| Revision as of 23:01, 13 December 2008 editJohntex (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,715 edits →Please stop changing the section headings: "mass usage" is your opinion. "logo usage" is both informative and neutral.← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:04, 13 December 2008 edit undoCanis Lupus (talk | contribs)11,066 edits →Please stop changing the section headingsNext edit → | ||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
| ::::When you are completely changing the subject headers to not reflect the actual posts that is POV pushing please dont give me that line about what is best for the project Ive heard them all before from POV pushers. "Logo usage" is not what was brought up. what was brought up was the over usage of such material. If you think those two headers convay the same subject then you have understanding issues. Hammersoft was not bringing up normal usage of logos, rather what was being discussed was the mass usage of non-free content against policy. ] 20:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC) | ::::When you are completely changing the subject headers to not reflect the actual posts that is POV pushing please dont give me that line about what is best for the project Ive heard them all before from POV pushers. "Logo usage" is not what was brought up. what was brought up was the over usage of such material. If you think those two headers convay the same subject then you have understanding issues. Hammersoft was not bringing up normal usage of logos, rather what was being discussed was the mass usage of non-free content against policy. ] 20:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::"mass usage" is your opinion. "logo usage" is both informative and neutral. ]\<sup>]</sup> 23:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC) | ::::"mass usage" is your opinion. "logo usage" is both informative and neutral. ]\<sup>]</sup> 23:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::mass usage was not opinion. having a logo on over 100 pages was mass usage. weather or not there are issues with that is part of the discussion. again you fail to research and look at the whole situation before pushing your POV. ] 23:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:04, 13 December 2008
- 20060127
- 20060409
- 20060508
- 20060713
- 20060906
- 20061017
- 20061117
- 20061207
- 20070101
- 20070201
- 20070301
- 20070401
- 20070501
- 20070601
- 20070701
- 20070801
- 20070901
- 20071101
- 20071201
- 20080101
- 20080201
- 20080301
- 20080401
- 20080501
- 20080601
- 20080701
- 20080801
- 20080901
- 20081001
- 20081101
- 20081201
- 20090101
- 20090201
- 20090301
- 20090401
- 20090701
- 20090801
- 20090901
- 20091001
- 20091101
- 20091201
- 20100101
- 20100201
- 20100301
- 20100401
- 20100501
- 20100601
- 20100701
Re: NOtice
Beta, I have a watchlist, I can see your edit to ANI. You don't think they won't look at your bad-faith edits here, on WVNS-TV (a page I monitor and have edited) and on the NFCC talk page. Your personal attacks above will come into question too. I might be on probation at the moment, but you got more to loose than I do. For now, you can talk to yourself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 05:57
Blocked for violation of civility parole.
Betacommand, I have blocked you for a violation of your civility parole, detailed here. The edit which lead me to block you can be seen here, in The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's ArbCom election poll. You have been told time and time again to remain civil, and time and time again you have failed to do so. You have had three recent civility-related blocks at 24 hours each, therefore I am blocking you for 48 hours. Please think carefully about your behaviour, and refrain from making any comment anywhere whatsoever before you have thought carefully about how others will view that comment. TalkIslander 12:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
December 2008
Please do not remove fair use rationales from image pages such as Image:Beatles yellowsubmarine.ogg. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I will remove useless text that does not meet the requirements of a non-free usage rationale. β 08:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- When the use of an image is clearly within policy but the rationale is missing or not good enough, then please help write the rationale instead of deleting the image. When the image is overused or shouldn't be used at all, then remove it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- please review the non-free content policy. the person wishing to include non-free content policy must make a case for inclusion. β 14:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is a collaborative project though. Noone has any duties. When the image use is clearly allowed, why not help out instead of enforcing the more bureaucratic details of policy? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- If I knew the subject(s) better I would be in a position to write a rationale. but because I dont know the subject writing a proper rationale would take about an hour or more of research. (as a proper rationale is not a template). β 15:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sometimes it is that difficult. Sometimes it's a simple standard case. I was actually more referring to images you removed recently, rather than the sound clip above. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- NFC should not be used on multiple times across multiple pages see WP:NFCC#3. also if it has no rationale for a usage it does get removed from usages without rationales. β 15:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I meant, there are standard allowed use cases. For example a logo in the infobox in the article about a company. That usually doesn't require much consideration, just a standard rationale. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you notice Im not targeting those situations. I am targeting the cases where there needs to be a solid rationale for each usage, besides the obvious inclusion. β 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, sounds good. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you notice Im not targeting those situations. I am targeting the cases where there needs to be a solid rationale for each usage, besides the obvious inclusion. β 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I meant, there are standard allowed use cases. For example a logo in the infobox in the article about a company. That usually doesn't require much consideration, just a standard rationale. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- NFC should not be used on multiple times across multiple pages see WP:NFCC#3. also if it has no rationale for a usage it does get removed from usages without rationales. β 15:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sometimes it is that difficult. Sometimes it's a simple standard case. I was actually more referring to images you removed recently, rather than the sound clip above. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- If I knew the subject(s) better I would be in a position to write a rationale. but because I dont know the subject writing a proper rationale would take about an hour or more of research. (as a proper rationale is not a template). β 15:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is a collaborative project though. Noone has any duties. When the image use is clearly allowed, why not help out instead of enforcing the more bureaucratic details of policy? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- please review the non-free content policy. the person wishing to include non-free content policy must make a case for inclusion. β 14:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- When the use of an image is clearly within policy but the rationale is missing or not good enough, then please help write the rationale instead of deleting the image. When the image is overused or shouldn't be used at all, then remove it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Blocked
Hi Beta. I have blocked you for 24 hours for not respecting the terms of the community-imposed restrictions, specifically:
- Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.
The mass-removal of images on Ohio State Buckeyes football team articles clearly violates this restriction. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- yet again people abuse the admin tools. All I was doing was bringing one image into compliance with policy. there was a discussion about that image and it was agreed that it was over usage so I removed its usage. β 19:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Beta, it's not like the terms of the community restrictions are ambiguous. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- but my actions where a result of a consensus of a discussion, which makes your block bullshit. β 19:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing the fact that there was support for removing the images. The point is that the edit restriction specifically asks that you either propose the task on WP:VPR or let somebody else handle it. By the way, the discussion you're referring too on Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content began on December 10 at 15:23 and you started the mass removal at 15:49. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- then your block has no grounds. please remember the five pillars and that admins blocks are not punitive. rather preventive. Personally I see this as a reason to block me for unr-related issue over at Grant Wood. please remove your unfounded block. β 19:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Beta, I supported your position on the Grant Wood issue. Community restrictions are in place because of recurrent problems with your automated edits and recurring problems with your handling of conflict situations. They are in place to prevent such problems, they are clear, you are aware of them and they should be respected. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- yet you violated the principals of adminship in this situation, I was making a single image conform to policy. which per policy should be done, also by the time I edited those pages the images where not displayed. all I was doing was a cleaning up after a template edit made by vipersnake. β 19:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- You have every right to request an unblock. All I'm saying is that you violated the term of the restrictions and that you made this mass-edit (which, btw, I ultimately agree with) just 26 minutes after a discussion on the topic had been initiated. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- yet you violated the principals of adminship in this situation, I was making a single image conform to policy. which per policy should be done, also by the time I edited those pages the images where not displayed. all I was doing was a cleaning up after a template edit made by vipersnake. β 19:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Beta, I supported your position on the Grant Wood issue. Community restrictions are in place because of recurrent problems with your automated edits and recurring problems with your handling of conflict situations. They are in place to prevent such problems, they are clear, you are aware of them and they should be respected. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- then your block has no grounds. please remember the five pillars and that admins blocks are not punitive. rather preventive. Personally I see this as a reason to block me for unr-related issue over at Grant Wood. please remove your unfounded block. β 19:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing the fact that there was support for removing the images. The point is that the edit restriction specifically asks that you either propose the task on WP:VPR or let somebody else handle it. By the way, the discussion you're referring too on Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content began on December 10 at 15:23 and you started the mass removal at 15:49. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- but my actions where a result of a consensus of a discussion, which makes your block bullshit. β 19:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Beta, it's not like the terms of the community restrictions are ambiguous. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
You also performed 4 reverts on Grant Wood. The exception to 3RR states: "Reverting the addition of copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy." There is a FU rationale on the image page, so it is not an unquestionable violation and something else that merits a block. Ty 08:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that a non-free rationale does not make an image compliance with policy. the image in question is a clear violation. β 00:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is your interpretation of policy, but it is not an unquestionable violation, so is not exempt from 3RR. You need to post it on WP:NFCR, not edit war, which is likely to lead to being blocked. Ty 00:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NFC which states, as unacceptable use: "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)". Beta is clearly correct in this case. --MASEM 00:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- #4 makes an exception for iconic images. The spirit of that is relevant in this case. Also read the top of WP:NFC, which is a guideline and "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Guidelines are not set in stone. Ty 02:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 4 which reads "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima)."? Last I checked, "American Gothic" was not a war image. And yes, I'm aware that there's the common sense exception, but this is a case that is explicitly listed as a "not acceptable" use, not a grey area. --MASEM 02:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Are you being serious? War is obviously just used for the purpose of an example. The key point is where an image has become iconic, it may merit being used in relevant places. Common sense and the occasional exception applies to all the contents of the guideline. That is why it is in a box at the top. We're here to build the best quality encyclopedia, which requires a bit of WP:UCS, not to rigidly enforce rules in circumstances, where they don't help to increase quality. Ty 03:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- PS: "If an image is used for more than depiction purposes such as critical commentary on the image itself, then it may be acceptable outside of an article regarding the image itself." That is Betacommand's own essay, so by his own words such usage is not unquestionably a violation. Ty 07:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- But their was little critical commentary, and I did not write that essay, I just rescued it from deletion. their is not enough support on the article to warrant the inclusion of the image. β 13:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- PS: "If an image is used for more than depiction purposes such as critical commentary on the image itself, then it may be acceptable outside of an article regarding the image itself." That is Betacommand's own essay, so by his own words such usage is not unquestionably a violation. Ty 07:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Are you being serious? War is obviously just used for the purpose of an example. The key point is where an image has become iconic, it may merit being used in relevant places. Common sense and the occasional exception applies to all the contents of the guideline. That is why it is in a box at the top. We're here to build the best quality encyclopedia, which requires a bit of WP:UCS, not to rigidly enforce rules in circumstances, where they don't help to increase quality. Ty 03:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- #4 makes an exception for iconic images. The spirit of that is relevant in this case. Also read the top of WP:NFC, which is a guideline and "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Guidelines are not set in stone. Ty 02:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NFC which states, as unacceptable use: "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)". Beta is clearly correct in this case. --MASEM 00:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is your interpretation of policy, but it is not an unquestionable violation, so is not exempt from 3RR. You need to post it on WP:NFCR, not edit war, which is likely to lead to being blocked. Ty 00:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- When are these silly restrictions going to be lifted? This really is quite silly. I conducted many similar removals, yet I wasn't even *approached* about stopping the edits, much less blocked. Beta? Instantly blocked. Either the behavior is acceptable, or it isn't. It doesn't matter WHO is conducting the behavior. Good grief I feel sorry for Beta. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Beta
Sorry to hear about the above thread. Just want to ask since your into the statistical area of wikipedia, and you have a subpage of Edit count, whether it would be possible for you to update the Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits. The last period is around April and May and given we're coming to the end of the year, i was hoping for a last update for 2008. The last person to update it, AutumnSnow, seems to be inactive for long periods of time. Let me know what, if anything you can do. Thanks Beta. Monster Under Your Bed 11:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Im going to update my list of all users with over 5k edits. if you want to filter that feel free. β 00:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair Use Essay
Hi Beta,
I read the fair use overuse essay and I noticed in the first paragraph it says Superset instead of Subset. I think it should be the latter, see here.
Also is the truth quote at the top of this page a metaphor for the correct application of policy?
regards DFS454 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Im not seeing that quote, but as for superset vs subset. fair use is a subset (or part of the non-free content policy) NFC includes fair use but fair use does not include the same restrictions as as NFC thus fair use is part of the NFC and not a reverse as you where thinking. β 18:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Please stop changing the section headings
It is clear from your essay above that you have a POV on this matter. What we are looking for is honest discussion about the matter at hand. POV-ridden section headings are anathema to an open discussion. I am simply trying to introduce neutral headings so the section headings are not biasing the discussion. Will you please agree to stop reverting me so that the change can be made? Thanks, Johntex\ 20:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- You are attempting to push your POV with changing the headers. Leave them as they where. the origional post and heading was accurate. you are also breaking in commimg links with your rash actions. please show a little respect and stop attempting to side track the discussion/topic headers. β 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- You are wrong and you are also out-of-line. You are the one pushing POV. My proposed headings are completely neutral. I am also not aware of any incoming links broken; if there are any, that could be fixed. Besides, linking to section headings on a frequently archived page is never a good idea. As to showing a little respect, it seems you might not properly understand the meaning of the phrase. I came here with a very polite message and you greet me with insult and accusations. I hope you will step back and consider whether your statements are a good reflection on either you or the project. Sincerely, Johntex\ 20:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- When you are completely changing the subject headers to not reflect the actual posts that is POV pushing please dont give me that line about what is best for the project Ive heard them all before from POV pushers. "Logo usage" is not what was brought up. what was brought up was the over usage of such material. If you think those two headers convay the same subject then you have understanding issues. Hammersoft was not bringing up normal usage of logos, rather what was being discussed was the mass usage of non-free content against policy. β 20:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- "mass usage" is your opinion. "logo usage" is both informative and neutral. Johntex\ 23:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- mass usage was not opinion. having a logo on over 100 pages was mass usage. weather or not there are issues with that is part of the discussion. again you fail to research and look at the whole situation before pushing your POV. Canis Lupus 23:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- You are wrong and you are also out-of-line. You are the one pushing POV. My proposed headings are completely neutral. I am also not aware of any incoming links broken; if there are any, that could be fixed. Besides, linking to section headings on a frequently archived page is never a good idea. As to showing a little respect, it seems you might not properly understand the meaning of the phrase. I came here with a very polite message and you greet me with insult and accusations. I hope you will step back and consider whether your statements are a good reflection on either you or the project. Sincerely, Johntex\ 20:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)