User talk:StephenTS42

Non-free image use

Hi StephenTS42. The licensing of each image you see on Wikipedia is determined by it copyright status and not every image file you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same. Some files are licensed as public domain or licensed under a free licensed suitable for Wikipedia and these are often collectively referred to as "free images". Other files are licensed as non-free content because of their copyright status and these file are commonly referred to as "non-free images". Non-free image use is highly restricted and each use of such an an image must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free image use policy. One of these restrictions is WP:NFCC#9, which says that non-free content can only be used in the article namespace. For this reason and as explained in WP:UP#Non-free files, non-free content cannot be used in User:StephenTS42/sandbox. Perhaps you did not notice the edit sums I left the previous times I removed such images from your sandbox; therefore, I'm posting this here to provide more explanation. Please try to be more careful and check the licensing of any file you want to add to your user sandbox and refrain adding any more that are non-free. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask as WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi again StevenTS42. Just for reference, File:Uconn logo1.png is not non-free content; it's licensed as public domain and is from Wikipedia Commons. Images from Commons are generally OK for user pages since Commons only accepts freely licensed or public domain images. This does not mean, of course, that every image currently on Commons has been uploaded under a correct license, but most should be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I don't follow you. The image has no reference to it being listed as being non-free content and it is currently being used or linked to more than 100 pages in Wikipedia! That image is described as being the author's own work in Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. That means the author recreated an image that should be trademarked. What I placed in my sandbox is listed in Category:School user templates which does contain the image in question. You may have mistaken University of Connecticut Seal.svg which is listed as non-free content for which is not. I had been experimenting with the above template in my sandbox. I may have used the seal image when I became distracted by another user's edit war. In any event the seal image was never intended to be used. Now, may I please have your blessing to use Template:User UConn as a user box on my userpage? Thank you!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Marchjuly's initial post was about you using the West Haven seal in your sandbox. Later, you removed the UConn template from your user page saying it was a non free image. Marchjuly noticed that and then left you a note basically saying you didn't have to remove the UConn template. It's always been okay for you to have that template on your page. No one suggested you had to take it down. only (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Only: Excuse me, but Marchjuly's comment above does not mention West Haven's seal nor its removal. Yes, he also removed the West Haven seal from my sandbox. I was not addressing that. Aren't sandboxes places where editors can construct edits to be placed elsewhere so as not to tie up an article and to avoid editing conflicts? In other words what I place in my sandbox is temporary:not intended to remain. His comment clearly was about UConn logo1.png. I would also like to point the TBAN quagmire I now face should I try to remove that infoxbox from my sandbox, or to even discuss it. Thank you and have a nice day!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

His first post was about the West Haven seal in your sandbox. His second post was about the UConn logo on your user page. only (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi again StephenTS42. My first post had to do with non-free content use in general, but my second post had to do with File:University of Connecticut Seal.svg and File:Uconn logo1.png. If you click on those files, you'll see that the former has been uploaded locally to Wikipedia under a non-free license and thus is subject to Wikipedia's non-free content policy, while the latter has been uploaded to Commons as public domain and thus is not subject to said policy. I was just trying to let you know that you can use the "C" in your userbox if you want, but should have been clearer in doing so.

A user sandbox is a place where editor's can try out different things, but sandboxes are still subject to most of Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines as explained in WP:UP#OWN. Relevant Wikipedia policies wouldn't allow BLP violations or copyright violations to remain in a user sandbox, even temporarily, just because its a sandbox. So, if you're working on an improvement to an article in your sandbox and your improvement involves non-free content, just hide or link said content until after you add your changes to the article to avoid any issues with WP:NFCC#9. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Only and Marchjuly:Thank you for your gracious comments! I am grateful for your patience with me. I hope you will accept my apology. Nonetheless I do not buy your explanations. Let's look at the record, shall we? (I want to assure you that I had no intention of using any image unauthorized by wikipedia. It was merely an experiment. You are right about my use of UConn' seal being wrong but not so with UConn logo1.png!) To start: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:StephenTS42&diff=783201324&oldid=780259440 Yes, it was wrong to use that image and for that I apologize. Then it was removed by Marchjuly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:StephenTS42&diff=783242995&oldid=783201324 which I am not contesting but stating as fact. Secondly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:StephenTS42/sandbox&diff=783227113&oldid=783117490 the image was also removed from my sandbox which I am also not contesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:StephenTS42/sandbox&diff=783242781&oldid=783227113 (A warning would have sufficed) Next: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:StephenTS42/sandbox&diff=791642929&oldid=791622964 I had placed that city's seal into my sandbox for the purpose of editing the infobox-- never intending to let it remain. So, Marchjuly's first post was not about that city's seal... being that his edit removed, or edited out UConn's seal on that date; not that city's seal. The second post was not about UConn's seal as he had already edited it out. Yet he had removed the "C" image I wanted to use and belonged with Template:User UConn previously. Now the both of you are twisting the facts to your advantage. I have admitted to my bad, why can't you?——→StephenTS42 (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42. If you check the edit history of your user page you will see that I have only made one edit to it to remove the non-free seal; the "C" was actually removed by this edit you made when you removed the userbox {{User UConn}}. I only removed non-free images from your sandbox and user page. As for a warning, please read WP:UP#Non-free files for reference. I almost always leave an edit sum explaining why I removed a file from a page and these almost always contain links to the relveant policy or guideline page explaining why the file was removed. Assuming you read the edit sums, I'm not sure why you feel that the files were inappropriately removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you for your reply. Your removals were not inappropriate and I believe they were done in line with Wikipedia policies. However, your edit summaries did not point out which image or file was being removed, though your reasons for doing so were explained and backed up by policy. For the sake of etiquette, and good will I will Drop the stick here. I would ask that in the future you wouldn't be so ambitious in removing my edits in my sandbox or userpage, and instead please warn me first as I will heed any such warning. If you believe any such removal warrants such a degree of immediacy, please at least indicate what you are removing. There is also a guideline about this as well: Wikipedia:User pages--→User pages are available to Wikipedia users personally for purposes compatible with the Wikipedia project and acceptable to the community; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. Wikipedia policies concerning the content of pages can and generally do apply to user pages, and users must observe these policies. Users believed to be in violation of these policies should first be advised on their talk page using.... (subst:uw-userpage).... when immediate action is not otherwise necessary. I apologize for any misunderstanding!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

For your future reference, the files which I removed could be clearly seen by looking at the diffs of each edit I made and the reasons why they were removed were given in the edit sums. For example, this diff shows that you were the editor who removed Template:User UConn (the userbox with the "C" logo) and not me or someone else. As for giving warnings, WP:UP#Non-free files clearly states "Do not include non-free files (copyrighted files lacking a free content license) on your user page or on any subpage thereof, per the non-free content policy. Non-free files found on user or user talk pages will be removed without warning (bold added by me for emphasis) and, if unused in a Wikipedia article, will be deleted entirely." A link to that section was added to my edit sums. I also added a link to WP:UBX#Caution about image use to my edit sum for this edit which specifically relates to non-free content use in userboxes and clearly shows which file was removed. So, all the information about which files were removed and why they were removed was right there in the edit history of each page. Anyway, as long as you check the copyright license of any files before adding them to you userpage and avoid any that are licensed as non-free, you should be fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: OK, that's good advice. I have already dropped the stick Thank you! Have a nice day!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Civility

When Primefac closed the ANI thread, he mentioned blocks may need to be considered for personal attacks if they occur. With that in mind, you should not be sarcastically (or not sarcastically...) referring to someone as "his magesty" especially under the guise of the edit being a "copyedit." Even calling him "the antagonist" shouldn't be happening. Stop commenting on other users like that. only (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Only: It was no guise, it was a reconsideration. Nonetheless, you are right. Try to remember that I am a human being: flaws and all. Trying to do the right thing should not involve emotional reactions, mine included. Try to imagine attempting to improve an article in Wikipedia while almost every edit is reverted by only one other user. That can only be taken one way. No consensus, no discussion, just reverting with paltry edit summaries instead. If my edits are wrong why only one other editor reverts them. Shouldn't that be considered as hounding? Why should contributing to Wikipedia be under such hostile conditions? What have I ever done to JJBers to deserve such abuse? The focus on what should or shouldn't be happening misses the point. Thank you for your advice, though. I'll do my best from now on to hold my horses.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You say he reverts you without consensus but you also revert him right back without consensus. See WP:BRD. You need to open discussion as well. Hopefully the expanded topic ban will prevent further issues. only (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Only: Thank you for your response. I have tried to reason with whoever and to no avail! It appears the editor in question spends more time trying to ban other editors... evidenced by his or hers number of ANI discussions... rather than constructively editing anything else. I may be wrong, and I hope I am, but whoever appears to be interested in nothing else but banning any editor that disagrees with his or her opinion. ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Drop the stick, please. It's over, it's done, and you're the only one still going on about the situation. Move on, edit some articles, maybe even have some tea. Life's too short to be complaining about things you can't change. Primefac (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: As I have already stated: "I'll do my best from now on to hold my horses". That may sound a little old fashioned but it is intended to mean the same as "dropping the stick". If life is too short to complain about things I cannot change, then what you have done to change me contradicts that advice. What ever happened to Sticks and Stones?——→StephenTS42 (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, StephenTS42. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, StephenTS42. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Sunrise from Stroffolino Bridge.jpg

The file File:Sunrise from Stroffolino Bridge.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)