Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua

I am unfamiliar with this process, but have been dragged into it, so I would apologise if I am a little incoherent!

The RFC was set up statements made, certified and responded to, as I would have expeced. The initiator has now altered their statement diff, following this alteration I now believe that it appears that the certification and the responses were to the new remit/statements, and not to the original statement as they were intended.

Is an alteration of this type normal practice? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Appendix

Please read and understand the concept of fair use. What you feel as being copyright violations are in fact legal instances of fair use; When fair use is asserted, there can be no copyright violation, it can only violate the Foundation's non-free content criteria. You have to understand this; breaking NFCC does not automatically constitute copyright violation! Claiming that it does is pejorative and in my eyes even constitutes a legal threat. — Edokter • Talk • 14:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is quite flawed, but you are correct that failing nfcc and copyright violation are not always the same thing. I'm quite happy to use "Copyrighted image failing WP:NFC" in futuer if that would make you feel better Fasach Nua (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images are always copyrighted, so that is kicking in an open door. You only have to state what part of NFCC is being violated. — Edokter • Talk • 15:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for re-uploading... There is no policy whatsoever to upload another image to replace the one that has been deleted. Only if the same image was re-uploaded, would it be considered violating CSD G4, but a new image explicitely does not fall under that criteria. Nowhere does it say that a deleted image may not be replaced with an improved version. Your assumption that it breaks policy is misplaced.

I still think you only nominating Docotr Who images is rather obsessive. If you truly have an interest in Doctor Who, you would do very well actually editing some article to gain some trust from the community or project. Of course you are going to be scrutinized if you barge in nominating images, and do nothing but nominating images. How would you feel if I started nominating Northern Ireland football aticles, and do nothing but'nominating those articles? I'm sure other editors would question my motives on Wikipedia, just as I am questioning your motives now. — Edokter • Talk • 14:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can upload as many copyrighted images as you want, as long as they meet WP:NFC. However there are some articles out there that do not need to use copyrighted images, in order to tell the story and constantly trying to upload images to them is senceless, as they will constantly be removed.

Do I need to gain trust, surely WP:AGF would be enough, have I done something to lose trust, most of the impovemnts I have made have been endorsed by the community through the ifd process

If you feel you could improve NI Soccer articles you are more than welcome, there are few enough editors there, and it too, along with most of WP, has copyrighted image problems eg Setanta_Sports_Cup_2006 use of logos fails 3(a). I have already said at the RFC you are a good editor, and any extra contribution you could make would be most welcome. Fasach Nua (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]