User talk:Echion2

Have a long-overdue welcome-template! -- Quiddity (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Echion2, welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are a few pages that you might find interesting and helpful:

Editing: The concise cheatsheet, or the short introduction guide
Overview: The Wikipedia:Five pillars, our condensed philosophy and policies
Wikipedia:Featured articles, the standard that all articles are trying to achieve (theoretically, eventually)
Help:Contents, the main help menu

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages (the discussion tab) using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date.

Don't be afraid of making mistakes, as all changes are kept, and problems can be easily reverted with the "history" tab of each page.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Quiddity (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Silences of Hammerstein pp 82 87 isbn 978-1906497224.pdf

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Silences of Hammerstein pp 82 87 isbn 978-1906497224.pdf. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - the file is meant to be in use at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord and for some reason the Media: wiki markup stopped referring to that page (or stopped counting as being used).

Orphaned non-free image File:Silences of Hammerstein pp 82 87 isbn 978-1906497224.pdf

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Silences of Hammerstein pp 82 87 isbn 978-1906497224.pdf. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - the file is meant to be in use at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord and for some reason the Media: wiki markup stopped referring to that page (or stopped counting as being used).

Possibly unfree File:Silences of Hammerstein pp 82 87 isbn 978-1906497224.pdf

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Silences of Hammerstein pp 82 87 isbn 978-1906497224.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Theodore Kloba (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this file from the article as it is not needed there. There is no requirement for a reference to be to an online source so it's perfectly OK to simply reference an offline book. The quote in the article is reasonable fair use but I don't think we could come up with a valid fair use claim for this file and it's multiple pages of scans. Given that wikipedia does not allow fair use just for sourcing purposes I've boldly F7'd the file. Both the use in the article and the fair use rationale suggest the file was uploaded for sourcing purposes but I will happily restore the file if I've misunderstood why it was uploaded in the first place. Dpmuk (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the plethora of misattributions to which even wikipedia is not immune (see Helmuth von Moltke the Elder), I fail to see a) why it is not needed; and b) the need to boldy trash the file. I'm interested that wikipedia "does not allow" fair use "just" for sourcing purposes -- sounds like a useful way to verify things besides buying an expensive, out-of-print book or write (see Moltke reference) unsourced blog posts that get then cited on Wikipedia in preference to actual research -- but I'm not going to say you're wrong to assert that, since you didn't even take the time to link to the policy and I assume good faith when you delete files I uploaded. To me unfortunately this just comes off as being BOLD about blindly trashing something you personally don't see as useful instead of making even a timid improvement where there are actual errors (and thus potentially realising how it is actually useful).

As with many wikipedia norms it's hard to quote a policy that directly says offline sources are fine, however WP:SOURCEACCESS states Verifiability in this context means that other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining source material. (my emphasis). This is expanded on in Wikipedia:Offline sources which is, unfortunately, only an essay. I was hoping you would assume good faith and take me at my word when I said offline sources are fine as digging out relevant policy etc is a right pain in many cases (as an aside I think the difficulty in finding relevant policies and guidelines is one of wikipedia's biggest failings, if not the biggest). Our fair use policy is at Wikipedia:Non-free content and point 15 of WP:NFC#UUI (links to a subsection of the policy) is of very direct relevance as it says an unacceptable use of an image is An image of a newspaper article or other publication that contains long legible sections of copyrighted text. If the text is important as a source or quotation, it should be worked into the article in text form with the article cited as a source. I'm not going about "blindly trashing something you personally don't see as useful" but rather deleting something which is against our policies and could, potentially, lead to legal problems. I see no way that this file could be used in a way consistent with our fair use policy so can see no improvements I could make. I hope that the policies I have pointed to have explained the situation to you but if you wish to contest the deletion for the reasons you give you will need to go to WP:DRV as I'm not about to undelete for a use that is blatantly against our policies. As I say I can see no way that you could provide a fair use rational consistent with our policies but if you do I'll happily undelete. Dpmuk (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did assume good faith, as I said (and said I would take your word for the policy). I don't wish to contest the reason for deletion, as I see your point and have read the policy you did actually link to. Again, I think this is borderline as the errors on Wikipedia -- which I linked to and now corrected -- are directly caused by the policy you cite: since policy doesn't even support the sources being made accessible under fair use, and there was nothing accessible until I uploaded the terrible file, "verifiability" really means something much weaker. | We end up with sources being poorly written and unreferenced blog posts instead of an actual source (which I am no longer allowed to substantiate due to your enforcement of the policy). The improvement you could have made was to the articles that were wrong, rather than deleting this substantiating source that is in no danger of being used as a target of legal action. In any case I've made the improvement, and explained my reasoning, and learned about yours. Echion2 (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely sympathise with your views. I agree that verifiability of offline sources is a problem. However policy has been decided on over a long amount of time and probably involved hundred of editors so neither of us can go unilaterally against it. You could always start a debate on this (say at WT:V) and see what other people think. I don't think I could ever support the number of pages in that upload but I think I would probably support a single page upload in a case like this (with the caveat that my view may change if I read other's arguments). You are right than any one instance is unlikely to cause legal problems but if we allowed one we'd have to allow lots and that's more likely to cause problems. Writing is not one of my strong points and although I would dearly love to improve articles on wikipedia the few times I've done so I've found it hard work and not that enjoyable so I like to help out in other ways where I can, and one of those is dealing with copyright concerns. Dpmuk (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]