User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2017/March

DYK for Karolina Styczyńska

On 1 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Karolina Styczyńska, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Karolina Styczyńska (pictured) is the first non-Japanese individual to be awarded professional status by the Japan Shogi Association? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Karolina Styczyńska. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Karolina Styczyńska), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help, i thought the tea party site was run by people from usa, not UK the ones from england have not helped me. your commentsPaulboll (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC) were great thanks. 22:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Paulboll (talk)

You're welcome Paulboll, but I have to admit I don't understand your reference to "tea party site". -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you so much for your help re: YouTube videos! This was very thorough and very helpful. Songuitar333 (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Damaris Hayman.jpg

Hi,

I want to give a rationale to your challenge to delete the image, but I can't work out where exactly to write it. It says:

"Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable."

Where exactly is "below the original fair use template?"

I find the language used highly technical and intimidating.

If you can help, I would appreciate it. I'm aware the file is soon to be deleted.

Beryl reid fan (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

N.B: I've just added my "reason that a free replacement can not be found or created," on the file page, though I'm not confident I've added it to the correct place. Beryl reid fan (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Beryl reid fan. You did incorrectly add the template. I've tried to fix it for you. If I made an error in doing, so it was made in good faith. As for your argument, I think you probably should take a look at WT:NFCC#Replaceable fair use for retired/no longer publically active living individuals. There is no sourced content about Hayman's appearance anywhere to be found in the article, so there's no reason to believe that her Wikipedia notability has anything to do with her appearance. What you are going to need to establish (in my opinion) is that this particular photo (or how she's depicted within this particular photo) received coverage it reliable sources at the time, and then add that information to the article. If you are able to do that, then it could be argued that omititng this photo would be detrimental to the reader's understanding; otherwise, I feel replaceable fair use applies. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, thank you for your helpful response. Beryl reid fan (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Price (actor) picture

Hi there. I have asked Bliss Media's company HR to send the template letter to permissions-en@wikimedia.org to demonstrate copyright and authorize release of the picture. Thanks,Supermann (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-free use of image and correction suggestions

Thanks for the information and education. I am seeking to resolve the matter you brought to my attention. (I didn't even see your message on my talk page until after I already started my attempted resolution!) I appreciate your help.--SidP (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sidp. I'm not sure what help I may be able to provide. Non-free images of living persons are simply not allowed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, except in some very limited cases. Even if you are personally unable find or create a freely licensed equivalent image yourself, it may be possible for someone somewhere to do so. You could try posting a request at WP:RI or c:COM:RI since it's possible some editor somewhere can find/create a free image. There are also certain "tools" introduced in WP:FIT which may be helpful in finding freely licensed image somebody has uploaded online. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Photo for the page about me

Hi...

The photo I had uploaded to my Wiki page was taken by me with my own phone as a selfie. Your process for doing anything in Wikipedia is cumbersome and difficult for someone who does not do web design for a living, and I don't understand how I'm supposed to go about 'proving' that the pic is mine.

Please let me know in simple terms what I have to do to convince you that the pic is my property and I am free to use it as I see fit.

Thank you,

Lora Lora Elise (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lora Elise. Photos which are deleted from Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons are not really gone forever; they are only hidden from view and can fairly easily be restored once the issue which lead to their "deletion" has been resolved. So, please don't upload the photo. Remember the file name " File:Lora Johnson Profile.jpg" because it can be used again to "undelete" the photo once proper permission has been verified. Many photos are uploaded to Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons by people who mean well, but who are just unfamiliar with the Wikimedia Foundation's policies on uploading copyrighted images.

Unfortunately, some people who upload files are not the original copyright holder of the file, which means they do not have the right to license the content freely. In other cases, the uploader may have created the content and are the original copyright holder, but the file in question has already appeared somewhere online without free license prior to being uploaded to Wikipedia. The latter case is what applies to your situation. The file you uploaded can be seen here and here. The Chicago Now site lists all content as copyrighted by "2017 CTMG", which includes the photos as well. It's quite possible that you yourself provide the photo to the writer who wrote the article, but in such cases Wikipedia is going to require an explicit declaration of consent saying that this is the case. You can do this in two ways: (1) send an email to Wikipedia OTRS in the preferred format shown in Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, or (2) use the "Interactive Release Generator" as explained in Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online.

If you decide to use option 1, you should use what is considered to be your official email account: free email providers, such as Yahoo and Gmail, etc. can be created by anyone under pretty much any name, so something which will make it possible to identify you as really being you is probably a better choice. Once your email has been recieved, you should get an automated reply from the system which contains an OTRS ticket number. This ticket number is used for reference, so keep it on file. The entire verification process may take some time since there tends to be a backlog and only so many OTRS volunteers doing the checking, but it will be eventually sorted out. If everything is in order, the file will be restored; if not, it won't. Once you have an OTRS ticket number, you can ask questions about the file's status at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard. I am not an OTRS volunteer, so even though I can try and answer general questions about how things work, I don't have access to the personal and private information contained in the emails they review. Anyway, I hope that helps clear things up a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Shadilay

I moved the profanity to its own archive. The editor in question didn't both to remove the PROD, which is his privilege to do (unlike a CSD tag or an AFD tag, which may not be removed). Oh well. It was and is crud, and will be deleted in seven days. If he had removed the PROD rather than just cursing, I would have AFD'd the crud anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I also saw you warned them after the fact. They are new and probably just haven't quite figured out how things work. Hopefully, they be more civil then next time. If not, they will likely end being eventually blocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Your Comment on SportVU page

What I meant by timeline is for the key accomplishments to be put into WP:PROSE under subheadings that indicate some span of a couple years. So pretty much what you said except just put into chronological order under separate subheadings.

Gomez.alexa (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. For future reference, it's best to respond to article talk page posts on the article talk page itself. This keeps the discussion in one place and makes it easier for others who may also be interested to participate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Your rewrite of Cincinnati police

The court articles say that the officers were acquitted of all charges. What I originally added to it was true. Apparently you have some type of agenda to be had. Sad Skippy0321 (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no agenda to be had, unless you consider trying to help ensure article content is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines to be an "agenda". If the officers were acquitted of all charges, then there should be coverage in independent reliable sources which says such a thing. If you are aware of such sources, just add it as an inline citation in support of the content you wish to add. If you're not sure how to do this, then please take a look at WP:REFBEGIN.

Wikipedia articles are not places to try and right some great wrong or set the record straight. They are only intended to reflect what independent reliable sources say about a particular subject. This is especially important when discussing contentious information about living persons as explained in WP:BLPSOURCES. If you want to discuss any of the content in the article, the place for you to do so is on the article's talk page as explained in WP:DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have multiple accounts, I only have my skippy123. I have been to busy at work to even look at anything. What appears to me is that the original posting error has been spotted by more people than I alone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.219.243 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2017‎ (UTC+9)

If that's the case, a checkuser should find no connection between the two accounts or this IP address. Just for reference, editing from an IP is actually less anonymous than editing from a registered account because it's possible to geolocate an IP address and possibly find out where it originates. So, if you're concerned about that kind of thing, then you probably should edit using your registered account. Anyway, those other people are also welcome to discuss any concerns they may have about the article on it's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Al-Shorta SC

Marchjuly, since the nominator and his sockpuppet reviewer have been blocked, I have completely undone the nomination and GA listing of the article. Since the GA review has been undone, the reassessment is effectively orphaned. I removed the link to it from the talk page. You might want to have both of them deleted; at a minimum, you should have the duplicate one (the "/2") deleted; the numbering of community reassessments and GA reviews is, in any event, independent of one another (both can be "1"). If you need any help in doing this, please feel free to let me know. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you BlueMoonset. Is it OK to request speedy deletion per WP:G7 or do I need to start go to WP:MFD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why G7 wouldn't work with the "/2" one, and you can try it or WP:G6 with the "/1" one. If you opt to use G7 for "/1", be sure to point out that the other comment was by a sock who was blocked a bit over an hour later, with the GA revoked due to the sock of the nominator approving the nomination so there was nothing to reassess; for G6, just the latter is necessary. If you think G6 might be better for "/1", I'm happy to request it myself; they may (or may not) recognize my name from prior requests in the GAN/GAR spaces. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back sooner. I can tag the pages for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure if that's OK now that they've been archived. If that makes no difference, then let me know. If you feel it's just as easy for you to tag them, then please do. I started the reassessment in good faith; if it's pointless now, then there's no need for it. Just for reference, the editor involved has admitted to breaking the rules at c:User talk: Hashim-afc#Iraq FA logo and User talk:Hashim-afc. The sock also mentioned possibly GA reviewing India national football team in the SPI and on the reassessment page, so maybe that article should be watched just in case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for not seeing this sooner; I must have missed the ping. Please tag the "/2" with a G7, at least; it has no reason to exist. Once you've done that and it's gone, I'll submit the "/1" one. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I G7'd the "/2" subpage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)