User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2017/April

link to previous Searle discussion

Hi, thanks for the link to the previous discussion about the Searle biography! Seems to me that FreeKnowledgeCreator has an agenda here to cast aspersions upon a philosopher he dislikes. I'm not sure how to conclusively demonstrate to this user (who has explicitly stated their intent to add more details) that Searle is relatively unknown (and thus inclusion of allegations not in accord with wikipedia policy) when every time I have explained to them that outside of academia, the ordinary person has no idea who he is, I am simply met with petulant insistence and personal attack (apparently this user is a long time editor and since I am fairly new, he dismisses my argumentation out of hand. Any insight or help resolving this issue would be appreciated, but either way, thanks for linking the previous discussion, it was very useful to see the dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixelpix (talk • contribs) 07:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Mixelpix. No, I do not have an agenda to discredit Searle. I respect his philosophical work, and have no particular feelings about him as an individual. Please review the rules on assuming good faith. You cannot demonstrate to me that Searle is "relatively unknown" because Searle is not "relatively unknown" by the standards used at Wikipedia. You have simply misunderstood what the term means, apparently presuming it to mean that most people have not heard of someone. Furthermore, if you read WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, you will see that whether "the ordinary person" knows who someone is isn't the standard. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator:Your assessment is simply wrong, and repeatedly so, hence the suspicion of an agenda to discredit someone who qualifies as a "low-profile" yet worthy of an article. See the policy [[1]]: "Low-profile: Does not use occupational or other position(s) for public projection of self-worth (above the level normally expected within the field in question – academia, like business and politics, can be quite competitive). Such a person may be notable anyway yet still low-profile (e.g., if generally acknowledged to be a preeminent authority in a particular field, or a CEO of a notable but not market-dominant company, etc., but not particularly self-promotional)." Again, you offer no support of your claim that Searle is not relatively unknown except your own pale insistence. Mixelpix (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mixelpix: In case my reply to you below wasn't clear, let me clarify it. Discussing this here on my user talk page is not going to resolve things so please continue your discussion with FreeKnowledgeCreator elsewhere. Thank you for your understanding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mixelpix: Just for reference, I only added the links to the BLPN thread because the name rang a bell, and I thought the links might be helpful. For reference, it's a good idea to search the archives of noticeboards like BLPN to see if there have been previous discussion related to the article in question before starting a new thread. It would probably also be a good idea to stick to one page for discussing things per WP:CD since multiple discussions about the same matter are typically not much help in resolving things and only move them to another page when the others involved agree. Finally, while I believe your post here on my talk page ws made with the best of intentions, I suggest you take a look at WP:CANVASS for reference since problems with other editors can quickly develop if you're not careful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding "One final question"

@Marchjuly: Thank you very much, Marchjuly, for reviewing my draft for formatting. It was very helpful that you included links so that I could see examples of what I needed to do. I think I have made all of the needed changes. Thank you very much for your help.

My draft is now part of the Eugene, Oregon Wikipedia page. I am very grateful to you and to the community for so much help in managing this project!Silver Water (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia wants editors to be bold in improving articles, sometimes a major revision like the one you made can be seen as a bit too bold by other editors. So, if by chance someone reverts you or edits what you've added, use the article's talk page to discuss their concerns per WP:BRD. Unless you are sure that the reverting/editing was clearly a case of vandalism or clearly a serious violation of relevant policy, it's best to assume good faith and try and engage the other editor(s) in discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

MarchJuly

Hey.. Would want to know you more Melissa5695 (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You can find out all you need to know here, but first I suggest reading this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:"It's Never Too Late to Mend" (1937).jpg

Hi Marchjuly, I want to respond to the dispute you have raised, but am not sure whereabouts on the file to begin writing. Could you please advise. Thanks Beryl reid fan (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably the best place to do such a thing would be on the file's talk page. That will make it easier for others to see what is being dicussed and participate if they like. Administrators are supposed to check a file's talk page for comments when reviewing things, but you could also try adding Template:di-replaceable fair use disputed to the file apge as well. Techinically, that's for rfu issues, but an administrator should see it and be made aware of any comments on the talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Where would I find the file's talk page? There dosen't seem to be anything under "Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion" for today or yesterday. Beryl reid fan (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A file page is like any other page in that it has a corresponding talk page for discussing matters related to it. Just click on the file, scroll to the top of the page, and look for the "talk" tab. You can create the talk page just by posting something on it. Since it is in the file namespace, the page's name will be "File talk:<Name of file>". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Beryl reid fan (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Authagraph image deletion

Could you comment on this deletion? The explanation for the file's license includes this statement:

However, it is believed that the use of this work:

• To illustrate the subject in question
• Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
• On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use…

The use of the image in the List of map projections article meets all these qualifications. Strebe (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The file was only removed from the article; it was not deleted from Wikiepdia. The file is still being used as the primary means of identification in Authagraph projection. Each use of a non-free file is required to have a separate, specific non-free use rationale by WP:NFCC#10c. If you feel you can write a valid rationale which satisfies all 10 non-free content criteria for the list article then please do so. However, it is hard to justify non-free use for individual entries in list articles and within tables for the reasons given in WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES because such usage tends to primarily be more decorative than contextual. In this particular case, item No.6 of WP:NFC#UUI is also an issue because the map is actually being discussed in its own article so to speak, and linking tend to be preferred in such cases. You can ask others about this at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC if you like, or you can start a discussion at WP:FFD as well if you want more feedback. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Major edit formatting time notification

Hello darling!!

I saw your major edit notification and so stopped editing to leave room for you. May I be so bold to ask you not to remove my beloved festivals' table / to not to convert it into text?

I know some festivals may seem a bit obscure, however from the POV of a genre film or just short film fan it is but a complete source for information (and it took ages to make, hehe).

Thank you so very much,

MarthaDaisy MarthaDaisy (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not doing anythng with the tables at the moment, but I cannot say that someone else will not edit/revise them in the future. You need to re-read WP:OWN and also take a look at WP:NOTHERE because it makes no difference whether to Wikipedia whether you love your tables or how much effort went into making them. If the article can be improved by editing/expanding/removing them, then that's will be done. That is one of the risks you take when you're being bold as opposed to being cautious. I'm not trying to sound rude, but it's very important that you understand and accept that about Wikipedia because you're going to find yourself have problems with other editors if you don't (See WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ATADP#Begging for mercy for reference). The draft has been moved to the article namespace, so there's much less wiggle room now to work with. Of course, this does not mean you have no say in things, but any disagreements about content, etc. should be resolved through article talk page discussion and ultimately it will the consensus of the community, excluding any serious policies/guideline related stuff, which will decide what to do. Finally, please just refer to me as Marchjuly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

File:CeferinoGarcia.jpg use in the article History of boxing in the Philippines

I changed the fair use rationale for History of boxing in the Philippines. Pls. check the File's rationale if it works and if it doesn't then I'll delete the said file in the article. Thanks. Pacphobia (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw the changes you made, but I re-added the template because I still don't feel that non-free use is justified for the history article. Generally, non-free images of deceased person are considered OK to use as the primary identification in an article about said person per item 10 of WP:NFCI, but non-free use is much harder to justify in other articles. There has to be a much stronger contextual connection between the image itself and the relevant article content, and simply want to show the person is not considered to be sufficient. Anyway, an administrator will review the file's use and decide what to do with it. However, if you prefer feedback from others, then you can start a discusison about the file's use at WP:FFD.. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Use of images?

Like you, I saw the picture of Gough's portrait on the Archibald page, and thought "that can't be right". But unlike you, I don't know enough about the subject. I looked at the rationale, and it seemed reasonable, but again, I don't know enough about the subject. I am unsurprised and unperturbed by your action; just incredibly ignorant.
May I bother you to explain to me why the rationale is/was inadequate? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I hasten to mention that I actually think your action seems reasonable. (But I wouldn't have dared do it myself due to my excessive ignorance ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

There were two problems with the file being used on that particular page. The first one is that the seperate specific non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c was not provided, so the file could be removed siply for that reason alone per WP:NFCCE. This can sometimes be just a relatively minor matter which can be fixed by simply providing a valid rationale for the particular use. However, the more serious issue has to do with the way the file was being used. The article is a list article and the use of non-free images in a list article is hard to justify for the reasons explained in WP:NFLIST. Such usage tends to be more decorative than contextual which means that WP:NFCC#8 is not being satisfied. A non-free image should pretty much only be used in actually when actually seeing the image to improves the reader's understanding to such a degree that not seeing the image is detrimental to that understanding. What about this image needs to be seen by the reader to understand that an Archibald prize was won by Pugh. According to the list, he's a three time winner. So, I asked myself why does that particular painting need to be seen and not the other two. Is there something particular to this image that is essential for me to see in order understand what is written? Could I replace this painting by Pugh with one of the other two and how would that affect the article?. My answers to those questions were no, yes, and not at all, so then basically a non-free image is not needed. In other words, unless a really good reason can be provided for justifying this type of non-free use, it is almost surely not going to be considered to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy if discussed at WP:FFD. If what I've written makes no sense at all, then you can try asking at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC to see what others think. If you feel you can provide a non-free use rationale that justifies this type of use, then please do. You can also start a discussion at WP:FFD if you like to get more feedback. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Re:Non-free image use (use of File:BBC Balloon over Cley.jpg for a user's personal wiki)

Hello Marchjuly. I have just read what you said on my talk page, and I was just wondering whether it matters or not to my case that I essentially copied the image in question (File:BBC Balloon over Cley.jpg) from the BBC One 'Balloon' idents page and that prior to me using it, it was on this wiki page. I am just a little unsure at the moment whether it is OK or not for me to use existing images on assorted Wikipedia pages for use on my page. Nonetheless, thank you for informing me of this and I will remember this for the future. -- Porridge (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2017 (GMT)

Non-free content is pretty much only allowed to be used in the the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9. I say pretty much because there are certain exceptions allowed as explained in WP:NFEXMP, but these are almost always category pages related to file maintenance. As far as I know, there are no exceptions given to editors who want to use (i.e., display) non-free files on their user page. Freely licensed or public domain images, however, are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content policy and therefore can be used outside the article namespace. Almost all of the images you see being used on user pages are likely to be freely licensed or public domain. So, if you see an image you want to use on your user page, just click on it at check its licensing. If it's an image from WP:COMMONS or is freely licensed/public domain, then you can use it. If it's non-free content, you can't use it.

The ballon image I removed from your user page does have a non-free use rationale for each of its other uses which is one of the requirements for non-free use; whether those rationales are valid, however, is a different question and is sometimes something which requires discussion at a noticeboard like WP:FFD to determine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@PorridgeTF2: One other thing you need to be careful about in addition to images has to do with WP:COPYLINK. You need to be careful in adding links to YouTube or other video/image sites anywhere on Wikipedia as expalined in WP:ELNEVER and WP:YOUTUBE. A lot of YouTube users. etc. upload content that they don't own the copyright on or have permission to upload. So, be leery of anything which is not an official channel or website because only in those cases can you be pretty sure that the creator of the content and the uploader are one and the same. This policy applies to all pages, not only articles and any violations found on your user page may be removed by another editor as explained in WP:UP#OWN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for finding my error in using an inappropriate image in User:Teblick/Pierre Andre (announcer). I apologize for my mistake, and I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Lots of people working on drafts mistakenly add non-free images, etc. just by mistake. Anything which is in the public domain or freely licensed is not subject to WP:NFCCP so they can usually be added to whatever page without any problems. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Free image resources, WP:RI or even c:COM:RI to see if you or someone else is able to find an existing free image of Andre floating around somewhere in cyberspace. He was professionally active quite a long time ago, so there may be an old newspaper or publcitiy photo of him which is no longer protected by copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about non-free files

Regarding this edit of 30-sec samples, my question is, it is only allowed on the song's article? the license suggest "the sample contributes significantly to the encyclopedia articleS in which it is used (listed under the heading "File usage" below) in a way that cannot be duplicated by other forms of media;". If the sample contributes explaining the Artistry section, shouldn't it be used there too? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cornerstonepicker. File:SexyBackSample.ogg is a non-free file and WP:NFCC#10c requires that each use of a non-free file be provided with a non-free use rationale which shows how the particular use satisfies all 10 of the non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. So, if you feel that non-free use of the file can be justified in the Timberlake article, then please provide an appropriate reationale per WP:NFCCE before re-adding the file to the article.

My personal opinion is that is much easier to justify the non-free use of such a clip in the stand-alone article about the song because the entire article from start to finish is about this particular song so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 comes from the enitre article. However, in a sub section of an article about the artist/band, non-free use is much harder to justify because a link to the song's article could be provided where the reader can hear the clip (see item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI and just replace image with music file) and such clips tend to be more "decorative" than something the reader actually needs to hear for them to understand what is written about the song. For example, "SexyBack" is mentioned by name five times in the Timberlake article, but only one of those mentions (the sentence "The lead single, "SexyBack", helped introduce EDM sounds to top 40 radio...") seems to be an attempt at critical discussion of the song; the other mentions are about it chart rankings and sales, etc. (i.e., things which do not require that the reader hear the clip to be understood). The caption for the file does go into more detail and is cited, but that seems to be the same as the content provided in the song's article. Would so much detail about one song be able to be incorporated into the Timberlake article in a good way? Does the reader need to hear this particular clip to understand what is written in the article? Would it be detrimental to that understanding to omit this file from the article? My answers to those questions were "probably not easily done", "no" and "no" which is why I didn't just add a rationale myself. Others may feel differently of course, which is why it is the responisbility of the editor want to use non-free content to justify its use by providing a suitable rationale. A bit wordy of an answer, and you can ask for other opinions at WT:NFCC or WP:MCQ if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand. This means for this article is also unjustified (?) Cornerstonepicker (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

One of the first things some people try to do when a non-free file they've uploaded or added to an article has been removed/deleted is to look for WP:OTHERIMAGE or WP:DELETEALL types of ways to "save" the file. (I know were technically not discussing image files, but the reasons given in "OTHERIMAGE" and "DELETEALL" basically apply to all non-free content) Comparing the non-free use of similar files in similar articles can be a pretty tricky thing to do because policy asks use to evaluate each file independently based upon how it is being used. It's not completely pointless, but there are limits. For example, those three Michael Jackson files you linked to all have non-free use rationales for the Michael Jackson article, whereas the "SexyBack" file does not have one for the Timberlake article; therefore, right away the "SexyBack" file fails NFCC#10c and can be removed just for that reason alone. Whether the rationales for the Jackson files are valid is a completely different thing which likely is going to require further discussion to figure out. You can tag the files with Template:di-disputed fair use rationale or nominate them for discussion at WP:FFD if you like.

Just for reference, I gave you my reasons why I did not add a non-free rationale for the "SexyBack" file. As I posted above, if you feel that non-free use of the file can be justified in the Timberlake article, then please provide an appropriate reationale per WP:NFCCE before re-adding the file to the article. My suggestion is that you try and be as specific as possible as to how you think the use complies with relevant policy. Please don't just simply copy-and-paste an existing rationale for the same or another file with some minor tweaking (e.g., changing only the name of the article), which is unfortunately something many people seem to do. It also would be a good idea to improve the article is a way tied into your rationale to better strengthen the case for non-free use. How do that is up to you and whether others contributing to the page or watching it thinks its OK is up to them. Copyright licensing issues aside, adding files to an article is like adding content: you can be bold, but if reverted then you should discuss per WP:BRD unless there are serious policy related issues which take precedance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Userpage image

Hello, regarding the image which was in my sandbox that you have reverted here, when I do creaete the page and move it out of the user namespace, will I be allowed to use that image? Or is it only permitted to be used as a representative cover for the page of the book itself? Thanks. --NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nikolaiho. A non-free image of a book cover would generally allowed to be used as the primary means of identification is stand-alone Wikipedia article about the particular book per item 1 of WP:NFCI; however, as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3, the non-free use of such images in other article requries a much stronger justification, which typically is when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary. After looking at your sandbox, I don't think the way you are currently using the image would be considered acceptable per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The cover art is really only incidental and one possible example of the subject your writing about and it is not itself the subject of any sourced discussion. Even if the word "buyology" was an entry in the article, you would not need a non-free image for it per WP:NFLIST and simple link to the book's article would be more than sufficient per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. Providing a non-free use rationale for a non-free image is only one part of one criterion (WP:NFCC#10c) for non-free use, and I can't myself see how such a rationale would survive being challeged by either Template:di-disputed fair use rationale or WP:FFD. However, you may feel differently or may want the opinions of other, so you can ask at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed expanation. --NikolaiHo^☎️ 17:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Need assistance

Good morning.

You have marked a page pertaining to me as without source. Please note (and tell me, if you would be so kind) how to correctly attribute the content. All biographical data can be found in "Seduced by The Muse" ISBN 978-1312031951, which can be checked at https://www.amazon.com/Seduced-Muse-Harry-George-Pellegrin/dp/1312031956. Also, another party has removed a photographic reproduction of my first CD. This is not a great loss, as I would prefer to have my latest (5th) CD image on the page. Can you tell me how I can do this as well?

Thanks for any input you can offer,

Best regards,

Harry G. Pellegrin recitalguitarist@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry George Pellegrin (talk • contribs) 00:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC+9) (UTC)

@Harry George Pellegrin: It seems you are referring to the article Harry G. Pellegrin, but before I answer your questions I just want to mention a few things. The items in blue are links to specific Wikipedia pages, so quick on the links for more details. Some of these links are just referred to by their short-cut name, but clicking on the them will take you to the relevant page or section.

1. Please try and sign all your talk page posts as explained in WP:TILDE. There's a special way of signing comments which will add your username and time stamp.
2. Most contact regarding Wikipedia article takes place on Wikipedia itself, so there's really no reason for you to add your email address to your posts. In fact, adding personal information such as email addresses, etc. may be risky as explained in WP:REAL. You may use your real name as explained in WP:REALNAME, but there may be drawbacks to this as well. Also, you may be asked to provided verification of identity by emailing Wikipedia OTRS. This is sometimes required to protect individuals against any damaging impersonation.

Now I will try to answer your questions.

1. Since you claim to be Harry G. Pelegrin, you have a conflict of interest when it comes to anything about him on Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia does not expressly prohibit conflict of interest editing, it is something which is highly discouraged because it can easily lead to more serious issues. Basically, you should not be directly editting the article at all, except in certain specific cases as explained in WP:COIADVICE. For more details, please read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. I will also add a template to your user talk page which contains more information. The template is a bit scary looking when seeing it for the first time, but it contain some links which you may find helpful.
2. You have no ownership rights over article content; in other words, you don't have any final editorial control over the article wirtten about you. The key distinction to make is that Wikipedia article are written about subjects; they are not written for subjects. Only those subject deemed notable per relevant Wikpedia guidelines are considered suitable for a stand-alone aritcle and only article content which can be verified through citations to reliable sources is considered acceptable for inclusion. Articles are supposed to only relfect what reliable sources say in a neutral manner and content is to be encyclopedically relevant. Article content is supposed ot be written in our own words, so anything copied-and-pasted or plagiarized is not permitted. In addition, Wikipedia articles are not intended to be many things, and any article which does not comply with relevant policies and guidelines may be edited accordingly to fix any issues or in some cases even deleted. Articles which are about living people must also comply with WP:BLP, which is fairly specific about what kinds of content may be included.
3. Image use must comply with Wikipedia's image use policy. The most important things about an image is its copyright status. Not everything you find online is copyrighted the same way. It's very important that any image uploaded to Wikipedia be in compliance with WP:COPY. Wikipedia does allow certain copyrighted images to be uploaded as non-free content, but the use of such files is extremely restricted and must be in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Album cover art is, in general, considered acceptable as non-free content as explained in item 1 of WP:NFCI; however, such use is almost always only considered acceptable in stand-alone articles about the album in question as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. Adding non-free album cover art to other articles, such as band pages, discographies, biographies, etc., is typically only allowed when there is a very strong non-free use justification for doing so. Any images uploaded to Wikipedia or added to articles which do not comply with relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines may be deleted or removed.
4. Maintenance templates are added to article to make other Wikipedia editors aware of potential problems. They are often links to special pages where editors with a knack for fixing such things look for things to do. The are not intended to cause embarassment to the subject of the article, but are there for the improvement of the encyclopedia. A template can be removed as explained in Help:Maintenance template removal. Basically, any editor who fixes a problem can remove the corresponding template, but you probably should adk for assistance at Talk:Harry G. Pellegrin instead because of your COI.

Most of what I wrote above may be a little hard to understand at first, so please carefully take a look at the linked pages since they contain much more detail. I'm happy to try and answer any further questions you may have, but you might also be able to find help at WP:THQ, WP:COIN, WP:BLPN or WP:HD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

@George Ho: I'm not sure how to answer your question or how I can possibly help without knowing what you would like to discuss. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Email me preferably. --George Ho (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to discuss it here, but you can include the information in an email if you like. If for some reason you're not able to do that, then it's probably something above my pay grade that I am not going to be much help with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

File PROD implemented

Just to let you know, the {{subst:proposed deletion}} is updated to allow tagging on "File:" namespace. Also, WP:PROD is updated based on the passed proposal to implement that. You may use the template now. --George Ho (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Marchjuly. You have new messages at Tillman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pete Tillman (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Notifying others

I have done that most of the time, especially at one talk page. Well... sometimes it's unnecessary to contact an inactive uploader. Nevertheless, in the case of one file, at least it's still used in one article. About the remark... I hope no more bad terms between us, okay? But I won't preach to you too much if you don't like it. --George Ho (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't care if you preach when its warranted, but your post made little sense. You suggested that I should discuss things with other editors which is exactly what I did. I tagged the file for its non-free use rationale and then notified the uploader accordingly. This gave them an opportunity to discuss things and that discussion would've have been reviewed by an administrator and evaluated accordingly. The administrator would've then either (1) removed the file or (2) kept the file and explained what to do next. You, on the other hand, did not engage in any discussion with anyone at all. You saw the template, and subsequently removed both the file and the rationale. I happen to agree with the removal, but personally I think it's better to leave such a thing up to an administrator. Your "advice" to me about the importance of discussion on Tillman's user talk makes little sense when you yourself made no attempt at all to explain to Tillman why you removed the file and its corresponding rationale. You did leave edit sums, but they were short and contained no links. I pinged you in that discussion not to call you out or criticize you, but to give you the chance to further explain why you removed the file and its rationale; you decided, however, to use that as an opportunity to "advise" me instead of explaining things to Tillman. How does that help Tillman? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

In response, I quickly gave out my response to Tillman. --George Ho (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Sparty image

I know that it's used in the MSU article without rationale, but that's not sufficient reason for the deletion template — we don't delete nonfree images just because they're used in an article without having a rationale for that article. If you want to address that issue, just remove it from the MSU article: do not re-restore the template, because it already has a rationale for the Sparty article. Moreover, because all photos of this subject will be nonfree, the copyright of the source image is irrelevant; university-owned images, images from Flickr with cc-by licenses, images from Flickr with no licenses, and uploader-photographed images are no different for this purpose. Of course, if it comes from something like Reuters that's making money off the image itself, that's different, but that's not an issue with this image, since the photographer uploaded it here and can thus have no objection to its appearance on Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. FWIW, the purpose of the template was not to have the file deleted; it's was added to let others know that the file was lacking nfurs. If my intention was to have the file deleted, {{db-f6}} would have been added instead. In addition, I'm not sure I would call simply adding a link to an article a sufficient non-free use rationale based upon WP:FUR#Non-template, but if you feel it is, then fine. If that's the case, then adding {{di-missing some article links}} might have been more appropriate.

Regarding the photo itself, I don't agree with you that the copyright of the source image is irrelevant. A photograph of a 3D work of art is not considered to be a simple reproduction per WP:DERIVATIVE and c:COM:DW. The photographer who takes the photo decides various factors, and this "creative input" is considered protected by copyright. So, the copyright status of the photo does, in my opinion, need to be taken into account.

Anyway, I've asked the uploader to clarify some things about the image. If he took the photo, then he can release it under any free license of his choosing. If he did not take the photo, then I think permission of the photographer who did is needed. If he actually did not take the photo and is unable to get permission for the person who did, I will start a discussion about the file at WP:FFD.

Since you've chosen to repond to User talk:Nyttend#Non-free use rationales for File:MSU Bronze Sparty 2.jpg here, it's probably best to keep any further discussion here as well so that everything is in the same place. I hope that's acceptable. -- 11:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Re:User:WWE Y ECW

Hello, Marchjuly. You have new messages at Sjb72's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjb72 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)