User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2019/February

Arena Football League logos

Hello, Marchjuly! The Arena Football League logos that were removed from the article should not have been. Nor should they have ever been marked for deletion. The logos are a part of the league history and the removal of them is like rewriting history like they never existed. They do exist because I watched the league for years. I tried following the WP:REFUND method as you suggested. The only other way is to contest the removal and proposed deletion of the logos and I plan on contesting them. Explicit obviously is trying to rewrite history where he/she is not supposed to. I requested that they be returned to the article immediately. The guidelines are just way too confusing. No amount of explanation is going to fix that problem, I believe. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Non-free use can be tricky and quite restrictive; it's not automatic and each use of a non-free file needs to satisfy all ten non-free use content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. For logos, it's generally considered acceptable per item 2 of WP:NFCI for the most recent logo to uploaded and used for primary identification purposes at the top of in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the organization the logo represents. The non-free use of former logos, however, is much harder to justify and typically requires that the logo itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-4.

I don't agree with your assessment that Explicit is trying to "rewrite history"; Explicit is just applying Wikipedia's non-free content use policy according to a consensus established regarding non-free former logo use through various discussions at WP:FFD, WP:NFCR and on other pages over the years. While I can understand how you might be frustrated by having a file you've uploaded removed or deleted; you're not going to get very far assuming other editors are acting in bad faith because they do something you don't agree with. You're also not going to get very far, and most likely will end up being blocked, if you continue to re-upload non-free files which have been deleted as violations of relevant policies and guidelines.

The best way for you to ensure that any logos you upload are not deleted or removed from articles is to try and find reliable sources which discuss how the logo/logos has/have changed over the years and then add such content to the article, perhaps as a separate section specifically devoted to the organization's choice of branding, etc. Just adding the logo to a general section discussing the organization during a certain period of its existence is not going to really be seen a sufficient justification for using a non-free former logo. There needs to be some article content which specifically discusses the logo and ties it into the rest of the article; otherwise, removing the logo is not going to be deemed detrimental to the reader's understanding of what's written in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Dont edit my user page

Por favor no edites mi pagina de usuario. No te debe importar que imagen yo ponga Eso es irrespetuoso Brony Miraculer 507 15:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brony Miraculer 507 (talk • contribs)

@Brony Miraculer 507: I'm unable to understand what you posted beyond the section heading. If you can write a section heading in English, you should've been able to write the rest of your post in English as well. Since this is English Wikipedia, pretty much all interactions between editors are going to be made in English as explained in WP:SPEAKENGLISH. You're also going to be expected to leave edit summaries in English. So, if you're having difficulty understanding and communicating in English, then please clarify and perhaps someone who understands Spanish (?) can help explain these things.

Anyway, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive, and non-free content cannot be used on user pages per Wikipedia's non-free content use criterion #9 and Wikipedia:User pages#Non-free images. Moreover, "your" userpage does not really belong to you (i.e. is your property) as explained in Wikipedia:User pages#Ownership and editing of user pages; so, it needs to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. User pages are for the most part left alone, but can be edited by another editor when they don't comply with relevant policies and guidelines. Please don't re-add any non-free content to your user page. It's OK to make this mistake once maybe twice, but doing so over and over again is going to be seen as disruptive and will lead to an administrator being asked to step in and intervene. If you want to display images on your user page, then there are many images available from Wikimedia Commons that you should be able to use instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Negotiating with a bot

Re your assistance here: Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#File:The_Rolling_Stones_Tongue_Logo.png. So, I added the image to Kali#In_popular_culture. It may not surprise you that it was removed by a bot a little later, that bot is well-known to people who know these things well.

Looking at File:The Rolling Stones Tongue Logo.png, it seems I could BOLDly add a "Non-free media rationale for Kali" template. Would that satisy (at least) the bot? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

There are various bots which do all kinds of busy work when it comes to non-free files and one of them looks for non-free files which don't comply with WP:NFCC#10c; so, if you add a non-free file to an article and fail to provide the required separate specific non-free use rationale for that article, then there's a good chance it will get tagged for removal per WP:NFCCE. Adding the required non-free use rationale will probably stop the file from being tagged by a bot, but as explained in WP:JUSTONE it doesn't automatically necessary mean the rest of the non-free content use criteria are satisfied. Someone might still feel the file shouldn't be used on that page and tag it for removal or nominate it for discussion at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I get that while I think it's a reasonable addition, the grey area is significant and others may not agree. Often with these religious articles the "problem" is the opposite, there's a cornucopia of free beautiful images and one can't include them all. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amnon Pazy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atomic Energy Commission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

PROD: Life On Mars OST jpg

Can the portion(s) marked for deletion be spun off into a new page/stub, something like "Life On Mars, the OST"? The photo is useful, and said page could also link to (or incorporate?) the related 3 OSTs for "Ashes to Ashes". (Not trying to skip doing it myself, just don't know how.) MTIA 50.198.55.75 (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

If you feel that the soundtrack albums for Life on Mars (UK TV series) and Ashes to Ashes (TV series) are Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone articles to be written about them (see WP:NALBUM for more details), then the album cover art could be used for primary identification purposes in such an article. Otherwise, unless you're able to find some sourced critical commentary which discusses the album covers (i.e. something perhaps about why they were selected or any controversy, etc. associated it with them), I don't think their non-free use in the articles about the TV series themselves is justified per relevant policy.

If you disagree with my assessment, you can always WP:DEPROD the "Life On Mars" file; I will then nominate the file for discussion at WP:FFD and give others the opportunity to weigh in. The "Ashes for Ashes" files have already been deleted; so, if you feel that was done in error, you can see whether the administrator who deleted them (Explicit) will restore them for you. However, relevant policy is pretty clear that this type of non-free use is not allowed; so, I don't think any further discussion about the any of the aforementioned files will result in a FFD consensus to keep them, unless you are able to address the non-free issues that led to them being proposed for deletion in the first place.

One thing to remember is that just because a movie/TV series is Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article to be written about it per WP:NFILM or WP:NTV, the soundtrack album associated with the movie/series is not also automatically considered Wikipedia notable per WP:INHERIT; in other words, the album's Wikipedia notability will have to be established independently of the film's Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Kilgore College Rangerettes

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Kilgore College Rangerettes has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I would say the article is impartial and contains relevant information even if this has been added by someone with connections to the subject. The biggest problem I see with the article is huge swaths of it are not cited. I was curious to know how the kidnapping case had been resolved and discovered it still has not gone to trial. This seems most unusual. I added additional information on a lawsuit filed by the alleged victims - perhaps in frustration with the fact there still has not been a trial? Who knows.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Thanks for the message and thanks for taking a look at that article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Signature Ignorance

Hi Marchjuly. Still wallowing in proper signature use even after reading articles. I’ve been using four tildes Quaerens-veritatem 02:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC) BUT should it be better Quaerens-veritatem : Quaerens-veritatem]|Talk  ? Thanks 🙏 so much. P.S. if I am correct, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks, again. Quaerens-veritatem 02:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Quaerens-veritatem : Quaerens-veritatem|Talk

@Quaerens-veritatem: Your signature still seems to be a problem. If you're using four tildes, you signature should look like mine, except with your username and a different time stamp. If you look at the above post, you will see that this is not really the case. It looks like you might be manually adding links to your user name and user talk page instead. You shouldn't need to do this. Are you signing your posts as ~~~~. If you do that, you signature should be properly formatted and linked. Another thing you can try is to click on the four tilde next to " Sign your posts on talk pages:" located right about the "Edit summary" box at the bottom of the editing window before clicking on "Publish changes". Doing so will automatically add four tilde to the end of your posts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks Marchjuly for your knowledge, helpfulness, and patience. One more time: (Quaerens-veritatem|Talk)Quaerens-veritatem 03:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be doing something wrong, but I'm not sure exactly what it is. When you post something your something like and sign it using four tildes, you shouldn't have to go back and make edits like this. The software should add the required links to your signature if you're signing correctly. Please check your user prefrences to make sure you haven't checked/ticked the box for "Treat the above as wiki markup." You can find your user preferences by scrolling to the top of any Wikipedia page as clicking on "Preferences". If you've checked/ticked that box by mistake, unchecking/unticking it should solve your signature problem; if the box hasn't been checked/ticked, then there's something else wrong and you probably should ask for help at WP:VPT.

Unless you've customized you signature in some way, your signature should look the same way it looks at c:File talk:West Side Zell Center.png#File: West Side Zell Center.png & other Zell Center Photo, the only difference being in that your user name will be in blue not red; that's only because you've created a Wikipedia user page, but haven't yet created a Commons user page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Avijit Roy.jpg

@Marchjuly, The photo File:Avijit Roy.jpg is not being used in the page Avijit Roy anymore, a more clear photo of the person which is showing his face from the font has been uploaded by me separately which contains his wife also. Shamsun N Tushar (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It's best to further discuss this on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I have given a message in the file's talk page. Shamsun N Tushar (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, What should be done to this photo as it is not being used in any article now. Shamsun N Tushar (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing. It will be deleted per WP:F5 in about a week if it's not added to an article. All non-free images are required to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC#7 and those which are not end up being deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Posting a photo of a copyrighted painting

To Marchjuly: I posed a question to the Wikipedia community regarding my posting a photo of a copyrighted painting, and you were kind enough to offer a detailed response. I contacted the copyright holder of the painting, forwarded him your response and recommended that he select the Declaration of Consent to confer his permission to post my photo of his painting. He responded that he'd be crazy to sign it, as he would forfeit all of his rights in all media and would allow anyone at any time to modify his artwork. Is there something I'm missing? I'm certain this situation happens all the time on Wikipedia; what is the most commonly chosen solution? Any help you provide would be greatly appreciated. Jr3arlington (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jr3arlington: That's pretty much the gist of it. Wikipedia is set up to allow it's article content to be pretty much freely used by anyone anywhere in the world at any time for any purpose with very few restrictions, and the same applies to images uploaded and licensed under one of the free licenses that it accepts. This is why few creative professionals, etc. are willing to release their work under such a license. When a person uploads a file to Wikipedia under a free license, they are not necessarily transferring copyright ownership over that file to Wikipedia (i.e. they still retain copyright ownership), but they are making available a free version (perhaps a lower quality version) of their work for others to freely use without much restriction. So, the artist who painted the painting still holds copyright over it, but the lower quality smaller version of it depicted in your photo can be freely used by anyone for pretty any purpose (including commercial or derivative use) without requiring permission from you or the artist as long as the user complies with the terms of the license you selected when they uploaded the file. Perhaps back in the day of grainy poor quality photos, this type of reuse might not have been much of a concern; however, these days even a low quality version of one's work might still be too good for some creators to want to release it. There are free licenses which do place restrictions on commercial and derivative use, but these licenses are not free enough for Wikipedia's purposes and are not accepted.

The alternative is to upload the file as non-free content. This is allowed by Wikipedia and is similar to the idea of fair use or fair dealing, but is way more restrictive. Many of the images of paintings you see on Wikipedia are upload as non-free content, but how they are used must comply with Wikipedia's non-free use content policy. For works of art, generally this means that the image is used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the work in question. Other types of use may be allowed, but they tend to be harder to justify; for example, sometimes a work is so indicative of a particular artist's style or technique that it might be able to be used in support of sourced commentary about the work or the technique in a Wikipedia article about the artist. The thing to remember about non-free content use is that it's not automatic in that the use is OK just because you want to use the file in a certain way in a certain article; each use of non-free content must satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria and those which don't may be removed or deleted if the community feels they don't. Another thing to remember is that Wikipedia doesn't really have any control to stop people from downloading any files, even non-free content files, it hosts and then reusing them in an improper way. Someone downloading a file is required to use it according to whichever license it was uploaded under, but I don't think there's anybody at Wikipedia HQ going around to check that they do. It's kind of up to the copyright holder or the uploader of the file to do that. Hope that answers your questions. I tried to answer them to the best of my understanding. You can find more info in Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)