Talk:History of Vancouver Whitecaps FC

Logos removed

I've removed the logos from this article for failing WP:NFCC #8. It is wholly unnecessary to repeat the logos here when the main articles are linked, and representative logos exist on those pages. The rationales were also exceptionally weak; "Identifying the subject of this article". The subject is History of Vancouver Whitecaps FC", for which there is no logo. For Vancouver Whitecaps FC yes, but not for its history. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

What you see as unnecessary we see as illustrative. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hammersoft, I've restored the logos for now. It would be better to advise how the rationales need to be improved, as the logos clearly form a part of the identity of the various Whitecap teams throughout the years. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• The rationales aren't the issue. There IS no acceptable rationale that can be created for these logos for this use. These logos are decorative in use. You don't use a logo of a team every time the team is mentioned on some article. You refer to the article regarding that team instead. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Hammersoft is right here - without any sourced discussion on the nature of the changes in the logo with the changes in the club, they are simply decorative and fail NFCC#8 completely. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I completely agree. I have gone ahead and the removed them. You argue that the logos are an important part of the club's history, yet they aren't important enough to warrant discussion in this article on the history? There's something a little inconsistent there. J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Since we've established that there is no possible fair use rationale for the use of these images in this article, when User:Δ, who is a part of your copyright posse (as I would like to call you), wrote "image does not have a Non-free use rationale for this article" was he lying or specifically misdirecting editors on Wikipedia? Would you like to sanction this editor? I have commented on the editor's talk page as well.

I would like to argue that this is not "fair use decoration", as one editor put it, but rather the logos represent the team and are a simple tool. The article will survive without them, but I can't see how the use of the images will not affect the copyright holder's rights. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• When you're willing to stop using derogatory comments in commenting on editors rather than commenting on content, I'll be happy to answer your questions. I am not and never have been part of a posse. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, but I will be polite and answer yours: when your team starts behaving as responsible wikipedians. Now answer the question: was the editor from your group lying or intentionally misdirecting Wikipedia editors? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• You're quite correct. I didn't answer the question. There is no 'team', there is no 'group'. I strongly suggest you read and understand WP:NPA and WP:AGF. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Even better. A bunch of copyright vigilantes running around lying when they make edits. That's so much fun. I do assume good faith, however when an editor intentionally writes something that doesn't correspond to the action, I stop assuming good faith. I was burned on that with this same editor on another article and now refuse to trust your group. As for personal attacks, when an editor shows that they are upstanding citizens, then they will earn my respect. When that same editor intentionally misdirects other editors, then deserve to be called-out for their actions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I got as far as your description of me and others as "copyright vigilantes" and stopped. Walter, if you're incapable of keeping a civil tongue in your head, I will not debate anything with you. WP:NPA isn't optional. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

While you're correct that each of the logos ids the teams, we have separate articles for each of those teams where the logos are correctly used to ID those teams. We don't reuse logos just because we talk about an entity on a different page. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

> While you're correct that...

Thanks for indicating that I'm correct. That's very noble of you.

The fact is either you're an organized group with a coordinated effort and approach or you're a group of individuals who are doing their own thing. If the copyright group doesn't want negative publicity, you've got to decide which it is. I'm sorry you don't like being called a group or alternately vigilantes, but one or the other is the case. In either case, the behaviour that this individual editor exhibited must be stopped.

As for the issue at hand, was the editor correct or incorrect when the comment, "image does not have a Non-free use rationale for this article", was left? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think that Δ "must be stopped", I'm sure you'll find a receptive audience, especially for your personal attacks, at WP:AN/I. I also recommend you include me in your complaint, and you might as well include everyone in your notional "copyright vigilante" group, since we're obviously a massive detriment to the project, and "must be stopped" as well. In the meantime, I suggest you read and abide by WP:NFCC. By the way, I don't care about publicity, negative or positive. I'm not here to win anyone's approbation or disfavor. It has no role here. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not debating the merits of WP:NFCC. I am attempting to discuss the misdirection employed by someone who is interested in applying WP:NFCC. I don't want the application of WP:NFCC stopped. I want the way it is being done to be stopped. if lies and half-truths are the order of the day, I don't want to participate in the process. As you can see, I'm not diplomatic enough to be trusted with said undertaking. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Your presumption that lies and half truths were made is false. I've done more than a thousand of similar removals. I don't look for every reason an image could be removed. Sometimes, after being reverted, I see other reasons why an image could be removed. Most of the time, life just goes on. I would not be at all surprised if Δ had a similar approach. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. Δ removed the images for a perfectly legitimate reason (that they lacked a rationale). However, while arationale is a necessary condition for the usage of non-free content, it is not sufficient. The subsequent removals were not in any way illegitimate, and they in no way invalidate the first removal, or suggest any dishonesty on Δ's part. Could we possibly cut down the aggression a little? J Milburn (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Δ's action initiated was action on the part of editors to give fair use rationale, which was totally useless since it did not reveal the whole truth. if Δ had simply opened a discussion, as was done in the past, indicating all of the reasons, it could have saved all of us a lot of trouble. that is the approach that should be taken, not half truths and misinformation. This isn't government. Either all of the information must be conveyed, or the person who undertakes the endeavour is liable for any misinterpretation that their actions generate. You may not have intended to kill that person when you shot your pistol into the air, but you are liable for the death when it strikes the person. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• What you're asking for isn't going to happen. Δ's removal was perfectly legitimate. He's under no requirement to find every possible reason an image could be removed. He found a reason, determined the reason was valid, and acted. What he did was perfectly in line with policy. As it turns out, there were other reasons the images needed to be removed. That's not Δ's fault, and placing that fault on him is wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Completely agree. Compare: If I oppose a featured picture candidate because it lacks an accurate source, that does not mean I am saying I would definitely support it if the sourcing information was accurate. Equally, just because Δ removed the images due to the fact they lacked a non-free use rationale, does not mean that there could not possibly be any other issues. Your example is not comparable at all, it's not even remotely related to this issue. J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

While Δ's removal of the image was perfectly legitimate, the message he left wasn't. It caused confusion. That's not legitimate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And yes, we expect you to give every possible reason when removing an image rather than coming up with them in an ad hoc fashion afterwards. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, sorry, that's not going to happen. You only need one legitimate reason to remove an image; it's not up to those removing it to research every possible reason the image use may be illegitimate (there are an awful lot of potential reasons...) and then report the full list to the uploader and anyone who has been involved with every article in which the image has ever been used. If an image has no rationale, it should be removed, whether or not there are any other issues with the usage of the file... This is bordering on the ridiculous. Δ was not deceptive, and nor was his behaviour in any way inappropriate. J Milburn (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If this were a company, the sort of action of giving a partial reason rather than a complete reason would find you reprimanded for wasting time of other employees. Just because we're volunteers, as are you, doesn't mean our time is less valuable than yours. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You're still expecting him to determine every possible reason an image could be removed and to stipulate those reasons in the edit summary. That's not going to happen. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No I'm not. I said the talk page, not the edit summary. But every reason should be presented. It's the only reasonable solution. Otherwise you're creating additional work for other editors. Alternately, you're imposing a single rule which may be in conflict with another rule. If you're going to impose a "law" you should understand it all, and be able to judiciously apply it in its entirely.

A good solution would be to direct editors to WP:NFCC or whatever list you would like to appeal to. The best solution would be to itemize each item that is being broken. Obviously you're looking for expedience and not the best solution. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh. Is there anything left to debate here? The images were removed from the article, rightfully in all cases, and remain off. So far as I'm concerned, case closed. Unless you have some new objection to raise, I'm done. Microphone's yours. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First of all, please do not remove my comments without good reason. On topic, not having a rationale is a real "quick fail" situation. If an image doesn't have a rationale, it fails the NFCC, and so may not be used- whether or not it is compliant with our other policies/the other NFCC. Say I speedy deleted an article that consisted entirely of "John is a dick" as an attack page, and it was then recreated as "John is a person". The article would then be deleted under A7- that wouldn't mean that the author could come running, complaining that I hadn't told them that the article, as well as being an attack, did not assert notability. Am I "liable for any misinterpretation that [my comments] generate" in that case? Of course not. There's something a little odd about you accusing Δ of wasting volunteer time when you're the one implying that, whenever he removes an image from an article, he has to fully research its copyright status (as an image being uploaded under a false copyright claim would be a reason to remove it from an article) search for a free alternative if the image is non-free (as a free alternative existing or being possible would be a reason to remove non-free content from an article) and so on. The burden lies with those wishing to include the content to ensure that it is compliant, not the responsibility of those removing it to list every way it is invalid, and that's written in policy. If you don't like policy, that's fine, but directing your attacks at whoever is enforcing it is hardly helpful. J Milburn (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't remove your comments on purpose and I undid it when I realized the mistake that Wikipedia made during the edit. I didn't do a show changes prior to submitting. I am starting to believe that you are all missing my point. Providing a single reason for removing an image is not a good use of editor's time. Just because it doesn't have a rationale is a good reason, but when it fails on other grounds as well, they should be presented as well.

There is nothing to be debated. The action was technically correct since no rationale was given, however lack of full disclosure wasted my time. Since that's not debated either I will leave you two to gloat in your victory of a single point and I will gloat in my moral victory: what the editor did was wrong, and he continues to do it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Gloat all you like, few are listening. Delta did nothing wrong, as I have explained. Again, I point you to my example of the speedy deleted attack page. Using your logic, any admin speedy deleting articles like that is acting wrongly. You're welcome to believe that, I don't care, but no one is going to stop doing it, and if anything is wasting your time, trying to convince them to stop is. J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Delta misdirected by offering partial information. If you think that this is "nothing wrong" then you're misguided or deluded. Your example is not the same. A speedy delete may be for any one of several reasons, in the same way that removing an image for non-compliance is. Former is usually done with pages created by well-intentioned new editors. The deletion is a very valid reason, and usually several are provided on the talk page. The latter is done to experienced editors on existing articles. When the requested information is provided, those editors are sandbagged with additional reasons that, had they been presented at the outset would have saved time for all parties involved. I'm sorry you don't understand that. If this isn't the case, why is Delta's talk page being flooded with complains? I assume others in this situation are being flooded with complaints.

While the removal was for a valid reason, and the subsequent removals were for valid reasons, the way it's being done is terrible to say the least. I have no respect for you, your poor logic, or the ethics you espouse. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)