User talk:Expatkiwi

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of AN/I Report

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It's under Repeated Personal Attacks. Also, please note that I didn't report you. I'm just notifying you because the user reporting you didn't. - Amaury (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I just no longer care. My efforts in Wikipedia have met with removal and rebuke. Hypocrisy and overzealousness rule here, I'm sad to say. Expatkiwi (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not have a repeat. You cannot use the non-free files in a list. Werieth (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: NFCC

Expatkiwi,

I'm KoshVorlon, I'm not an admin, a 'crat, a sysop, I'm just a user, just like you are. Very much like you, I also had a huge problem with NFCC, I also used IAR to ignore NFCC, because I thought it was non-sensical. My thought was, use the best picture for wiki, not some washed up, blurred out photo that happens to be free. I've been blocked for that. I've come to realize that the image rules aren't as byzantine as I first thought. Wikipedia wants to remain a free resource, in order for that to happen, they need to use free images whenever possible. Yes, there will be times when it isn't possible for that to be done, so , as a concession of sort, Wikipedia has a list of 10 criterias, if the image meets all 10 of those criterias , then it can be used, even though it isn't free.

To be sure, it's stricter than U.S copyright law, but at the end of the day, it keeps Wikipedia from a.) being sued (which keeps Wikipedia from being shut down ) and b.) keeps Wikipedia free (information and all ! ).

I won't come back on your page unless you ask me to, but as one who's had - A LOT - of issues with this policy (I mean me ) I thought I'd send you a note to help you out, as it's a real bitch figuring out the NFCC policy alone! :) KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 19:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

List of Australian Police flags

If you continue to ignore and violate WP:NFCC I will be forced to take this back to WP:ANI and either ask for a topic ban in regards to NFC or having you blocked. Werieth (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expatkiwi, it's pretty clear that you are angry and frustrated, but trying to force your version by endless reverts is not going to get your version installed. There are a lot of rules here and no one expects you to know them all at once, however, if you are told that you are breaking one it is much more effective to stop what you are doing and ask for help, for example, at WT:CP. Generally people are willing to explain ins and outs, if asked politely. However, if your talk page posts are consistently angry, wiki is no different from real life; pretty soon you'll run out of people willing to be patient with you. Try taking a break, and a deep breath. Wiki will still be here tomorrow or next week. Best. JanetteDoe (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Werieth told me that the issue was having too many images on one page. So I obliged him and created a seperate page for the police flags of Australia. He still pulls 'em. I don't think I am going to believe another word he says again. Expatkiwi

Please re-read what I said, I stated that you cannot use non-free files on List of XXXX pages. If the individual group is notable enough you can use the file on the article about that entity. Werieth (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ironholds (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zealous Beaurocrats: 1, Honest Contributors: 0 User:Expatkiwi

The word is "bureaucrat", but sure. Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issues you have been encountering

Hello. I was asked to look into this situation by two people concerned that you might not understand the issues. I'll see if I can make this clear.

Wikipedia is a core participant in and advocate for the Free culture movement. It is a strongly held principle that we should whenever possible use only free content here, as well as on other Wikimedia Foundation Projects. Free content is "free" as in speech - meaning that there are minimal legal restrictions on its use. This allows the educational resources we are creating to be used by as many people as possible, for as many reasons as possible, everywhere around the world.

Recognizing, however, that there may sometimes be need to use non-free materials in building a reference work, our Board of Trustees permits each project (except Commons) create an "exemption doctrine policy" (EDP). Our use of non-free materials must conform to this policy. If it does not, we can't use it. Wikipedia's exemption doctrine policy is, of course, WP:NFCC. It incorporates by reference the guideline WP:NFC.

Many years ago, the community decided to restrict using non-free images in list articles or tables in almost any case. This is written into WP:NFC at WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLE. This is both to minimize risk (the more heavily we use any specific non-free content, the more we open ourselves up to legal claim of misuse) and to conform as closely as possible to the core value of free content. As long as this is the community's stance, such image use should be avoided. I believe you were first told this in 2005, [[1]]. That practice has if anything strengthened in the 7 years since. I also see that you asked about the practice at WP:NFCR here a few days before you created List of Australian Police flags and began including non-free flags. At that point, you were aware of the prohibition and had been pointed to NFC.

It's important when you know that an action is controversial and particularly when it may be a problem under the community's approach to copyrighted content to gain consensus before you take that action. Collaborating well with others is not bowing to zealous bureaucracy; it's respecting your colleagues, and it is the only thing that makes this open-source encyclopedia function.

I think if you want to continue contributing, the best way forward here may be taking a step back to look at those policies. Over the years, you have many times been cautioned that you are using non-free images in ways that policy and guideline do not permit. If you feel strongly that policy and guideline should permit images to be used in these ways, the thing to do is convince the community to your point of view. After you do that, you can use the images that way without issue. If the community will not agree with your point of view, then the non-free content just can't be used that way. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's academic anyway. I am persona non-grata here in Wikipedia. In case you have not noticed, I have been given an indefinite suspension by the powers-that-be (other - less tactful - descriptions of them spring to mind, but I'll bite my tongue). The problem is that the image use procedure is too bureaucratic and I for one see that as a detriment to Wikipedia. --Expatkiwi ^(talk) 22:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However indefinetly doesn't mean infinetly. It just means, for no specified period of time.

Like I said, I had the same problem you did with NFCC. I'm still not 100 clear, however I've been steering clear of adding any image I didn't make myself (there have been two exceptions when I took screenshots of wikipedia to demonstrate what I was seeing.

Read what I wrote above again, the explanation is a bit byzantine, but the concept is easier to comprehend. I can see you want to contribute, and that's great, there's just ways of doing things around wiki :) KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 21:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

It's just the thought of that smug @#$%*! Werewolf having a good laugh at the situation that turns my stomach.--Expatkiwi ^(talk) 22:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually hoping to avoid having you blocked as that is a last resort. You are not willing to discuss, listen, or learn. You have also been extremely rude, making multiple personal attacks directed at myself from you. My hope with the threat of blocking you would have been to force you to take a step back, deep breath, and given me a chance to try to explain our complex non-free content policy to you. However due to the importance of that policy you cannot just ignore it. It ranks up there with WP:BLP. If you are willing to discuss, take my advice and adjust your behavior so that it is in compliance with wikipedia standards I am more than willing to appeal to the administrators and ask that your block be removed. However if you are not willing to work with me or someone else our hands will be tied. Werieth (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt he's having a laugh at you getting blocked. Frankly, if that kind of vindictiveness is something your mind immediately jumps to, you may have wider cultural difficulties here. Ironholds (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need a psycho eval from you, Ironholds. --Expatkiwi ^(talk) 23:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because they seem to be cluttering up the place, I've removed a bunch of bot notices about orphaned images. I spot-checked a few, and it seems that the issue may be that you uploaded them and tagged them, but never placed them in the articles you intended them for. For example, File:New Zealand Fire Service Flag.gif was tagged for New Zealand Fire Service, but has never been placed in that article ([2]). I checked primarily to make sure that somebody wasn't removing images that you had uploaded without good reason while you were blocked, and I'm happy to see that this isn't the case.

It does kind of highlight a problem, though. Non-free images need a valid fair use statement and must be used in the article in which you indicate they will be. I can't argue with you that the rules around the use of non-free images on Wikipedia can be confusing (to this day, I cannot explain why it's okay to have a non-free image of some perfectly ordinary looking man to tell us what soap opera character Shawn Butler looks like, when we can't have a non-free image of that same perfectly ordinary looking man to tell us what he looks like), but the non-free image rules are just one of the realities of participation here. If you want to upload and use non-free images, it's important to get a handle on what those rules are and follow them. There are some rules that can be ignored for the bettering of the encyclopedia, but only if the general editing population agrees that ignoring the rule betters the encyclopedia. Failure to follow non-free content policies really doesn't have that agreement. Our only option is to get the rules clarified or changed through community discussion. (I myself seldom mess with non-free images - only in regards to cover art, which is clearly permitted by policy and guideline.)

I think it's also important not to personalize disputes on Wikipedia. It can be very hard to avoid this, of course, when you and somebody else feel strongly about opposite ends of a debate, but I try to keep in mind that what it really means is that they care about Wikipedia as much as I do. We just feel differently about what's right for it. The real danger of disagreements becoming personal, of course, is that it becomes much harder to reach agreement and move forward. This is really the only way we make Wikipedia function - otherwise, factionalism would cripple it altogether. :) If it were easy to avoid this, we wouldn't have so many policies ("Wikipedia is not a battleground", "Civility", "No personal attacks"), guidelines ("Assume good faith", "Etiquette") and essays ("Wikipedia is not about winning", "Just drop it", "Staying cool when the editing gets hot" and uncounted others) about it. It's hard, so we're constantly writing reminders that it's required and advice for how to do it. Our goal here is to persuade others. We can't always do this, of course, but there are times we just have to drop the stick and back away slowly. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it all boils down to making sure that the T's are crossed and the I's dotted to Werewolf's and Ironbrain's satisfaction... --Expatkiwi ^(talk) 12:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the way you want to see it, yes. As well as the many other people who have left you notes over the years about our non-free content policies and how to comply with them. Calling people names, though, suggests that "working together" may not be high on your priority list. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I suggest that's not high on their list of priorities. From my perspective, they are demolishing work. Kind of seems like censorship... --Expatkiwi ^(talk) 12:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship is defined as the removal of information based on the opinion that information espouses or supports. Please use the word accurately. The problem is that the 'work' we are 'demolishing' violates the law. If following the law is not something you care about, we have a problem here. Ironholds (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It boils down the the fact that copyrighted material can only be used in very restrictive ways. I really dont care if you want to create pages like User:Multichill/Free uploads as long as they just contain free files. When you start violating others copyrights (which is what fair use is, just that its justified) Wikipedia's governing policies place an extremely large amount of restrictions on when, where, and why you can do that. If you would like help ensuring that you maintain compliance with those policies I am glad to lend a hand. Werieth (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a saboteur. I'm putting up illustrations of flags, which represents the agencies involved. They are like signposts - designed to be seen and understood (and are you deleting illustrations of those?). It seems a common sense thing to do, but here, common sense is taking a back seat to semantics. That's what's coming across to me. All I'm trying to do is putting across the vexillological perspective in a non-biased way. --Expatkiwi ^(talk) 14:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never referred to you as a saboteur. Does common sense allow you to make 1000 copies of your favorite move and then hand them out/sell them to other people? Werieth (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common Sense involves making the identity of flags known so that people will know what they are if they encounter them, kind of like a road map showing a depiction of road signs. --Expatkiwi ^(talk) 15:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]