User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2017/October

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

2023;Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022;Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021;Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020;Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019;Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018;Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017;Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Hello Marchjuly. Since I see you're knowledgeable with how the Non-free content policy works, I'd like to inquire about how the current use of the file linked above is compliant with NFCC. I notice it's properly used in one article, but most likely not used properly on the others. Would you mind taking a look at it when you get the chance? Thanks!

Generally, non-free logos such as that are considered OK when used as the primary identification of the main article about the event (for example, in this case

WP:NFC#UUI

because individual season articles also tend to be "child entities" per se of the main league article (the "parent entity"), and again relevant policy tends not to allow re-using non-free logo of parent entities simply for the sake of re-using as default and prefers non-free logos specific to the child entity instead. This is just some general things I have observed and there may be certain cases which are considered to be exceptions.

There were two things wrong with the file's non-free use in the three individual season articles: the first has to do with all of what I mentioned above, but the second has to do with

WP:F6 when one is not provided. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 21:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Why Manchester City, Manchester United, Liverpool, Bayern, Paris Saint-Germain, Milan, Borussia Dortmund, etc. has permission to use their non-free logos for the youth teams and female teams articles and Real Madrid not?--95.22.177.60 (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see

WP:OTHERIMAGE. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 14:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Non-free fair use in}} so Wikipedia treats it as non-free content. The age of the photo is only one factor as explained in c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rangers1915.JPG, and the first publication date of it has to be taken into account as well. I'll ping those in the COM DR discussion (@Hammersoft, Yann, Denniss, and AlphaEta:) to see what they think; the Commons DR was in 2012 so perhaps the five years which have passed since then mean that this might be able to be now treated as PD for one reason or another. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 04:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply and efforts! I hadn't thought of the publication date at all. I appreciate your taking the time to work on this. The original image was actually a postcard - given the content, it's an interesting and important image to be able to talk about moving forward. Owlsmcgee (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's the publication date that matters in determining the copyright of something like this, not its creation date. In this case, the image was first published in 1968 or thereabouts. Have a look at Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States from the Cornell University Library. Given that it was published between 1964 and 1977 with copyright notice, it's copyright won't expire for many decades yet to come. We have to treat it as non-free here. This is an unusual case, in that the date of publication is 50+ years after creation. Nevertheless, it's the date of publication that we have to hang on. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm curious, because I encountered the image in an journal article that said it was a popular postcard between 1915-1920. (I will dive back in and see if I can find it, or else this conversation is moot). If I could find that reference, perhaps that could challenge the publication claim. Let me see if I can find the article again this weekend.Owlsmcgee (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: Couldn't find the journal article, but this newspaper article and this Slate article both highlight the photo as part of an exhibition at the Bullock Texas State History Museum in Austin, focused on photographs "from 1910 to 1920" and identifies the image as a postcard, which tells me that it was published in some form or another around that time. Thoughts? (Not trying to be difficult. The image is an interesting historical artifact!) Owlsmcgee (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly. You have new messages at Jaking01's talk page.
Message added 14:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Marchjuly. You have new messages at Jaking01's talk page.
Message added 06:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaking01 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, can you please stopo replacing that awful photo. I think we should start a RFC or open a BLP noticeboard question. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. You should state your concerns there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Also - placing an edit war template on thier talkpage is not a great idea, you are edit warring the old photo in yourself. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You realize that there is an ongoing discussion about the photos and that multiple IPs/new SPAs (likely the same person who was blocked as

WP:SPI is needed to verify all of these accounts are connected, then that can be done. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 12:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't care at all about any of that, open a SPI block everyone, protect the page, I care only about which photo is the better. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not totally clear on the reasons why the "offcial photo" is not being used, so I am willing to discuss this on the article's talk page. The IPs/SPAs edit warring over it and possibly using

WP:MEAT to try and sway any discusion one way or another is something, however, which I think is a more serious matter and should not simply be ignored. Just for reference, there has been an SPI opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GillianKeegan by another editor. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 13:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Good afternoon, we apologize for violating the Wikipedia's policy. We are a web agency which handles the maintenance of the CNH Industrial Official Website. In order to reskin the CNH Industrial's Wikipedia's page, we need to add the brands logos which are part of the Corporate. We found them online, but 2 of them have been banned for copyright violation. How can we proceed? How can we recognize the free-use logos? Otherwise, is it possible to upload new logos, provided the CNH Industrial's authorization? To whom should we send it? Thanks. Regards Triplesense Reply (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Triplesense. Thank you for your post. Unfortunately what you've written means that you have a whole new set of problems which are much more serious than using non-free content in your user sandbox. I will post a template on your user talk page with some links and more information that I strongly suggest you read. Basically, you and CNH Industrial seem to have seriously misunderstood

Wikipedia Teahouse or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. My sugesstion to you as that you forget editing the sandbox and the trying to use the images for the time being. The other issues I've mentioned above are much more serious and need to be resolved asap. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 21:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, I understand that the Hezbollah flag is not appropriate for the infobox, however I do not understand why you place the word "Hezbollah" in a box. I have not seen this done in an infobox before, is this intentional? Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Oscar666kta420swag: When I removed the flag icon, I forget to remove the "space" between the icon and the wikilink. It should be OK now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah I see. All good :) Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I will be more careful in the future. Which is why I put the image on my Sandbox page and not on my actual Wikipedia User page. I'm just trying to teach myself the basics of Wikipedia editing. I noticed that you delinked the post, but I deleted everything related to the image so that there is no more reference to it on my page. Also, just FYI, I am completely making fun of myself on my Sandbox page. The hostility and sarcasm isn't meant to refer to anyone but me. Thank you.

(Beauty School Dropout (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC))

public domain images available on Wikimedia Commons. You can use them for your user page(s) if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 01:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srichirs11 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Srichirs11. The licensing of each image you see on Wikipedia is determined by it

WP:NFCCE

.

In this case, Wikipedia generally allows non-free photographs of deceased individuals per item 10 of

WP:NFC#UUI

.

I've typed this response fairly quickly with lots of links to relevant pages because I'm sort of in a hurry at the momment. I'll be away from my computer for the next day or so, so if there's something you still don't quite understannd or you want another opinion, please ask for help at

WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 21:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, I did notice the deletion of another batch of Indian Army photos and understand the reasons behind it's deletion. I wanted to pass this by you before I uploaded it. Here is an image([1]), which is released by the British High Commission under CC-2.0 okay for upload on Wikimedia Commons. If I understand correctly, the images under these license cannot be modified and are free to be distributed as they are aka no cropping. Is my understanding correct and is this acceptable? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The license of the photo you linked to above places restrictions on commercial use which means it cannot be accepted by Commons per c:COM:L. You can see which Creative Commons licenses Commons accepts at c:COM:CC. Regarding photos you find on Flickr, you need to be sure that the account belongs to the original creator of the content and not just someone uploading someone else’s work. c:COM:LL can sometimes be a problem when it comes to Flickr. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm getting in touch about File:Javan1971.jpg. I would like some explanatory message as to exactly why my contribution has been removed. As far as I know, the use of this image and the rationale provided comply with the regulations:

The cover of this magazine relates to something that has been the subject of discussion in the article, and is of considerable historical significance. More specifically, it shows Ali Javan with a DCN/HCN or an H2O/D2O water vapor laser which he used to obtain the zero beat signals arising from mixing them. His experiments in the measurement of the frequency of light led to the eventual redefinition of the second, and also to the optical frequency combs (see the Nobel Lecture by T. Hänsch).

This magazine and its cover picture were non-existent on the web, so I had to do a lot of searching to find a copy. I would have appreciated some explanation about the removal in advance (so that I'll have a little chance to retort in case I don't agree with the call). Telementor (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The file does not have a

WP:FFD to determine wether it is. — Marchjuly (talk

) 01:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The FUR is currently for the article

Stefan2 (talk

) 17:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I changed the link to English Wikipedia. I personally think it should qualify due to the experiment's historic significance, and the fact that it is discussed in the article as a major part of his scientific career. His experiments on measurement of optical frequencies were significant at the time, which is why it was featured on the Smithsonian. As emphasized by Hänsch, it was the precursor to frequency combs which today allow precision measurement (~one part in 10¹⁸) of everything, from fundamental constants, to everyday TV synchronization, etc. Telementor (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The experiments might have been discussed by reliable sources and they may be considered historically significant, but as posted above that does not automatically mean the same can be said for the cover of that particular issue of the Smithsonian magazine. The changes you made to the non-free use rationale 807473833|here are more about how the experiments are significant than how the cover itself is significant. The cover is not even mentioned anywhere at all in the article; the magazine is cited four times, but the reader doesn't need to see the cover of an issue of a magazine being cited as a source any more than they would need to see the covers of any of the other publications being cited as sources in the article. Does seeing this particular magazine cover significantly improve the reader's understanding of what is written in the article to such a degree that not seeing it would be detrimental to that understanding? If you feel that the answer to that question is "yes", then provide the non-free use rationale explaining why. If the file is then nominated for discussion, you'll have the opportunity to further explain why the non-free use is justified.

Finally, the fact that it might have been taken by a famous photographer does not matter any more than if it was taken by an amateur unless that particular cover photo is something that has been critically discussed by reliable sources. The are lots of Wikipedia articles written about famous photographers, but that does not mean every photo these individuals might have taken is OK to use as non-free content. If the photo has been critically discussed or has won some major awards, then it might be possible either to (1) create a stand-alone article about it or the particular issue, or (2) add content about it to Fritz Goro as an example of his work. Neither of those things, however, would still not automatically mean that the file's non-free use is also justified in the article about Javan. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

No, removing it would not be detrimental to the understanding. I simply wanted to use the cover photo to emphasize that Javan's work attracted much attention at the time. It is possible to allude to it in the text. The photograph is already alluded to in the Fritz Goro article, so can it be used there?

The magazine at the time (53 years ago) was a copyrighted publication. I am not completely sure if the cover definitely is non-free (i.e. if the copyright has been expired/renewed). Telementor (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

If the cover is no longer in copyright or is considered to be in the

WP:IUP

and whether there's a local consensus to do so. Adding the non-free file the photographer's article might be possible, but once again WP:NFCCP would need to be satisfied. If you can find reliable sources discussing the photographer's particular style which mention this photo as a good representation of that style, then there might be a strong case for non-free use. If you simply want to add this file because he took the photo and because it shows Javan and his telescope just in support of "as photos of Ali Javan timing the frequency of light at M.I.T. laboratory", then I think the justification for non-free use is much weaker and most likely not sufficient.

"Allude" seems to be synonymous with "illustrate" and "illustrate" is pretty much just "

WP:FFD

, the community will decide whether the use is appropriate.

This type of non-free use is not expressly forbidden in all cases, but it can be really hard to justify most of the time. For example, Robert Capa and Joe Rosenthal are two photographers who took many iconic/historic/famous/award-wining photos throughout their lives, yet you will not find any non-free examples of their work in their respective Wikipedia articles. You will, however, find examples of their work in The Magnificent Eleven and Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima which are linked to from the photographer articles because the use of those photos in the repsective photographer articles is not considered NFCCP compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I dont get why you removed the image from PAOK HC. Since it a department of the amateur club it uses the same logo as the parent club which is already visible of the page of AC PAOK. i dont get it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitris1408 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)‎

The licensing of each image you see on Wikipedia is determined by it

Wikipedia's non-free image use policy

.

Each use of a non-free file has to satisfy ten non-free content use criteria and one of these criteria (actually one part of one of these criteria) is

WP:NFCC#3

). Generally, the non-free use of team logos is allowed when the logo is used as the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article about the team itself; however, in this case the logo is for P.A.O.K. which is the parent club/organization and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is not to allow the logos of parent clubs to be used in articles about child entities such as the different departments of P.A.O.K. Instead a logo specific to the individual "department" is preferred over the logo for the parent club. If such a individual team specific logo does not exist, then the default is not to automatically use the parent club logo. There may be certain cases where an exception is made, but in general logos for parent entities are not allowed to be used as the primary means of identification in articles about child entities.

So, if you still feel that the non-free use of the file in the HC is still justified, then it's your responsibility to explain how by providing the non-free use rationale for that particular use. Your rationale should clearly show how all ten non-free content criteria are met. If you're not sure how to do this, you can ask for help at

WP:FFD

to see if a consensus can be established to use the file in the HC article.

Finally, one general thing about using talk pages. I noticed that you're not signing your talk page posts. You should always try to sign your posts because it makes it much easier for others to see who posted what and when. There are a couple of different ways to sign a post, but the easiest is explained in

WP:TILDE. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 12:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Pantethine (talk)

You're welcome. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I understand why you removed the image of Mr. Garrison from South Park from my Sandbox. However, for future references, could you please not remove anything from my sandbox without my permission? You know, if I had an image on either my sandbox or my talkpage that isn't for fair use, why didn't you just leave a message on my talk page? I would've replied back to you as soon as I could and removed the picture. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I was just doing routine non-free image cleanup and the file I removed was flagged by a bot as violation of

public domain can be used; anything licensed as non-free content cannot. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 14:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks for telling me. I'll take that into consideration next time I add an image to either my talk page or my sandbox. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)