Nothing has changed. End of story. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You closed an open discussion. Well, I say, good job! Congratulations. A, B, and C is not now as it was then, if you read the text, because I have developed the text to confirm with what consensus wanted for the files to be able to be there. But perhaps, you don't want Wikipedia to become better, you just want to end annoying discussions and go do something else. Everything is always just no, no, no here at Wikipedia, there are never anyone who tries to work with the contributor to try to make things possible. *Sigh* Arms Jones (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I closed a discussion that interpreted consensus. You don't agree with that consensus. I recommended a process for you to work toward establishing consensus. I'm trying to work with you, not against you. Currently you have no one who agrees with you. Fighting editors like Stefan and I, and complaining that we have not read the discussions, does you no good. If you don't want to work with me, that's fine, but please do not make edits that are against consensus. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You closed a discussion which was working towards a consensus. I can't see you have recommended any other process for me. It would have been nice to have someone trying to work with me and not against me, but I'm sorry to say I can't see where you have tried to do that. Arms Jones (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was over. No new discussion in a week. It was done. I spelled out an ideal plan for you in my above response, from your initial question. For someone who accuses others of not reading, you obviously must not have read the part starting with "My recommendation would be..." I've tried to work with you, but you just want to fight. I'm sorry that you can't have your way and the consensus is against you. I have nothing further to say in this matter. Good luck. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Request For A Former Logo

I was wondering whether it would be okay to request an upload of a former logo for a radio station. The logo, I feel, holds historical significance to the article, as the article explains that the station spent nearly an entire decade as an active rock radio station; therefore, I feel a former logo would really do justice for that radio station. I'll disclose which station, after I get a response to this message. I was wishfully hoping that you were referring to YOU as being the "Talk Page Stalker" and now all my hurt feelings have been dissolved. I'm so pleased that you're now at my service. The former logo is, of course, fancy enough to be subject to copyright laws so it would need to be uploaded at a reduced quality. I was hoping that it could be converted to a PNG Image file with Transparent Background, in addition to being scaled down to an acceptable size. This logo really means a lot to me and I'd really love to see it get added to the Wikipedia article. Again, I'll disclose to you the name of the station after you respond to this message. I've been told that the quality limit for copyrighted material is 160,000 pixels² (i.e. squared). 50.138.170.28 (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It is its a tough question to answer without knowing more. Most likely that logo would not be acceptable under our WP:NFCC policy. This is because while there is relevance in the history of the station, there is not relevance in the logo in the relation to the station. If there were content added to the article (before the non-free historical logo was added) that discussed the branding at that time, with actual sourced information about the logo itself, then it could be included. A reasonable example could be found at Logo of NBC where although there are various issues with the article, the historical logos themselves are discussed (with reliable sources) in the article. Does any of this make sense? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

For the article regarding the radio station I'm thinking of, I don't see any sourcing of the article. All I see is information regarding the station's formatting history but I don't see any adequate source listings at the bottom of the article, apart from the FCC link and Radio-Locator link but, apart from that, not enough source listings exist for this article.

50.138.170.28 (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can find one source about the station (the historical one) discussing anything about branding or logos, etc, I will be happy to upload the non-free file, and work with the article to get it up to par. I would suggest maybe searching Google news or Google books, etc. Good luck. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll see what I can rustle up. It sure feels good to argue my case and work with editors (as opposed to fighting them). I never tried the latter option (fighting editors) but I have read plenty of conversations on "Talk Pages" that really went awry, due to people getting hardheaded and failing to listen to reason. What about an archived version of the station's website? Would that do? If not, my hands are tied (so-to-speak).

50.138.170.28 (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If more editors would WP:AGF (assume good faith) and remain calm and neutral while reading comments from other users on talkpages, this place would work much better. Very few people (in general, not just on Wikipedia) can communicate effectively without some AGF using only text responses. I have a tendency of being over wordy for example. For the most part, editors here are all working together to build an encyclopedia under our policies, guidelines, and especially our mission. If two editors work together, it gives us twice the ability to accomplish our goals. An archived version of the station's website would be fine, if there is actually content about the branding on their pages, it could work. If you cannot find anything, you could tell me the station, and I could have a look for you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The Radio Station is WCQL and here is an archive of the WCQL 95.9 FM website where the particular logo is featured. The logo of interest is A Former Logo: Early 2004 through August 2005 as Cool Rock 95.9 for WCQL. Please, upload the logo as a PNG Image file with Transparent Background. I've been told that the quality limit for copyrighted material is 160,000 pixels² (i.e. squared). That being said, should the logo be uploaded, the size to scale the finished product down to would need to fall within 160,000 pixels² (i.e. squared). This website played a large role in my finding of those logos.

50.138.170.28 (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TLSuda. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

v/r - TP 00:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Your recent editing history at Microsoft Office Mobile shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Codename Lisa (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Timofey Leye Suda claims that there is consensus for his edits in an NFCR discussion. Note that removals of unambiguous NFCC violations are exempt from WP:3RR; see WP:3RRNO point 5. If a discussion at WP:NFCR has established that a file violates WP:NFCC, then I would assume that the file unquestionably violates WP:NFCC as soon as the WP:NFCR discussion has been closed. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for responding with that information, I've also replied on Lisa's talkpage. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hello

It is true; I might send warnings to elite editors like you a little sooner than newcomers, which I I try not to bite. In the meantime, unison in sending the warning was required, as I also warned the other party as well. An delay in sending you the warning might have been construed as me taking side with the other person. (I am neutral.) I have opened a discussion thread in Talk:Microsoft Office Mobile. Please consider visiting.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is a little something for you that might help you: ∆ (talk · contribs) once did the exact same thing that you are doing, in List of Rozen Maiden characters (now a redirect). He had two users, one of them admins, at his side. (Exactly like you.) He used the exact rationale that you are using (uncontroversial removal of NFCC violation and enforcing consensus) and had the exact same attitude. Only, he wasn't as lucky as you to keep daring others to report him to ANEW. He got reported, he got blocked and he got sent to WP:ARBCOM and got banned too. He thought admins see the rules the way he sees them. Admins only saw his non-friendly attitude and lack of cordiality.

You've already won the content dispute, so my advice is to stop whatever you are doing. It will only be seen as WP:STICK and will only ruin your profile. Fleet Command (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right, @FleetCommand:, I need to work on cooling my temper. Sometimes in my mind WP policy seems so clear and obvious that I forget I only consider my interpretation, not others. I didn't believe I was edit-warring, but when you show me the same situation with another user, I can see how this same exact situation could be interpreted differently. I get too passionate about adhering to policy that I lose track of what is actually going on. @Codename Lisa: was just trying to show me that the actual issue was a content dispute not personal. While I still don't understand her methods in doing so, I should have backed-off much sooner and I should have WP:AGF for her actions. She obviously only has good intentions and wanted to help me see what I couldn't. I'm sorry Lisa for not having good faith, for not seeing what you were trying to tell me, and for not remaining calm. Cheers all. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Requesting The Upload Of A Former Logo: Early 2004 through August 2005 as Cool Rock 95.9 For WCQL

I'd like to request an upload of A Former Logo: Early 2004 through August 2005 as Cool Rock 95.9 for WCQL. (459px × 559px), 150.06 KB - JPEG Image

This Former Logo: Early 2004 through August 2005 as Cool Rock 95.9 was obtained from this archive of the WCQL 95.9 FM website.

This Former Logo: Early 2004 through August 2005 as Cool Rock 95.9 was the final logo used by WCQL before they flipped to their current Hot Adult Contemporary "Hits 95.9" format. It is also the largest, highest-quality logo for the station in their "Cool Rock 95.9" format.

Please, upload the logo as a PNG Image file with Transparent Background. I've been told that the quality limit for copyrighted material is 160,000 pixels² (i.e. squared). That being said, should the logo be uploaded, the size to scale the finished product down to would need to fall within 160,000 pixels² (i.e. squared). This website played a large role in my finding of those logos.

50.138.170.28 (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There is not enough information relevant to the use of the logo for it to be included. I'm sorry. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Union City High School

Thanks! Nightscream (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You did all the work! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TLSuda. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

v/r - TP 19:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Danke. Replied. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you get my other email about the redirect?--v/r - TP 20:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Just saw it, somehow my email lost it. I wish I'd seen it previously. I have asked you a question in reply. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For the first self-question I have seen in any RFA. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you for your questions, I'll get to them shortly. I'm terrified of the process, and when I get nervous, I try to be funny. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. Cheers. -- Тимофей (THMOPENREECYRA) (Talk) 21:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons Username Change

I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is ТимофейЛееСуда. -- TLSuda (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
2. Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
3. WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

• Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
• Prism (submissions), who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your request for adminship

Hi TLSuda, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations! The administrators' reading list is always worth a read and the new admin school is available if you feel that you require some practice with the tools in a safe environment before applying them for main use. Good luck with your adminship! Acalamari 20:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Acalamari! -- TLSuda (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone!

In light of my recent success at RfA, I want to thank everyone who participated in any form. The process was not nearly as scary as I thought it would be, and that is mostly due to TParis’ help. I want to specifically thank my co-nominators: TParis and Masem. Without your support I would not have put in for the bit. I obviously want to thank all of the editors who supported me and put their trust in me, and I promise to do my best to not let your trust down. I also want to thank anyone who did not support me, as you have given me plenty to think about. There are always methods in which we can improve, and I thank you for helping me see.

As I stated during the RfA, I will leave myself open to recall. Before I take any administrative actions, I will publicly post my recall terms as I specified. I also want to point out that I did say that I would not work administratively in areas that I was not familiar in until I had spent some time as an editor in those same areas. I will publicly disclose this information, and the areas I discussed in my RfA. It is my plan to post all of this information on my userpage. It will take some time to redesign my userpage to be more functional in this regard, so please bare with me. My RfA will stay in my bookmarks so that I can easily go back to see why you put your trust in me and make sure that I am making good on my promises and keeping my word to everyone involved. I’m still honestly shocked that the RfA was successful, and I'm human, so I might make a mistake. If I do, please let me know; I cannot right my wrong if I don’t know. I also ask a bit of patience while I am getting accustomed to the new responsibilities.

Wikipedia is my happy place. I want Wikipedia, my second home, to be the best it can be. I thank you all once again for trusting me to assist in a new way. -- TLSuda (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Congrats on your successful RFA

Great job and well done! ///EuroCarGT 00:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Congrats, here is your new T-shirt! On an unrelated note: Thanks for pledging in 4 cents per each good article review! Awesome users like you are what makes this site wonderful! ///EuroCarGT 00:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Congrats!!!--v/r - TP 00:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Congrats, and good luck! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Congrats! Hope to see you around! :) Connormah (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Congratulations! Epicgenius (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Congratulations!!! --j⚛e decker^talk 18:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• My condolences on becoming an sysop. Mkdw^talk 04:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Good way to start

Nice choice, pretty uncontroversial space. Hope to see your name pop up in my watchlist for all the right reasons. —Soham (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)