User talk:Werieth/201310

Re: Orphaned non-free media (File:633 Building, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.jpg)

That image can be deleted. Zonafan39 (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Werieth. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:51, 1 October 2013 (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.

I need help with the article I am trying to write. I added the Company Logo and they said:

This file is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and allowed only under a claim of fair use per Wikipedia:Non-free content, but it is not used in any articles. Unless some reason to retain it is given, the image will be deleted after Tuesday, 1 October 2013. Please remove this template if a reason for keeping this image has been provided, or it is still used in articles. Administrators: delete this file after confirming it is not in use (be sure to check redirects to the file). Usage: {{di-orphaned fair use}} For non-replaced images: {{di-orphaned fair use}} Notify the uploader with: ==Orphaned non-free image File:Cuenca Cigars Logo.png==

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cuenca Cigars Logo.png. 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. Mcuenca2410 (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC) what do i need to do? Mcuenca2410 (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Mcuenca2410 (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I am about to head out for a bit, it should be less than 2 but I will give you some help. Werieth (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Once Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cuenca Cigars is approved you can use the file in that article. I havent spent much time reviewing the article, but it needs a fairly major re-write, better sourcing and a more neutral tone. Right now it reads like a press release. I would also suggest using an infobox to make the article more uniform to similar articles. Werieth (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Phi Sigma Kappa edits

You have removed a number of Fair Use, accurately cited and referenced images that improve the article I have been working on, Phi Sigma Kappa. The images clarify the entry, add visual interest, are accurate in portrayal of the dialog, and have been approved by the license holders or owners of the images. Yet you cite a "lack of critical commentary." --Exactly how does one provide critical commentary in this case of a photo of a building? Ex: I provided a picture of Phi Sig's Alpha chapter taken shortly after its 100th anniversary remodel, noting this fact. The building owners and photo owners approve of my low resolution usage of the photo, and have distributed such photo similarly on their own website. I have been to see the building, and have personally been inside it. There is no critical dissent that this building is not what I report it to be. In the case of jewelry, there is confusion between greek letter organizations because the letters themselves are not readily intelligible to the non-affiliated user, and therefore it is helpful to provide a visual depiction of such symbols.

Mr. or Ms. Werieth, why did you take these actions, and make these and similar edits? Are my citations flawed? Jax MN (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-free images of buildings that are currently standing are replaceable. Instead of using non-free files you should be focusing on using free files. Werieth (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

free image

Jsessine claims he's the author of this image, watermark says otherwise . Please note that Sessine is a family name, I believe this image shouldn't be here. -Elias Ziade 06:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheadle Hulme School Crest image

You have correctly noted that this image is not being used anywhere. I have added a reasoning for this on the image's Talk Page, regarding why I haven't been able to attach it to an article yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timhudsonchs (talk • contribs) 14:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ive added an {{Edit request}} for someone to take a look. The file wont be deleted for 7 days. Werieth (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not delete Fortitude

Hello, please do not delete Fortitude, it is the official symbol of Delta Sigma Theta, and does not violate any sharing provisions for Wikipedia, as I got it from another page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortitude_(King) so please refrain from deleting it from the Delta page in the future. Immigratty (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I have re-removed the file, it is acceptable to use the file in the article about the statue but not in the fraternity sorority article. Werieth (talk)

it's a SORORITY!!! [hence the name Delta Sigma Theta SORORITY, Inc.] and your "rationale" doesn't make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immigratty (talk • contribs) 01:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia restricts the usage of non-free files (Like that of the sculpture) and usage of those files is only allowed under narrow rules. In this case because it has its own article we can just reference that article without having to include the file. Werieth (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Image tagging

What are you doing with the rampant {{db-f7}} tagging? I've found tons of images in the last couple of days that you tagged as F7 completely wrongly: images such as File:IJMScover.jpg and File:Diplomatic History.jpg, for example, are periodical covers that we include for the same reasons that we include newspaper images on their articles. Attempting to have logos such as File:Cavitysearchrecordslogo.png deleted (when they're being used as logos) is unhelpful and not in line with NFCC, while imagse such as File:JERICHO - SAISON 1.jpg should be tagged with one of the time-delayed processes. Nyttend (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Please dont take this the wrong way, but I think you are hallucinating. I havent edited any of the files you listed, and I dont think Ive made an F7 tag in months. Werieth (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh no; I'm sorry! Somehow I got you confused with User:Blurred Lines. On top of that, I misunderstood what was going on with the Phi Sigma Kappa image, and I've now re-deleted it. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Word of caution

This might be taken as borderline canvasing, given all three of us you mentioned are known NFC enforcers. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

{{DEFAULTSORT:}}

Hello.

1. Is there a way to find which article has no {{DEFAULTSORT:}}?
2. If yes, is there a way to find which article of a certain category has no {{DEFAULTSORT:}}?

Thx!Xaris333 (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of image from Stanley Kubrick

Could you comment about your image deletion at Talk:Stanley_Kubrick#Steadicam_photo, which seems like it was done in error. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

MyVoiceIsHeard

I tried to help, he's not cooperating, I give up. -Elias Ziade 16:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

take a look at this -Elias Ziade 10:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Carlos-Smith.jpg

As I said in my notes, if you have a copyright or free use issue with this photo, it should be dealt with at the file level. I just looked at talk for that file, there is one similar comment (unsigned from over a year ago, not you). I haven't found the discussion of this particular photo, maybe it was carried on somewhere else improperly. I did think that this is a settled issue that you are now meddling in ex post facto. If there is ever a case for a fair use of a photo, this would be it. Absolutely you have no business just randomly removing it from an article without proper discussion. If you initiate the discussion, do it at the photo and place a link to each use of the photo. Trackinfo (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Im not randomly removing it. The usage fails WP:NFCC#1,3,8 in the article where you are using it. Other usages may be acceptable, however how you are using the file isnt. I am just removing it from one article where there is just a minor mention of the subject. See also WP:NFC#UUI#6. Werieth (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"Minor mention?" This is where the photo was taken. It is the results stand of the race in question. Perhaps the prose is inadequate, I have personally written more prose for event articles than just about any other WP editor. But with the minimalist history of such articles, 50% of the prose is rightfully dedicated to the incident on the medal stand. If a person were to look for the story of this incident, this photo, this article would be one of the logical places to start. I'm withholding doing a second revert on this. You are completely wrong and should revert it yourself. If you have a problem with it, start discussing this in public and I'll be right there fighting for the opposite side. I'll copy from right here. Trackinfo (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I added an additional line to the prose. If necessary, probably more can be supplemented. There certainly is enough literature out there to cull sources and quotes from. That in addition to the article about the incident alone. Good grief, there is even a volume of material on Peter Norman, the "other guy" on the podium and his significance to the whole thing. Trackinfo (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to stop. I am moving as fast as I can to undo the DAMAGE you are doing to wikipedia. I was going to take you to ANI if YOU DON'T STOP your persistent attack on this image. The proper thing is to discuss, and I don't see you doing anything but deleting content. Trackinfo (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Please review Our policy on non-free content what I am doing is supporting the m:Mission of wikipedia. As for just deleting content you obviously havent spent any time reviewing my actions as I have uploaded over 200 non-free files Werieth (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You obviously are not used to having your opinions questioned. And what we are talking about here are YOUR OPINION. That's one of you. Why are you afraid to get more people involved? We have a process for discussing things around here. If you have a problem with something that is well established and that is in dispute, you discuss. I'm disputing. All you do is parrot yourself and the policy quote. I'm disputing that. I've read the policy. This clearly fits into the exceptions in the policy. You obviously disagree. We need more opinions involved before you go further and remove more content. Not only have you damaged the Athletics at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres article, you further deleted the content from Doug Roby. If your flimsy excuse for the former "inadequate content" which I tried to address, were to be true, then it does not hold water with the later. An entire section, 2 paragraphs and two quotes--the most significant thing this guy did in HIS life, is now not supported with the picture? You are just pulling out whatever argument suits your purpose. I am telling you, you are wrong. You've got a long history, I've got a long history too, of trying to protect content. Trackinfo (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

In regards to Roby, he is not in the picture, we have a full article on the subject. See also File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg we dont include the file anywhere the subject is referenced, in fact it is by far a more notable image and is only used in two articles, verses the four that I left for this image. It is used in the article about the image and the person who photographed it (as a example of his visual work). There are a dozens different places the image is referenced but it is only used in one article. How is the subject of Athletics at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres (which is the results of the races) not understandable without File:Carlos-Smith.jpg? Also how is NFCC#3 (minimal usage) met when you are including this file in just about every article that references it? Werieth (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

PS feel free to file a request at WP:NFCR, but the file stays out until others re-explain what I am saying to you. Werieth (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not too friendly . . . Trackinfo (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

After your insults and shouting you wont get friendly discussion, you will just get civil discussion. Accusations of intent to intentionally damage Wikipedia, based of your lack of understanding of a complex policy is borderline violation of WP:NPA that I am ignoring. I support correct usage of non-free media, in this case it isnt correct, and thus removal is the correct procedure. I would suggest re-reading NFC. Werieth (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I took it to WP:Non-free_content_review#File:Carlos-Smith.jpg Essentially, I'm bringing forth the discussion you should have initiated first, since it is your opinion that is causing this problem after 9 years. And I may use harsh words, but removal of appropriate content from Wikipedia damages the overall look of the Wikipedia project by its absence far more than a theoretical fear. Trackinfo (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Titus Andronicus

So as regards your deletions on the Titus Andronicus page, what do you suggest? Two of the files were nominated for deletion when I initially uploaded them, and the results on both was to keep them because they were important for the undertstanding of the article. That was about three years ago. You keep citing policy about what they fail, but I would ask you, respectfully, to simply outline what your problem is as I completely disagree with you about their failure. Where are the free images that can be used instead? How do they not help the reader understand the text? If it's a case that the image pages themselves need to be embellished, that's no problem. I mean, it should be obvious to anyone why the two images from the live productions are necessary - they clearly illustrate what is meant by a "realistic" production and a "stylised" production, something which can't be conveyed in text alone. Similarly, the BBC one and the Titus one both explicity depict something described in the text (the boy walking towards the rising sun in TItus and the thematic use of focus in BBC). The poster from the Bill Alexander production is an exception, that one can go, but the others are important to the article. So, suggestions? Bertaut (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Honestly none of the files meet NFCC#8. The article isnt about one particular adaptation of the play. You can completely understand the play especially given the large number of free images that we have to illustrate the subject. Given at this play was written before 1600 there is a zero need for any non-free files as any example is possible to be replaced with a freely licensed replacement image. Also just referencing an issue isnt enough to justify a non-free image. If the adaptions are notable, and such a position is established by neutral third parties, it should be split off into its own article (where an example image may be justifiable depending on context). But as a whole an article about a play written over 400 years ago cannot justify 5+ non-free files. If you want a realistic portrayal, or a stylised portrayal getting an image of that is possible and reasonable. (either have someone with existing images release them under a free license, or take your own images during the production of the play). Werieth (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, when they were up for deletion before, they were seen as passing NFCC#8. It was specifically mentioned (so was NFCC#1). And the illustrations aren't there is depict specific productions - they are there to depict specific choices made by multiple directors in multiple productions. The Bill Alexander one I'll give you, but not the others. I'll do some work on the images at file level, and return them to the article. If you still have problems, I suggest you raise your concerns in the appropriate place. This is a difference of opinion, and yours doesn't supersede anyone else's. And I fail to see what difference the age of the play makes to discussing how, for example, a modern director has used focus shifting to convey a thematic point, and then showing that in an image. Also: "Given at this play was written before 1600 there is a zero need for any non-free files as any example is possible to be replaced with a freely licensed replacement image". That is completely inaccurate and quite a bizarre statement to make. You're saying that no article on any play by Shakespeare (or Marlowe, or Webster, or Kidd, or Peele, or Greene or Fletcher) can justify any non-free images under any circumstances no matter what the content of the article?? Bertaut (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Given your response there is even less grounds for keeping the files. Do NOT add them back, since you are referring to generic examples of directorial discretion, the grounds for using non-free material is even less. If you want the removals reviewed please file a WP:NFCR, but until it is closed do not re-add non-free media to that article. Given the fact that older plays are outside of copyright getting a free image is 100% possible, with the recent plays due to copyright getting an image may not be possible. Given that it is possible to create and or use free media for illustration there is zero need for non-free media. See Romeo and Juliet for example, it is a featured article on one of Shakespeare's most notable works. How many non-free files does it have? If you said 0 you would be correct. It is in the top 0.09% of articles on wikipedia (via quality ratings) and uses no non-free media. The article has 32 images to illustrate the article, and all of them are under free licenses. I did not say that non-free media is never acceptable, just that it is almost never acceptable, especially given the ability to create free replacements and the lack of specific critical commentary. You are just using them as examples of how the play is being interpenetrated, not any contextual significance with the example chosen just that it is an example. Werieth (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't like being challenged do you? I never mentioned Romeo and Juliet. I simply challenged your ridiculous blanket statement. You would also do well to remember that you have no authority to order anybody to do anything. You have an opinion, which you obviously think is infallible. Considering two of these images have already been adjudged to not fail fail NFCC#8 or NFCC#3, you're clearly wrong about that. You're also very rude. But I shall file an WP:NFCR. Actually, I'll file four of them! Bertaut (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a problem with a user like Werieth who removed the images from a page on poor reason, and then immediately nominate those for deletion (which he hasn't done yet for these, but he did for many others). It looks to me he is playing both judge and jury here, removing images on his own whims. Hzh (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Policy isnt a whim. Stop violating policy and file a WP:NFCR so that others can repeat what Im saying and hopefully it will sink into your head. Werieth (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the images you nominated for deletion that I checked have rationale, it is your opinion that there is a violation. As shown by Bertaut, the images you removed have already been judged to be fine by others, so here it is entirely your opinion, no clear violation has taken place. Hzh (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I didnt remove it for rationale issues, I removed it due to being replaceable, minimal usage, and the second clause of #8. Whomever did the previous review did not know the non-free content policy well. These images especially how they are being used can be replaced. All you need is to take a free photo of a production, since the work is outside of copyright. Werieth (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Your recent editing history 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. Hzh (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note I have told you how to proceed and note that NFCC enforcement is exempt from 3RR. So please read the section above and wait the outcome of a WP:NFCR. Werieth (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No. It has not been shown to be NFCC. As was said, it was nominated for deletion and found to be fine. Note what the 3RR says about unquestionably (and highlighted). Please don't prejudge. Hzh (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Please file a WP:NFCR if you think the files are non-replaceable and their removal is detrimental to understanding the play. Werieth (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Would like your opinion

Hi, Werieth! If I remember right, you are an expert on fair use, whereas I know nothing about that. Could I perhaps ask you to take a look at File:Avant Premiere.jpg, in use at Art Plural Gallery, but not apparently the subject of that article; and perhaps also at various non-free images in use at Sarah Morris? I'd be grateful. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Avant Premiere.jpg is fairly easy, image should be deleted as failing WP:NFCC. Sarah Morris is a mess, there are a lot of images miss-licensed and there are way too many non-free in the article (once the licensing issues have been fixed.) Werieth (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, you confirm my inexpert opinions. Can you deal with this, or should I do something? If so, what? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You might like to note Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Blackbow17 and subsequent. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation

Hello, regarding the logos on Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation article, please tell me what should I do for the logos to stay on the article? A.h. king • Talk to me! 13:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing, the files do not meet WP:NFC and cannot be kept. Werieth (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And how can I make them meet WP:NFC? And why the current ones don't meet A.h. king • Talk to me! 14:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You cannot make them meet WP:NFC. Wikipedia restricts the usage of non-free media. Werieth (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

So there is no any way to keep the logos? Even if the copyright holder gave me permission? A.h. king • Talk to me! 15:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

They copyright holder would need to release them under a free license, something that they really dont do. Werieth (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Concerned you may misunderstand the WP:NFCC

At Bibliotheca Teubneriana you cite "WP:NFCC #1,3,8." However, these are precisely the non-free content criteria that apply to the images you are insisting on removing. The images have (1) no free equivalent, (3) are minimal in number and extent, and (8) are important to readers' understanding of the topic. If you disagree about the applicability of these three subjective criteria, I recommend you discuss it, specifically and at length, and with informed reference to the article's subject matter. It is certainly not appropriate to threaten to block an editor who is making a good-faith application of these criteria. Wareh (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

As a first step towards avoiding bureaucratic dispute resolution, may I kindly ask you to expand fully on how and why you are so sure my interpretation of #1 #3 #8 is wrong (and yours right) on the article's talk page? Wareh (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually if you are just trying to illustrate the typefaces (something that isnt copyrightable) making extracts of single words and using those as examples would make the non-free files you are using completely replaceable, and a clear violation of WP:NFCC#1. Werieth (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

They illustrate the presentation of the text in those typefaces in the series, in different ways at different times (some years now in public domain, some not). I can bring in other subject-matter expert editors to vouch for the explanatory value these illustrations possess, and for how they can't be replaced by something free or disembedded from the context of the book series that the article is about. This section of the article addresses an aspect of the series' history: "what Greek texts look like on the page of these hundreds of volumes." To do so, it presents pagescan from some public-domain volumes, and, where the subject extends to volumes not in the public domain, uses a minuscule (NFCC#3) quantity of visual excerpting to show the phenomenon under discussion. Wareh (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You are illustrating the typeface. You do not need to use page scans to do that. Doing so violates WP:NFCC. It might be prettier/easier to just use full page scans, but they are replaceable using a few words (below the copyright threshold). It is possible to use free images only, you may not like it, but thats policy. Werieth (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the following (killed by edit conflict) but then I realized that all the images you removed are already small portions of pages. I think the points I made are still valid, but this is already bending over backwards for "minimal extent." Consider that, even for purely typographic illustration, we're interested in how all the letters combine, etc. One could be really obsessive and come up with a list of all kinds of typographic features that are not illustrated by the images (justifying a bigger excerpt) -- certain letters, letter combinations, word and line juxtapositions, etc.

The article is illustrating the book design and presentation of the text. I can augment the rationale beyond reference to "typographic design" if necessary. How a page comes together, how the appearance of the apparatus criticus relates to the text, etc., are pretty basic issues of the subject -- at least for people interested in this somewhat nerdy topic about books that print Ancient Greek texts. Please also consider that, in some cases, these images ARE cropped down to small portions of a page. I certainly tried not to use extraneous content. Let's not quibble over what "minimal extent" has to mean exactly -- we're talking about single pages and thirds of pages judiciously selected from a body of tens of thousands of pages. I am changing "typographic design" to "typographic and page design" in hopes we can compromise there. I also apologize for the title of this section; clearly you understand NFCC, but there is always room to have a discussion with subject matter experts before having too much confidence in how to apply them.

I understand the impulse to trim everything to the minimum, but here we're dealing with images that have already been trimmed with that intention/criterion. If you don't see that, I hope you will at least see a grey area and restore the images pending further discussion with other editors to adjudicate whether these images are defensible under minimal extent (NFCC#3). NFCC#1 is really a no-brainer: there is no free source for Teubner's typographic/page design in its non-PD publications. Wareh (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually its not grey at all. You can use single words and/or limited extracts (what is below the copyright threshold for text) as examples of the typography, or look-up the font used and apply that to non-copyrighted text. It is possible to use font examples from copyrighted work and have them licensed freely thus the examples you want to use can be created and thus fail #1. We dont need to show every possible part of a font, using small samples which are below the copyright threshold will serve the same purpose. Werieth (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Werieth, can you please clarify exactly what the copyright threshold for text is? Is there a specific number?

Also, it seems that you are misunderstanding's Wareh's point: the illustration is not simply of a particular typeface, but of the type design. I can confirm that the visual relationship between elements of a Greek text are of great interest to classics nerds.... --Akhilleus (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Might be of interest, but not critical to understanding the topic. Werieth (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

As for the threshold, typically 2-4 words cannot be copyrighted, but as you get closer to a full sentence it gets easier to claim copyright. Werieth (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The whole point is that we are justifying the use of content that is copyrighted, so the copyright threshold is beside the point. You are not responding to (1) my claims of the encyclopedic value of page design elements that go beyond 2-4 words, (2) the inapplicability of the "look-up the font used" method (it's neither possible, nor does it illustrate the use of typography in the Bibliotheca Teubneriana, which only a photo of that series' pages (trimmed to whatever extent) can do. Wareh (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fairly high bar of WP:NFCC given that the usage right now is limited to showing examples and compare/contrasting the typeface being used we can replace the large blocks of text with limited examples of the typeface (removing the non-free issue) and still not harm the understanding of the primary work. Werieth (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Given the fact that the article is completely unsourced, and lacks any sourced critical commentary, usage of any non-free media besides the cover cannot be justified at this point. Werieth (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

NJPW Dominion

You pointed me towards WP:NFC#UUI #14 in regards to the posters, which states "A logo of a perennial event (or of its sponsoring company), used to illustrate an article about a specific instance of that event. If each instance has its own logo, such specific logos remain acceptable." I don't undestand how this fits to the article in question or how one could use it to justify the removal of the posters. Each event clearly has a different poster.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You only get to use 1 non-free file in that article, not 5. The article isnt about a single event, but rather a series. If the indivual events where notable and had their own article the file would be acceptable there, however in a list (or list like article) like this one it is not acceptable to have all of them. Werieth (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I took this to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Surely we could do this a bit more amicably.

Werieth, I'm sure you're acting with the best of intentions, but the way you're going about things is a bit brusque. This threat to block User:Wareh, after you had done nothing to explain the image removal on Talk:Bibliotheca Teubneriana, and very little in your edit summaries, borders on the abusive. Your use of a template on SlimVirgin's talk page ([1]) seems insulting to me, since she clearly knows the WP:NFCC policy and disagrees with you about its application in this situation. Spending a bit more time explaining yourself will go a long way towards reducing conflict. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I havent commented at Talk:Bibliotheca Teubneriana because the discussion has been isolated to this page so far. SlimVirgin's actions go against NFC and a warning was issued as needed. Sometimes warnings to block are the only thing that gets peoples attention. Werieth (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A post on the talk page also gets people's attention, and has the added feature of not making you look like a jerk. Please consider it in the future. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have considered it, but its not effective. Werieth (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

This is in relation to the posts of mine that you removed earlier. [2] [3] Sorry, I don't know what else to do, because if you keep on reverting the images will be speedy deleted, so obviously things can't be left as they are. In addition, you've said that you'll return to remove the others. Again, I ask that you instead nominate them for deletion if you believe they're violating the policy. Many thanks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Like SlimVirgin, I think the way you've been dealing with images is problematic, and I have added to her post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If you had discussed your removal of the images on the articles' talk pages, I'm sure we wouldn't be at this point. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion and marked it as editor warned. When you have time, please review the comments I left in the section. If you have any questions about what I meant, or how to go about things, let me know. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Mookie Wilson/Bill Buckner

The image I added to Mookie Wilson's article was taken from Bill Buckner's. I would think it has equal justification to both articles, and if it should be removed from Mookie's, it should also be removed from Buckner's. --J.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.243.121 (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't answer me, I'll just assume you've seen the light, and have come to agree with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.243.121 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually I dont agree, and have requested the deletion of the file in question for failing WP:NFCC. Werieth (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Non promotional edit

Hi, I appreciate that you don't want biased promotional material, however, I added to the comparison of survey software in a completely acceptable way. Grapevine Solutions is one of the leaders in enterprise survey products, and is comparable to many other products listed on this page. I am in the process of adding an entry for their product, supported with both primary and secondary sources. Unless you would prefer this page being made first, I really don't understand your objection to adding them to this comparison list. Care to explain? Russemes (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Its quite obvious that you have a Conflict of Interest and your only purpose on wiki is to promote that product. That type of behavior is against policy, and I find it disturbing. Werieth (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern so I'll back off, but I'm quite taken aback by your application of the conflict of interest policy. Adding to an incomplete list seems pretty reasonable and non self promotional (there's absolutely no room for bias, or other problems related to COI). This gives me the feeling that wikipedia not very open, and is run by quite bureaucratic admins.Russemes (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No, rather that article is an easy target for those wanting to promote their non-notable product. I am stopping short of calling this a Paid Editing incident, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote your product or service. I find dislike those who attempt to use wikipedia as a marketing tool. I am not an admin, nor is this being bureaucratic, rather its the actions of a regular user disliking the attempts of companies to market via Wikipedia. P.S. One can be promotional without it being obvious (targeting lists and similar pages) Werieth (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Reference removed

Dear Werieth, a reference in the article Mohani has been removed as being an "external link". It is not an external link, and the website in the reference was recently whitelisted at my request as shown below. After the effort to get the website whitelisted, I was sad to see this vital reference removed. Karrattul (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the whitelisting. Werieth (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Bot Error Message

Good Evening,

I have put an Error Message photo THERE. Thank you alot, --العراقي (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Clifford Bartholomew

He died in 1999. I can't take a photo of him. Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)