User talk:Δ

_{^{archives: 1   2 3 4   5

               6   7  8 9 10

              11 12 13 14 15

              16 17 18 19}}

overuse?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Tool

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

WP:ANI

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Politics of South Africa

Regarding your edits to Template:Politics of South Africa yes indeed, the image is not free, however it is a governmental work which is granted for non-commercial use by the South African government. The United States coat of arms (or Great Seal) falls under the same header of copyright law. Also, this image is used on South Africa which has been reviewed many times. If you consider it non-free then it would have to be removed from there as well.

Let me know what you think.

Kind Regards, User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First File:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg is public domain and is not copyrighted. File:Coat of arms of South Africa.svg is copyrighted and is thus subject to our non-free content policy. Usage of it on Coat of arms of South Africa, South Africa, South African heraldry has been justified with a non-free rationale. Similar rationales cannot be made for its usage in a template. (see WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#9). Using non-free content in decorative situations like this template is not allowed. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 10:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After going over SA copyright law it seems that the South African Coat of Arms does indeed belong in the public domain as ::according to the Copyright Act § 12 (8) (a):
"No copyright shall ::subsist in official texts of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or in official translations of such texts."

The file [[File:Coat of arms of South Africa.svg]] is from such a source which you can find ::here[1].
I therefore recommend that all images that are derived from South ::African governmental works have their copyright status amended to the public domain so that they may be used on templates and ::anywhere else where they may have formerly been restricted.

Kind Regards User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent violation of edit restriction

You made 46 edits in ten minutes between 10:03 today[2] and 10:12 today[3]. This seems to be a violation of your editing restriction: "Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time." Fram (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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