——————————————— Archive 2017 ———————————————
January
Hello,
There is an ongoing discussion about the use of files on Wikipedia that are not protected by copyright in the US because there is no copyright relations between the US and the country of publication. You commented in a 2012 discussion on the same topic that resulted in no consensus. You are invited to share your views in the ongoing discussion. AHeneen (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Casati Boya is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casati Boya (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safiel (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not nominate inappropriate user pages at MfD. If they are worthy of deletion, as indeed the ones you have nominated were, the correct place to nominate then is at CSD --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 23:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- @Anthony.bradbury: I can CSD them if you like. I am rather worried of being accused of circumventing process as I am making too many nominations. Do you think they are CSD worthy? Some of them do not have truly promotional content, though they are still userpages of users without edits. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just so you know, I am looking at User:Hinges003 and User:Htown832/sandbox at this very moment. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, userpages of users without edits are not automatically deletable under WP:NOTWEBHOST. There needs to be something problematic like self-promotion on the page for that to apply. Clumsy drafts and empty pages are not deletable under NOTWEBHOST, no matter how few edits in the mainspace the user has. Deleting the pages is a waste admin time and server space, as the deleted pages are retained on the servers in any case, and the deletion generates a log entry. For this time and effort, there is no benefit to the project. You have heard this from other users are MfD already. Please only nominate pages with problematic content. A2soup (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Anthony.bradbury:@A2soup: I will certainly hold back on any further nominations. It sounds like I may have overwhelmed the process a little. I apologize for that, my intention was not disruption. If you like I can pull down all my recent MFDs if you feel they are disruptive. Just to clarify, my main goal was to send the pages for community review on a case by case basis. Weather they are deleted or not is not my main worry. Aside from one or two of them I did not quite review their "progress". I just wanted to highlight them slowly for the community to review, preferably independent of my own thinking (aside from my short nomination comment).
- I mainly want to point out userpages where users have uploaded files BUT do not have a single surviving edit in the main namespace. This is typically a good indication of problematic behavior as this can only happen if users create the article in their userspace for self promotion (or use it like a pseudo-article in a userspace) or that they created an article which was deleted for notability or some other reason. Either is an indication of a single purpose account that typically only edits under a conflict of interest.
- Mind that, I skip users whom use the AFC process or are editing recently. Most of these users I have nominated their userspace for deletion have edited multiple years ago and vanished permanently. For all practical purposes the pages are abandoned with no further use in the project. Mind that I do not quite agree with your assessment and believe that these pages do pose an issue. For example aside from being promotional, copyright can be an issue with the drafts. Some of the issues are in userpage history not currently visible.
- I also believe such deletions would discourage future creation of such pages. I feel we do not want people to create pseudo-articles in their userspace and use us as a webhost.
- PS, deletion takes negligible server space. I kindly ask that we do not focus on such metrics as they aren't very helpful. Admin time is certainly valuable but I did not think I was wasting it. That said, I certainly do not want to tax on community resources if this issue isn't important. I was under the assumption that it was but now I feel I may be wrong.
- -- A Certain White Cat chi? 01:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- I understand that your intentions were entirely good. That said, at all XfDs, the nominator is expected to examine the page before nomination and nominate it only if they feel an action (usually deletion) is appropriate. I think we can all agree that a blank page does not constitute webhosting, and while some argument could be made that an attempt at a draft is webhosting, do you really want to discourage honest (non-self-promoting) attempts at drafts? In any case, the sort of pages you are nominating are always created by newbies who don't know about deletion logs or userspace policy anyways, so it's not discouraging anyone. Feel free to keep nominating, but please only nominate pages that you feel constitute problematic webhosting warranting deletion, not harmless pages left around by past newbies. A2soup (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question above; User:Hinges003 is clearly deletable under CSD U5, as being a userpage being used only for promotion of a band. I normally only delete sandboxes if their content is frankly promotional, copyviolating or obscene.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Anthony.bradbury: I think I will ignore userpages in my current pass. I am processing users without edits but with uploads at the moment. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 13:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Most of the pages you are processing are WP:CSD#U5 eligible. Having uncovered them, it would be best if you tagged them so, the CSD system is quite efficient. Blanked pages, and self-introductory pages consistent with an intending contributor that do not include pointers to personal blogs, facebook twitter myspace etc are not needing deletion and not within the intended scope of U5. MfD is for starting a discussion about things worth a discussion, please don't stuff it with harmless worthless endlessness. If there is a class of page that should be deleted, the place to agree to that is WT:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe: Sure I can use U5 instead of the MFD. Another possibility is a single bulk MFD for many pages. It isn't a critical issue of course. I do not want to overwhelm any system/procedure. What do you think is the best way to process these where we do not overwhelm any existing process but also have proper oversight?
- Do you think a WT:CSD is needed at this point? In my view we should delete userspace of users if they have no main namespace edits where they registered at least over a year ago. There are so many (sandboxed) "articles" on non-notable bands and people like that. They tend to have dubious copyright claims as well. Some of those pages are also blanked (possibly because the author realized the issues with free licenses, we cannot be sure). Overall they are useless/unhelpful at best.
- -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- In my view we should delete userspace of users if they have no main namespace edits where they registered at least over a year ago.
- You are entitled to your view on this, but it is not in line with consensus, which is to delete only problematic userspace pages. This, and not the volume, is the main reason your nominations are disruptive. Your blanket rationale is not itself a reason to delete a page, so !voters have to go look if the page is deletable for other reasons, which creates a lot of work.
- There is a fairly low bar for a userspace page to be problematic - it seems to include pretty much any autobiography beyond the very barest and drafts of any topic already covered in mainspace (obviously, promotion, fanfics, etc. are also deletable). However, it is very much out of line with consensus to delete all userpages without mainspace edits regardless of their contents. If you think there are copyright issues, you need to check those yourself and note the violation in your deletion rationale if that is the concern. Blanked pages are absolutely no problem and should not be deleted - it's essentially punishing the user for removing the problematic content. If you are nominating a draft for being non-notable, you need to check whether the subject could be notable first.
- If you want to try to amend WP:NOTWEBHOST to cover the userspace of any user without mainspace edits, you can go ahead and start a discussion at WT:NOT, but until then please only nominate problematic pages and say why they are problematic in your nomination. A2soup (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @A2soup: Oh absolutely which is why I am not making definitive remarks. "In my view" is never policy. As stated prior (maybe I wasn't clear), I will not create further MFDs of this nature.
- Before posting for a policy update, if it is fine with you I would rather discuss it here a little so that the idea can mature a bit more than what I have in mind. Perhaps we can come up with a piece of text that is acceptable for you and a few others that has participated and then propose that for a wider consensus.
- I have a very low bar myself. As long as user makes surviving edits to the main namespace, I am pretty much OK in letting users keep their userpage provided it isn't promotional. I do not think blanking is sufficient since the copyrighted content would remain in page history. We are switching to CC-By-SA 4.0 which has semi-revokability based on what I understand. This is mainly to address accidental free licensing. It is also easier to keep track of if we do not give exceptions. That way a simple quarry query would reveal something like "current users without surviving edits to the mainspace that have registered over 365 days ago". I would also extend this to "files uploaded by users without surviving mainspace edits". Is that reasonable in your opinion?
- -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- In my view, I don't understand the imperative to delete non-problematic (no promotion, etc.) userspace pages simply because the user has not edited mainspace. My first few edits were to my userspace - I would hope that if I had waited a year before editing mainspace, my userpage would not have been up for deletion. I would have found that very unfriendly and probably not gone on to edit. I understand that is a rare scenario, but it can happen and should be counted as a cost of these deletions (see WP:EM). Another obvious cost is the admin time required to push the button - a small cost but a cost nonetheless. My question is - what are the benefits of these deletions that outweigh these costs? A2soup (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @A2soup: I do not see a WP:EM cost, just another backlog. Someone without surviving edits in the main namespace fails to qualify as an editor in my opinion. All my criteria is for them to have at least one surviving edit. I do not believe that is a stretch. It is a lot simpler to process such pages in bulk. Less admin time would be needed if we decide on a precise albeit arbitrary rule (such as a few proposals I made earlier) which can be semi-autonomously enforced (if you want to call routine maintenance that). There is a finite amount of such userpages and once they are processed the backlog will become very small. It has became a backlog because it has been overlooked for a decade plus. I do not quite understand the reason for your push back against deletions. It isn't a priority matter of course. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- When I reference WP:EM, I am talking more about the cost to potential contributors than current contributors. I think there is a small risk that deleting a newbie's harmless userpage will drive them away. Others may disagree, and I understand this is a matter of opinion/wikiphilosophy. Regardless, there are undeniable costs in admin and !voter time. The primary question still hasn't been answered - what is the benefit to the project of deleting such pages? The "backlog" you reference only exists because you think the pages must be deleted - if they do not need to be deleted, then poof!, the whole backlog disappears! Arguing for backlog clearing as a benefit of the deletions is circular: the need for deletion creates a backlog, which justifies the need for deletion. So what's the benefit of deletion? A2soup (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @A2soup: These users failed to make a surviving edit in a year after registering. They are long gone. Let's not pretend as if they are valued contributors because they are not by definition. The benefit here is we are removing useless user pages of non-users to better keep track of such user pages. A higher proportion of these userpages are promotional in nature or are outright copyright violations. An elite minority is harmless but also useless. They can certainly be blanked but keeping them offers us no benefit. Keeping track of userpages is not something new. We have always done this since the start of this site.
- I recognize this is getting us nowhere. Consider the following: Wikipedia:User pages#User pages that look like articles, Wikipedia:User pages#Old unfinished draft articles, Wikipedia:User pages#Non-free images (despite being tagged with a fake free license), Wikipedia:User pages#Copyright violations, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#U5
- My nominations have kept these in mind. Typically any userpage I processed with MfDs thus far fell under one or more of these.
- -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I do appreciate that you have turned up plenty of actually problematic pages in your screen, which is a real benefit of going through all those pages. I still don't see any argument for how deletion is beneficial when none of those issues are present, and I certainly don't agree with your apparent view that deletion is the default and non-deletion needs to be justified, but you have my thanks for slogging through all those pages in any case - some good has definitely come of it. A2soup (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @A2soup: Oh I sensed that, which is why I tried the MfD route instead of speedy deletion tagging. That gets more attention. One of the goals was this very conversation (assuming a pushback would occur, if not then its just routine nominations). I could have nominated all the userpages in my list in one day. That would be disruptive though. Mind that I myself wasn't fully convinced if all of these were problematic. A few pages had content blanked, some by other users (seemingly a good deal by an IP user). Are these delete worthy? If user had a few main namespace edits, the answer in my mind is clear: a solid NO, deletion is not OK in such a case. But these users had no edits. IIRC I have tried a push back on one and only one MFD where it was more of a discussion.
- I do not believe in a "deletion being default" mentality. I am more known for being an inclusionist in such matters. Just to be clear, all I am suggesting is criteria in processing userpages of users without surviving mainspace edits. I feel these pages are a problem, I gather you do too (but not all instances). I still hope we can agree on a piece of text. Before a wider discussion for consensus on more swiftly processing such pages as MfD per discussion above is overwhelmed. While I strongly defend my stand point, I am more than happy to compromise so that the text reflects your concerns as well. I imagine we want to seek a CSD amendment.
- -- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Your Files for discussion noms need better rationales than "Dubious copyright claim of unused file". What is dubious about the copyright claim? The authorship? What about it? Also it's not "unused" if included on user draft pages. czar 20:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Czar: Can you be specific to which file you are relating this to? The files in question are uploaded by users without ANY surviving edits in the main namespace despite being registered in over a year. In many cases the accounts are long abandoned.
- I find the claim dubious in all cases because more often than not the files are clearly stolen or at least the transfer of copyright isn't properly established. Any claim that these files are freely licensed for our purposes is dubious. The draft themselves are problematic too (see above section).
- Also note that if such files go though OTRS or Commons, they would be rejected. Even a current upload of these files to en.wikipedia would probably be deleted. Most of these are relics of old with no use in the encyclopedia.
- -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Many of the files nominated January 13 have nothing dubious about them. I've largely deleted them anyway because they're valid deletions for other reasons (not encyclopedic, error in upload resulting in only half an image uploaded, etc), but I'm not convinced you fully understand what makes a copyright claim dubious. You need a specific reason to doubt authorship. I am an OTRS agent, and several of these images would be fine in OTRS. And I'm one of the ones pushing for us to be far more strict than we currently are. When an image has never been hosted anywhere on the internet before, the uploader is the supposed photographer, and they don't give us any reason to believe they weren't the photographer, the copyright claim is not dubious (except for professional looking photos, etc., perhaps). ~ Rob13Talk 01:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @BU Rob13: I do understand copyright. For all my recent (any in 2017 that reads "dubious") past requests, I can detail my rationale. I will do so on my further nominations per your request. I tried to keep it short for convenience since I mainly see this as non-controversial cleanup. That said I was uncomfortable in bulk speedy tagging as well. Through FFD files are reviewed by the community for 7 days and finally by the closing admin, in this case you. I think you will agree that this is far better than bulk speedy deletion nominations.
- Copyright here has to deal with several key features as you well know as an OTRS agent. For starters the files should be commercially usable, file should be freely distributable (including off Wikipedia), author should be attributable, and author should actually own the copyright. Any file that fails to meet any of these has a "dubious" copyright claim. As I stated above, I will specify which ever one(s) my nomination falls under on any of my future nominations.
- In my experience users without surviving contributions (within over one year of registration) should not and cannot be trusted on their word for copyright. We have no way of knowing that they are the ones holding the camera, less so if they are the subject of the photo. Furthermore we have no way of knowing if they intended to release the file with a free license meeting all the criteria mentioned above. It is not like we are desperate for these files. Commons recently hit 35 million files. Mind that aside from an elite minority, the files I nominated had very low resolution to begin with. On OTRS we typically reject low resolution files. We also reject files sent by a random gmail or hotmail email without proper attribution. I need to know for SURE that the file is from someone who is who they claim they are. I apply the same standard to uploads. This is for copyright reasons (proper verifiable attribution).
- I do not recall nominating a single file for deletion used in draft namespace. I skipped those. I imagine you are referring to a few sandboxed pages in the users own namespace that were abandoned. Those pages can themselves be deleted. I was nominating them as well but have stopped (per above thread, MfD unnecessary for some as CSD is more appropriate). Furthermore I skipped ones that looked PD US Gov. I even messaged the Flickr user that claims to have self uploaded a panoramic photo (there is a Flickr link where the file is marked as "All Rights Reserved") and am still waiting for a reply. I put a lot of thought and effort into these nominations.
- -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- (1) Many of the "dubious claims" were far from dubious. Either you don't understand, or you are being reckless. Mass unreliable nominations, nominations that cannot be trusted at face value, are far from "convenient". Yes, careless speedy tagging would have been worse.
- (2) So you know the copyright theory. How do you reconcile the images now moved to commons?
- (3) In you experience? Can you point to some examples? It looks like you are throwing AGF to the wind. Many of the images were completely plausible as products of the uploader, fitting Rob's nicely stated conditions. Your needs to know for "SURE" are not the community's needs. Are you familiar with meta:Avoid copyright paranoia? Sure, OTRS can hold to high standards, probably firstly because the claims are not made openly. What you are asserting here seems to be that copyright ownership cannot be asserted anonymously. Interesting, not to be dismissed out-of-hand, is there any history of this opinion? If agreed to, it should be written into policy before you continue to rely on it as the basis for perfunctory deletion rationales.
- (4) There was no evidence of thought or effort, instead it appeared that you were nominating in identical manner everything by minimal contributors who uploaded images that are not used on any page. You then failed to respond in any discussion.
- --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe: I do not understand your objection to be honest. I will answer your specific points
- They are dubious. We have not established anything about the files including authorship. They could be stolen from the web at the time (low resolution strongly implies this), they could be taken by friends and family, they could be taken by the uploader whom does not realize what free license means. Furthermore most of these files have been personal in nature, used in a self promoting manner by non-users.
- Images moved to commons are handled at commons. Such images (vast majority of my nominations) if they were moved to commons would be speedy deleted there per Commons:COM:SCOPE over disuse anywhere and for being personal in nature. Quite often they are corporate charts and logos that is not owned by the uploader. Images used in userpages would be an exception. In each case files are processed on a case by case basis.
- Certainly, let me list a few usernames, I picked these at random (lit. first 4 random usernames I clicked):
- Special:ListFiles/Njuhasz (corporate use of high resolution copyrighted logos)
- Special:ListFiles/Noonanmark (looks like WWE files, looks promotional given the lighting and easy access)
- Special:ListFiles/Saint1y (very low resolution (450 × 600, 800 × 600 pixels, 1,536 × 2,048))
- They could be taken by the uploader as exif indicates they are more likely snapped photos but they could very well be stolen from someones personal website) The largest file there is of Florence Falls with people in it. They look like travel photos. It is a bit blurry and we do have a better alternative with an uploader that has edits (albeit very few since 2006, which is more than fine) whom added the file. This is what you expect from an uploader to English Wikipedia. You add a file and then use it.
- Special:ListFiles/Ryshaw (uploaded charts for a drinking game (Pub golf) that was deleted). These files look more stolen and created by the user.
- We do have two deletion for Pub golf, once for being non-notable (2007: WP:CSD#A7) and once for being a blatant copyright violation (2008: WP:CSD#G12).
- As you can see none of these files scream useful for the encyclopedia and on top of that their copyright is far from solid. One does not assume good faith when dealing with copyright nor does one assume bad faith. Copyright is all about proof of authorship and proof that files have been released with a free license. We trust established users word based on their contribution (even anonymously), or at least we AGF that they aren't uploading copyright violations. I cannot do that for these non-users whom only drive-by uploaded files and never edited a single surviving mainspace article, ever! All I ask is at least one edit. Such uploads feel more WP:WEBHOST. I regularly cited meta:Avoid copyright paranoia in the past. I am unsure why you have brought it up that particular essay.
- I respond to inquiries when they arise, I do not see a highlight of myself. Notice how I highlight you with {{Reply}}/{{Ping}}. It is not like I am an authority on the matter. I am fine with keep closures if people argue to that end. I am not at war here. I am merely nominating suspicious files for the community to review. As I explained prior, I do not perform these nominations covertly with drive by CSDs. They are public nominations at a slow pace allowing community response. I think you are simply assuming bad faith towards my actions which is not very helpful.
- -- A Certain White Cat chi? 15:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- (1) Your use of "dubious" is too broad. At a minimum, you should say something as to why you find it dubious.
- (2) The moves to commons are proof of you error in nomination. Are you going to learn from this, or do you wish to have the reputation as an unreliable nominator?
- (3) You examples are not clear cut lies by the uploader. Corporate logos, you can point to the corporate logo in your nomination. Why do you assume that WWE photophraphers are not welcome contributors, and then act to make them unwelcomed? Low resolution is a very very poor reason to dispute ownership. Only the most inept photographer doesn't know that web photos desired resolution are much lower resolution than the image resolution direct from their SLR camera, especially for casual shots. Many of the photos you nominated were suitable to be nominated, but for reasons different to "dubious copyright claim". Not useful is not an excuse for an inaccurate nomination rationale. Copyright concerns are very serious, and should be taken seriously.
- (4) You don't watchlist your nominations? OK, I thought you just didn't care. I suggest that you choose the preference to watchlist all pages that you edit, when creating deletion discussions. As nominator, you have some responsibility. I am not assuming bad faith, not assuming you have any ulterior motive beyond removing problematic things, but I am responding to inadequate and inaccurate nominations by asking you to provide accurate customised nomination statements for the deletion of things that are not speediable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe: Right, that has been discussed above already. Indeed, another user asked about detailing my nomination rationales better before you commented on the topic and I have agreed.
- I have the authority to delete those files on the spot. I am a commons administrator. If my nomination leads to a file to be uploaded to commons and if the file is not deleted, that is a WIN for the Wikimedia Community and me. I am not at war here. For an "unreliable" nominator I seem to be very good at identifying problem files that have been consistently deleted. I have processed copyright of files for about a decade now. I cannot understand your hostile attitude towards my work.
- You seem to be under the impression that these are theoretic examples. I have linked you to the 4 cases I have identified. You can observe the problem if you just click on it.
- Corporate logos are blatant copyright violations. The uploader claims the copyright is theirs and they are releasing it with a free license allowing us to use it commercially, distribute it without restrictions, and modify it without even attributing the original copyright holders. If that isn't a dubious copyright claim, I do not know what is.
- Because WWE photographers (or people ripping it from the video) are not the copyright holders. WWE owns the copyright and they are known for their overzealous enforcement of their copyright. This is called a derivative work. It would be only acceptable if the photographer was a member of the audience, complete lack of EXIF data disproves this.
- Low resolution files can be a very good indicator of a copyright violation. It is one of the more common ways to identify dubious copyright claims. Aside from their dubious copyright nature, low resolution files are not very helpful for the encyclopedia since they do not help identify the subject well. It is not worth keeping them for many reasons. Copyright is the more serious one.
- No, I do not normally use watchlists at all. Whatclists are not mandatory and I have no intention of starting to use them now. I typically prefer entrusting others to decide on my nominations and requests. I do revisit discussions and post opinions if I feel my input is needed. Typically I prefer allowing community to discuss issues without my interference as the nominator. If they decide in the opposite way, then that is fine by me. I am not at war here. I am not a commanding officer with responsibilities. As mentioned above before your first remark on the matter I have already agreed to detail my rationale further.
- -- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. You've given good answers. Sorry if I sounded hostile. You're a commons administrator? I didn't know. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe: Yup. No problem. I do want to give satisfactory explanations for my actions. I can understand why you may have been suspicious based on our discussion. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you may have on copyright if anything is unclear or not fully explained. I would welcome your help in processing this pool of files, anything not deleted would be migrated to commons and be available to all other wikis.
- At commons we exist to serve all Wikimedia communities so having a satisfactory outcome here on en.wikipedia is very important for us. One of my long term goal is to clear the status of all freely licensed files here on en.wikipedia to pave way for a commons migration. That is the reason I have been more actively nominating files to remove what is questionable. I cannot achieve this on my own of course, the task is far too large for an individual. Right now the biggest obstacle in front of this mass migration is dubious copyright claims where we have files with a free license that are blatantly not compatible with that license. So many of these "movable to commons" files are not moved for this reason.
- This is a bit difficult to explain but as you work with such copyright violations you develop an intuition to identify suspected files with questionable looking copyright status. I identified a pool (users without surviving edits in main namespace, users with local uploads) of such problematic files based on intuition. Intuition alone is of course not enough which is why speedy deletion is out of the question for me for these nominations.
- -- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Your robot just fixed my gross error on White House Sentries. Thanks.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gaarmyvet: No problem! You are the first person to thank me for a double redirect fixing. :D -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
February
I know this edit is from 2014, but i'm just curious why did your bot change this redirect? DashyGames (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @DashyGames: Hello, it was probably because of this edit corresponding with the Wikipedia:Double redirects process running on Wikimedia server that generates the Special:DoubleRedirects log. This task typically runs once a day and simple edits like this does not really cause an issue. My bot merely processes that.
- So basically, because User:Sandbox for user warnings -> Wikipedia:Sandbox -> Washington Redskins the bot changed that to User:Sandbox for user warnings -> Washington Redskins to avoid the redundant redirect.
- That was a very interesting find. Perhaps modifying redirects or using the #redirect magic word should be limited to auto confirmed users IF this is a pressing problem. At the moment this case seems to be the only example (or at least the first time I have seen something like this).
- -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) FYI, I once ended up fully protecting a lot of the sandbox shortcuts (WP:SAND, WT:SAND, WP:SANDBOX, WT:TEST, ...) because of bots doing this :) There's more examples in their histories. The nobots template can also be used if it's a problem. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zzuuzz: I think protection is a better option here in that case since these are redirects that will not be changed. Removing nobots is trivial after all. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
For O-7 through O-10, if the officer is in the Army, they are referred to as a "General Officer", while if they are in the Navy, they are referred to as a "Flag Officer". If you check Section 526a of Title 10 (10 USC 526), you will also see federal law specifically refers to "General Officers" of the Army, Air Force, and USMC, and to "Flag Officers" of the Navy. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @AzureCitizen: Ah, I did not realize that, thank you for correcting it. Going back to the subject, I feel a separate section for OF-6 and above does not make a whole lot of sense. Articles on other military people tend to cover "military career" as a section without such distinctions. This will be particularly helpful since this individual will now get a section for their role as the National Security Adviser to the POTUS as things are bound to happen around the world. Do you think we can simply drop the sections by rank down to a "military career" section? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 16:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Certainly... feel free to remove the subsection headers (company, field, general, etc.) Most biographies don't have subsections like that; I put those in to replace what was there previously, which was "Early Career", "Later Career", and "Controversy over promotion to general", or something like that. If want to just have a nice clean section titled "Career" or "Military Career" instead at the top, I'm okay with it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
March
So. Cat. (Your certainness, whiteness, and coolness, whatever that might happen to be in Mandarin.) It's now been roughly 3 months since this edit where you removed the image from Sharon Carpenter because someone wrote you claiming to be working on behalf of Sharon Carpenter and promised a better free image. Is there honestly any more prospect of any such image now than there was roughly 3 months ago? Because if there honestly is, then I'll wait. But if there isn't, I do think we should put back the one we have. It will either prompt the person who contacted you to more haste - so much the better - or will at least be a perfectly reasonable image for the article. Agreed? --GRuban (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @GRuban: Agreed. Let me check my OTRS interface and get back to you. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @GRuban: I got nothing on OTRS so there isn't much for us to do in the OTRS end of things. I was hoping for a different outcome. Feel free to restore the file... -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 Done --GRuban (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And ... 4 days later, the OTRS ticket comes through! :-) By complete coincidence, of course. --GRuban (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:とある白い猫/Archive/2017/11
|
