User talk:Fasach Nua

Nemp

69.248.106.103 (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunderland Echo FAC

Hi Fasach. Many thanks for your kind comments! I have done as you suggested and removed the Echologo and marked the newspaper picture as {{trademark}} Is there anything else I can do to earn your support? -- Seahamlass 11:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only look at criteria 3, and to get FA status you need to pass all criteria. I hope it does get FA status, as it is a great example of getting the image licencing right, and I fully intend to use it as an example of best practice in this reagrd. I wouldn't worry about getting support, the process is not a WP:VOTE, but editors coming to a consensus on criteria and issues. I wish you the best with the FAC, but my expertise are limited to images. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understand your point of view - and I wouldn't want to be the one to specialise in image problems as you must get quite a bit of stick! Would it be OK for you to mark the changes as done? (Or I could do it, but don't want to step on your toes!-- Seahamlass 12:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks!-- Seahamlass 13:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - see you liked my Dr Who pic!-- Seahamlass 17:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea how rare an image that is, TV/Film fiction are notoriously difficult to get free images for. I nominated it for WP:FIC, maybe you'll get that and your article on the front page on the same day! Fasach Nua (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I havent had too many dealings with featured images so don't get your hopes up) Fasach Nua (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bothered about that! Just happy to help. Only commented cos of the supper speedy time span between upload and the photo appearing on a totally different page! FIC is tough, very tough. Not sure it will succeed - but best of luck anyway. -- Seahamlass 18:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they liked poor old Tom very much at Featured Pics! I've lodged permission for the pic with Wikipedia via email, but asked for the photo to be withdrawn as so grainy. (I've got another at FP now, which I want to concentrate on. Although, they seem to ask the most highly technical things that just go over my head...)-- Seahamlass 11:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They seem more interested in art, than encylopedic value. I tend to do a lot of work with fair use images is TV/film, and you have no idea how rare it is to get something like that. True the quality isnt good, but I think they have been desensitised to the licencing issues, by the overly liberal fair use policy used on the English language Wikipedia. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing sorted now...At least the Tom Baker article has a nicer Dr Who pic anyway!-- Seahamlass 21:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fair use montages

No, I don't unfortunately. The closest I can think of would be the WP:NFCC8 centralised discussion. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly what I was thinking of [[1]], ty Fasach Nua (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images on Davros page

Hi, Fasach. I've recently been in contact with User:Nv8200p about the images on the page Davros. You can see the discussion on our talk pages, but the gist is that of the four images formerly on that page, one of the two which remains is the least appropriate. I'd like to remove Image:GoodersonDavros.jpg and restore either Image:WisherDavros or Image:MolloyDavros, depending on which is favored by local discussion. But there's no point in my starting that discussion if the restored image is going to be deleted again. Do you object to the Gooderson image being replaced with one of the deleted ones? --Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I've added some sourced material to the Davros article which I think can be used to support the inclusion of the Wisher and Bleach images. (I may be able to find similar material for Molloy, but I'm traveling tomorrow and probably won't return to Wikipedia until late tomorrow evening.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All image that meet in full the WP:NFCC criterai will not be deleted Fasach Nua (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a terribly helpful reply, because the NFCC has been interpreted differently in different circumstances. My question is whether you would oppose the restoration of one of these deleted images in exchange for the less encyclopedically helpful Gooderson image. I'm slightly confused because I'm not clear on why you nominated the Wisher and Molloy images for deletion as opposed to either of the other two. If the primary issue is excess usage of non-free images (NFCC #3), it should not matter which image is present. But if the other concerns are more significant, and there's some reason why you felt the Gooderson image met the NFCC criteria more than the others, then it will matter, and restoration of one of the deleted images would not be appropriate.

I had not noticed that Image:WisherDavros was insufficiently sourced; unless you object, I'll try to provide a better-sourced copy of that image and upload it later (after my travel today), replacing the Gooderson image.--Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 12:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A FU image must have a valid reason to be there, if it is eye candy of course it will be deleted, if it meets the NFCC then it won't be deleted. However I couldn't imagine an article about Davros not having an image of Davros, and unfortunetly I cant imagine a free image popping up anytime soon. When I nominated the Davros images before, the issue was criteria 3 (minimal use), as there were about four virtually identical images and I wanted the DW community to pick the most useful one, and dump the rest. You have put a lot of thought into this and discussed it with Nv8200p who knows his stuff, so on the balance of probabilities I probably wont have grounds to object Fasach Nua (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (Although I'd quibble with "virtually identical", but perhaps it takes a fan's eye to see the differences; and, indeed, far too much of that article was in-universe, with not enough discussion of the character's creation and development.) I'll start a discussion at Talk:Davros to see what image the community thinks would be best. Again, thanks for the feedback. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Alleyway

Hi, sorry to bother you, but you brought up one of the images on the FAC for the Alleyway article and I responded. Wanted to see if you're satisfied with the response or something still needs to be done instead.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks loike a derived image from [2], I will tag it at potentially unfree images Fasach Nua (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a replica (never actually realized you replied to this at all until I was informed about the image tagging). I left a more detailed response at the potentially unfree images report site.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brigham Young University alumni thank-you

Thank you very much for your question regarding the list's FLC, which I have responded to there. If your questions/concerns have been resolved, I would ask you to please offer a supporting vote on the list's behalf. Thank you for your consideration. --Eustress (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent comment. I have replied and hope you will continue to participate in the FLC until you feel you can support the list. Thanks again! --Eustress (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your tagging of Frank Zappa article

Hi. I just saw that you tagged the Frank Zappa article with {{NFimageoveruse}} stating "serious image problems". I went though all images, and could not find anything questionable. So is it the sheer number that is a problem? The editors have been quite meticulous in only using low-resolution images depicting various phases of a person's long career (spanning many different activities; guitarist, group leader, composer, conductor, political spokesperson, studio owner to name a few). The issue was never raised in the GA process (I know that is not an argument, but just mentioned to show that I was in good faith when I nominated the article). Please drop me a note at your convenience. Cheers. --HJensen, talk 14:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Zappa FAC

Hi. I didn't actually write any of the article, thus, it's not important that I made any contributions to the article. I think I made maybe two edits in which I actually changed the text of the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

FU means?

Sorry did not get your sentence in the FLC for Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria), what did you mean by "FU". Also, since you do seem to be an expert on image licensing, what is the procedure for me to follow to see if those images are indeed copyrighted material or not, they might be free or properly licensed to Wikipedia and we are wasting time in the discussion over technical terms. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FU means fair use, if an image has a free licence then you dont have to justify it's usage in terms of WP:NFCC

The common side of all Euro coins are free (to a point), so they can be used reasonably friviliously.

Probably the easiest way to track down the copyright is to look for other Austrian coins in wikipedia, and see how they are licenced, if you are lucky another editor may have provided a link to the licencing. Although dont copy the licence, as lot of people upload copyrighted and tag them as free, which is exceptionally annoying. (WP:WAX)

The German language wikipedia is exceptionally good at finding free content, if you look through there numistics article you may also find something [3] Fasach Nua (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fasach, this could be very good news, I followed your advice, and went to German Wikipedia, search for four Austrian coins, all of the free of use license. What shall I do next? Thanks a lot for this tip! Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the Austrian Mint website and found this line (it is difficult to find, there is no Legal section per say, but it is in several places): "Leagal statement: All pictures can be published without naming the Austrian Mint as the holder of the copyright". Does this mean that I can change all licenses as free to use based on that statement? Advice please, Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job! I would maybe make a Template:Austrian Currency, link the Austrian mint licence's page, and label it as free. After that add the template to all the relevant images. I would put a note on the FLC page that you are in the process of resolving this issue, and then again when you have completed the licencing tag Fasach Nua (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Bob talk 15:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I see in your history that even after the above reminder, you virtually never use edit summaries. For an experienced editor like yourself, this is simply wrong. Saying that they're "needlessly cumbersome", (as you once referred to them) is not a valid argument. Edit summaries are an important part of being a mature and useful Wikipedia editor. RedSpruce (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville Sounds

I have replied to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nashville_Sounds#Nashville_Sounds. Kaldari (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colossus: The Forbin Project

Please don't just rv an edit like this without a comment. If you think the image violates Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria in some way, please explain what you think the violation is. I find it hard to believe that there is any violation, since it's very common in WP to use a DVD cover image in movie articles, and I've never seen anyone object to this before. You can reply here. RedSpruce (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content should only be used if it significantly increases the readers understanding of the subject, which this image does not. (you should take your lead from policy not other articles) Fasach Nua (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"... significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" has no precise or concrete meaning. One can just as validly argue that the image fits that requirement as that it doesn't. In general, the non-free image policy page is sufficiently vague to allow this usage, so there's no justification for removing it. There's certainly no danger that Criterion Collection (the owners of the image) are going to object to WP helping to sell their product, so let's take our lead from Wikipedia:Use common sense. And with regard to your original edits to this article, you might also consider taking your lead from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just pointing at a policy or guideline and Help:Edit summary#Recommendations. RedSpruce (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would they be prepared to licence the image under a free licence? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is a specific template coving the use of DVD (etc.) cover images in articles about the movie on the DVD. If such use is invalid in the one article you are singling out, then it would in invalid in all articles, and the template would not exist.

This image is the cover of a videotape, DVD, Blu-ray, etc. and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the video or the studio which produced the video in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of video covers

to illustrate the videotape or disc in question
on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under the Copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information.

To the uploader:

Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
For example non-free use rationales, see Wikipedia:Use rationale examples.
This tag should only be used for video covers.
Try using Template:Non-free use rationale video cover to state the rationale.

To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.

You might be about argue that the usage is "unnecessary" in this particular article because the article already has a poster image, but there is nothing in the template or in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria that makes any such point or distinction. If the use of a DVD cover is acceptable in other articles (and it is; that's why the template exists) then it's valid in this article. RedSpruce (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You already gave the argument: it is "unnecessary". That's a pretty strong argument under NFCC#8. The fact that the template doesn't explicitly mention this particular case of being unnecessary doesn't diminish the strength of the argument. The (in practice) blanket allowance of one title image per article is to serve as a means of "visual identification". Not that that's in itself a very good reason to have even those, but be that as it may, it's accepted as a matter of general practice, for better or worse. But with one such image in the infobox, you already have all the "visual identification" you need, more is superfluous, and NFCC is very explicit in not allowing more than the absolute necessary amount of non-free images. You could justify additional cover art only if that cover art was an object of substantive analytic discussion in the article (say, if there was something about the artistic style of the image that critics had commented on.) Failing that, there's no way it can be kept. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Stolen Earth

Hi. I've converted Template:TardisIndexFile to a different layout, which doesn't include the TARDIS image, after consulting with another user privately. As such, I believe your concern about the image's use has been mooted, and you should revisit your oppose on the FAC. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw my object, as the image issue has been dealt with very well. However the Image:Copyleft.svg in the Tardis wiki template is still inappropriate as the site is not copyleft, if you require an image (which I dont think you do), perhaps Image:History comparison example.png might be more appropriate Fasach Nua (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On an aside I dont endorse FA candidates as I only look at criteria 3, and meeting this criteria alone is insufficient for promotion, however I wish you the best of luck Fasach Nua (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are needed

Following this note about you at ANI, please add edit summaries to your edits. Meta policy more or less requires this and not making any at all is taken as disruptive by many editors. If you have any questions about this, please do feel free to ask. Thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel compelled to pay head to the above. You're not required to use edit summaries - it does make other editors trust you less, however. The meta page is not a policy, or a guideline, or anything. It just explains what edit summaries are and why its a good idea to use them (apparently because it makes people pay less attention to what you do and allows you to get away with more shit.) On a serious note, if you get blocked oer it by some well-meaning but clueless administrator, the smart thing to do is probably to use unblock-en-l AT wikimedia.org WilyD 18:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only to skirt any arguments, let's put it this way: Nobody has "cluelessly" or otherwise threatened to block you over this. Your edits are helpful. Please use edit summaries. If you don't use edit summaries and your edits are questioned, say on ANI, please keep in mind you're more likely to be blocked, not for any lack of edit summaries, but for the fuss and disruption caused by the lack. Never mind you might be unblocked sooner rather than later. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to chime in here, in all friendship, yes, consistent use of informative edit summaries when removing images would definitely be helpful. Don't forget that each time you you remove an image, you may have to do with different local editors, who are most likely not as aware of the policy background as you or I are. the case may seem trivial and repetitive for you, but it isn't for them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncalled for addition

In this edit you added Template:NFimageoveruse to an article with no unfree images. I have reverted your edit. Have I missed anything in this case? __meco (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The non-free image Fasach Nua (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Perhaps slapping that tag wasn't the most intelligent way of alerting other editors about this. In any case, I simply removed the image and also embedded a remark so that it isn't re-added. __meco (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you're probably right, thanks for fixing it Fasach Nua (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please don't vandalize articles as you did to Germany national football team. Thanks. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm..... it's pretty obvious. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are but I'm not going to bother to explain it to you. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

The policy of wikipedia is quite clear the onus is on the person adding the information to WP:PROVEIT, please do not add unrefereneced material to wikipedia that is nothing more than someones point of view Fasach Nua (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As well intentioned as your edits may have been, I think you should take note that the manner in which you have done them is a little bit 'off the wall'. As I, and others, have pointed out you shouldn't have mass deleted these sections without some sort of discussion.

Take for example France national football team, every player in the 'Famous past players' section has an article. Each of these articles provides reference(s) (some good/some bad) about that players international career. Like I said before if you have problems with the quality of a particular article or the references on a players article then raise the issue in a relevant discussion page or argue your point on WP:FOOTY.

Aaron carass (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by military expenditures

Can you please tell us what image(s) deserve the tag you keep adding? FFMG (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I havent been through all the licences, if any of the images arent free then they wouldnt meet WP:NFCC, Image:Flag of NATO.svg is the first one, but I havent checked the rest Fasach Nua (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You owe other editors some sort of explanation to your edits in order to avoid confusion and ill will. In addition, a remark indicating that you can't be bothered to check the licensing of other images before laying on a wide reaching generic tag is incredibly inconsiderate and lazy editing. If you genuinely want to improve Wikipedia you might demonstrate it through your actions and a clear will to work constructively with other editors.

The NATO logo, BTW, looks to be fine according to the page link provided by a previous editor. Wiggy! (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Try WP:FOOTY. BanRay 20:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is WP:VERIFY and WP:CONSENSUS, if you want your edits to stand, you need to remove these policies Fasach Nua (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to devolve this discussion into wikilawyering, but one may argue that citing a policy, which may have little relevance to the particular case, may not be a sufficient reason for mass-removal of content from dozens of articles. Additionally, according to WP: CON, "Silence implies consent" and the sections you're currently trying to remove, have been in place for years. So instead of wasting your time and energy on edit-warring with several editors, you could try proposing your changes here. BanRay 22:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring of Italy national football team

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Please note, that you have done altogether 4 reverts on the article Italy national football team and thus breached the three-revert-rule. This is just to warn you that someone else might block you, if you continue doing so (but I have no real notion to report you for that). I'd rather prefer it if you stopped vague waving policy shortcuts and started discussing the edits. I am quite aware of your previous attempts with trying to use WP:PROVEIT as a argument, as you did here but it failed there as well. In this case (as with the German national football team article) the notability of the players is confirmed in the articles about them and this is sufficient for it. If you have concerns about the notability of some players, you of course can remove them but removing all of them, not specifying any real reason, will always lead to reverts and thus to edit wars. I think it would be in the best interest of us all, if you voiced your concerns on talk pages once you notice that your changes are reverted. Have a nice evening. So#Why ^{review me!} 21:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not want to report you for your interpretation of policy but I must advise you that you leave me no choice, if you continue to breach the three-revert-rule. Your recent UNDO of my edits is the fifth revert you did on this article within a 24-hour-period. I advise you, for your own good, to stop doing so because you will sooner or later be blocked if you don't. I have no desire to see this happening so if you are such a fan of policies, do not ignore this one. So Why ^{review me!} 08:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed unsourced POV three times, and after it's reinsertion, I have tagged it for citation. I would suggest the best thing to do to remove any possibility of edit warring would be for you to substantiate your edits, using an external, verifiable sourcs independent of the subject Fasach Nua (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please make yourself familiar with WP:3RR: It clearly states that you may not revert more than three times on a single article, even if you are reverting things in different areas. You first reverted thrice to push your removal and then you reverted the fact that people did not think your mass-tagging very sensible. That makes five reverts under the 3RR and thus I told you so. As I said, while you technically breached the rule twice now, I have no intention to get you blocked but if you do so again, I will regretfully have to report you to ensure that the edit warring stops.

Your interpretation of policy is not widely accepted and I doubt this will happen if you just try to edit articles to reflect it. I advise you to heed the suggestions made a few sections above and discuss changes within the WP:FOOTY-Wikiproject if you realize that your edits are not accepted. Otherwise it will just continue to be edit warring and that would not benefit anyone. Please try to build consensus for your interpretation of policy. Regards So Why ^{review me!} 09:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that most editors support a verifability and indeed, there is even a policy for it WP:FOOTY does not WP:OWN these articles if you want to include unreferenced POV in the encylopedia, I suggest you take your idea to WP:VERIFY and get the policy revoked Fasach Nua (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not active within that Wikiproject and I just posted here to tell you about your repeated breach of the 3RR-policy. As I pointed out before, I advise you against vague waving at policies because it will not make a very convincing point.

Also, I advise you against straw man attacks on me, it will not work. I have not inserted that information (it was there for months and years) and it is not POV, it just is not directly referenced in these articles. But with most lists, the references are within the articles linked and thus exist. But if they exist, that also means it's very well not a violation of WP:V.

As I said, while almost all users agree on WP:V, the interpretations differ. Yours is currently not the majority interpretation and thus all your edits reflecting your own interpretation will sooner or later be reverted, resulting in edit wars. Not even if your interpretation would be "The Truth", it would excuse edit warring or even allow it. But the problem here is not one of policies but of you edit warring and I tried to point this out. Regards So Why ^{review me!} 09:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]