User talk:Werieth/201302

Bot request

Hi, Werieth. Why you are saying that this discussion is not this properly placed? It was request for a bot to do this task and it was decided that should be request at this page. Beagel (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Once consensus is reached then file a BOTREQ, pointing to the discussion/RfC. Those types of discussions go beyond the scope of the Bot request page. Werieth (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It could be appreciated if this explanation was to be added in the first place. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I am even more confused as filing at the BOTREQ was exactly what I did. Beagel (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion shouldn't be held at BOTREQ whether or not a task should be done, once a task has consensus, then go to BOTREQ and say We (provide source link to company talk page or VPP ect) have come to a conclusion and have agreement that X should be done, can a Bot operator please take care of this?. The rest of the discussion should revolve around technical/logistical issues regarding the request. Not about attempting to find consensus. (you might be told that a wider consensus is needed first, so rinse, repeat) Werieth (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Underlinked tags

Hi. I have noticed that you have been systematically adding {{Underlinked}} tags to Gene Wiki articles. In many cases, these tags are not appropriate. For example, the AGK (gene) article contains exactly one line of prose and that line contains two wiki links, one to protein, and the second to gene. Adding more wiki links to this line would normally be considered overlinking. The problem is not that the article contains too few wiki links, but rather the article needs to be expanded. Hence I would appreciate if you would be more selective in adding wikify tags. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that I was taking suggestions from AWB. Werieth (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Profit/Prophet

My edit was not vandalsm.

The two words are sufficiently unlike not to require distinction message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.234.185.147 (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually when you speak the two word they are very similarly phonetically. Having that template is useful, removing the template as an anon, without an edit summary is almost asking for a blanket revert by itself. Werieth (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User talk:108.234.185.147. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Moosehadley 21:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

How can you call reverting a blanking by a anon without an edit summary failing to assume good faith? Those types of edits are standard vandalism reverts that happen dozens of times per day. Werieth (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

And now you are really confusing me, as you called my warning good faith Werieth (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Especially when the user has a history of vandalism/blanking/edit warring. ???? Werieth (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

PS 4 blocks the most recent of those a three month block that expired less than a month ago...... Werieth (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Anon removed a line that he didn't think fit the category, that does not qualify as Blanking and certainly does not warrant a level-4 vandalism warning. I reverted your edit in good faith because I believe that you simply acted too quickly, and did not mean intentionally threaten an IP editor who made an innocent mistake. This IP does have constructive edits, dating back to mid 2012, I did a reverse-IP check on the address and found it belongs to 'sbcglobal.net', this is AT&T's DSL internet service, I happen to know this because they used to be my ISP as well. All of their IP's are dynamic, meaning that every time the user's ADSL modem somehow looses power and then comes back online, it receives a new IP address. The individuals who caused the past disruptive edits could easily be different from the user who now uses the address. Again, this user simply made a mistake, that by no means warranted a level-4 "Only Warning" Moosehadley 21:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

it might be non-static, however it does appear that the same user has maintained control of the IP address. I myself have a non-static allocated ISP however I have had the same address going on 2 years now. Assuming good faith does not require me to wait for a gunman to actually kill a person, brandishing a weapon around, threatening to do so is enough grounds for action. Given the repeated behavior pattern, a more severe warning was needed. The user has been blocked 4 times for this. there is no bad faith here, its just the facts. Werieth (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain this to me? What, specifically, makes you think that the same user maintained the same IP address? Since their block expired, this user has made nothing but constructive edits. If my main goal was to vandalize Wikipedia, I would change my IP address the moment I got blocked; That puts the address back in the pool to be assigned to someone else. Moosehadley 21:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Its not always that easy, in order for me to release/change my IP address my modem must be offline for an extended period of time (Greater than 7 days). If I connect within that period my old IP address is assigned back to me and the process repeats. Very few people are willing to go offline for over a week just to avoid a block on Wikipedia. If you take a look at the section on their talk page from June of last year you will see issues about "ss" transliteration. Which the IP has been doing as recently as 14 days ago 5 days ago. (after the most recent block expired). That is why I am not assuming anything. I think your lack of knowledge in the technical areas is what is causing your confusion. Werieth (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I would kindly ask you to refrain from personal attacks, I certainly not lacking knowledge in "the technical areas" as I am a professional web designer and host multiple game servers out of my own home. AT&T's DSL service releases your IP address the moment your router goes offline. Which I know, again, because they used to be my ISP and this caused numerous issues for me, trying to host servers on their DSL service. Please understand, the IP user's edit was bad, and you were right to revert it. But I am simply arguing that it in no way warranted a level-4 warning, please feel free to re-add your warning to his talk page. But I feel that the warning was too extreme for such a simple mistake, and would prefer we don't scare new users away who simply didn't know any better. A level-1 'I didn't feel your edit was constructive' with explanation of how the two words sound the same would have been far more suitable for this situation. Moosehadley 22:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the edit you linked to where the user replaced 'Groß' with 'Gross' is another mistake in good faith, as 'ß' is in fact pronounced 'ss' Moosehadley 22:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I did not mean to attack you, the issue of IP allocation is fairly complex and widely varies depending on the carrier. The edit I pointed out wasn't a faith issue, it was an example of continued edit wars over the last 6 months from the same person on the same IP address. AGF isn't a suicide pact, If a registered user came back after a 3 month block and being blocked 4 times and continued the edit war that they where blocked 4 times over 6 months for, the next step would be an indefinite block. Leveling a severe warning is appropriate, if you take a look at the edit history and block log. If you are just looking at the single edit that I reverted/warned about yes it is excessive, however you need to keep an eye on the big picture. Werieth (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Curve

Can I ask what do you have against my images uploaded on Wikipedia for Curve? Why don't you mind your own business and leave that page (where I worked really hard) alone? Don't you have something better to do? Deepblue1 (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Im sorry but it does not comply with our non-free content policy, WP:NFLISTS is a good place to start, and WP:NFCC#8 is another key barrier that must be met before a file can be used. Werieth (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with that? Those are ALBUM COVERS. Wikipedia is full of album covers (non free images). They are perfectly fine and I'm 100% sure the band has nothing against that. So, leave those images as they are. Deepblue1 (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Since I wont edit war with you I am taking this to WT:NFC this is a classic case of unacceptable usage. Werieth (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I take that personally. I will not let you ruin my work. You had zero contribution on that page. I can't accept this abusive behavior regarding my edits and uploads.Deepblue1 (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWN. Those files fail our non-free content policy as they are currently being used, and thus had to be removed. PS Ive file a note at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Curve_.28band.29 Werieth (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

WebCite link count

At the village pump here you mentioned we currently have 182,368 links to WebCite. Where did you get that number from? I am curious about that, because I am currently drafting a proposal regarding Wikipedia and WebCite. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

La Vie Electronique

I would appreciate discussion before doing any major article revision, because what we have here is not a list or a gallery but a multi-album article. Album covers should be added to album infoboxes for better identification of the individual album being discussed. Jmj713 (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please undo your revert and adhere to BRD before making such changes again. Jmj713 (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not realize I had reverted, I was using a mobile interface. Talking a look at the article it appears that there is just a basic track listing which violates WP:NFLISTS Werieth (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to get more info into the article and about each individual release with time (Wikipedia:WORKINPROGRESS). Same with other similar releases by this artist, such as The Ultimate Edition. Thanks. Jmj713 (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It might be a work in progress, but as it stands it is a list and goes against WP:NFLISTS Werieth (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. A list would a discography. This is an article about a multi-volume release, containing 12 albums. Just as an article about a single album should have its cover in the infobox, I believe the same should apply here. Why not? I could create separate articles for each one, and that wouldn't be a list anymore, but it's also needless when these albums can be grouped together. Jmj713 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The images look like a clear violation of WP:NFC#UUI §2. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is a straight up violation. It is a list, even if its not formatted as a discography. None of the individual releases appears to be notable so we would not normally have image articles. As they are just colorized photographs, I doubt one would be able to find discussion on the cover art to otherwise support their inclusion. One example image to lead off the article as a representation of how all the other album covers are presented is fine, but that's it. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this canvassing? Anyway, if you guys want to remove these go ahead. I'd appreciate keeping the first one at least for identification purposes, though I still wholly disagree that this is a list. Jmj713 (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Asking for input from others well versed in a subject isnt canvassing. Werieth (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed all except the first cover. This is essentially a discography, except that it is formatted in a different way, and cover images are not allowed in discographies. Additionally, it is a list of the disc, and per WP:NFLISTS, you shouldn't include images of all elements in a list. I left the first cover because articles about entertainment products typically contain one cover image, although maybe it should be moved up to the lead. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Please consider adding back at least Edward at Rhyolite and Dunes. I don't understand your objection to these images since they are historical and relevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backstrand (talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Mass removal of images from articles

Your mass removal of images from articles doesn't seem carefully pondered over. I don't think you should reinforce your unilateral decision by reverting. Also, you should always provide edit summaries cause I looked at your contributions and large-scale removals of text without edit summaries may not look like good-faith edits at first glance. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is, take a look at our WP:NFC policy. Album articles can use a single cover for identification without critical commentary of the actual cover, since the article is considered critical commentary. However the inclusion of additional covers have a significantly higher bar to meet. There is zero sourced critical commentary on the 6 other covers you are adding. It fails WP:NFCC#3 as 7 covers are not required, and thus are not minimal. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 which covers significance, those alternate covers are just excessive. Werieth (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFC doesn't say "single cover", it says "single item". There is one item discussed. (Actually, I've just understood that it's not the case, cause the DVD singles, called Single V and Event V, are separate items. Okay, it looks like the last 2 covers should be deleted. Actually, the Single V charted, so if I really wanted, I could have created a separate page for it, but I don't think I want to do it.) But all the other covers are covers of a single item and they pass WP:NFCC#3, which says: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". One cover can't convey equivalent significant information, since the covers are different. The item can't be identified by one cover alone. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, while Oricon and Billboard mostly use the cover of Limited Edition A to identify CD singles in their charts, the Regular Edition will be the only one available in the shops after some time (it won't sell more though, cause limited editions sell much more in the first weeks after the release). Also, Oricon chooses other random covers elsewhere. By the way, if it will help, I can find an article mentioning the cover of Ai Takahashi Graduation edition. It won't be critically discussed, but I'm sure it was mentioned by reliable sources that the CD had Ai Takahashi on the cover. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Oricon choose Ai Takahashi Graduation Edition here: [1] (35th place). Maybe because it sold the most copies. But for "Help Me!!" (23rd place), Oricon chose Limited B. It only shows that all the covers are important. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article is about "Kono Chikyū no Heiwa o Honki de Negatterun da yo! Kare to Issho ni Omise ga Shitai!" and not about "Kono Chikyū no Heiwa o Honki de Negatterun da yo! Kare to Issho ni Omise ga Shitai! hyōshi irasuto shū", "Kono Chikyū no Heiwa o Honki de Negatterun da yo! Kare to Issho ni Omise ga Shitai! genteiban", or whatever you are thinking. The infobox looks like a discography of "Kono Chikyū no Heiwa o Honki de Negatterun Da yo! Kare to Issho ni Omise ga Shitai!" editions in violation of WP:NFC#UUI §2. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely, the article is not about cover illustrations and not only about limited editions. The article is about a CD single that has several equally or widely distributed versions, each version having a different cover. What's a discography of "Kono Chikyū..."? It's a single, not a musical artist. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A discography is a list of discs which have something in common. In this case, the thing which they have in common is that they contain the same music.

Compare with other similar articles. For example, there is Naruto which has well over 60 different comic book covers (one for each volume), yet only one of them is shown on the page. There is Kanon which also has several different covers, yet only one is used in the Wikipedia article. Why is this product so different? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The CD covers are covers of the same disc, one item. Your examples are different manga volumes, completely separate books, separate items. If you create a separate article for each Naruto volume, you can illustrate each of them with its own cover. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You get 1 image/file for identification purposes. Take a look at other album pages on most you wont even see the primary alternate cover. Werieth (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guidelines don't say this. They don't say how much images I get. There are plenty of articles that use alternative covers. For example, "Risk (Megadeth album)". I can show you many more. It's just a matter of whether editors wanted to add all covers or not. And why "even the primary"? I've already explained that these all are equally main covers. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think if you want to continue the discussion, it must be done on the music project talkpage. This is not a separate matter, I can't fight alone against two people for a single article. The matter should be discussed as a whole. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This has already been discussed ad nauseum see Wikipedia:Fair use overuse#Prior debates. Werieth (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You can start a discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Simply start a discussion explaining why you interpret the Wikipedia giudelines as "only one cover is allowed.". If the Wikipedia community decides to leave one cover per article everywhere, I will accept. Currently, I don't understand the purpose of deleting random covers from random articles. I think it only discourages editors and harms Wikipedia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like you and Stefan2 are attacking me personally. He has just nominated another random file I uploaded for deletion. I think he has intentionally looked through my contributions. I can't explain the timing differently. I won't discuss the matter here anymore. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Er, even the Music project recognizes that alternate cover art needs strong reasoning for inclusion, and generally limit it to one additional cover if it is important. That certainly doesn't appear to be the case here. And refusing to talk about it and reverting the removals will see you blocked for editing warring against established policy. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I acted fully in the boundaries of the Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore, I think your mention of my possible blocking is not justified. I suggested in this edit summary that Werieth should propose the files for deletion at FfD instead of deleting them without discussion. Instead, it seemed like he chose to continue the discussion here. I did not refuse to discuss the topic, I just suggested that we move to the WikiProject:Music talkpage. Sorry, but one person against two did not seem fair to me. By the way, in this discussion I just repeated the same arguments Stefan2 had already heard from multiply editors at FfD. So it was nothing new. I don't think it's fair to chose an editor (me) and attack the editor on a user talkpage, while it all can and should be discussed at the project talkpage.--Moscow Connection (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for FfD it is the incorrect venue. There really isnt that much to discuss those images violate WP:NFCC#8 among several criteria. We are not attacking you. Disagreeing with your point of view is not an attack, neither is reviewing the uploads of an editor who is involved with an article which has non-free content issues, in fact it is standard practice to do such reviews when issues are discovered. Werieth (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not that simple. Different editors interpret the policy differently. There has been alternative covers that were left at FfD. The same arguments about wide distribution were repeated there. They have been repeated over and over multiple times. Stefan2 keeps nominating new and new covers (and other files) with similar very short deletion rationales, I don't understand the purpose. I think many people may interpret it as that their contributions are not welcomed and leave. If the policy can clearly be interptreted differently and some images may be left in articles, why keep deleting them? Please understand me (if you think I'm overreacting). --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

FfD isnt policy, WP:NFCC is. Take a look at minimal usage. You are not required to have 7 covers of the same thing in an article, it goes against WP:NFCC#3 minimal usage. Including every variant isnt minimal. On specific cases where sourced third party commentary about the cover can be established and then incorperated into the article that is a different story. As the current article is written it cannot justify 7 non-free files. Unlike most things on wikipedia, the burden is not on me, but rather the person who wants to include the non-free content. Werieth (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Read the footnote No. 1 at WP:NFCI. In this article, «the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys.» --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That's the footnote which permits one (and only one) cover image without the image having to increase the understanding of the article. However, this article has more than one cover illustration. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say "one". Where does it say "one"? --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And I've already said that the last two covers, of the Single V and of the Event V, can and should be deleted. They indeed represent a different item. Please delete them. I've never deleted a file, so I woulldn't want to do it myself. So, only 5 covers will remain, not 7. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)