The result of the discussion was: delete. Killiondude ( talk) 07:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Kings Dominion logo 2007-2011.png Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 04:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted by multiple users per G3. ( non-admin closure) LaundryPizza03 ( talk) 15:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Fan-made poster Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 09:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I really doubt the public library holds the copyright to everything a newspaper produced. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned with questionable licensing. The license is given on the subject's site, not by the photographer, and it's unclear whether the photographer released it under that license. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The structure of the tower itself is PD. That much is agreed upon. But the image itself is dual licensed. The photograph holds its own copyright license and we would need to know that that was also correctly released. The image itself was originally uploaded to Commons by Skid22 but the EXIF data indicates that it came from Facebook. A directly link to the image in question either here or through OTRS (which I'd be able to process) would be appreciated for confirmatory purposes. Majora ( talk) 18:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: reduce file size. Opencooper, consensus here is clear. The application of the media file policy in these instances, and in its application in a general sense, is more restrictive than your liking. You don't have to agree with it, but you must still abide by it. Circumventing this consensus, both in the past and the future, is not helpful and simply disruptive. It's time to accept it and move on. ℯ xplicit 01:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Also
It's only oversized by your own arbitrary standards. Fair use only requires that the image not be large enough to harm commercial use by the original copyright holder. This image is nowhere close to the 300dpi needed for printing, or even the 2MP Commons requires for featured images. This is just an overzealous crusade by the nominator to split hairs and reduce image quality such has been done on this file, where the line art is illegible and faces obscured, both important aspects of an infobox image that has to illustrate characters, demonstrate artstyle, and be recognizable. The image is already small enough to meet fair use, even Wikipedia's more strict non-free content recommendations. Like the uploader states, it's only a difference of 50 pixels, which is very minor compared to images 1,000 pixels wide or any other obvious case needing reduction. It's more important that we understand the spirit of the topic rather than the letter, and this upload is small by any qualitative rather than quantitative metric. This response is already getting long, so for reasons why lack of critical commentary or use only at smaller size in the infobox are dubious reasons, please see the previous discussion.There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger. This metric is very qualitative, and thus difficult to enforce.
. Had he used the proscribed template and reasoning, then I would have left those images alone, instead he added a {{ nobots}} template (which has no visible banner), I think to try to disrupt the reduction process. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)You also may wish to add the {{ non-free no reduce}} template to the image rationale page to indicate that your image resolution purposely exceeds the 0.1 megapixels guideline, though this still requires you to include a valid rationale that explains this reasoning; large images using this template without a rationale to explain the large size may be reduced despite this.
"{{non-free no reduce}}<!--So Ron Jones can stop harassing me due to his own inability to understand guidelines-->". Leaving aside the built-in pointy aspersion in the hidden comments, this in no way addresses the issue, since, from the guideline, and already quoted above:
"...this still requires you to include a valid rationale that explains this reasoning; large images using this template without a rationale to explain the large size may be reduced despite this."No such rationale/explanation has been provided for the files I spot-checked. -- Begoon 01:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Let me repeat, I feel attacked. Instead of trying to sympathize with me or follow guideline, I get ganged up on. Of course I'm going to get testy. I tried to even follow what the users recommend and that gets contorted as me being disruptive. I've noticed this type of behavior time and time again at venues like AfD, ANI, and more. These gang tactics are exactly why so many people are turned off from Wikipedia and why so many leave. You all create this insurmountable barrier of bureaucracy and don't follow common sense. None of the arguments in this thread were along the tenets of fair use nor Wikipedia's own fair use guidelines. it's just a bunch of bullying. This is why I feel attacked. Instead of wondering why an editor of four years, with numerous articles created, thousands of edits, a Featured Picture on Commons, and more. would behave this way, you all insinuate on my character instead of assuming good faith or seeing my attempts at ameliorating the situation.
These images are nowhere close to the 300dpi needed for printing, or even the 2MP needed for Commons. It's merely an overzealous crusade. By no one's definition would these be considered "high resolution" so that they could infringe on the publisher's rights. it's clear this is a long-term crusade against me to drive me off of this project, and let me tell you, it's working. I never once interfered with RonJones other mass editing despite them violating the guidelines (which is why I placed the nobots template), nor did I bring them to ANI for their behavior, though we all know people get away with a lot worse on Wikipedia, especially admins. I am the victim here. Lastly, I tried to stop commenting here to let things cool down so I could apologize for my conduct, but then you all started the whipping anew, despite me trying to personally fix things with RonJones. I care a lot about this project, which is why I don't appreciate non-content creators like RonJones creating petty roadblocks for other people to deal with and these attacks on my character, and long-term harassment (they've been slowly tagging my uploads to see how far they could push me). Pinging involved parties: @ Ronhjones and BU Rob13: as well. Opencooper ( talk) 05:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@ BU Rob13, Begoon, and Majora: I'm still waiting for you all to chide RonJones on his edit warring since you were all so righteous about ganging up on me before about behavior. Now you're all suddenly mum, huh? Really reveals your true allegiances, cuz everyone knows admins aren't possibly capable of harassment or bad conduct. Opencooper ( talk) 00:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment It's quite clear from everyone's comments here that a mass-nomination is inappropriate since each image needs to be considered on its own merits and be made as small as possible while still being useful. Thus this should be procedurally closed based on the arguments of all the "reduce all" voters themselves. There's no magic number that every file can be reduced to, and anyone who isn't a bot would understand that. Opencooper ( talk) 05:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment: I see nothing wrong with a mass nomination, where the starting rationale is the same for all images. It's been done before (and very often at commons), and editors could make statements here like "keep all"; "reduce all"; "reduce A,B,C - keep X,Y,Z) - it does not always have to be an "all" vote. If the uploader does not like our guideline, he is always free to suggest a change at WP:VPP, it's been there since mid 2011, maybe it does need an update, but that's for a community discussion to resolve, not here. As an aside, in general the guideline size works very well for most images (posters, record covers, portraits, game covers) without affecting the article (I would estimate 99.9% reduce OK), and the article is the only place we should be concerned about. I know there are files where you cannot achieve the guideline without significant or total corruption of the image (often computer screenshots, where the image is effectively pixelated to start with) - and on many of these I have tried manual reduction to various sizes with PhotoShop, sometimes without any success, hence a good reason for the "no reduce" template - it shows images that do not reduce well. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. Killiondude ( talk) 07:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Kings Dominion logo 2007-2011.png Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 04:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted by multiple users per G3. ( non-admin closure) LaundryPizza03 ( talk) 15:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Fan-made poster Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 09:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I really doubt the public library holds the copyright to everything a newspaper produced. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned with questionable licensing. The license is given on the subject's site, not by the photographer, and it's unclear whether the photographer released it under that license. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The structure of the tower itself is PD. That much is agreed upon. But the image itself is dual licensed. The photograph holds its own copyright license and we would need to know that that was also correctly released. The image itself was originally uploaded to Commons by Skid22 but the EXIF data indicates that it came from Facebook. A directly link to the image in question either here or through OTRS (which I'd be able to process) would be appreciated for confirmatory purposes. Majora ( talk) 18:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: reduce file size. Opencooper, consensus here is clear. The application of the media file policy in these instances, and in its application in a general sense, is more restrictive than your liking. You don't have to agree with it, but you must still abide by it. Circumventing this consensus, both in the past and the future, is not helpful and simply disruptive. It's time to accept it and move on. ℯ xplicit 01:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Also
It's only oversized by your own arbitrary standards. Fair use only requires that the image not be large enough to harm commercial use by the original copyright holder. This image is nowhere close to the 300dpi needed for printing, or even the 2MP Commons requires for featured images. This is just an overzealous crusade by the nominator to split hairs and reduce image quality such has been done on this file, where the line art is illegible and faces obscured, both important aspects of an infobox image that has to illustrate characters, demonstrate artstyle, and be recognizable. The image is already small enough to meet fair use, even Wikipedia's more strict non-free content recommendations. Like the uploader states, it's only a difference of 50 pixels, which is very minor compared to images 1,000 pixels wide or any other obvious case needing reduction. It's more important that we understand the spirit of the topic rather than the letter, and this upload is small by any qualitative rather than quantitative metric. This response is already getting long, so for reasons why lack of critical commentary or use only at smaller size in the infobox are dubious reasons, please see the previous discussion.There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger. This metric is very qualitative, and thus difficult to enforce.
. Had he used the proscribed template and reasoning, then I would have left those images alone, instead he added a {{ nobots}} template (which has no visible banner), I think to try to disrupt the reduction process. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)You also may wish to add the {{ non-free no reduce}} template to the image rationale page to indicate that your image resolution purposely exceeds the 0.1 megapixels guideline, though this still requires you to include a valid rationale that explains this reasoning; large images using this template without a rationale to explain the large size may be reduced despite this.
"{{non-free no reduce}}<!--So Ron Jones can stop harassing me due to his own inability to understand guidelines-->". Leaving aside the built-in pointy aspersion in the hidden comments, this in no way addresses the issue, since, from the guideline, and already quoted above:
"...this still requires you to include a valid rationale that explains this reasoning; large images using this template without a rationale to explain the large size may be reduced despite this."No such rationale/explanation has been provided for the files I spot-checked. -- Begoon 01:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Let me repeat, I feel attacked. Instead of trying to sympathize with me or follow guideline, I get ganged up on. Of course I'm going to get testy. I tried to even follow what the users recommend and that gets contorted as me being disruptive. I've noticed this type of behavior time and time again at venues like AfD, ANI, and more. These gang tactics are exactly why so many people are turned off from Wikipedia and why so many leave. You all create this insurmountable barrier of bureaucracy and don't follow common sense. None of the arguments in this thread were along the tenets of fair use nor Wikipedia's own fair use guidelines. it's just a bunch of bullying. This is why I feel attacked. Instead of wondering why an editor of four years, with numerous articles created, thousands of edits, a Featured Picture on Commons, and more. would behave this way, you all insinuate on my character instead of assuming good faith or seeing my attempts at ameliorating the situation.
These images are nowhere close to the 300dpi needed for printing, or even the 2MP needed for Commons. It's merely an overzealous crusade. By no one's definition would these be considered "high resolution" so that they could infringe on the publisher's rights. it's clear this is a long-term crusade against me to drive me off of this project, and let me tell you, it's working. I never once interfered with RonJones other mass editing despite them violating the guidelines (which is why I placed the nobots template), nor did I bring them to ANI for their behavior, though we all know people get away with a lot worse on Wikipedia, especially admins. I am the victim here. Lastly, I tried to stop commenting here to let things cool down so I could apologize for my conduct, but then you all started the whipping anew, despite me trying to personally fix things with RonJones. I care a lot about this project, which is why I don't appreciate non-content creators like RonJones creating petty roadblocks for other people to deal with and these attacks on my character, and long-term harassment (they've been slowly tagging my uploads to see how far they could push me). Pinging involved parties: @ Ronhjones and BU Rob13: as well. Opencooper ( talk) 05:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@ BU Rob13, Begoon, and Majora: I'm still waiting for you all to chide RonJones on his edit warring since you were all so righteous about ganging up on me before about behavior. Now you're all suddenly mum, huh? Really reveals your true allegiances, cuz everyone knows admins aren't possibly capable of harassment or bad conduct. Opencooper ( talk) 00:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment It's quite clear from everyone's comments here that a mass-nomination is inappropriate since each image needs to be considered on its own merits and be made as small as possible while still being useful. Thus this should be procedurally closed based on the arguments of all the "reduce all" voters themselves. There's no magic number that every file can be reduced to, and anyone who isn't a bot would understand that. Opencooper ( talk) 05:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment: I see nothing wrong with a mass nomination, where the starting rationale is the same for all images. It's been done before (and very often at commons), and editors could make statements here like "keep all"; "reduce all"; "reduce A,B,C - keep X,Y,Z) - it does not always have to be an "all" vote. If the uploader does not like our guideline, he is always free to suggest a change at WP:VPP, it's been there since mid 2011, maybe it does need an update, but that's for a community discussion to resolve, not here. As an aside, in general the guideline size works very well for most images (posters, record covers, portraits, game covers) without affecting the article (I would estimate 99.9% reduce OK), and the article is the only place we should be concerned about. I know there are files where you cannot achieve the guideline without significant or total corruption of the image (often computer screenshots, where the image is effectively pixelated to start with) - and on many of these I have tried manual reduction to various sizes with PhotoShop, sometimes without any success, hence a good reason for the "no reduce" template - it shows images that do not reduce well. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)