Had enough of wasting my time trying to improve this place, and getting blocked for a pathetic reason, which is completely unjustified. Dapi89 (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dapi89 - these images fail both WP:NFCC#10c ánd WP:NFCC#8 - even if you would satisfy WP:NFCC#10c you can not include the images. These images simply can not be used on these pages, there is no need to keep them there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Re edit summary; non-free content isn't allowed to violate our policies while a discussion takes place about whether it violates our policies or not. There was no pressing need to retain the content. Instead of seeking discussion, you sought to edit war. I would ask you to please reconsider your departure. This is an unfortunate event, but it shouldn't end a career. Your contributions to the mainspace here have been invaluable. Don't end it over something like this. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on the block, Dirk. Dapi89, you were repeatedly told that these images do need a fair-use rationale before inserting. You did not go on and place that, you choose to revert and revert. This is not the way forward. These images clearly fail WP:NFCC#10c - no rationale for this use. Not that a rationale would be enough - they also fail WP:NFCC#8 - they are here purely decorative. Please reconsider your edits. Thanks Goldblooded (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Until you've stopped behaving like the snivelling little child you are, and can get your articles to stick on wikipedia, much less secure anyone’s respect, I have little to say to you. Other than perhaps; that is a sure fine way to make enemies. You might want to grow up, and come back in two or three years depending on how long it takes you to mature. Dapi89 (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This last comment by Goldblooded is somewhat gratuitous and unnecessarily inflames the situation: totally unnecessary when it does not concern you in the first place. Minorhistorian (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- Goldblooded, there's absolutely no need to cruelly pile on. @Hammersoft, the image was in the article for months. A few more days could have kept a valuable contributor on Wikipedia; we weren't in danger of getting sued, and there's a reason we have a policy named "ignore all rules." Yes, the images probably should not be used, at least in that article – but taking the time to kindly and personally (a template? I'm hoping you've heard of WP:DTTR...) discuss the reasons why could have greatly changed this ending. In the future, I think you and Δ should consider a much lighter approach, especially to those who have written so much for the 'pedia. Very respectfully, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copyright violation, ed17. Though we have WP:IAR, there are certain things that you can not ignore. This is something which flows out of a Foundation resolution. The burden is on the editor wishing to include the media. We do not retain a violation of copyright while discussing it (and this is a clear violation of copyright, there is no need to discuss it). An explanation was given in the edit summary, and maybe templating is 'harsh', that still does not mean that you then can just re-insert the copyright violation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, while it was certainly an unambiguous NFCC violation, it probably was not a copyvio. However, I'm not a lawyer, and, so far as I know, you're not either, so I don't think throwing around that kind of terminology is helpful in this case. However, regardless, such edit warring really is not warranted; IAR is nice, but the content really was unambiguously in violation, and so the removal was right and proper (and, as an aside, not subject to the three revert rule). We could argue that the issue was not dealt with perfectly by Delta/others involved, and there may be a case there (I have no opinion at this time), but the point remains that Dapi89 was clearly very much in the wrong. I was going to say that I considered the block a little long, but, considering Dapi89's previous block log, it is possibly appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not so sure it's a copyright violation. Crown copyright expires 50 years after creation or publication (depending on whether one considers them artistic works or not), and these unit crests have expired under either requirement. Unless the RAF has protected the images with Letters Patent, then they have no control over the reproduction of the image (which appears to be why the images are treated as FU here). Unless it can be demonstrated that they are protected by Letters Patent, then they should be tagged with {{PD-UKGov}}. FWIW, I've contacted the MoD to see if they can clarify whether these unit crests are so protected. Regardless, we could use a better source than simply stating "Royal Air Force."

Given that Dapi's last block was nearly 2 years ago, 2 weeks is a bit long, and does not serve the purpose of the block (i.e., to stop the problem). Especially given that Δ made no attempt to discuss the issue (slapping a template on a talk page doesn't count) and the block came after only a couple hours of activity. I feel this was excessive. Moreover, if one had simply looked at the terms of Crown copyright, they would have found what I did (that the images are almost certainly PD with no restrictions whatsoever) and we could have avoided this whole mess.

Dapi, I am disappointed to see you go. I hope you'll reconsider. Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that Dapi was in the wrong – under the information we knew then, the images were clearly decorative. That's not my point. The point is that taken together, everyone's actions drove a normally good-natured editor, one who has written fantastic articles, off the project. If that's not a reason to examine and modify your methods, then I don't know what is. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more with The ed - Dapi can be hot-headed but did not deserve two weeks in the cooler for a relatively small technical infringement, and with very little discussion before the plug was pulled. Edit Warring? I have seen far worse behaviour go unpunished, or let go with minimal penalty: the generally high standard and value of Dapis work should also have been taken into consideration by Beetstra. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all this being pointed out. The individual who decided it was better to block than discuss shouldn't be an administrator. Any who, I dropped in to put the squirt straight (above), but this won't change anything now or in the long run. To enforce an indefinite absence, I shall seek a block of this account in kind upon expiry. People like Beetstra really are not worth the time and effort. Its rather annoying that someone who, it seems, has contributed very little of value to wikipedia can make absurd decisions and get away with it. It kinda reminds me of a quote by Adolf which applies to this case far more aptly than his own; along the lines of " those who remain after the battle are of little value, for the worthy have already fallen"....naturally, I hope the list of exceptional editors in the MilHist project, a couple of whom have commented here, carry on their good work and force this place to work properly. I hope I’ve helped a little in my four years here and am still hopeful it has not all been in vain. Over and out. Dapi89 (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bismark1040.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this sucks. I double-checked that you had finally been awarded the Oak Leaves, then came here to offer a congratulations and a thanks for all your high-quality work. I hope you decide to return quickly. :( Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sucks "Big Time"! Dapi, retiring is unacceptable, unacceptable is not an option. Come back please. We need you MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:STUKA OVER SEDAN.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]