User talk:Kevin W./Archives/2011/April

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

April 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Also, for misusing the rollback tool during an edit war, I have removed your rollback rights. T. Canens (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kevin W./Archives/2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The other editor and I were in the dispute regarding a disagreement over non-free content. I attempted to get third-party opinions and requested that the other editor refrain from reverting my edits until the issue was resolved, but he did not listen and continued to revert my edits. I'd at least like to get this issue settled once and for all, considering it has implications for other pages as well. Furthermore, I have not abused the rollback privilege before this point and I have no intention of using it in such a manner again. Would you please restore it?

Decline reason:

Anybody with any knowledge of the IUP or NFC policies would be able to tell that you were far exceeding the bounds of fair use. When this was pointed out to you, you chose to hit the rollback button instead of read up on policy no less than eight times! If I were you, I would be very quiet for the next 31 hours and, given this edit summary, think myself very lucky that the block is only that long. I would have blocked you for at least twice as long if I'd got there first. Please take this time to read WP:IUP and WP:NFC. Thoroughly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The policy on non-free content is very clear galleries are rarely rarely if ever allowed. Your usage of them fails NFCC #3 and #8. As with any copyright issue until such time as it is deemed not to be a problem the content should not be (re-)added to an article. ΔT The only constant 22:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Fine. I'll agree to that. Can I be unblocked so I can make my case as to why the images should remain? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 22:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
You can talk now till the end of time, it still will not change the fact that use usage of NFC in the manner you where using it is not allowed. Period. ΔT The only constant 22:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
That is your opinion. The guidelines clearly state that instances of NFC galleries should be considered on a case-by-case basis and the exception should be allowed. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 22:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Screw you guys. I'll just re-add them without the gallery. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 22:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

And you will be reverted and probably blocked again for copyright violations. ΔT The only constant 22:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
No, I won't, because other than being used in the gallery, how were those violating NFC? Apart from the gallery, I've followed the regulations to the letter. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 22:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#3 WP:NFCC#8 and take a good read of WP:FUEXPLAIN ΔT The only constant 22:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, I fail to see how either of those fit. The images are used on a grand total of TWO PAGES! Furthermore, they're definitely contextual to the page. You know what, though? You're just being a stubborn ass. I won't bother any more because there's no changing someone as hard-headed as you. I'll just leave them on the individual season pages. Doing that clearly qualifies as minimal usage (only one page per image) and the uniforms are contextual to the seasons. Are you happy? You people are insufferable. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 22:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Again thats where you are wrong Wikipedia:FUEXPLAIN#Q:_How_can_one_image_be_excessive_fair_use.3F_That.27s_impossible.21 its possible for one use to be excessive. ΔT The only constant 22:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Whatever. I give up. I'll just leave them on the individual season pages. Surely that is ok with you. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 22:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, well, you're going to have a lot of uniform images to remove, then. I'm not the only person who does them. However, I think I'm just going to stick with restricting the images (apart from the main uniform image on the main page) to the individual seasons. Unfortunately, I'm guessing that means I'll have to create some season articles. Oh well, c'est la vie. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 17:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There's a lot of junk lying around on Wikipedia. We stumble forward as best we can. Best practices for article creation and layout really aren't found in the articles. I know that sounds paradoxical. But, only a small sliver of articles are "featured articles"; around 0.1% in fact. Only those articles approach what we could consider best practices. Even those articles are doing this incorrectly from time to time. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • On the season pages, the main uniform which the team wore would be fine. Having EVERY uniform they wore would not, unless (again) there was sourced discussion regarding that uniform such that we need the uniform for the reader to understand the passage in prose. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm only talking about one-time uniforms, such as throwbacks. It's likely that a page would have, at most, two or three images. I won't be making individual images for each uniform combination they wore. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 19:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Same answer. They're not needed. The first one almost gets a free pass, past that you're going to need exceptionally strong reasoning to include them; i.e. sourced discussion relating to the uniform. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That's fine. Schools usually put out press releases regarding the use of throwbacks so I can easily include sourced discussion if necessary. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 19:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Please look at WP:SOURCES and note it says "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The school in question is not a third party source. Just because a school releases a press release about a particular uniform doesn't make that uniform notable. See WP:NRVE. So again, unless you can source discussion (without using press releases from the school) using all the uniform images would be inappropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I'll just have to look harder. That's fine. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 19:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Two images marked for deletion

Kevin, I've tagged File:ACC-Uniform-VT-2008-2009.png and File:ACC-Uniform-VT-2011 Orange Bowl.png as missing rationales and orphaned, making them subject to deletion in seven days. I removed the one rationale extant on each of these images that was for the Virginia Tech Hokies football article, where they are not used and should not be used barring secondary sourced discussion of the uniforms. Further, since they're not in use on that article or on any other article, they are orphaned, violating WP:NFCC #7. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevin_W./Archives/2011/April&oldid=1075732050"