Knowledge (XXG):Files for discussion/2020 March 4

561:; this subsequently did not occur and then the file became orphaned due to the unrelated actions of another discussion that similarly came to the conclusion to delete the image from the page entirely, while also using a similar strategy to avoid backing up their position (either through malicious intent, a general lack of care, or a lack of context on the larger conversation.) Sadly this has resulted in a loss of legitimate information on Knowledge (XXG), for what can only be seen as an attempt to enforce a specific interpretation of the website's guidelines that, thus far (as nobody has shown otherwise) has no basis in written fact. If any of the involved parties in this conversation do have some sort of specific reasoning they'd for some reason like to share now, please feel free to.Furthermore, addressing your point on the contradictory statement I specified Marjuly, I was indicating a quote from Explicit on this page ("Command (series) was moved from Command: Modern Air Naval Operations arguably as an attempt to circumvent WP:NFCC policy and game the system" which I explain upon in that very reply), not the conversation on Explicit's talk page, and so I would suggest you reread that reply of mine if it was a legitimate misunderstanding of meaning. In the way that sentence was written, there is little grammatical indication to show that that comment was even referencing that other discussion, and attempting to paint its meaning as otherwise serves no legitimate purpose other than to distort the meaning of my words in an attempt to discredit the entire argument, something which is of both dubious moral and practical intent for a discussion on anyone topic. 549:

guidelines, policies, and historical precedence. This can be plainly seen through a rereading of this entire page on this topic and the linked conversation on Explicit's talk page. I gave my position as to why the image did not violate NFCC #8, and it was seemingly read and ignored in an attempt to (as far as I can tell based on the participant's reactions, or lack thereof) to simply enforce the status quo by not even addressing the fact that their original interpretation of the guidelines could be incorrect. Instead, their original points were reasserted and no further attempts to discuss them on their end have occurred. I've asked several times for anyone in this conversation to give, "

595:

with policy; someone else doesn’t need to establish a consensus that it doesn’t.FFD discussions run at least seven days before they're closed; so, it's still possible that someone else will come along, read the discussion both here and on Explicit's user talk page, and agree with you. If enough other editors do that then a consensus will be established in favor of the file's use; if not, then probably will turn out to be something else. If you want to advise others of this discussion, then you can do so as long as you avoid

519:) that the cover art itself be the subject of some sourced critical commentary. If this file was being used at the top of a stand-alone article about the game "Command: Modern Operations", then it's non-free use would be pretty straightforward; however, that isn't really the case and, like Whpq, I don't agree with the argument made in the discussion on Explicit's user talk page referenced above that is in favor of the file's use. I also don't see any comments in that discussion that support the claim 368:

contradictory to the other admins conclusions as it acknowledges the legitimacy of the image, but is instead now attempting to paint it's very intent as negative to elicit a deletion of the image for reasons that ultimately elude me considering the fact that its deletion serves no benefit to the page's encyclopedic content or Knowledge (XXG) as a whole.) If I could get a clear and consistent response as to why this matter is still being pursued it would be most appreciated.

402:

guidelines, historical precedence, and policies. And as I just said, I have yet to receive a response to those points that I made and have now seen that the very premise of the image upload is trying to be slandered in (with what I can only determine to be) an attempt to simply remove the image for the sake of enforcing the original verdict (despite it being determined to be incorrect in the first place.)

703:

This is not how a rational discussion is conducted in the slightest of way, and if that is not the point of this entire process then I see no real reason for why it was even brought here in the first place (other than to paint some thin veneer of legitimacy on the entire discussion to simply satisfy

594:

and nothing that you've posted has convinced me and apparently the others posting above that you've done that. Moreover, people don't necessarily need keep stating and re-stating why they disagree with you until until they somehow placate you. You need to establish a consensus that the use complies

382:

The image quite simply fails to satisfy Knowledge (XXG)'s non-free content guidelines. That is why it has been nominated for deletion. I was not aware of any of this previous discussion, but as an editor who is familiar wiht the non-free content useage, it is quite clear to me that it's usage is

575:

By "other admins conclusions" I took you as meaning "the conclusions of other administrators". Perhaps you intended to post "other admin's conclusions" meaning "the other conclusions of Explicit". Anyway, if you meant the former, then I'm not sure who the other administrators you're referrring to

496:

If there is nothing further (again, please feel free to state your specific points, if any, as that is the entire point of this discussion page), then the discussion at hand is closed as nobody is able to adequately prove how the file has violated the only stipulated issue on it (does not satisfy

462:

Alright, now you're engaging in a circular conversation that's wasting everyone's time. If you intend to initiate a discussion as to why you believe the file is still in violation of NFCC #8 despite the points I made I'm all ears, other wise please don't waste our time with this immature circular

548:

The seemingly opposing viewpoint given by me was never countered, no discussion was had after that initial conversation except for the repeated assertion that their original point was correct, despite the fact that it was explicitly refuted based on direct quotations of written Knowledge (XXG)

401:

That very concern was discussed and refuted in that conversation, I suggest you acquaint yourself with it if you want the proper context to save yourself some time. For example, I explained how the image satisfied NFCC #8 and supported that position through direct quotations of Knowledge (XXG)

367:

talk page are just going to be ignored? I only say this because I've received no further response to my points from any of the administrators involved in that discussion (JJMC89 and Explicit), in fact it appears that now it's trying to be painted as a form of gaming the system (yet that's

514:

per the reasons given by JJMC89 and the others above. Non-free cover art is generally allowed when it's used in the main infobox or at the top of the article for primary identification purposes, other uses are not always so clear and generally requires (as JJMC89 linked to above in

523:

being made above. Three administrators experienced in non-free use commented in that discussion and none of them seem to acknowledge the legitmacy of the file's use; two of the three have already posted above stating that the file should be deleted, and the remaining administrator

704:

a basic requirement for the discussion of a debated deletion, of which I now believe is to take advantage of the seven day limit before discussions are closed , but hopefully I'm proven wrong and I get an actual response on the topic and maybe a discussion can be had.)

576:

are, particularly if you're referring to anyone other than the three who posted on Explicit's talk page or the two who posted here in this FFD. If you meant the latter, then I'm not sure what other conclusions of Explicit you're referring to because Explicit posted

589:

also doesn’t, at least to me, any inconsistency in his position. He can comment further on that if he chooses to do so.AnywY, the burden of providing a valid non-free use rationale for a particular non-free file falls upon the one wanting to use the file per

700:

Instead it's been filled with your conversational fluff on irrelevant and/or completely tangential lines of conversation that also ignore the points I've made and the calls for a response to even initiate a discussion in the first

681:

Throughout this entire thing you've either purposely skirted around the point to avoid a discussion or have been deleteriously ignorant of what I've been repeating this entire time. And so I'll repeat it one last time:

584:

that he didn't think the file complied with policy, and his post above doesn’t seem to contradict that. The fact the he didn't directly respond to any of your other posts and that his last post on his talk page was to

140: 534:. Of course, Masem or any other editor (administrator or otherwise) is welcome to participate in this discusison and those who feel the file's use is legitimate are free to state as such. -- 603:

if they feel an error was made. At some point though, anyone who disagrees with the close may simply have no choice other than to accept the consensus for whatever it is and move on.

972: 252: 416:

I read that. And in my opinion, none of your arguments there hold any water. You may persist in your belief that you are right, but that belief is not well-founded. --

937: 38: 33: 845: 810: 176: 696:

as if a discussion even occurred in the first place when all this has been is a vague reassertion of their original verdict with no critical discussion

698:, they've simply ignored the points that I've made and have reaffirmed their original verdict with no true discussion on the topic whatsoever. 964: 858: 309: 830: 17: 838: 611:

regardless of how strongly any one particular editor feels that a mistakle was made and wants to continue to discuss things. --

956: 904: 834: 586: 581: 577: 434:

what your issue with it is so a discussion may be had? Or will you simply continue to make vague comments that prove nothing.

196: 648: 104: 605:

The community isn't going to keep debating something ad infinitum if they feel the time has come for everyone to move on

531: 291: 993: 924: 894: 768: 738: 76: 802: 644: 634: 204: 116: 600: 657:

as part of some post move cleanup, but the last version of the article in which the file was being used can be seen

200: 134: 122: 110: 265:

NFCI#1 relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover.

168: 852: 128: 945: 820: 688:

simply continuously repeated the same vague statement that it is wrong with no further explanation as to why

160: 56: 794: 748: 989: 920: 890: 764: 734: 72: 949: 877: 862: 787: 713: 670: 620: 570: 543: 521:

yet that's contradictory to the other admins conclusions as it acknowledges the legitimacy of the image

506: 472: 457: 443: 425: 411: 396: 377: 354: 333: 296: 238: 153: 497:

NFCC #8), thus making the file no longer fall under any category that makes it eligible for deletion.

596: 448:

It's right there in my delete comment. And in the nomination statement and in the other !votes. --

848: 705: 666: 616: 562: 539: 498: 464: 435: 403: 369: 148: 941: 709: 566: 502: 468: 439: 407: 373: 326: 186: 604: 591: 873: 777: 251:. It is not used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject of the article ( 228: 98: 608: 384: 342: 317: 313: 256: 248: 222: 913:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.

757:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.

305: 285: 65:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.

988: