Hello again and sorry to bother You this soon again. I hope You did accept my appology of the word combination "Bertil Persson, old photographer and insult" it just became an unlucky formulation. But I've been thinking of the "sales man"-issue and persuation. It just hit me, that the archivists may ask something like "How can You be sure of this ?" or whatever. I think that an information page just for plasible or possible donators may be of help. Please don't take this as me being lazy. I just know that in Sweden , peple often want to see things at paper whatever a sales man ever is saying. I can take myself as an example - a female sales man phoned me about an offer that sounder fair and OK. (It was someting about digital cable-television) And they usually do tape the calls. But I said approx. "It sounds OK, but I always want to read the small letters before I can agree to Your offer", and asked her to mail me the entire contract physically. But this she "couldn't do" (probably due to her pay-check is depending entirelly on the number of contracts she sells by phone only), and I told her "that's the only way" but she still "coul not do that". So I'm still using analogue cable-TV. I only say that an informational page for possible photo donators could make a difference. All the best Boeing720 (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials is one place to start, but without knowing the specific objections and what direction the discussion is going its hard to provide one page with all the needed information. I could point you to quite a few different links but the odds are it would be information overload as 80% of the material wouldn't apply. Werieth (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. (You were quick indeed, I noticed some horrible spelling errors. And was about save corrections. When wrighting articles I always use a dictionary, but not always at talk pages) But I assume You got my general idea, anyway. They way a discussion is taking, is of cource not possible to know in advance. I was mostly thinking of a very general page, which essentially may give the "donators" a brief information, and that there are advantages in it also for them. Boeing720 (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The above page is a good place to start, otherwise I can point you to commons:Commons:Licensing Werieth (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I dont have the link handy for the WP:NFCR discussions but this was discussed and it comes down to the basic issues of WP:NFLIST and WP:NFC#UUI#14 we only need the primary logo, not logos/artwork for every year. Werieth (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

But it also says that if each event has a different logo (which each HH PPV does), it's permissible to have an image for each. TJ Spyke 01:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

If and only if each individual event is notable, and has their own article. In this case that is not valid, thus it falls under WP:NFLIST and cannot be used. Werieth (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi werieth

Why you are removing the content of the Kent RO Wikipedia page? The last revision was in no way any advert but basic information about the brand. This is totally unacceptable and goes against the logic of having a wikipedia page. Looking for a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.81.50 (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the logic of a Wikipedia page"? Werieth (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"The logic of having a wikipedia page" is to provide readers information about the topic of the page. So a brand page, it must be hving information about what the brand is about, its products, awards, facility technology etc. This is what a user seeks when opening wikipedia page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.81.50 (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

We dont include a list of awards, See WP:NOT. Wikipedia isnt a location to promote a business or product, thus we dont need to go into products unless they are notable, in this case its a fairly common product. As for facility technology the section is full of unsourced, unscientific buzz words, which look lifted from their sales brochure. Given your obvious ties with the company it would be best if you didnt edit that article. Werieth (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Then what is here in this page? Its in same category. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pureit. Also Almost all the company pages discuss about their awards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wipro#Awards_and_recognitions or their brands/models: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlpool_Corporation#Major_brands

What information otherwise a company page would have? On the wikipedia page of a brand which has been pioneer in water purification technology and is getting patents for that, if the simple information about the technology or the names of different models can't be updated then what benefit a user will get on reaching to that page. Nowhere the page content was promoting the purifier models. Pls look into it, rather removing the whole content, would appreciate if certain objectionable words are removed so that correct info of the company can be visible on the wikipedia page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.81.50 (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed and cleaned up the linked pages, but Ill point out WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you want to include the material you need to do it in a non-promotional, encyclopedic method. Often a list of awards is just cruft, and listing brands/products falls afoul of WP:NOTDIR. Werieth (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

[1] - I am 100% in agreement that the images are not necessary on the article but that is a very subjective call, and thus revert warring in this specific case is one of those not covered under WP:3RR's exemptions for NFCC. I am giving you a friendly caution as a fellow NFC tracker to prevent someone else taking this to 3RR or ANI. (Yes, the reverting editor too will be cautioned if they revert too, but I'm very aware that others have taken you to ANI before several times and you may be blocked if they take it there again). --MASEM (t) 19:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: I know Ive only made one revert. If the user continues the obnoxious edit summaries and to ignore NFCC Ill escalate this as necessary. Edit summaries like I have seen it. Wonderful place. I'm thinking of holidaying there during the summer. are not only misleading, but show a distinct failure to understand policy. Such behavior if continued will be taken to either ANI or NFCR. Werieth (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree the editor is ready to ignore NFC policies, but there is still the fact that there's no "obvious" NFC violations that would fall under 3RR, and others that have been critical of your NFC enforcing before would likely jump at this opportunity. I will warn them right now that NFC is not something to scoff at. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Whirlpool Corporation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Amana, Estate, Inglis and Roper

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI I reverted this change. I have no objection to removing the archive URLs in templates but I'd rather have a substandard archive link than a 404 for references which are bare urls. Protonk (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk: If it was just a substandard link I wouldn't be removing it. These links where added and created after the site died, we have zero credibility that they actually contain the original material. These where added by two spammers late last year that slipped through the cracks. Due to the fact that the contents of those links didnt come from the original source they shouldn't be used. Werieth (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok. In that case removing the links as references seems better (which is what I mostly did on HoET). Protonk (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Werieth,

Why did you remove the external link to 3dvieweronline considering it as spam? I am using that service quite often and honestly is way better than step3d.com here listed as supports step with its relative product tree, step is not only just geometry but much much more. If there is a good (free of course) service about step visualisation other than the very basic mentioned I believe should be mentioned as many people can be interested in! Otherwise please explain the criteria you apply to judge the validity of such external links.Thanks. Looking for a response. 94.8.83.123 (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

An edit you made broke the timeline.

I tracked down that using the ampersand in this line

bar:16 color:Full from:2012 till:end shift:(-84) text:Texas A&M (2012–present)

creates the problem.

It did have:

bar:16 color:Full from:2012 till:end shift:(-84) text:Texas A&M (2012–present)

which worked.

I am now using

bar:16 color:Full from:2012 till:end shift:(-84) text:[[Texas A&M University|Texas A&M]] (2012–present)

as the second one is not an issue.

I don't quite get this; my guess is that &M is treated as the start of a special character, although I would think "Texas A&M" would be a common usage (and it is).

My guess is that the timeline routine is a little picker than it should be.

I've fixed it, but letting you know in case you care, or have insights why it doesn't work with the first code listed above.S Philbrick(Talk) 17:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Guess thats one more code quirk Ill have to keep an eye out for :/ Werieth (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, quick response, I hope you looked at the underlying code, I can't get it to display properly, even using nowiki.S Philbrick(Talk) 17:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, and I think I fixed the display problem Werieth (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Files are no longer missing non-free use rationale's for this article as it was added to "Territorial Cup" which redirects to Arizona-Arizona State football rivalry.--JavierPHX2013 (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if there is a template on the file page or not, that usage doesnt meet WP:NFCC inclusion requirements. It wasnt removed for lacking a rationale Werieth (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Scipione Vannutelli may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Image:Maria Stuarda si avvia al patibolo.jpg|thumb|''Mary Stuart walks to the Scaffold'' (Winner at Florentine Exposition of 1861<ref> ''Mary Stuart'' now located at [[Galleria d'Arte
• d'Arte Moderna]], Rome). He had a studio in the [[Palazzo Pamphili]] on [[Piazza Navona]].ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=dAYYAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA286&dq=Scipione+Vannutelli&hl=en#v=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Supercouple may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in a promotional commercial used to entice viewers during the couple's reign of ambiguity.]] This coy approach by the writers infuriated viewers, but they remained entranced by the pairing.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I just reviewed the changes you made to Novartis, in this dif. It seems that you have an interest in preventing linkrot - thanks for that; it takes a lot of time and care to do that sort of work. I have a question though -- I am wondering why you tagged pretty much every New York Times citation with "dead link". I checked each one of them, and they are not dead, so I removed the tag. Can you please explain why you tagged them as dead? I cite the NY Times a lot, since it is a paper of record, and I have not heard of problems with citations to it before. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Just looks like a transient issue. It could have been several factors that caused it to show up as dead when I checked it, but actually still be alive. Since its been a few hours Im unable to recreate the the circumstances which caused me to tag it. If a link becomes alive after it was tagged as dead, feel free to remove the dead tag. Werieth (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

strange. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Marvel Studios page, your edit caused a URL error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Werieth. I see you have taken it upon yourself to remove all the archive.is archived references (as well as changing all double-spacing to single-spacing, and changing sfnref to SfnRef) in The Adventures of Tintin. I understand the recent decisions regarding archive.is, but can you tell me if it is a requirement to remove it from existing articles? What about the other changes? Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The SfnRef was just bypassing template redirects, just some minor housekeeping. As for the spacing can you give a little more detail as Im not sure what you are referring to. As for archive.is the links shouldnt be kept as they are problematic in several fronts. Werieth (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the template redirect; it surprises me that the original authors of the template spelled it as they did; I have always used lower-case on all my template calls. For your second change, I was referring to your change of every occurrence of the double-space " " has been changed to the single-space " ". Both of these "housekeeping" changes are not true contributions to the article in my opinion; it just raises eyebrows; I try to never make that kind of null change to an article (i.e., when using AWB) as people just contact me asking me why I thought it was necessary. I see all this has been done to the Tintin (character) article too, which I also heavily contributed to. Housekeeping aside, my question was: Please point me to the concensus that Archive.is must not only not be added to articles, but must also be removed from existing articles. (It was a lot of work to add all those archives and I wish I had used a different archive mechanism, but at least the articles were archived, until your change.) Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasnt aware I made the spacing change, Ill be more careful. As for using archive.is the links should be removed and replaced if possible. Given the filters in place and the problems having archive.is in articles cause removal is really the only option. Werieth (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll go along with replaced, and I am pleased you started doing the work to do so on Tintin (character), but I won't go along with simply removed. Do not remove them unless you replace them. I hope you can see that this is a fair statement and a compromise. I like the improvements you made to Tintin (character), creating new archives using webarchive. I suppose someday I will re-archive all the links in The Adventures of Tintin using webarchive. But until then, please revert your edits to both articles, keeping the improvements you made. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Prhartcom, it's more like "replace them if you can, but always, no matter what, remove them."—Kww(talk) 15:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Really? As I said, I heard that I had unfortunately made the wrong choice of archive mechanism on about one hundred archives in these articles last December, but can no one point me to the consensus of the powers-that-be of Wikipedia that explains that, above all, they must be removed? I would think if it was that critical someone would have removed them all by now with a bot. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I got busy in real life, and am just getting to implementation of the removal bot.—Kww(talk) 17:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Werieth, it turns out what you are saying is wrong. Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC#4. Replace bot-added archive.is links where possible, leave human-added links intact This really annoys me. Please revert your edits made to both articles. Prhartcom (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That was just one of the results discussed in the RfC. However when the RfC was closed that wasnt the outcome. Werieth (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I see. My final comment is to quote a statement made in that decision: "To those removing Archive.is from articles, please be sure to make very clear A) why the community made this decision and B) what alternatives are available to them to deal with rotlink." Your edit summary was non-existent. I wish you hadn't confused me so much today with your sweeping edits. I suppose you really do have to "be more careful." Prhartcom (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This is KWW's personal bug that he has inflicted on the community through a non-neutral RFC, and that Werieth is enforcing without explanation or discussion leaving only damage in his wake. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 21:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Good afternoon to you,

I hope that you are doing well. If I am not mistaken, I have noticed that you are the one responsible for removing the flag officer shoulder boards from Canadian Forces ranks and insignia. I understand that Wikipedia wishes to have free images, and this makes sense to me. I have noticed this licensing information with the flag officer shoulder boards:

With this logic, no representation of Canadian Forces rank insignia would be able to be displayed on Wikipedia. However, all other rank insignia images do not have this statement.

Also, the shoulder board insignia used do not seem to have been created by the crown. This is the same with all the other rank insignia displayed on Wikipedia for the Canadian Forces. Therefore, would it not make sense to have the Canadian flag officer shoulder boards appear on Wikipedia, or, beause of the licensing information, no Canadian Forces insignia would be permitted.

I would like your opinion on the subject. Thank you kindly and good day, Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, there is an ongoing discussion at the moment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Archivedotisbot. Maybe you are interested to join it. Thanks. 77.227.74.183 (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You've removed a bunch of reference archives and replaced the rest with an inferior archiving site, and your actions have prevented the previous archives being restored. Finish the job if you're going to start it. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 23:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: I did, archive.is blocked for a reason. Webcitation and archive.org are the two most reliable archiving sources on the net. Werieth (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is is blocked because an RFC was conducted in relative secrecy, not because the site is flawed. Archive.org respects robots.txt and abandons snapshots if website policies change and it doesn't archive PDFs, webcite was on the verge of shutting down in recent memory. You did not finish the job as those links now have no archive, you've made the article worse through your actions. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 23:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually archive.is is an abusive site that violates copyright, has used unapproved bots, countless sockpuppets and a history of abusive behavior to force links to their site into en.wikipedia. Removing abusive content improves the article, as a dead link is better than an abusive link. The RfC wasnt done in secrecy, if I recall correctly there was even a watchlist notice about it. Sites that ignore robots.txt are nasty. Ive often seen reports of spiders and other crawlers which failed to abide by good internet practices causing serious disruptions to sites. Just because you are unaware of the bigger issues doesnt mean that they dont exist. To get to the point where you cannot add archive.is URLs isnt something that happens easily. Werieth (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Following the same reasoning, I understand the changes regarding archive.is and the bypass of redirects for templates, such as {{asof}}, at British Airways destinations. What I don't get is why you changed the correct format for the dates in the references, not respecting the (hidden) "Use dmy format" category for the article, turning them into a "yyyy-mm-dd". By the way, it would be helpful if you use edit summaries.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I didnt change the formatting of any exiting dates. I followed a process of removal of archive.is cruft, and then searching webcitation and then followed by archive.org for a copy of any link in the article. If an archive is found I add it and the archivedate too. In some templates like {{wayback}} the formatting is handled in the template itself, otherwise I just used my standard formatting. I know there are bots that will come around and correct it if I happen to use the wrong date format. Werieth (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Archive sites which respect robots.txt and thus abandon snapshots are useless, they're no different than a site dying which defeats the point of archiving. This has just happened with gamespot refs and archive.org. A bot or user inserting links to archive.is is no different than you forcing archive.org and webcitation links in there, the only difference is that archive.is does what is needed and the others do not. And you still haven't added archives for the sources you diminished. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 08:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• What the fuck is your problem? You've now done the same thing to Batman Arkham Origins removing perfectly functioning archives and leaving sources unprotected. Noone has asked you to do this and your talk page is littered with people telling you to knock it off, so knock it the fuck off or finish the job, you're vandalising the god damn articles. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 00:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  Ill remind you about WP:NPA. These links are forbidden, and need removed. Im sorry if you dont like it. Werieth (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no personal attack, I am asking, seriously, what your malfunction is. These links are not forbidden and were not added by a bot. You have no excuse for what you are doing. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 00:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: Try adding new archive.is links to an article, you cant. these links are causing problems when editors attempt to edit an article. Werieth (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

They cause issue adding htem now, the existing links do not cause any trouble, I should know considering how many edits I've made to both articles you've vandalised. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 00:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

And while nothing I have done falls under NPA, threatening to get me blocked for issuing a valid warning, IS a violation of NPA. Not that I can be blocked for issuing a valid warning, just letting you know that you do not know how to implement Wikipedia policy nor threaten others with it in an attempt to bully your way. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 00:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually using abuse language borderline NPA. After a user has removed something from their talk page you cannot edit war to keep it there, I have every right to remove invalid warnings which that was. Per the RfC all links need removed. Existing links can be problematic depending on what happens to an article, and how an article needs reverted due to vandalism or other issues. Werieth (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No they can't be problematic. You have no idea about anything related to this, the only problem is putting them back once some lazy editor does a drive-by edit that leaves a bunch of references without an archive. Until that happens, there is no issue editing or reverting the article. You've spent more time replying to me than fixing the damage you caused, instead focusing on just spreading the damage in spite of hte protests of several editors. Then you have the bare-faced cheek to call the warning you received invalid, kind of like the thug the cops are holding down exclaiming he has done nothing wrong. Fix the articles you have broken, or I shall assume you have forgotten and remind you as needed. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 00:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Just because you cannot understand the issues, and dont care to try, doesnt mean that it doesnt exist. One prime example where archive.is links make reverting vandalism difficult is where Page Foo is stable at revision 1 user A vandalizes the page and in the process adds something obscene (removing a archive.is link as part of the vandalism) Revision 2. User B makes an innocent typo fix without catching the vandalism (Revision 3). User C sees vandalism and tries to restore revision 1, but cant due to the archive.is spam. User C then must manually look for and remove all links to archive.is before the vandalism in Foo can be removed. During that window who knows what kind of vandalism may be present. Also if you continue to be obnoxious on my talk page, use that type of language and persist in your harassment Ill just ban you from my talk page. Werieth (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Bing-Bong. This is your Tuesday reminder to finish the job on Joker (comics) and Batman: Arkham Origins. *Bing-Bong*. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 07:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Werieth, is there a way to automatically create acceptable web archives, such as on webarchive.org? I notice many of the articles involved in your purge of archive.is had their archives replaced with webarchive.org, and I assume you are using a tool to achieve that. The Tintin articles I mention above mostly did not have their archives replaced with webarchive.org, though. I'm asking since I am being forced to consider doing it all manually all over again. Prhartcom (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that most of the links where not actually being used in references (which was the only place I was looking for replacements) Ive gone ahead and re-checked for any usage of a cite template not in a reference and filled those in. I dont know of any bulk tools for requesting archive but I know that webcitation.org allows you archive somewhere around 100 links before it starts throttling you. If you want me to look at an article to see if there are already archives just let me know. Werieth (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm amazed; thank-you Werieth; I carefully checked, and you have replaced every single one of the external links of the Tintin articles with archives to web.archive.org. There won't be any link rot on those articles. And there isn't a tool; you did it all manually? That had to be around 150 links. I remember doing it. Hey, good luck to you and User:Kww on the removal tool I see being discussed. I assume it will replace, not remove the archives. I want you both to know I personally think you two are overreacting to archive.is, but I respect the consensus. Good luck on it, and thanks again for replacing those archives. Prhartcom (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For doing what needs to be done, well done! Ravensfire (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I'm aware that the use of archive.is isn't desirable, but I'd be interested to know why you removed links to it from 1889–90 Football Alliance, rather than replacing them with the easily findable archive.org equivalent, or at the very least tagging the relevant content as unreferenced. Further, why you made this sort of edit without even using an edit summary? Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Struway2: Given the issues archive.is has had including at one point supposedly having malware, Im not visiting any of the links to it. If the reference has an original url I do look in both archive.org and WebCite for an archived copy. example. In most cases I am able to replace it and even end up adding a few more links to archives that help prevent link rot. Archive.is has been blocked from being added to articles, and does cause issues in some cases when trying to revert some edits. Werieth (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)Werieth, at the very least please use the edit summary. You are required to, as stated in the decision at the archive.is RFC, and there is no excuse for you to repeatedly cause so much confusion by not doing so, as documented above. Prhartcom (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• after edit conflict I can understand your reluctance to visit them, and personally, I do know that their addition is now blocked; but please bear in mind that many of us are completely unaware of discussions about unacceptable archives. Where you do have to leave content newly unsourced, please would you tag it as such, and use the edit summary to give the rest of us an idea of what you're up to. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• Hm, according to Virustotal, it is archive.org supposedly having malware, not archive.is. Can you provide your sources about archive.is having malware? 178.149.196.90 (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• @178.149.196.90: I dont have links to the discussions at hand, I dont know if it was true then or is still true, given the abusive nature of how these links where added it doesnt make that much of a difference. It just means I dont want to click the links. As for Archive.org having malware, virustotal is mistaken. Archive.org to my knowledge has never been compromised. Given the outcome of the RfC removal is needed. Werieth (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Will you use the edit summary going forward? Prhartcom (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

They weren't added abusively, you've affected TWO articles under my watch and I added them ALL! These were not under the discussion, you've just messed the articles up. You can STOP your abusive editing any time now. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 00:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: you must not be aware of the history, the fact that open proxies, mass link campaigns, and probable bot nets are involved in a good percentage of links that where added. Werieth (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I added every single link on those pages you affected. So your excuses still fall on deaf ears. Funny how you spamming articles with your preferential archiving site which fails at its most basic job of providing archives is not considered spam though. While leaving multiple sources archive-less. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 00:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The outcome of the RfC is removal of those links, you may not like the outcome but you need to abide by it. Calling my actions spam is a personal attack. I am not promoting anything. I am using a know, stable, and dependable archiving service which is already in widespread usage. I just looked a few things up. At archive.is's peak it had 14,000 links. archive.org has just under 590,000 links. Which shows about a 2% of the market. Using such a widespread tool isnt spamming. Werieth (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Mass-addition of links to replace an opposing set of links is SPAM, you can dress it up as you want. It's vandalism, as is removing archives outright and not replacing them and changing all the date formats in violation of MOS NUM, you've improved those articles in a negative way AND left work for others to do. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 08:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

On a slightly different point when using the {{Wayback}} template can you set the date format to the one the article is in as we are getting month first dates in day first articles. Keith D (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Georgina Spelvin page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

An FUR is listed for each page on the image page. Why the commenting out? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

We dont include a parent logo, in a child article if the child doesnt have its own logo. Including this file on 11 other articles isnt minimal usage. Werieth (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The "Parent" logo is also used for their radio division. It's an umbrella logo. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That doesnt mean we need to include it, including a link to the parent company article where the logo is displayed is all that is needed, If the sub-entity doesnt have its own logo we dont need to substitute the parents logo. Werieth (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You're not understanding. The same logo is used for their radio division and their television division. This wasn't a problem before with the previous logo, so I don't see it being a problem now.

Just to note, the pages for TV stations associated with West Virginia Public Broadcasting (WNPB, WPBY and WSWP) all redirect back to West Virginia Public Broadcasting. Not of my doing, but that's the reasoning there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I cant see what license the previous logo was under, but if it was below ToO and wasnt copyrightable this wouldnt be an issue. Since the file is non-free that is where the issue is. In this case linking to the primary entity and noting that they have the same logo is enough, we dont need to display it on every satellite article. Werieth (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Same license this one is under. It wasn't a problem, because all stations are part of the same network, umbrella'd under West Virginia Public Broadcasting. Also, because, if memory serves, someone had uploaded the image 11 times....one for each page. Wasn't a problem then, won't be a problem now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It was a matter of the problem not being caught, not that it doesnt exist. Before this goest too far down the road you might look and see if the file is copyrightable, I dont think it is, see commons:COM:TOO, now that I take a second look at it. Werieth (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about being caught. As for whether the image is copyrightable, I have no clue. There wasn't a little C or R or TM beside it when I saved it, so I don't think so, but I can't say for certain. Hence why I used {{Non-free logo}}. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your recent work in fixing and combining the references for the 33rd Alabama article. I was so mentally exhausted after finishing it (it took me about a month or so to write) that I just didn't have the energy to do that. I deeply appreciate your efforts; the article is definitely better today, because of your work. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ecjmartin: No big deal. When I saw that reflist I cringed at how much was duplicated, (348 before to 168 after) I had to spend a minute or two fixing it. Werieth (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I had planned on fixing it eventually myself, but I've had some other demands on my time and haven't been able to get to it. Thanks again. - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ecjmartin: Like I said its not that big of an issue, your article could have been Fame in the 20th Century, it went from 335 down to 8. Werieth (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

don't change again korinthos fc logos. i am from korinthos city i know better which is the new and the old logos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.34.104 (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by critical commentary exactly? When I uploaded those pictures years ago I asked around to make sure they were valid and even had help by other administrators when it came to how to tag the pictures. I was assured they were OK and don't violate any of the policy guidelines. There are no free media alternatives. They were shrunk down or degraded to make sure they don't violate the commercialbility of the pictures. They give visual representations of the production so people can understand how the film was made better than simple text. They have been published before by the copyright holders. The copyright holders are stated in the fair use rationale. What exactly is the problem?Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesnt matter what the copyright holder wants. Wikipedia's mission is to provide free content, there is an understanding that some topics require non-free media in order to cover it. To that point Wikipedia requires minimal usage (WP:NFCC#3), critical commentary (WP:NFCC#8) and that the files cannot be replaced with text, or something else (WP:NFCC#1). Werieth (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

But the pictures do have critical commentary. There is no way they fail WP:NFCC#8. The whole point of me uploading those 2 pictures under "Production" was to help people understand how the production was accomplished. By showing the actors in the monster suits and the filming of the Octopus sequence. This was done to showcase how this film was made showing two separate effects techniques something that transcends a basic description in text. This is why I didn't use a stock shoot or a simple still from the film but rather behind the scenes shots of its production. The comicbook cover was to help people understand an example of how this film had a legacy and the American poster was to show the poster art for the American version of the film which is more prevalent in the English language speaking world than the Japanese poster. It doesn't fail WP:NFCC#1 either because there is no non-free equivalent. You're stating these files violate rules when I showed they simply do not.Giantdevilfish (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a particularly helpful edit summary for people who don't regularly engage in discussions on non-free content. Just to clarify, do you object on the grounds of this - "Excessive quantities of short audio clips in a single article. A small number may be appropriate if each is accompanied by commentary in the accompanying text." - or some other reason? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thats part of it. Those sound clips are already being used in their primary article (WP:NFCC#3]]), and its basically being used to list samples which fails WP:NFLIST. There are other issues but thats the main points. Werieth (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you object to one or two clips being included if the page had reliable sourced content attesting to their specific importance to the origins of rock and roll? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It all depends on how the article is changed as to whether or not it could support the inclusion. Werieth (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Would you care to review or comment/vote (support/oppose) at my FA nomination for the article New York Dolls (album)? Information on reviewing an FA nomination's criteria is available at WP:FACR. The nomination also needs an image/media review, so if that's more up your alley than a formal review, it'd be greatly appreciated too. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

How is it that it's ok to use the book jackets on one wiki peage and not the other? That does not make sense to me. If you want to remove stuff explain your rationale on the talk page, don't just go yanking it without explanation.

New people are not going to learn the rules of the system if you just pull things without explaining why they are not ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jericho.Trinity.Omega (talk • contribs) 14:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

AGAIN...that still makes no sense to me. If an image is ok on one page by copyright rules why would it be banned on another page...the link provided to the policy does not explain this. Furthermore, I fail to understand why any author or content owner would object to something that effectively provides free marketing and promotion of their material, they'd have to be a complete moron to object to that. If the rules on here are this contradictory and inconsistent I don't know how any decent content gets produced. Jericho.Trinity.Omega (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia objects to it, as excessive usage of non-free media harms our m:Mission. Wikipedia's policy on non-free media is complex, but that page does limit the usage of non-free media to specific cases, and is far more strict than copyright law. Werieth (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Its far more effective to explain things to people than to use automated stencils composed of legalese and then threaten them. I just took a page that was a total and absolute mess some thought should be a candidate for deletion and turned it around completely spending hours working on it, and made one mistake. One mistake. The author does not care (in fact they're both dead...), so there is no need to be so overzealous. You won't get more people contributing by leveling threats at them when they make an honest mistake. Whatever good you think these ridiculous and inane rules do for the Wiki mission, turning people off with over the top threats will do far less for it. Jericho.Trinity.Omega (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd further remind you that when you deleted them the first time you left no explanation on the talk page why, so for all I knew someone was messing around pulling them when I posted them. I had absolutely no idea I'd broken the rules. Common sense told me if they were ok on one page they're ok on another, my intent was to work within the rules. If you are going to level over the top threats at people who spend hours contributing because they make a single mistake, then explain your reasoning first in plain english to them. 4 letters beside the line in the edit is not much of an explanation to someone new to the project, you have to look at things from the perspective of someone who does not already know everything. If you had typed out a quick explanation on the talk page Book jackets and dvd covers can only be used in the article about them, see full policy here: XYZ then I'd not have reverted, but instead you yanked them without saying anything. I've seen it happen to people in bureaucracy before, and Wikipedias just an electronic bureaucracy in many ways, where they become so ingrained in it that the rules that don't make sense to outsiders, that some outsiders even think are absurd, are normal to them, and they get so deep entrenched into that bureaucracy that they totally loose touch with how other people not entrenched in it see things. There are 100s of rules on this thing and most people who contribute learn as they go and don't have time to read them all. In future it would serve the mission you claim to care about far better to fire out a quick explanation when you pull someones work instead of saying nothing, leaving them with no idea what was going on, then threatening them when they failed to read your mind. I've seen this happen a lot since I started contributing it turns people off in a huge way and makes the wider public loose respect for the project.

People should feel welcome and editors and more experienced contributors should help them understand the rules instead of threatening them when they don't. Jericho.Trinity.Omega (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC) I consider the matter closed but please try to see it from my POV.

@Jericho.Trinity.Omega: Normally when someone removes material citing a policy you dont re-add it unless you understand the policy. In this case I had to remove it multiple times. Since you obviously where not getting the point I had to do something that would make you get the point. Honestly in regards to non-free media the author has zero say in how we decide to use the the work. Wikipedia's policy on non-free media WP:NFCC is fairly strict. Please note that edits on the talk page are not needed, I left a edit summary that provided the needed information. Werieth (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello,
Each of the files used includes critical commentary. The first is an audio sample which is discussed within its composition section. The second is a logo for a televised special for the album which was essential to its promotion, discussed in the Promotion section. The third was a cover of its re-release, which includes commentary and is significant to its release. These all meet the criteria of NFC and can be included within the article. Regards, User5482 (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@User5482: Actually the files don't meet policy. File:Better Days.ogg has 1 sentence referencing it. Given there is already a sample in that section this usage cannot be justified. File:Janet Jackson - All For You.ogg has its own article and thus should only be used there. File:Janetmtvicon.png isnt needed/nothing in the visuals of that screenshot are being discussed. In summary, the files dont meet WP:NFCC like I said before. Werieth (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There are two references mentioning it, one including critical commentary and the other a quote from the artist. There is no rule per the NFC guidelines which states only one sample per section can be used; there are many album pages which use multiple samples within the composition section. The second sample can be justified as its the album's lead single and title track, which is also critically discussed and important to the article. It's also used on its own page but it still meets the criteria for usage on this one as well. The image is a logo for a televised special for the album which is thoroughly discussed in the Promotion section. The guidelines state logos are acceptable NFC. User5482 (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

NFCC states that usage of a logo on the article about the subject is acceptable. In this case the TV special isnt notable enough for its own article and thus inclusion is not allowed. One sentence dosnt meet WP:NFCC#8's second clause. WP:NFCC#3 states that files should be used minimally, and WP:NFCC#1 states that if a file can be replaced it should be (In this case with a link to the article on the song itself which also includes the sample). Im sorry if you dislike the policy but it is policy.

The special is notable to the album's promotion, and is the main critical focus of the promotion section. Shouldn't that warrant its inclusion? There are two sentences for the song regarding the audio sample, what else do you think it would need to be included? For the other sample, I suppose that's understandable, however I've seen many articles use audio samples of singles with their own pages on the album pages as well without any removal, which is why I was questioning it in this particular case. It was also critically discussed and part of the album's overall subject matter. I don't dislike the policy but am just questioning the reasoning since they all seem to fit the guidelines. User5482 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The production may be notable enough to include in the article, but it falls far short of what is needed to include additional non-free media. With regards to the samples your perspective is wrong, its not what do I need to do to get this added? but rather, OK I have a good article and I'm trying to describe/cover something in the text, but I'm falling short and including a piece of non-free media will allow me to do that. In a lot of cases including 1 sample for an album (a total of 2 non-free media) isn't going to be challenged that often. In this case there where 4 samples being used, We have 4 samples, album cover, and TV promo which is three times that of a normal album. Given that there really isn't anything particularly different about this one, the extra justification for including the extra media isn't there. Given the one sample has its own article removing it from this one article isn't that big of a deal. As for the other sample, the article just doesn't have enough to support it. As for the TV promo nothing in the image that is being displayed is discussed. Yes the TV special happened but we don't need to include a picture to establish that. Given we have text and sources what else does that TV image provide other than evidence that the special happened? Werieth (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

For the first sample, it includes two sentences of commentary regarding it. That's why I questioned what else would be necessary to include the sample, since I've seen other articles using up to four audio samples without removal, each with only one or two sentences of commentary per song. The two sentences there don't seem to fall short of the criteria (one describing its production and the other its lyrics), but I was asking your advice on it. For the other sample, I understand it has its own article and that's fine. I only questioned it since there are numerous album articles which include samples of songs with their own pages that don't get removed, such as this one as a random example. It was just an observation that some get to remain there while others don't, even though they use the same amount of critical commentary. User5482 (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That was me trying to not be a dick and remove everything, There is potential for a clip but more than that just isnt justifiable at this point. Werieth (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok. For the second one I'll add another sentence of commentary for it. Would that make it acceptable? User5482 (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No, right now the article really cannot even support the one I left, adding additional media shouldn't be considered. Werieth (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

In that case, can you explain what it would potentially need for inclusion? I don't mean to ask again but as I said before, I'm only asking based on other articles which use the same amount of support for two, or sometimes more samples in the composition section. User5482 (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF isnt a valid argument, my suggestion from above is to write a good article, if a sound clip is needed to explain a point or points it may be used, but we dont include examples just to include them. Also if possible try to select a sample that combines multiple points you are trying to cover if possible. 21:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Werieth. Could you explain the deletion of the logos on Independent lifeboats (British Isles)? I got them from Commons (though for the life of me I can't find them again!) so thought they were free use. Cheers...Tony Holkham (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The files are not from commons or I wouldnt have removed them. They are non-free and subject to our policy on non-free media WP:NFCC. Which is why I removed them. Werieth (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nasa-verve (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Werieth, ive been looking through your contribs and talk page archives. It seems you are quite a deletionist in your Non-free media usage. Beyond the mission statement of WMF which you already shared with me previously, what motivates you? Or perhaps a better question is: what is your end game? Keeping WP from legal action? Enable greater distribution of WP copy/text in venues that would be difficult with non-free media? Please help me understand. Thanks. Nasa-verve (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I am far from a deletionist, if you look at my upload log you will see that Ive uploaded over 300 non-free files. My end game is the core principle of wikipedia, to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally Providing a balance of non-free media is key to that, and ensuring that the content is appropriate is also key. Werieth (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that you will be in violation of WP:3RR if I add the material and you remove it again before 24hrs, right? Nasa-verve (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nasa-verve: Actually the next time you re-add it in violation of wikipedia policy I am going to request you be blocked for repeated violations of WP:NFCC. Im getting tired of your edit warring and refusal to abide by policy. If you really want to push it NFCC enforcement is exempt from 3RR, I dont want to go down that road, but it is there. If you want to discuss it we can do that, however the media needs to stay out until then. Werieth (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

PS looking at the history you will actually break 3RR before me. Werieth (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You are correct Δ Nasa-verve (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

What is that statement supposed to mean? Werieth (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

What is that triangle supposed to mean? Werieth (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreement Nasa-verve (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The image of an alternate album cover was uploaded by another user several years ago and is used in an infobox for an album's re-release, which is critically described and also has a separate track listing. It seems to meet the criteria for inclusion there. User5482 (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesnt meet WP:NFCC. The covers are visually similar and there is zero critical commentary on the art of the cover. NFCC allows for 1 image per album for visual identification (IE infobox usage) any additional images must have critical commentary about the art of the cover itself. Werieth (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable if several sentences were added about the second cover? User5482 (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No, as the cover isnt notable. I doubt you can find reliable third party sources that discuss the cover art in that version. Werieth (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This source calls the cover photo "totally different" and gives an in-depth review of the reissue. Can it be included using new citations from this reference? User5482 (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There still isnt any critical commentary of the visual elements of the re-issue. Just because we discuss the re-issue doesn't mean we need to show the cover. Werieth (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, what caught my attention while looking through the page history was you using rollback in a content dispute like with this edit and the later one. I'm sure you know that's not permissible (Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback). Just thought I'll bring this to your notice. Good day to you, Ugog Nizdast (talk)

@Ugog Nizdast: I dont have rollback. Werieth (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, you surely made it look like it then...sorry, forgot to check. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please explain Why in this edit did you remove {{start date}}? Please use {{Ping}} or a similar template to notify me of a response. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Koavf: I standardized all of the date formats within the whole article. We dont need to use a template to format the date. Werieth (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Date formatting The microformatting data are included deliberately by Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. Why are you taking them out of the article? Have you taken them out of others as well? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

See User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates. That is what I use for date standardization. Werieth (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't get all uppity. It's a recent change to the script that I have since removed. In any event, the {{start date}} template does nothing in that context. It's stuff that clutters and complicates the edit-screen. There is a dedicated parameter called "|released=" that can be called directly if you want to collect metadata. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Eugene Burdick - The 480.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Werieth, I'm a bit confused by your removal of the tri-rail logo [2]. If per WP:NFCC#9, then File:Caltrain_logo.svg, File:Santa_Clara_VTA_logo.svg and File:Sfmuni logo.png should be removed as well.

Also, as Tri-Rail is owned by South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, part of the Florida Department of Transportation and the Government of Florida. Therefore, it should be free use. {{PD-FLGov}} - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 17:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Please_review.E2.80.A6 FLGov doesnt apply. Ill look at the rest in a bit. Werieth (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• File:Caltrain logo.svg is PDtext, same with File:Santa Clara VTA logo.svg. And File:Sfmuni logo.png is non-free and isnt in the template. Werieth (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I presented some evidence that FLGov does apply on the conversation you linked above if you care to take a look at it. I have some other things that back it up too if that isn't enough. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 18:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)