| Revision as of 13:56, 24 June 2019 editFerret (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors95,719 edits →As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries...← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:17, 24 June 2019 edit undoHullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers96,059 edits →As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries...: reply, no complicated NFCC issues hereNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| I look forward to HW offering an explanation of their assertion the fair use rationale is invalid. ] (]) 02:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC) | I look forward to HW offering an explanation of their assertion the fair use rationale is invalid. ] (]) 02:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC) | ||
| :CBC does not report that the screen shot triggered the arrest. CBC speculates that it ''just might have been what set off alarm bells for the RCMP''. Stating that this screenshot triggered or lead to the arrest fails verification, and should be fixed. -- ] (]) 13:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC) | :CBC does not report that the screen shot triggered the arrest. CBC speculates that it ''just might have been what set off alarm bells for the RCMP''. Stating that this screenshot triggered or lead to the arrest fails verification, and should be fixed. -- ] (]) 13:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC) | ||
| ::@Geo Swan's comment is all but utterly facetious. First, this use is based on a plain misreading of the cited source, The CEC did not report that the image triggered the subject's arrest; the CBC reporter speculated that the imaged "just might" have triggered the arrest. Flimsy, unsupported speculation doesn't belong in any article (not just BLPs, where it is most inappropriate), and doesn't justify nonfree illustration. Second, the use rationale gets nearly every salient fact wrong. It is pretty clear, for example, that the subject didn't create the screenshot; if he had created the screenshot; he presumably had the game mod it was created from, and wouldn't have needed to request a copy of it. There is no support for the claim that the image is particularly violent (it's not even made in the article, and only implied in the use rationale). There's absolutely no support for the claim that the supposed extreme violence of the image contributed to the arrest (Putting aside the rather silly notion that images of terrorists committing mass murder aren't typically extemely violent, as Geo \'s argument implies). Neither Geo nor the uploader provides any support for the notion that article's detailed textual description of the image isn't sufficient to convey the salient facts. Frankly, Geo's intent here, as in similar past edits, is ]y disruption of NFCC enforcement, and any further repetition of this behavior should result in editing limits.] (]) 17:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:17, 24 June 2019
Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because...
Individuals who are convicted of terrorism, where those convictions trigger significant media coverage, are notable. This is a frivolous nomination. Geo Swan (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
non-free image(s)
I uploaded multiple versions of File:Abu Jayyid tweet requesting a customized scenario for Call of Duty, set at an airport recently attacked by terrorists.png. When I uploaded the first version ronbot left a note on my user talk page, which I frankly misunderstood.
Occasionally images have incorrect embedded MIME descriptions, which causes problems at upload time. The original image was a .webp image, but bore a .jpg extension. I was not familiar with .webp, and did not realize I could have merely changed the extension, on my computer, and then uploaded it. So I did something more complicated, with my dinky image editor, that left me with a .png image. This caused the image to balloon from 44k bytes to over 700k bytes.
The message from ronbot said the image was too large, and should be under 100,000 pixels. I misinterpreted this, and tried to get the image under 100k bytes. Learning I could upload a .webp image, I uploaded the original 44k byte .webp image. But that one triggered the same warning from ronbot.
The third image is a .png image, but cropped more tightly than either of the previous images. Geo Swan (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries...
Kevin Omar Mohammed requested a customized version of the video game Call of Duty, showing shooters, armed with automatic weapons, shooting unarmed civilian travellers, at a commercial airport. The CBC reported this request triggered his arrest.
I think this is precisely the kind of image that WP:NFCC protects. No verbal description is sufficient.
Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz excised this image, with the edit summary, "...fails NFCC#8, also invalid use rationale..." I reverted this excision with the edit summary "As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries..."
Normally a request for a video game would not be sufficient to trigger someone's arrest. HW claimed this image failed WP:NFCC#8, which says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Well, I think Mohammed's arrest is hard to understand without the widely republished image. I look forward to HW offering a fuller explanation as to why they think this image fails NFCC#8.
I look forward to HW offering an explanation of their assertion the fair use rationale is invalid. Geo Swan (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- CBC does not report that the screen shot triggered the arrest. CBC speculates that it just might have been what set off alarm bells for the RCMP. Stating that this screenshot triggered or lead to the arrest fails verification, and should be fixed. -- ferret (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan's comment is all but utterly facetious. First, this use is based on a plain misreading of the cited source, The CEC did not report that the image triggered the subject's arrest; the CBC reporter speculated that the imaged "just might" have triggered the arrest. Flimsy, unsupported speculation doesn't belong in any article (not just BLPs, where it is most inappropriate), and doesn't justify nonfree illustration. Second, the use rationale gets nearly every salient fact wrong. It is pretty clear, for example, that the subject didn't create the screenshot; if he had created the screenshot; he presumably had the game mod it was created from, and wouldn't have needed to request a copy of it. There is no support for the claim that the image is particularly violent (it's not even made in the article, and only implied in the use rationale). There's absolutely no support for the claim that the supposed extreme violence of the image contributed to the arrest (Putting aside the rather silly notion that images of terrorists committing mass murder aren't typically extemely violent, as Geo \'s argument implies). Neither Geo nor the uploader provides any support for the notion that article's detailed textual description of the image isn't sufficient to convey the salient facts. Frankly, Geo's intent here, as in similar past edits, is WP:POINTy disruption of NFCC enforcement, and any further repetition of this behavior should result in editing limits.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)