User talk:Δ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MickMacNee (talk | contribs) at 16:04, 8 July 2011 (→‎"Harassment", "Stalking", "Bullying": sp, fmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Once more I'm off to do some work

archives:  1   2  3   4   5
               6   7  8   9  10
              11 12 13 14 15
              16 17 18 19

Your edit to List of Rozen Maiden characters

Hello, Δ

I have contested your removal of images from List of Rozen Maiden characters. I encountered the article during my routine patrol and it seems to me that the use of non-free images in those article is well-justified, according to WP:NFC and WP:NFCC.

I hope you forgive me for saying this: Recently a lot Wikipedians and Commonists have started to have thug-of-war discussion of "Yes, it is - No, it isn't - Yes, it is, ..." with me (or an extended version of it). I know you are a good Wikipedian but I strongly advise that we take this issue to a multiple-image FfD, a third opinion, an RFC or wherever there is more than three input, if all that we have to tell each other is "I disagree, I think I am right". Again, I am sorry that I had to mention this unpleasant point.

Fleet Command (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im re-removing the files, see my note on the talk page. ΔT The only constant 11:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are about to violate The three-revert rule . Funny, I thought you are a good Wikipedian, not an edit warrior... Perhaps you should read and stick to WP:BRD. Fleet Command (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FleetCommand, note that removals due to failure of NFC are excempt to 3RR. Maybe the other editors should stick to WP:NFC and discuss on the talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only removals that unquestionably violate the non-free content policy (NFCC) are exempt (WP:3RRNO, emphasis original). It seems still to be disputed whether that is the case here. Better to discuss further on the talk page, than just hammer the revert button. Jheald (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They do, they can be replaced with one image showing the style, read WP:NFLISTS:
"An image that provides a representative visual reference for other elements in the article, such as what an alien race may look like on a science-fiction television show, is preferred over providing a picture of each element discussed.
How unquestionably do you want it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends what you see as the point of the images. As I understand it, the point was not to show the general style of the animation, the point was to show identifying images of the key characters where no group image was available, as for example images of selected particular characters might be shown in a list of characters in a live-action TV series. Jheald (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dirk, I'd appreciate if you stick with the reply formatting standard of message threads. Anyway, as for questionable status, Consensus refers to the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. When there is no consensus for removal, then it is not unquestionable. Actually, according to Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, the mere objection of me here means lack of consensus. 11:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
No, that is not the point of unquestionable here - this is an unquestionable violation of the policy. And, no, you mistake what is consensus here, see Wikipedia:OVERUSE#Disputed.3F. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That personal essay by a user who has since left the project was written well before the adoption of WP:NFLISTS which crystallised guidance in this area. Nobody here is disputing that WP:NFLISTS is the appropriate guidance, which has the consensus of the community behind it. What is disputed is whether these images fall foul of WP:NFLISTS. That, to my mind, depends on whether an official group shot can or can't be found of all these characters together. But on the evidence available so far at this stage, I see no proven case that there is an "unquestionable" violation of policy here. Jheald (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Jheald. It is an essay. But what you essentially say is, is that when you have consensus to upload a child-pornography image, that that trumps policy. Or if you have consensus to use a certain external link to a document (where the document linked to is a plain and unambiguous copyright violation) that that trumps policy. Or that if you have consensus to use a tinyurl.com link to link to some document, that that trumps policy. Or that you have consensus to write something negative and unsourced about a living subject, that that trumps policy. No, Jheald - consensus does not trump policy in that way. That type of consensus needs a change of policy. If the policy is changed, then one has the consensus needed. These images are unquestionably a violation of policy, they are clearly replaceable (you may not have it available, they are replaceable). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, this child pornography example is a strawman argument. You should properly read and understand the Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Consensus. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort; in Wikipedia, consensus can create, change, override or replace any policy (or [[[WP:IAR|even make exceptions]] in cases that it is found to be opposing the spirit of Wikipedia). But then, you come here and call something that is being actively questioned "unquestionable".

As for having consensus to upload a child-pornography image; prohibition of child pornography in Wikipedia is a Pillar not a policy. (And no, you cannot use the fifth Pillar to violate the first Pillar because you cannot betray Wikipedia's mission to help it in its mission!) Fleet Command (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well .. there you go, Fleetcommand. I am sorry, I should have been more specific: certain parts of policies can not be overridden, consensus does not trump it, WP:IAR is not getting there. This is one of those examples. This can be replaced, you may not have it at the moment, but that does not matter. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, I think you need to distinguish policy from guidelines from your personal interpretation of guidelines. Just because something falls foul of your personal interpretation of a guideline, it doesn't mean it falls foul of policy. Particularly if the established consensus understanding of what that guideline implies in accordance with policy is different from your understanding. FWIW, Wikidemon gave quite a good analysis of NFCLISTS in this discussion at 02:29.
As a bit of history, the cases Durin cites in Wikipedia:OVERUSE#Disputed.3F were early and, by the later standards of the cases addressed by WP:NFLISTS, extreme. They specifically were band discographies and series episode lists, when a thumbnail was used in a table for each and every episode or each and every album, with a link to the main article on that episode or album, and typically a one-line summary of it.
This is different to the kind of case you are persuing at Rozen Maiden, where there is a fair chunk of text about each character, each character does not have their own article, and the appearance of only selected characters is presented.
The guidance text WP:NFLISTS arose after considerable discussion about where the line should be drawn for more complicated cases like this, which is well worth reading in the archives of WT:NFC. The somewhat tentative way NFLISTS is couched reflects the diversity of views as to where the line should appropriately be drawn to be compatible with policy. There was a strong view at the time to include wording that identifying five or so images to present key characters should normally not be a problem; but this was eventually not included, because it was argued that there might be cases where such a suggested number might be unduly restrictive. Jheald (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jheald .. are the images replaceable by a single one, showing the main characters and style (seeing google search, [1] and taking into regard "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.")? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed the question, as I identified at 12:12 and 11:05 above, and on the article talk-page; that is where we need the input from somebody who knows the series, who can tell us whether a group of these main characters ever appeared together, and whether further characters, not in the hypothetical group image, should be identified. Jheald (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I point you to (zh:薔薇少女角色列表 for a single group image - there is not a requirement that all should be in there, this image e.g. shows the style and a set of the main characters. The images are replaceable by one single image. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirects being marked as free

Your "check files" script doesn't follow redirects on images, with the result being that it mistakenly identifies images transcluded via a redirect as free, whether free or not. Example; on Gail Platt the image File:The Platt Family.JPG is transcluded via a redirect from File:Hillman.JPG. The script identifies Hillman.jpg, a redirect, as being free. In reality of course the redirect transcludes a non-free file (which doesn't have a rationale for this use). Can this be fixed? Your edits like this one have gone a long way to rectifying the problem in general, but I'm hoping the script can take it into account too. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im running through the redirect backlog right now, it only got out of hand due to an error in my generation of used file redirects report. Once I get this backlog under control it wont be an issue. ΔT The only constant 11:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!


BeatlesLover (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Harassment", "Stalking", "Bullying"

In relation to this rant, then per WP:NPA, you will immediately cease making these accusations against me without providing the proof you think would stand up and support your making them. You can claim all you want regarding my views on NFCC (which are as ever, wrong, certainly where my input & policy knowledge is concerned), but your allegations as regards me being the perpetrator of harassment, bullying, etc etc, against you, are as baseless and disgusting as they've always been. These are serious charges requiring bullet proof evidence there and then, you do not get a free pass to throw them around without any at all, just because you forever see yourself as a victim for enforcing NFCC the way you personally choose to, on a large scale and in a wholly disputed and disruptive manner. I should not have to remind you that in terms of behaviour that is just expressing simple personal animosity against another editor, in situations that have no relevance to NFCC at all and were not made in any community discussion about it or anything else, then I have cast iron diffs showing how it's you who has stalked and harassed me, not the other way around. And not just from all those years ago before your ban, but as recently as last month, as bold as brass. If you want to dispute any of this, then let's go, we can tack another Delta sanction violation report onto whichever noticeboard the current discussions about you have spilled over into by now. Or you can just strike it & say you won't do it again, as directed to by WP:NPA. Even though I do let a lot of shit slide as regards attempts at character assasination by editors who cannot handle what I have to say about their policy knowledge & edits, these sorts of accusations are not one of them. MickMacNee (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. As it's become clear that you intend to do nothing about this except ignore it, I've removed the editor's names from that post myself, to downgrade it from personal attacks to just basic gross incivility. I expect you not to revert this action. However, based on your behaviour of only last month in a similar situation, I feel obliged to tell you I'm not willing to go down the same path of GAMEplaying again. Should you choose to revert, or if I see you repeat these attacks in future, I will not be coming here again, I will/would give ANI one last chance to collectively show in a time limited & focussed manner that they can get appropriate assurances from you, or otherwise take the necessary action to prevent you doing this for a third time, and if they can't, I'll be turning Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 3 into a blue link. MickMacNee (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As promised MickMacNee (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you think may be a personal attack is not. He is not attacking you or the other named editors as persons, but in behavior towards him and his actions. He may not be assumed the best of good faith in their intentions, but that's far different than the cases that NPA deals with. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, you know full well that accusing someone of stalking or harassment is serious, and without evidence, is a straight up personal attack. If you don't, then I suggest you put yourself up for admin review to have your general competence re-assessed by the community who trust you to know these things. Do not let your obvious topic interest in NFCC enforcement cloud you to these basic facts, which are written in black and white in the policy. MickMacNee (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicon usage

Please initiate a RFC or Village Pump discussion to resolve the issue of whether Flagicon or NFCC are the overriding case; your assertion that NFCC is runs contrary to many years worth of extensive Flagicon use of fair-use images in cases where free images aren't available.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a flag icon issue, it is an NFCC issue: there is no rationale for the use of the those images on those pages - and these appear to not be of the trivial type - they are flat out missing rationals. Eg: File:People's Mujahedeen of Iran logo.png is used 4 times but only has 1 rationale. This must be fixed before the image can be reused. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Georgewilliamherbert, Ive given you a final warning on your talk page for violating NFCC, by adding files to articles without valid rationales, if you continue to do to so to make a WP:POINT you will be blocked for violating our NFCC policy. ΔT The only constant 03:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See, here's the problem. You went and repeatedly edit warred with Wikidemon without once explaining the specific problem there. Which then confused me, too.
And, you have just failed AGF here as well.
If you had just once put in an edit summary that indicated that the flag needed FURs for those articles it would have been trivial for me to do that from the beginning.
I assume good faith that you didn't realize that you failed to communicate that. Your assumption could lead one to assume I was being POINTy. However, you could have assumed good faith with at least one clarifying comment first rather than jumping to assuming the worst immediately. You could also have checked my recent edits and noticed I was, in fact, adding FURs properly to images where it was appropriate, and consider that perhaps in this case I didn't notice or had forgotten to do that one.
This is the reason you come under criticism so much.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
again you must be reading with your eyes closed Because I did clearly state why I removed the files. ΔT The only constant 04:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of non-free flag icons is not wide spread. There isnt any single non-free flag except File:Nypd_flag.png that is being used in more than 4 places. So please take some time and do your research before placing your foot in your mouth. ΔT The only constant 04:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You always use that (or do recently). You failed to clarify the specifics with Wikidemon in approximately 8 edit warring opportunities where you reverted his reverts, not once actually saying "It hasn't got a FUR for this article".
Template or blank reverts which don't address the specific concerns don't help clarify the situation to the other party. I know this was always obvious to you, because you acted multiple times. The first time, it should have been clear that it wasn't evident to Wikidemon. He did not go around and revert everything you did today or anything, he had a specific content issue with the one set of articles (I think just that one set, without going back and rechecking everything). Again, you failed to AGF and slow down enough to identify that he hadn't followed you, and you failed to AGF with me when I made the same mistake he did.
You instead seem to have assumed we were both just being shits and being POINTy with you.
I understand how you could have come to believe that, but it requires lack of normally expected AGF and lattitude and willingness to communicate with people when something's wrong.
When I thought it was colliding policies, I came here and without prejudice asked you to go get a clarifying consensus. I didn't assume you'd specifically picked articles I watchlist and have been involved in to target me for our recent disputes, I didn't assume you'd made any technical mistakes. I didn't insult your intentions or give you a warning. I just asked you to go get a policy RFC going for what I (at the time) thought the policy issue was.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ive warned Wikidemon in the last few days for doing exactly what he did here again, re-adding files I removed without addressing the issue. Also no RFC is needed NFCC > flag MOS. NFCC is crystal clear with regards to usage of non-free content. You automatically loose the right to claim AGF when you are actively engaged in NFC related discussions, blindly join an edit war that violates NFC, re-insert large volumes of NFC without rationales. Instead of saying "Oh gosh, I dont know why he removed that file, I had better leave it the way it is and go ask" you choose to edit war, and violate NFCC policy. ΔT The only constant 04:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you're continuing to assume bad faith. That's ... quite amazing.
I went and fixed the problem as soon as it was clear to me what the problem was. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im not assuming anything, your actions speak for themselves. ΔT The only constant 04:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do. If you are clear with people all the time, most of them will go fix problems and not bite back. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was clear, or did you not bother to read my edit summaries? ΔT The only constant 04:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above - you failed to address the specific complaint Wikidemon raised, which if read indicates that he was confused about the rationale for deletion or problem with the image. You confused him, as his responses made evident. His responses and your lack of addressing his specific responses, only repeating either the same boilerplate again and again or reverting with no additional comment, did not resolve the situation.
I know what you think you were saying. But you failed to detect that not just one, but two other people had misunderstood, and assumed bad faith (that we were intentionally being shits) rather than pause and try and communicate in a more clear manner. Again - we expect editors and admins to try to communicate more clearly - and that includes situations where you're technically correct but the other party is confused about what's going on. You having been right - and I am not disputing that, as my having gone to fix it should demonstrate - does not excuse your communications style's role in the length of time that it took to untangle it all. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georgewilliamherbert, I hope you do understand, that editors, repeatedly, fail to assume good faith on Delta when re-inserting the image without first figuring out what the perceived problem is. Did you, or Wikidemon, consider that the removal is an unquestionable failure of WP:NFCC - which is generally true (even for cases where the rationale is just 'broken' due to a complicated move or a typo ..). Sure, it is fixable in another way, but many cases here are plain, unambiguous, unquestionable violations of WP:NFCC - exempt of 3RR (but, for the re-inserters, apparently also of WP:AGF). One may not understand why Delta is removing them, but blaming Delta for not assuming good faith when re-removing an image is a pot-kettle problem, and it does not help. Why not first ask Delta before reinserting. Maybe he is right (and for what I see, he generally is right). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the flags used as icons, as that's almost the very epitome of decorative non-free images. George, please see non-free content criterion 8- the flag, when used as as icon, clearly does not add significantly to reader understanding of the topic. If there's not a free flag for the organisation, that's fine, just use the name. As Delta said above, this is by no means as widespread as you'd like to make out, and if there are any other cases of it happening, they need fixing too. If the guidelines about the use of the flagicon template imply that using non-free images in this manner is acceptable (which I doubt...) then they probably need to be updated... J Milburn (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur with J Milburn; I've removed a number of similar violations example. In almost all cases they failed WP:NFCC #10c, but there's a larger issue in that they are a blatant failure of WP:NFCC #8 and #1. Using non-free images as icons isn't acceptable under WP:NFCC, and if there is some direction somewhere that {{flagicon}} should be used with non-free content, it needs to be corrected. Right now, I'm not seeing anything to support your position at either the documentation on the template page or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of CBS

FYI -

What just happened with you, Wikidemon, and me is clearly now what's happening again on History of CBS with you and User:4twenty42o.

And, again, you're responding in the same manner, without clarifying it to him.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is so hard to understand? read the edit summary. ΔT The only constant 05:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understood it just fine, now that I know the context. But - and this is important - three people in a row have now misinterpreted you in exactly the same manner.
When that happens - there's something wrong with the way you are communicating in situations.
You need to understand that and adjust the way you're communicating to avoid that happening. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how much clear than files removed due to missing rationale I can get. ΔT The only constant 05:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A file or files on this page may have had FURs for other pages, but not for this one. They have been removed from this page because they do not have FURs for this one. If they meet valid non-fair use criteria for this page here, please add a FUR for this page in particular before readding them to the page. Thank you. "
Is that that hard? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that is generally not the case, Georgewilliamherbert. They often have FURs for other pages, but for other uses they generally have never existed (just sometimes they are broken, or have typos, but then they still do not point to the right place. I agree, they could be fixed before removal, but the same is true for fixing before re-inserting). The simple point is 'All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page' - if Delta is removing them, then first assume, that there is something, unquestionably, wrong - that they 'do not have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point too.
There's an onus on an administrator or editor doing cleanup (of any kind), that if people are misinterpreting the cleanup, they need to explain the cleanup better.
This is not a "don't do it", it's not even a "change your first notification template", but a "reuse of the first notification template after someone reverts is monumentally failing to explain to people what the actual problem is".
IF someone reverts the removal, then the explanation of what was wrong to that user has to be clear and unambiguous. Repeating it over and over again without actually explaining is the problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But Delta does, he leaves talkpage notices when removing after editors re-insert the image. That is a templated message, indeed, and maybe that message should be rewritten (but here is not the place, and note, except for some cleanup Delta did not write that template, that is done independently. And why does a {{uw-nonfree}} not have 4 warning levels, why does the base template already give such a strong warning? Maybe it was deemed in the past that it was that important?), but both in the removal edit-summary and in the message, there are links to the policies and guidelines, and to FAQs. And there is always the talkpage of Delta to ask a question. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. You're responsible for your communications. If a template doesn't work - and clear evidence is showing that these aren't - and you continue to use it, you're communicating badly in a way that's your own fault, and escalating what should be situations that can be calmly resolved.
Fix template (some suggestions were above), or ask for help to fix the template, or go do a personal message to the person. That doesn't take that long. Among other things, the number of users who actually do push back is minimal. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is, the messages clearly do work on the large majority of editors (see e.g. diff, diff). People are repairing the rationale and re-inserting. It is just a very minor group who revert because they do not understand NFC. I am sorry, not understanding why something is wrong has never been a reason to do it, and certainly should never be a reason to push it. Still we see edit warring here (and not just because of a broken rationale, or a plain missing rationale - we see extended edit wars on image use in articles which plainly fail WP:NFCC and will never be compliant with NFCC - those images should not be there). I am sorry, there may be improvements possible in the edit summary (but the one you suggest is more confusing and does not get to the point - the reason of not having a FUR is not what should be explained in the edit summary, it should explain what needs to be done, and that is IMHO quite clear in the edit summary).
All of this should not be here, editors should assist Delta when Delta gets reverted. When I am available I will re-revert, and will try to talk to the editor what the problem is . Most editors who come here with 'you are edit warring with Party C' should be on the talkpage of Party C explaining that there actually is something wrong, and assist in solving the problem and even considering to re-remove the images while the problem is there and not solved (especially since some of these problems are not solveable at all). And certainly more editors should be vigilant against any incivility directed at Delta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The non-free content use in that article was an absolute joke. I replaced four (!!) non-free images of people with free images of those people. The idea that someone thinks that adding a non-free image there instead of one of the free ones available boggles... J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That someone would replace, in an article about CBS, a publicity photo of Bing Crosby at a CBS microphone, with a newsphoto of Crosby squatting next to a box of golf balls (some ten years later when he no longer worked for CBS) boggles my mind. Same with Murrow and Shirer, with photos after they were dismissed from the network. It takes all minds to make a world, I guess. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh eyes

Hi Δ. You may have noticed me around, I think we've bumped into each other on a user talk page or two. I, on the other hand, have been following your "case" for about a year or two. I've not commented on it, because I just don't do that much image work. But with about 2.2Mb of discussion on your work on AN/I archives alone, I think there is an indisputable problem. I'm not going to pretend I have a magic wand to fix everything, but I was wondering if you would take a little time to explain some things to me about the way you work (by email if you'd rather not give out such information publicly). Perhaps we can improve your "customer service" a little bit, to help reduce the amount of complaints. Just a thought. WormTT · (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ask. ΔT The only constant 11:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing first with removal of non-free images, you have a script which identifies where non-free images are being used without an associated rationale. You then run through those articles, removing all offending images from these articles, with a standard edit summary.
  1. Could the edit summary include the name of the image as a parameter?
  2. Is the script aware of how many images that have been removed from each article? And could that be included as a parameter?
  3. I've heard mention of a warning message placed on the talk page and removal to take place an arbitrary period afterwards if the rationale has not been fixed - could you please give your opinion on that concept?
  4. Rather than reverting multiple times yourself, would you consider reporting all NFC (again using the script) to a noticeboard, allowing multiple editors to help remove it.
Thanks for your time. WormTT · (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. my edit summary is 3 characters from maximum, so I really cant do that.
  2. it doesnt count the number that is removed and actually its normally just one or two files.
  3. I have a proposal for just such a task at Wikipedia:AN#Request for exemption
  4. No such notice board exists, Ive proposed one several times but as of right now it doesnt exist.
ΔT The only constant 11:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I was going to suggest rewriting to make it more personal, but was wondering it it was technically possible.
  2. I've seen that, would it be much work to count the number removed? Just checking feasibility of ideas.
  3. Thanks, I'll look into it.
  4. So, I take it that if such a noticeboard existed, you would be happy to use it as I suggested?
WormTT · (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Δ and unnecessarily impolite measures to make a point

Hello, Δ. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding your recent treatment of other Wikipedia users. Thank you. --Fleet Command (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:uw-nonfree vs. User:Hammersoft/10c

I note that you're using {{non-free}} to warn users when they restore non-free content to an article without providing an appropriate rationale. The problem I see is that this template really isn't appropriate to invalid 10c restorations. It's very generic, and if anything points to non-free images for depiction purposes on BLPs. User:Hammersoft/10c is more specific and has two flags, the first for the image that was restored and the second for the article where it was restored. It is a specific message that directly addresses the failure point on which the image was removed. Could I talk you into using the latter rather than the former? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Δ&oldid=438432005"