Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 April 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 3 April 5 >

April 4

[edit]

File:BlazeHeReigns.jpg

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:BlazeHeReigns.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Blazers Rockin Live.jpeg

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blazers Rockin Live.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Jude Anthany Joseph.jpg

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jude Anthany Joseph.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Image is a crop of one shown online here and here. Peripitus (Talk) 03:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the image File:Jude Anthany Joseph.jpg this image was taken during the wedding reception and this was posted across various online websites as many photographers were there capturing the same moment. So the image shown in the original link is not copyrighted by anyone as it was a freework captured in camera during a public function.

jibin_net (Talk) 07:22, 4 April 2015 (EST)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Arms-wimbledon1.jpg

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arms-wimbledon1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
A coat of arms is an organisation/family logo, the design is owned by the organisation/family hence legal action to stop the use of the design, not to stop the use of a copy of that design. You apparently seek to protect a potential usurper of a design who could not have owned the copyright, which seems odd. The design was created in 1906 and is therefore out of copyright and the owners of the design are now abolished anyway Roganjosh3 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The blazon was created in 1906, and there was presumably also a graphic representation which was created in 1906. The copyright lies in the graphic representation, and anyone can create a graphic representation. Some graphic representations were probably published before 1923, but there may also be other graphic representations which were first published later. We do not have a date of publication for this specific graphic representation. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the same token you could say that a photo taken of a painting (out of copyright) is a graphic representation, however there seems general acceptance here that the copyright does not lie in the later graphic represenation via photo, but in the painting. I have made inquiries with the original source as to where he obtained this image and will post the response here. Yes anyone can make a representation but the copyright in the case of a logo lies with the design holder. No offense intended, but I do believe you are rather splitting hairs over this. Roganjosh3 (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you can read at c:COM:COA, the copyright to a coat of arms lies in the graphic representation. In this case, we have a graphic representation of unknown age, so we have to assume that it is a recent graphic representation. Either provide evidence that this specific graphic representation is sufficiently old, or identify a different graphic representation which you either have created yourself or which you can establish is sufficiently old. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image has been here since 2004, with no external complaints as to it's usage. I really don't understand why people have become so determined to find a way to remove it now(twice this week) and in doing so, wreck the article Wimbledon Manor House, which I have spent a considerable amount of time researching and improving. There does come a point where Wikipedians appear to be shooting Wikipedia in the foot just for the sake of it rather than any clear and apparent threat of copyright legal action and in so doing, ruining an article in the process. The line between copyright protection and vandalism seems to be a thin one.Roganjosh3 (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes a file may go unnoticed for some time. At first, the file was tagged as 'fair use', but the file does not satisfy WP:NFCC#1, as someone could create a different drawing of the coat of arms which can be used instead. See for example Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 17#File:Arzachena-Stemma.png. Now the file is tagged as 'public domain', but there is no information about the age of this representation of the coat of arms, so it can't be established whether it is in the public domain or not. The only information we have is about the age of the blazon, which isn't copyrightable in the first place, per c:COM:COA. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I have asked the source to inform me what he knows about this image, which hopefully will put matters straight. I put a lot of work into finding an appropriate image which would tie all of the various owners of the manor and parts of the article together, which was not an easy task and this fit the bill perfectly. I think (and it should be obviously apparent to others too otherwise I wonder why people are here) that it would be a terrible shame to lose this image from the article.Roganjosh3 (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Roganjosh3: I removed File:Arms-wimbledon.jpg from "Wimbeldon Manor House" because it did not have the separate, specific non-free use rationale for that particular article as required by WP:NFCC#10c. I did this in good faith and (I believe) in accordance with WP:NFCCE. I was not trying to "wreck the article" or "vandalize" the article and I thought this was made clear in both this edit sum and this talk page discussion. So, I think inferring (even indirectly) such a thing is really not warranted. I am not well versed in copyrights, so WP:NFCC#1 never even crossed my mind, but copyright protection is something that Wikipedia takes quite seriously and "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". There are many articles on Wikipedia, some quite good, which do not use any images at all. All of the time and effort you have put into improving the article is not going to be undone simply because a single image is removed. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to strike out comments deemed inappropriate and for minor copy editing - 05:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)][reply]
11 years this image has been here with no problems, yet you have seen fit to create a problem for this image and many others like it. I am now having to deal with this situation which you have created for me. I think where there has been no external complaints about an image in such a long time, to do so now does appear to be destructive just for the sake of it. And yes I have given a very good reason why I think the removal of this image would detract quite considerably from the overall quality of the article. And as for "There are many articles on Wikipedia, some quite good, which do not use any images at all", if you really believe that an article on the architectural history of a series of houses can be a good article with no images then I have to say that is clearly absurd and frankly a worrying statement coming from an editor....all I can say to that is....good grief. Looking at your contributions, perhaps you might like to concentrate on inputting rather than going round removing other's hard work. I put in a tremendous amount of work on this article, if you believe I have not contributed considerably to this article then I can revert the article back to the state it was in when I found it last November. You did not give me a chance to deal with your complaint about this image before you removed it, you just did so which IS vandalism. Despite this I responded to you politely and had the courtesy to put a note about the changes I had made on YOUR talk page...a courtesy which you did not bother to show me. Now you appear to want make this a personal issue by attempting to grab hold of what you assume to be indirect inference, yet I made no mention of you on this page.Roganjosh3 (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I would also say is your decision to attempt to lay into me at that particular juncture based on, not very much, was an attempt to bully me when you saw me under fire and as such was totally out of line.Roganjosh3 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roganjosh3 (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC) What I am not hearing here is much in the way of attempts to help me find a way to retain this image rather than the opposite. Copyright is important, but the emphasis should be to assist fellow editors to find a way to keep an image not to think primarily of reasons why it should be deleted. The emphasis here is wrong and it only serves to create a polarised situation of conflict where there is little real actual evidence of good faith, rather than an atmosphere of teamwork to find a way not to diminish an article wherever possible.Roganjosh3 (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps people might like to compare the article now (Wimbledon Manor House) with how it looked when I found it last year:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wimbledon_Manor_House&oldid=621296499. Along with some 400 edits I have made on this article (which does demonstrate good faith) and not that anyone else seems apparently to care much about such matters as lead images, but the lead image at that time WAS OF THE WRONG HOUSE.Roganjosh3 (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roganjosh3: I'm pretty sure that someone who reads I really don't understand why people have become so determined to find a way to remove it now(twice this week) and in doing so, wreck the article ... and then looks at the page history of Wimbledon Manor House would have little difficulty figuring out who the "people" you referring to really are. Despite your added and then removed claim to the contrary, I did not delete or nominate the original file or any of those other COA files for deletion; I simply removed them from articles for which they did not have the appropriate non-free use rationale per WP:NFCCE. For the same reason, I did not remove the image from Municipal Borough of Wimbledon because it did have a non-free rationale for that particular use. Now, if you feel my removing of a non-free image from an article for not having a proper non-free use rationale constitutes vandalism, then you are free to bring up the matter for discusion at WP:AIV. Moreover, if you feel my above post was an attempt to bully you, then you are free to open a thread about my behavior at WP:ANI. Same goes for my contribution history, etc. If you feel it shows a pattern of editing contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then feel free to discuss that at "WP:ANI" or "WP:AIV" as well.
I am not an admin so I can no longer see who uploaded the original file since it has been deleted per WP:CSD#F1 by RHaworth, but it looks like it was added to "Wimbledon Manor House" for the first time on November 22, 2014 by you with this edit. Is it possible that you added it to the article without adding a separate, specific non-free rationale to the file's page as required per WP:NFCC#10c? I do not know whether the original file uploaded 11 years ago was acceptable per WP:NFCC#1 (Maybe there was no "NFCC#1" at the time), but maybe the reason it wasn't noticed all these years was because it did have such a non-free rationale for "Municipal Borough of Wimbledon". Even so, the fact that something was uploaded or added to Wikipedia so many years ago does not mean it is automatically grandfathered in and not subject to policies and guidelines established after the fact.
That file, the one that survived for 11 years, and the one being discussed here ("Arms-wimbledon1.jpg") are technically different files. The file you uploaded was licensed as public domain and Stefan2 is just discussing whether this licensing is appropriate; They did not remove the file or nominate it for deletion. WP:PUI is for listing and discussing files that are marked as available under a free license or public domain, but have disputed source or licensing information. Stefan2 has stated above that what needs to be done is to Either provide evidence that this specific graphic representation is sufficiently old, or identify a different graphic representation which you either have created yourself or which you can establish is sufficiently old.. Moreover, the image is of a coat-of-arms and the article is about a famous manor house. The article contains 29 other images so whether using this particular image as non-free would even be acceptable per WP:NFCC#8 is something that is open for debate. Is the image so essential to the reader's understanding of the subject matter that its removal will seriously detract from that understanding? I'm not so sure, but that is something better discussed on the article's talk page than here. Personally, I don't think that removing this particular image (if by chance it does not satisfy WP:IUP) will "wreck the article" and mean that all of the good work you have done on the article to date would have been done in vain. - 09:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC); edited 11:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) [Post edited by Marchjuly to strike out comments deemed inappropriate and for minor copy editing - 05:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)][reply]
Interesting rant Marchjuly, but despite your protestations which clearly try to attempt to prove a dubious impartiality, the fact that you have now gone in and started an issue on another image on the same article AT THIS JUNCTURE shows at the very least poor judgement as it could easily be interpreted as done out of malice/retribution, even if you have heeded my comments re courtesy before deletion (from the article).....at least something is apparently getting through despite the smokescreen diatribe. I am not entering into debate with you on that image as I refuse to feed your apparent hunger for conflict. Although I have noticed that you have been hinting there for others to delete the image for you. Nothing like getting others to carry out your wishes from the safety of not actually doing it yourself and attracting further questions about actions motivated by malice.....butter wouldn't melt, I should say, but I see through you and what you stand for. You apparently have little understanding of the complexity or appreciation of that article. Your dismissive comments about the number of images and the use of the coat of arms (which ties all of the owners together) betrays a really misplaced cavalier attitude to the article and the work I have put in which I REALLY DONT APPRECIATE and I find that coming from an editor who spends a considerable amount of their time not inputting but deleting, extremely concerning. It's oh so much easier to appoint yourself a Wikipedia policer than to actually spend the majority of your time inputting. Apparently no one comes to the aid of someone trying to defend an article from being pulled apart. But the full weight of all those rules and guidelines is there to assist those who choose to make them their raison detre, I see you are not slow to pull them out of the hat to assist you in your cause to be a rule enforcer. I have qualifications in the history of art and architecture, do you? did you ever meet with a distinguished Wimbledon historian who specialised in the the manor houses, to discuss those houses, as I have done? are you really fit to comment and then dismiss so casually the importance and the use and the amount of images? I think not. We are talking about several houses, several different styles of architecture and many many owners over a period of several hundred years in one single article, for heavens sake. Did you even bother to read the article before commenting on it, or do you rely solely on immediate dismissiveness towards fine arts, history and architecture in general? Probably not as you clearly aren't interested in issues much beyond the enforcement of rules. And it is attitudes like that that prevent those who do wish to input, from contributing further. You were seeking to attack me in your first comment on this page using the subterfuge of imagined attack over what you have stated to be a "technically different file"...it was you who came here, started an argument with me and in doing so, firmed up the files and the issues, conflation, not me. And it's rather ironic that in attempting to defend your honour against what you perceived to be and what you admitted to be at worst an indirect slight, you have actually made yourself look far worse. You went looking to create a mountain out of a molehill simply because someone had the timerity to state quite understandably their irritation at having to deal with the same picture twice in a week, a picture I might add, that you yourself had accepted second time around. You have chosen to make much of the word people. To harangue me for the use of the word people. To create a whole situation coming from use of the word people. Get this, I'm human. I put a lot of work in. I was irritated but I did not attack you and I cut you some slack over not having the courtesy to give me the chance to respond before you deleted the image from the article. You have now gone on to rant at me and start an issue with another picture I have used. Where and how will your war against me stop I wonder.Now, whoever you are, I am dealing with a serious illness at the moment. I don't have the energy to waste trying to deal with your apparently endless need to repeat rules ad nauseam and to continually defend yourself against an inconsequential and misperceived slight. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Angie_Watts.jpg "What is the best thing to do when coming across a non-free image being used in an article without the proper non-free rationale? Simply adding a rationale just for the sake of adding a rationale does not seem appropriate. Is there a template that should be used to tag the image or article to indicate that a problem exists which needs (immediate) attention? - "I have previously removed a non-free image from "Wimbledon Manor House" per "WP:NFCC#10c" and WP:NFCCE, but this removal was questioned by editor Roganjosh3".Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)" That is a blatant and total lie. Your own talk page proves that. You removed the picture on the basis that it had no fair use rationale, I replaced it on the basis that it was out of copyright anyway which you accepted, this was done without any debate any questioning or any comment. At no point did you A)even give me the opportunity to discuss it, before you removed it B)I did not question your deletion. C)You have then entered a discussion accusing me of all sorts of nonsense about indirect criticism, which is tantamount to trolling bearing in mind its inappropriateness on that file and on that discussion and at that juncture. D)You are asking here about appropriate action yet in your diatribe response on the first image possibly unfree page, you show no such meekness in expressing your certainty over the rules. E)I am horrified that after you have deleted dozens of the same ilk images for the same reason, you now have the barefaced cheek to ask how to do the job properly. Isn't that something you should have found out before you went on your deletion spree? Your attempt to start a deletion on this image at this juncture bearing in mind the atmosphere and debate over the other image at this present moment in time, is nothing short of deliberately inflammatory and provocative and more than likely motivated by malice and retribution. You also seem to be trying to elicit sympathy and consequently recruitment of others against me, with the use of a totally different tone to the one you have used towards me on the other discussion. I ask you now to desist your persecution of me or this will become a very serious matter.

Please tell me, where exactly here does it show that I questioned your removal of the coat of arms??????? == Wimbledon Council Arms ==

Hi there Marchjuly, just to let you know as a courtesy, that I have uploaded another version of the image to include the changed rationale which is not under the fair use policy. As these images were originally uploaded en-masse, last decade, the fair use claim (I think they were all uploaded with that rationale), was not relevant for this pic anyway as the copyright had expired. Plus it needed a separate rationale for each use as you have pointed out.Roganjosh3 (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message Roganjosh3. No worries. All that the image was needed was a specific rationale for that particular use since it was being licensed as non-free. Anyway, I'm glad that things have been sorted out. Finally, since the File:Arms-wimbledon1.jpg seems (at least to me) to be essentially the same as File:Arms-wimbledon.jpg, the later probably no longer satisfies WP:NFCC#1 since the "new" image would be considered a free equivalent. If that is the case, then the "new" file should replace the "old" file on Municipal Borough of Wimbledon too. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, the Council one should ideally be replaced and the original tagged for deletion. I wasn't sure if it was possible to change the non-free into free, so I uploaded another. Perhaps you would like to do the necessary?Roganjosh3 (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind, but I think all that needs to be done is add a "1" to the old file name so that the article uses the new file. As for deleting the old file, once it is replaced it will become an orphan and automaticlally fail WP:NFCC#7. It can be then marked for speedly deletion per WP:CSD#F1 or WP:F5, or it can simply be left as is since another editor or bot will eventually catch it and tag it for speedy deletion. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sounds sensible. ThanksRoganjosh3 (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Roganjosh3 (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is useful to resolving the issue of this image to continue the above conflict with Marchjuly. As I said, I believe that I think the removal of this image would detract quite considerably from the overall quality of the article and I would add, it's intital appearance to the reader. I have a right to think and state that. However the issue as stated by Stefan2 has been impartially laid out by him and I have responded to his advice by stating that "I have asked the source to inform me what he knows about this image, which hopefully will put matters straight". Clearly that should have been sufficient until the response was received. So, getting back on track, I have received a reply from the source but there will be a delay on clarification from him because he states "The image was created by me from scanning an old guide book, not sure of the date. I may still have it, but as I am in the middle of moving house and lots of stuff is packed up, it will be difficult to locate".Roganjosh3 (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the behest of Marchjuly the image of Anita Dobson has now been removed and it seems that as there is no immediate forthcoming information as to the age of the Arms image and quite possibly there never will be, I have removed that myself as I did not become an editor (which I now deeply regret doing) to have my Easter ruined with squabbling and stress. Clearly Marchjuly believed there to be too many images on the article and that articles are perfectly good with no images at all so to satisfy him/her I have removed several further images which someone, God forbid, might construe to be non-essential or the article is not bland enough, or not sufficiently lacking in any artistic appeal or merit, in the hope that I will never have to deal with a situation like this again. It's grey workaday utilitarian look should now appeal to the masses of people who believe humans should be as robots and that rules are more important than art or culture or history or anything remotely connected with real humanity or emotion, for they are the ones preparing the way of the future, a future that Orwell predicted so accurately, and those people cannot and will not be stopped because the only way they can be stopped is by good people speaking up and few people have the guts to speak up because they know the crushing weight of the rule lovers will come upon them.Roganjosh3 (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to read that your are in poor health and that this may have made you feel worse. I was not trying to ruin anyone's Easter. I also apologize if I mischaracterized your remarks or have discouraged you from further contributing to Wikipedia. I still feel my removal of the file image was done in good faith and in accordance with Wikipedia policy regarding the use of non-free images. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to be bold and are not required to consult with others in advance before editing. This includes removing information from articles when there's is believed to be a sound policy-based reason for doing so. While it is true that our initial talk page exchange was amicable, you did seem to question the file's removal earlier in this discussion and imply I was trying to "wreck the article" and "vandalize" it by removing the image; At least, that was my reading of things. I misinterpreted your remarks because I was irritated by them and not out of any malice or desire to wage war against you.
I opened the discussion at WP:NFCR regarding the "Angie Watt" screenshot simply because it did not have a non-free rationale and did not satisfy a couple of the other of the non-free content criteria. I could've just removed the image, but felt doing so would only further exacerbate things, which is why I took it to NFCR instead. None of this was done out of spite or a desire for revenge. Same goes for my comments about the number of images in the article. They were not meant to make light of any of the work you had done on the article. I was just trying to point out that removing a single image did not necessarily mean the article would be ruined. I apologize if it came of as an "attack" against you because that really was not my intent and I acknowledge that I could have worded things more neutrally so as to avoid any misunderstanding. Anyway, I have struck out the parts of my above comments (and at WP:NFCR) which you have taken exception to as a gesture of good faith and out of the desire that neither page continue to be used as a battlefield between the two of us. I also hope you decide to continue editing on Wikipedia and will be able to accept that Wikipedia editors, like Wikipedia itself, are imperfect and works in progress who sometimes make mistakes. Peace. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is manipulative whitewash. Why strike out things out of 'good faith' rather than because you believe they were wrong in the first place and then go on to defend those very same struck out comments....that's just trying to have it both ways and is PR not contrition and is not evidence that you have genuinely attempted to stop this and so it is an insult to my intelligence which you clearly underestimate(d). You went to attack me to defend a spurious slur which wasn't there and then you went on to directly attack and slur me with the use of a lie which is totally hypocritical and yes in doing so you have ruined my Easter, you have exacerbated my condition you have caused me a great deal of stress totally unnecessarily and no I won't be editing on Wikipedia in the future....I am a human being not a robot. Perhaps next time you will think twice before starting an argument to defend your honour when no direct attack on you was made and you were not even mentioned, unlike what you ended up doing to me with your lie which was a direct attack on me. I also suggest you learn the rules properly that you so dearly love. You have recently deleted a considerable number of arms images from articles yet you don't seem to have actually bothered to read c:COM:COA ie the basic principles of the copyright rules pertaining to them, so you actually had no business accepting the out of copyright image as that was wrong and led me into this mess, which you then came along to inflame with your accusations, which then went onto inflame by inappropriate timing re the other image, which you then went onto inflame by lying about me and now you have gone onto inflame once again with this whitewash PR job. Your over-confidence nay I would say, arrogance in your abilities here has and is clearly causing a mess on Wikipedia. You apparently live in a cold grey colourless world where every word is given an absolute strict meaning, where every imagined indirect slight to your honour has to be defended, where the application of rules are paramount (even if you believe you understand them, but actually don't), where hypocrisy dealing with other's honour is ok, where whitewash and PR rule and depth and colour and poetry are banned and everything has to be pared back to it's absolute minimum, a world of soundbite information that lacks anything which is not absolutely essential. I don't live in your world and I dont want to have to participate in the shallow bland rule-driven world you obviously wish to create. Ultimately you know what this was all about: your need to apply rules on others and your inability to cope when you perceive even the merest hint that people someone might have the timerity to not show complete acquiescence and silence towards your application of power. Do Wikipedia a favour and never apply to be an admin (which I strongly suspect you yearn to be, you are just the type). People who love rules and the power they give and who crush the merest hint of dissent are the type of people who lust for the positions that give them that power and they are the ones who make the absolute worst rulers. Now please GET OUT OF MY LIFE, LEAVE ME ALONE, GO AWAY.Roganjosh3 (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quote Marchjuly:"I removed an non-free image from this article per WP:NFCCE because it did not have the specific, separate non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c. If this was a mistake, then it was made in good faith and based upon my understanding of WP:NFCCP. However. this has led to me being accused of trying to wreck an article, vandalism, bullying, making things personal, ranting, acting out of malice or for revenge, being dissmissive, trolling, being manipulative, arrogance, being destructive and power hungry, ruining someone's Easter holiday, worsening someone's health condition, etc., etc. as well as seeing my contribution history being misrepresentated and having my personal life commented upon by another editor at WP:NFCR#File:Angie Watts.jpg and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 April 4#File:Arms-wimbledon1.jpg. I have done my best to remain civil and explain things in an attempt to keep the discussion focused on policy, but I do admit that I am not totally without blame. I did, however, sincerely try to make amends and diffuse the situation, but it seems to have only made things worse and led to more personal attacks. I removed some files that shouldn't have been added to articles, but I did not delete them or nominate them for deletion as is being claimed. I also did not knowingly "trick" (my word) this other editor into uploading a file whose licensing would later be scrutinized just to create more problems for them. I realize I have the option of bringing this to WP:ANI, but would like to find another solution if possible. This other editor has made it clear that they do not wish to interact with me, so I am hoping to find an administrator who is willing to look at things impartially and intervene if necessary. I understand WP:BOOMERANG and accept that said adminsitrator may find it necessary to warn or even block me, but whatever mistake I may have made was, once again, made in good faith and is certainly not worthy of the response I have gotten in return. Thank you in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)"

You have firstly and apparently deliberatly conflated two different issues, the first is the removal of image which I accepted without comment as can be seen on your talk page, with your comments on the discussion page for the second arms image. This will mislead an admin into sympathy which I expect you are well aware of. A)You are persisting in your persecution of me. You have not left me alone as I have asked you to do more than once. B)I have nowhere commented on your personal life: apparently your have chosen once again to give the narrowest of possible meanings to a word: world. C)You have not presented anything I have said in it's context which is misleading and I would say calculated to portray me in the worst possible light, whilst making yourself out to be completely innocent of attracting such comments. This is I would say, devious.....better add that to the list too, why dont you. D)You have blatently and incorrectly implied that I have accused you of tricking me into uploading another file: what I said was "I also suggest you learn the rules properly that you so dearly love. You have recently deleted a considerable number of arms images from articles yet you don't seem to have actually bothered to read c:COM:COA ie the basic principles of the copyright rules pertaining to them, so you actually had no business accepting the out of copyright image as that was wrong and led me into this mess". In no way does that imply that I have accused you of tricking me into the uploading of the file but as someone who has made it their business to delete many of the same genre of arms pictures from articles (not from Wikipedia, I have never stated that so that accusation is also incorrect), you should have known not to have accepted that file. You clearly have had it in for me on this page the moment you came here because of your inability to cope when you perceive even the merest hint that someone might have the timerity to not show complete acquiescence and silence towards your application of rules and therefore power. Clearly you seek to have me banned as your ultimate need to suppress, now by the use of accusations which are blatently untrue. I have tried to stop this nonsene but you continued it on another page by finding another picture to dispute on the same article and now on your talk page. I asked you to stop this, but you cannot and apparently will not leave this alone. Your use of the word trick is deliberately inflammatory and grossly incorrect. You don't seek "intervention" what you are really asking for is a judgement against me in your favour as the ultimate defense of your hounour even if it means you have to falsely accuse me of accusing you of tricking me. Intervention would not be necessary if you just stop this, but it isnt stopping this that you really want, it's judgement and so even your request for an admin is not honest. Please once again, you are making me ill over this, please stop this.Roganjosh3 (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from talk page: ::I am not persecuting you or out to get you so I wish you'd stop saying that I am. I am not trying to get you banned, but your personal comments directed towards me are not appropriate per Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks. I have explained my reasoning for removing that particular file and other similar files multiple times: WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFCCE. c:COM:COA is Wikipedia Commons policy and it does not necessarily apply to non-free images used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia Commons and Wikipedia are part of the same foundation, but they are not one and the same and each has their own set of policies and guidelines. When I first saw the file, it seemed fine to me and I assumed in good faith that you had licensed it correctly. I have already said that any problems associated with WP:NFCC#1 did not cross my mind, until it was brought up at for discussion at "WP:PUI" by Stefan2. You uploaded File:Arms-wimbledon1.jpg file to Wikipedia because you felt the copyright had exprired, not me; Therefore, you are responsible for making sure that the licensing is correct, not me. You are responsible for familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's Image Use Policy before uploading an image and adding it an article, not me. You are responsible for familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's policy for using non-free images before adding a non-free image to an article, not me.
This is my user talk page and I don't need your permission or approval on what I post here. You are welcome to post here and discuss things, but I do have the right to delete or archive things I find inappropriate and to prevent my user talk page from being turned into a battlefield. So, I politely ask that you try to keep things civil and refrain from just copying-and pasting stuff you've posted on other pages, which for reference is something that may be seen as inappropriate if done too many times; A simple link will more than suffice. I have tried to make amends and diffuse things, but you found that to be unacceptable which is your perogative. If this, however, is really making you sick and you really have no further desire to interact with me, then don't come here looking for a piece of me. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not looking for a piece of anyone; let us not forget that it was you who came to this page looking for a piece of me, not the other way around. You lied on your talk page that I had accused you of tricking me....how is that civil? Whether or not you use the phrase "my word" the implication and the accusation is exactly same. I notice you make no reference to that. I have done with you and your games, your rather condescending quoting of rules when it suits you, but your deviousness and dishonesty are plain to see.Roganjosh3 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I say once again, for someone who has made it their business to go around removing so many of these arms images from articles, if you had actually read the rules on COA images you would have instantly known that the copyright issue was incorrect. It would have crossed your mind IF you had read the rules which clearly you should have before removing images....you just don't want to address that either do youRoganjosh3 (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you again lie about me or misrepresent or distort the issues again, I WILL defend myself, wherever and whenever you post it, regardless of where it is, be it on your talk page or anywhere else. You DO NOT have a right to lie about me on your talk page, it does not present you with immunity to do so. Now I hope this is an end to it all, but if you carry on, I will have no choice but to defend myself.Roganjosh3 (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From Marchjuly talk page: I clearly said that "trick" was "my word" and I used it because that's sort of how this seems to me. You uploaded the file of your own accord and chose what you believe to be the correct licensing at the time. You then added it to Wimbledon Manor House to replace the image I removed. When I wrote All that the image was needed was a specific rationale for that particular use since it was being licensed as non-free in User talk:Marchjuly#Wimbledon Council Arms, it was what I believed at the time and what I would have advised if asked before you uploaded the file. This may turn out to be incorrect, the discussion of the file's licensing is still ongoing. All I said about your choice of licensing for the file was that Wikipedia takes copyright protection quite seriously and the licesning was only being discussed to determine if the image is "free" or not. I did not "condemn" or "attack" you for possibly uploading a file with the wrong licesing. Yet, you seem to be angry at me and are blaming me because I "accepted" the image and didn't check it more carefully or know enough about coat-of-arms copyright issues to point out that imagine might still be copyrighted after you uploaded it and added it to the article. You also seem to be claiming that I am not here to help build an encyclopedia, but am a vandal only insterested in pursing my own personal agenda, which is something that couldn't further from the truth. You are continuing to use Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 April 4#File:Arms-wimbledon1.jpg as a forum to comment about me and my qualifications (or lack thereof) to participate in Wikipedia, even though that page is specifically for discussing potential licensing issues for possibly unfree files. Pages such as that are primarily for discussing content not the contributor. When discussions are heated things sometimes get said out or irritation or anger. That is understandable, but you continue to use the page to make comments about me and not about the file's licensing. You have a user talk page. If you which to discuss my behaviour then do it there or do it on my talk page here. If you feel my behavior was so wrong that it should be sanctioned, then open a case at WP:ANI. Finally, if you're going to post here or anywhere else on Wikipedia for that matter, then please try and be careful and use only one account. I am assuming that you simply forgot to log in when you posted as here on my user talk and at PUI page . It's a mistake that can happen to us all, but it can create confusion because it is not always clear who is speaking. I also suggesst that you use wikilinks and diffs instead of copy-and-pasting from one place to another. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I have removed my ip address both from my post and your post as it was posted inadvertently by my browser due to it logging me out without my noticing it. But even though I had already deleted it and then properly signed it before your reply quoting it, you of course have gone on to make an issue of it including retrieving it from the old page and posting it here....that is below the belt. And whether or not you use the phrase "my word" the implication and the accusation is exactly same.
Oh good grief, really???....day 4 of this. I don't care any more, say what you like, you will anyway. Go ahead, you will only be talking to yourself. Grow up.Roganjosh3 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)"Roganjosh3 (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Retiring "Users may choose to retire after specific unpleasant experiences" I have decided to retire from Wikipedia and have placed the appropriate tag on my user page.Roganjosh3 (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Actor Rohan Mehra.jpg

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F9 by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Actor Rohan Mehra.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2015_April_4&oldid=1142588533"