User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2017/June

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I become a participant in WikiProject:Japan? Dinah Kirkland (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WT:JAPAN. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 00:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay Arigato that's really helpful. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this individual probably fails WP:ANYBIO & WP:ARTIST. I read through the article and have added the maintenance templates of Unreferenced & BLP-References to the box at the top. I do not have time to fully edit it or possibly assess it today but will come back to it later this week and see if any improvements are possible. Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

WP:BLPPROD or starting an AFD, but wanted to see if there were others who might want to take a crack at it first. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 00:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No problems, I'll leave the image out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HoldenV8 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC+9) (UTC)

Hallo. Well, a bit of last happenings between me and wiki: I started an article about Narcotics Anonymous (in Latvian) in sandbox. I was trying to upload image with common NA terms in graphic but translated reasonably in Latvian. I couldn't. I sent message to CambrigeWeatherBay about it and pointed, that I'm Latvian & get response. I came back from my night duty's and opened sandbox. I noticed that few images are gone. Opened chronology stuff: You did it. I could press the button and take responsibility about Non-free content to be back on page, but the case is about the philosophy of NA and all the members in it. Those missing symbols (logos) are in use actually all over the world and are recognizable.. Somebody may use them to attract attention or gain respect, but that is not my responsibility. Probably I get the point why You leaved that one specific symbol at my sandbox. Nice to meet You. Matishka Matishka (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WT:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 09:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Marchjuly. It seems some people are putting logos back into national team pages eg Iran, India pages, ignoring the previous discussions. Do you think we should discuss this issue again? I remember we were going to do a straw poll, but we never did it. Hashim-afc (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to start another discussion or start a poll you can. You can try an build on what came before and see if you establish a consensus. Perhaps this time around, you'll be more successful than previous attempts.

As for the the people recently re-adding those logos, they either are not aware of the previous FFD discussions or they are aware and simply just don't care. If it's a case of the former, you can let them know about the FFD discussion if you like and make a suggestion as to what they can do if they disagree with the FFD close. They'll either take your advice or ignore it and just keep trying to add the logos to the articles; if they choose to do that, they're

WP:NFCCP. Some of these editors, however, have even been previously advised about adding logos without rationales before either by user talk page posts or by edit sums, but they still continue to do so. These type of editors are always going to be around regardless and I don't think existing policies, guidelines or consensuses necessarily need to be revisted for them. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 21:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No offense intended

WP:UP#Non-free files clearly states that "Non-free files found on user or user talk pages will be removed without warning...". -- Marchjuly (talk

) 01:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

On June 15th you removed non-free image content from an article I updated on Tim O'Brien

I think if you look again, you'll see that the non-free images I used are the work of the artist Tim O'Brien and would help the reader understand the article more clearly, with visual references to works of art by this important artist. The cover art for the The_Hunger_Games_(novel) and the Mockingjay title are both clearly credited as being created by the artist.

I would appreciate your consideration of this and feel that readers would benefit from seeing these images in the context of the article.

It's my understanding that usage would fall under Contextual significance of the Non-free content criteria

What d0 you think?

I try my best to be a good citizen for the important works in illustration.

Many thanks.

Rezimmerman (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WP:FFD

.

In general, non-free book covers, album covers, magazine covers, etc. can be tricky to justify because of

WP:NFCC#8

, and is most easily met when there is actual sourced critical commentary about the specific cover art in the article. The contextual connection between article content and non-free image in such cases has to be quite strong so that removing the non-free image would be seen as detrimental to the reader's understanding of the relevant article content.

FWIW, the reason I didn't add the non-free rationales myself for the O'Brien article is because I didn't find enough sourced discussion of these two particular covers in

WP:MCQ, or even start a discussion at FFD if you like, but you will should provide the rationales so that others have something to evaluate. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 06:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your clear and informative response, Marchjuly!

Rezimmerman (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Marchjuly, you can go on and on justifying your (repeated) deletion(s) by pointing to every nit-picking rule you can muster up (and I now see that you are causing similar disturbance to other contributing editors) but that still doesn't make it necessary or right (in my case anyway), especially as the content of Ballpoint Pen Art had been through HEAVY peer review at the time of its creation AND prior to appearing as a DYK on the main page (in the exact state it was in before you suddenly started singling out the Odutola file from out of nowhere). That file's inclusion in the article was very simply to add variety of examples to an article of an art genre with many different applications. Nobody even complained, much less shout 'infringement', not even the artist, who I happen to know is aware that her work is being used in BPA. That should really be clear and easy to understand without having to cite any rule or necessitate 'rationale'. Successful DYK peer review alone validates the article's content as it existed until you came along, and I'll point out that provisions within those very same rules you cite can just as easily be used to argue against you. I will prepare the rationale the next time I have the spare time and reinsert the image, if you have further problems with it then please get some serious consensus before just pushing delete. Penwatchdog (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not delete the file; I removed it from the article because its non-free use does ont comply with

contextual significance for this type of non-free content usage. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 00:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I remember thinking that you were a very helpful editor, but I am sad to see that you have become an image enforcer. You have recently removed several wonderful and unique images from some of the articles on my watchlist. IMO, the worst rule in Wikipedia is NFCC#8, and NFCC#1 is also overapplied. Yes, you are following the rules, but it is like towing cars from an empty parking lot. These are not part of the Copyright law. When I ask people what they see as problems with Wikipedia, they often say "Why doesn't it have pictures?". -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion has more to do with NFCC#1 than NFCC#8. Moreover, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is more restrcitive that US copyright law by design as explained in

WT:NFCC

. As for you're being sad, well that's something out of my control.

When people ask you why "Wikipedia does not have pictures", you can say that it does have pictures, but that it takes copyright matters quite seriously so there are certain policies which uploaded images must satisfy. You can also add that an important goal of Wikipedia is that it wants all people to be able to freely reuse the content/images they see in its articles in any manner they wish. So, while non-free images are allowed in some contexts, such usage is restricted to try to keep it as minimal as possible in much the same way that Wikipedia does not really allowed people to upload complete versions of copyrighted books or musical albums. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your self-revert. I am a lawyer who has some experience with US copyright law (especially fair use claims), so your very basic argument above is not illuminating. To be more precise, my opinion is that a substantial amount of the image enforcement on Wikipedia has nothing to do with copyright; instead it is, in many cases, caused by misunderstandings of copyright law that are built into

WT:NFCC is a waste of my time, so I will not do it. Only a tiny minority of Wikipedians are lawyers, and so it is not likely that nuanced legal arguments will succeed against long-entrenched rules that the bulk of readers of that talk page have learned to love. -- Ssilvers (talk

) 19:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I self-reverted because I didn't notice that the file had been previously be discussed at

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE

instead. The file still was lacking a non-free use rationale for the Peters' article, which you subsequently added. Any further issues with the file's non-free use can be discussed again at FFD.

If you disagree some parts of Wikipedia's non-free use content policy, then the best place to suggest changes to it would be either at WT:NFCC or possibly at WP:VP/P. More editors are likely watching those pages than are watching my user talk, so they are better place to try and establish a concensus for any changes you'd like to see made. If you feel that doing so would be a waste of your time, then please don't bring that discussion here because there's nothing I can do on my own to change that policy.

I am not an administrator, so I don't have to ability to delete any files, articles, or anything else from Wikipedia. I may nominate a file for discussion or deletion, or even remove a file from an article if I believe its use does not comply with relevant policy, but that is done in good faith. If you feel an image has been inappropraitely deleted, then you should discuss your concerns with the administrator who deleted it. If you feel an image has been inappropriately nominated for deletion or removed from an article, then you should follow the instructions in the template on the file's page or discuss your concerns with the editor who removed the file. If you feel my behavior is a problem or that my edits are disruptive or do not comply with relevant policies and guidelines, then you can try discussing them with me or start of discussion at the appropriate administrator's noticeboard per

WP:RAA. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 00:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I must assume that you actually read what I wrote. Which brings me back to my original thought. It makes me very sad to see a good editor *choose* to devote time to enforcing the worst rules on WP, even after I have explained to you why they are bad rules and hurt the WP project. I thought that explaining it to one thoughtful person might be effective. If even *you* are not persuaded, you can see that it would be a complete waste of time to bring the argument to a discussion board. I won't take up any more of your time. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree they are bad rules and I don't agree that they hurt the project despite your attempted "explanation" to the contrary. If you feel they are, then please discuss them on the policy's talk page and try to establish a new consensus. If your "legal arguments" are correct, then you should have little trouble convincing others as well. If you're not able to convince others, then perhaps the fault is with your arguments. Anyway, as I posted above, I cannot help you being sad or that

you just don't like the current policy. If you wish to discuss either of those things, please do so somewhere else. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 01:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Arigato

	Admin
	Japan is considered as one of friendlyest Country for bicycling and I have there a friend Yohey(name) Matishka (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted image

Hi Marchjuly. You deleted a file I uploaded for the article Toby Price. Rather than a link to a page of gibberish, can you tell me simply how to make it freely-licensed so it will not be deleted again? Also, I noticed there was only 2 days between the notice given and deletion of the file. What sort of nerd checks Wikipedia every 2 days or less? How about a week or two notice before deleting someone's work? Thanks. -- GSmyth (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2017

I am not an adminstrator, so I cannot delete files. I tagged the file as replaceable fair use per

WP:NFCC#1. I am not, however,even the editor who nominated the file for speedy deletion this last time; it was nominated by Train2104 as you can see from the notifications Train2104 left on your user talk page. All I did was add a ffdc template to the article where the image was being used. File's that are deleted are not gone forever; they are only hidden from public view. I don't suggest uploading the file again because is not necessary and will likely lead to the same result if you just do what you did before. It's better to discuss things witht he deleting admin if you feel that a mistake has been made. The administrator who deleted the file is Fastily, and you can post a message at User talk:Fastily

asking for clarification.

If you took the photo yourself, you are the copyright holder of the image unless for some reason you transfered the copyright to someone else. The problem with the photo appears to be that it has been

here, but you should understand that basically you are agreeing in advance to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the photo at anytime and use the photo for any purpose, including commercial. You also cannot revoke or cancel a free license

at a later date if you change your mind.

Once you send in your email, you should recieve an automatied reply containing a OTRS ticket number. This number is sort of like a reference number and you can use it if you have any questions about your email or the file. It may take a bit of time, but your email will eventually be reviewed by an OTRS volunteer to check the licensing. If there are no problems, the file will be undeeleted and a {{

WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 00:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to make some corrections. -- 10:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)]

@Marchjuly: The file was reuploaded today (after this message was posted) and I tagged it. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I notice you have deleted some images from a sub-page of my userpage. The fact is I was in the process of editing a public article in my private user page and once I was happy with it, I planned on uploading it to the main wikipedia page I was editing, which is licensed to use the images in question. So it was just temporary!

If there's another way for me to accomplish this please let me know, I would like to learn.

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC) kvwiki1234, June 22, 2017

You can't use

colon trick

, but you cannot display the files in your user namespace. There are no exceptions for this type of usage, so please do not re-add the images again.

If you're working on a draft for a new article or on an improvement to an existing article, you can add the images after the draft has been approved as an article or after you add your improvement to the existing article. However, since files you want to use are non-free content, you must make sure that the way you want to use them satisfies all 10 criteria listed in

WP:NFLISTS. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 09:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have one question. Why is it that an image is legal on one wikipedia page (profile picture of a famous person for example) but the same image cannot be used in a list article where that person appears? I am referencing the same image stored on wikimedia. Please advise.

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC) kvwiki1234 June 22, 2017

There are bascially two types of images you find on Wikipedia: "free images" and "non-free images". A "free" image is an image which has been released under a

does not automatically mean that the same file can be used in another article

. There were a couple of problems with the way you were using those images in that particular article. I will try to explain them below.

The first is probably the easiest to understand and it has to do with

WP:NFC#UUI

which is pretty much why it is never considered OK on Wikipedia and which is why I didn't add the rationales myself.

Non-free images of deceased individuals are generally considered acceptable per item 10 of

context

required by NFCC#8 is almost always lacking. A non-free image in the list article may look nice with all of the other free/public domain images, but it is really not something that is essential to the reader's understanding of the article to such a degree that removing it would be detrimental to that understanding. Moreover, list articles almost always contain links to the stand-alone articles of its individual entries (item 6 of NFC#UUI) where readers can go to find more information about the particular entry, and also see any non-free images being used to identify these entries.

You can ask about this type of usage at

WP:FFD if you want. The consensus in similar discussions about similar types of image use has almost always been that it is not OK, but maybe you will be able to establish a different consensus for this particular article. I have my doubts you being able to do such a thing based upon the reasons given above, but maybe you will be able to convince others that this is the exception to the particular rule. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 22:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: File:Twink.jpg. I'm not 100% sure file could be construed as unreplaceable, but I couldn't say otherwise either.. The subject, as a public figure, has been photographed many times. However I don't know of any free images offhand, particularly from the 60s. Yoou will note an earlier admin accepted the free use rationale (see talk). I did attempt to google the copyright status of passport photos generally - one imagines since they are nominally UK government commissioned/property they might be Crown Copyright, rather than belonging to the individual concerned - with no joy. I do believe the subject was the source of the photo, and I can contact him via facebook, which I will - suggesting that, if he wishes this, or another photo, to appear on the article, he should put it through the OTRS process. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I saw the file's talkpage, but I'm not sure that this is acceptable per

WP:ITSHISTORIC

, so not sure if that claim is a valid justifiction for non-free use in and of itself.

Even so, if you do feel that the image is not "replaceable fair use", you can use {{

di-replaceable fair use disputed}} to explain why. FWIW, if Twink does turn out to be the copyright holder and wants to release the image under a free license, it can be converted as such once OTRS verifies things. Even if the file is deleted in the meantime, it will only be hidden from view and can be restored once OTRS verifies the licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 07:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep. He has responded positively. I am setting the wheels in motion. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

If it's the same file, then it has already been deleted,. It probably can be "undeleted" by explaining things to the deleting admin. Whomever sends in the OTRS email, should receive a response containing an OTRS ticket number. That number is helpful is making inquiries to OTRS if there are any issues with the licensing. If it's a new image, then just add {{

OTRS pending}} to the file so that others are aware that an email has been sent. — Marchjuly

1:01 pm, 20 June 2017 (UTC+9) — continues after insertion below

The file was deleted. He did send in the permission to OTRS, and I was cc'd. My original request to him for approval also cc'd OTRS, and got a Ticket#: 2017062010002382, but I haven't seen one show up for his actual permission. Meanwhile, since the file is deleted, I have no option to add an {{

OTRS pending}} tag. As suggested, I will follow up with the deleting admin. Wwwhatsup (talk

) 15:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about this a bit and it does not seem too different from Cat Stevens. A current image should probably be used in the main infobox since Twink's still out there performing, but the older 60s image could be added to the body of the article to show him during that time of his career (as long as their are no outstanding licensing issues). -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. And I suggested as much in my fb communication. He has supplied a contemporary photo, and the email of the photographer. I will see what can be done on that front. Wwwhatsup (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so I just want to clarify...Am I allowed to copy and paste NHL logos from Category:National Hockey League logos and put them onto rivalry articles without violating any Wikipedia rules? I just want to know so that I don't become a repeat offender. Thanks! Jewel15 (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi

a case of obvious vandalism

.

As for non-free logos, the consensus regarding this type of use tends to be to not allow it. If you feel there are some kind of special circumstances which should allow this type of use, then I suggest you ask for feedback at

providing such a rationale does not automatically mean non-free content use policy compliance, and any editor who disagrees with your assessment may start a discussion at FFD about the file's use. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 22:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why it is wrong to have a svg instead of a png, it's still the same image. I already finished the conversions anyway, if someone decides to delete them we can turn back to the png images I guess.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 23:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 23:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The problems that can happen is that the conversion is flawed and that the logo or non free image then becomes a derivative. It may be important to tell that the image is genuine, in which case the direct copy of the original unfree file can be confirmed to be exactly the same image. Another source for .svg files is from the copyright holder. Sometimes other vector forms of images are available. Extra copyright is held in the encoding into the text form of the .svg. If you create a .svg file of a non-free file, I would recommend that you release your code as public domain or cc-zero to avoid making the copyright more mirky. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the two problems mentioned (authenticity and the copyright of the SVG code), there is a third – and I think ultimately insurmountable – problem. If you can't find a detailed SVG file published by the copyright holder, it's conceivably because the copyright holder thinks it's not in their commercial interests to provide one. Such SVG files are easy to use for the production of e.g. print items, which is something that the copyright holder might already do in hopes of selling these items (and if they don't, by retaining copyright they also retain this possibility for the future). Thus if the copyright holder has not decided to release a detailed SVG, you doing so potentially violates

WP:NFCC#2. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs

) 17:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)