User talk:Majora/Archive 3

Your FFD NAC idea
I didn't participate in that discussion I linked above. However, I have thought for a very long time that there needs to be a better way to reduce the WP:FFD backlog. I've been stewing up in my head an idea for a new WP:CSD for files that could apply to files that would obviously be deleted per a WP:FFD discussion, but would require a 7-day wait period before the file can be deleted. The CSD would kind of be like a WP:PROD for files and could apply to files with no encyclopedia use, etc. However, since we already have several CSD that apply to fair-use files, this idea would only apply to files that are claimed to be released through a free license. In my experiences on FFD (including starting the proposal that resulted in a successful merge of WP:NFCR into FFD), I've noticed that most of the files that are immediately deleted are those that have the aforementioned issues (free, no encyclopedic value.) Any thoughts on this? Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the main problem with that would be that FFD is already a PROD-like process. The lack of quorum already makes it so undiscussed material at FFD is deleted if the initiating reason was to delete the file. So what this would do would be to push it off to the admins that patrol CSD (which was one of the complaints raised in the NAC discussion). --Majora (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Creative Commons - Bus Rapid Transit
See page http://www.wrirosscities.org/research/publication/social-environmental-and-economic-impacts-bus-rapid-transit for explicit License reference to Creative Commons

Alex ncus (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The report may by CC but that image doesn't come from them. It explicitly says it comes from BRTdata.org. Which is copyrighted. --Majora (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * BRTdata.org is same organization. And also clearly stated in their terms of use @ http://brtdata.org/info/terms: Permissions & Licensing EMBARQ, the WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities signature initiative for sustainable transport, 10 G Street NE #800, Washington, DC, 20002, USA and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/International Energy Agency, 9 rue de la Fédération, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France Except as noted below, all material on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License which permits non-commercial re-use of content when proper attribution is provided. This means you are free to copy, display and distribute our work, or include our content in derivative works, under the following conditions: Attribution. You must clearly attribute the source of the information and provide a link back to BRTData.org. In the event that the original source of the data is provided in the metadata, you should cite the original source, accessed through the Global BRTData.org database.  Non-commercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivatives. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. For original data files published on this site under a Creative Commons license, you may use the data to produce your own charts or other data visualizations. Click here for the full legal code of this Creative Commons license. Some content on this site may carry additional copyright restrictions. EMBARQ has made every effort to clearly label such content. Materials on external websites (e.g., URLs that do not begin with http://BRTData.org) are typically subject to separate copyright and use policies; check the particular website for details. Partners’ names and logos. Unless indicated otherwise, the Creative Commons license described above does not apply to the names and logos of partner organizations (e.g., ALC-BRT, EMBARQ, IEA, SIBRT). BRTData should be cited as: BRT Centre of Excellence, EMBARQ, IEA and SIBRT. “Global BRTData.” Version 0.00. Last modified: date. Available at: http://www.brtdata.org The version number is available here. If you have any questions about citing or re-using content on this website, please contact us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex ncus (talk • contribs) 00:20, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
 * Er...still qualifies for deletion then. Non-commercial and non-derivative restrictions are not considered free enough for our purposes. See WP:F3. Sorry. Still has to go. --Majora (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, source clearly states as CC @ http://www.wrirosscities.org/research/publication/social-environmental-and-economic-impacts-bus-rapid-transit which is source for report and graphic in the report. Honestly, you can do what ever you want. Trying to help / contribute, I strongly believe this is consistent with CC ... Alex ncus (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is Creative Commons. But Creative Commons is an umbrella term for over a dozen different licenses. We only accept a small subset of Creative Commons licenses. In order for it to be eligible for upload here the image must be able to be used, or modified, by anyone at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). So while the license for that image is Creative Commons it is one of the ones we do not accept since it restricts modification and reuse to non-commercial use only. I know that images and copyright is a complex subject but there just isn't anything we can do about that particular image. Sorry. --Majora (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Cross-Wiki upload
Sorry to bother you again, but for images on WP that are suitable for uploading to commons, is there a tool that automates this and copies all the associated information? Twinkle doesn't seem to. Timothy Joseph Wood 13:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If the image is already uploaded here you can use CommonsHelper. You just need to do an OAuth link using the "OAuth uploader" link near the bottom before you try to use it else it will error. If the image is not already uploaded here you can just use the Commons upload wizard. --Majora (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll try it out tomorrow. I've not uploaded very many images to WP, because mostly everything was obviously suitable for Commons, and it wouldn't be that big of a deal to redo those few manually, but I figured I would ask for future reference. As I said on my talk, this is one of my weakest areas as an editor, and ultimately that means that I can't answer a lot of questions at places like the Teahouse or the Help Desk, because I don't even know how to find out what I don't know. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

For dealing with KurdoKardir
It only crossed my mind today, but in order to de-root KurdoKardir's edits, as there are so many that it's hard to keep track of them, you should keep a lookout for the term "Karzan Kardozi", which KurdoKardir has a long history of trying to introduce into pages everywhere. I removed some mentions of this individual today, though they were from edits in mid to late 2016. Just, a word of advice as you remain vigilant over their roundabout methods of trying to reintroduce their self-promotion. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 01:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Xat chat logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Xat chat logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Dealt with. --Majora (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey man!
Haven't seen you on IRC at all lately! Just been thinkin' about you, and I wanted to leave you a message and say hello. I hope you're doing well, and that I see you on there soon! :-D  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey ! I'll be on again eventually. I've just been really busy this past month and haven't really been on Wikipedia in general. I've just been checking in on the file related things from time to time. Hopefully I'll have some more time soon! --Majora (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Majora! It's really great to hear back from you. I'm happy to hear that all is going well and that you're OK. Life happens, and people get busy. I've been busy over the last few months, and I'm really glad that things are starting to slow down... for now. I hope you continue to do well, and I really hope to see you back soon :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I worried you. Forgot to do the whole busy banner. Things should slow down (hopefully) soon. Work has been insane lately and I was travelling for a conference also. Perhaps once March starts I'll be getting more active again. --Majora (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries! Life gets busy, man. I know as much as you do ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Blitzen Trapper image replacement?
Hello!

I recently noticed you removed a photo I'd included in the Blitzen Trapper entry, due to questions about it being unreplacable with other media. Would an acceptable replacement be a photo I personally took at a concert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevbot217 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you personally took the photo, then yes, you are the copyright holder and can release that under whatever license you want. Please note that in order to be acceptable here you must allow the image to be used and modified by anyone, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial use). Please see c:Special:UploadWizard for the upload wizard over at Commons where all free use images are supposed to be uploaded. On a different note, I honestly thought this was a bot account. Our policy on usernames forbids the use of the word "bot" in usernames unless it is an actual bot account as it is misleading. Please change your username by filling out the form here: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. If you have questions on this please let me know. --Majora (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Logo added to Wikipedia is incorrect
Thanks for uploading my organisation's logo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Institute_of_Environmental_Science_and_Research_logo.png#file Unfortunately though, you cropped the file I sent from a square 'chip' to a rectangle shape. The rectangle is not our logo and we don't want it represented that way. Could you please use the source file that I sent which is a square? Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatherineESR (talk • contribs) 01:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I assumed that the extra black space was not actually part of the logo. My apologies. All fixed. --Majora (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Majora, sorry, but I think you may have just stretched the rectangle to make a square because now the logo is very distorted. Let me know if you need me to re-send the original source file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatherineESR (talk • contribs) 01:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The distortion happens when an image is replaced via the reupload option. Reload the page. It should fix it. I used the exact link that was provided in the original request. It is exactly 300x300 pixels in size. A square. --Majora (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks! Yes, I just had to close and reopen the browser and now it's showing correctly. Thanks again for your help and speedy response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatherineESR (talk • contribs) 02:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Special:Diff/768819365/768820620
Hi Majora. Would you be interested in running for adminship? I'll nominate you. Reviewed your contributions, and they look great; you're clearly knowledgeable in the file namespace, and we could use the help. Let me know. Best,  F ASTILY   02:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you . It truly means a lot to me to know that there are people who believe that I would make a good admin. Unfortunately, I must decline your offer. I decided a long time ago that adminship is not something I wanted to aim for or work towards. I am extremely grateful to those that have taken on that extra responsibility. It is just not something I want. Thank you again for the offer. It is sincerely appreciated. --Majora (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, I understand. Thanks for considering! :) -  F ASTILY   06:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rubrik logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Rubrik logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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) 18:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Dealt with. --Majora (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

What's going on?
You've deleted all my edits??? Jmd640 (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is correct and I have marked most of your images that you have uploaded for deletion. First of all, you cannot under any circumstances take images you find on the Internet and just upload them here without any regard to their copyright. You committed copyright infringement and if you continue to do so your editing privileges will be revoked. Second, Wikipedia requires sources. Period. If you don't know how to cite you can learn about it here: WP:REFB. The material that you added was completely unsourced and therefore unacceptable. If you want help learning how to edit Wikipedia I invite you to go on over to the Teahouse or to ask questions at the Help Desk. If you have further questions feel free to ask me. --Majora (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

04:34:28, 25 March 2017 review of submission by Shilpanilesh
Hey, this is a new ebook published by Storymirror publication. I have also added the link from Storymirror website. Please let me know if still it doesn't qualifies to be added to wikipedia.
 * Unfortunately, a new book that was just published doesn't generally have the necessary references we require for a standalone article. A link to an online store just makes it look like you are trying to sell the thing. A big no-no on Wikipedia (we have a lot of people trying to use us for advertisement purposes). What we are looking for is independent sources that have nothing whatsoever to do with the book, the publisher, the author, or anyone connected with that thing. A store, whose primary purpose is to make money, is certainly not independent and anything they say would be worthless to us. Since the book was just published, I would recommend waiting a little bit. If it gains some reviews from mainstream sources (as mentioned in my comment on the draft) you can use those reviews to build a start of an article. All you would do is summarize them in your own words (don't copy and paste them). So at this point in time I would say wait and see. It is probable that the book would merit an article sometime in the future. Just not right now. --Majora (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

"Facebook ToS argument"
Hello, I saw your discussion at File talk:Grace Akinlemibola.jpg. This is not the first time I've seen new users make the Facebook ToS argument for why media is released under a free license. To someone new not knowing anything more than "Wikipedia requires anyone to be able to use the image for any purpose", it would seem to be acceptable. Perhaps you or someone who knows the detailed reasoning behind it should write an essay/page explaining the issue with it, so those of us who patrol files have an explanation to give other than "that's not how it works". &mdash; Train2104 (t • c) 06:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Standard disclaimer: This is not legal advice. Now that that is out of the way, I'll try to put together a project page explaining this but it will be easier to just do it here first. Whenever this situation arises it is generally a result of one of three errors on the part of the uploader. 1. The most common type of error with any photograph on the Internet. "It is publicly posted so it must be public domain." This very common misconception flies in the face of one of the cornerstones of current copyright law. Just because you publicly publish something that does not mean that your copyright claim over that item is voided. You still maintain completely control over it unless you explicitly release that item under a different copyright license. I bring this misconception up, even though I assume you know it, because it will be important later.

2. There was a simple misunderstanding of the Terms of Service. Even in the best of times, and even if you know what you are doing, legalese is hard. This is usually cleared up pretty easily.

3. The uploader deliberately cherry picks passages from the ToS that seem to support their view even though the entire document, if taken in totality, does not. This is what appears to be happening in this particular situation. So, lets take a look at the actual, total, passage from the Facebook ToS that is in play here. From https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms: "For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."
 * So what does that mean? By uploading to Facebook is your copyright claim over an item voided? No. Not at all. Your copyright claim is completely intact. What does change, however, is that Facebook adds a "sub-license" onto your item. What that sub-license allows is for Facebook to use your work however Facebook sees fit without compensating you. This is actually a very common clause in a lot of image hosting websites. It is essentially a quid pro quo clause. Since they are allowing you to use their server space that they paid for to host your files you are allowing them to use those images however they want in the future. "But wait!" an uploader might say. That clause says that that license is subject to "your privacy and application settings". This was brought up in this situation by also mentioning another clause further down the page that states, "When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)." This is what I meant by cherry picking. If you only took that clause you could reasonably guess that images posted publicly means the image is in the public domain. But now we circle back to one of the cornerstones of copyright law mentioned in #1 above. That is simply not how copyright law works. So does Facebook's ToS make some changes to the copyright of images uploaded to their site? Yes they do. But only so far as allowing Facebook to use those images how Facebook wants. It does not void copyright, it does not change the original copyright license to public domain or even creative commons. All protections are still intact for additional use by other parties. Claiming otherwise is simply a misconception with copyright law. --Majora (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It makes a lot more sense once you look at the ToS as a whole. Not to mention, the revocability of the licence goes against our policies. &mdash; Train2104 (t • c) 05:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright Photo
Hi Majora, Thanks for correcting the copyright infringement issues following my upload to the Uma Ukpai biography. However, I noticed you've banned me from future uploads unto Wiki? Please remove the restriction as your advice was well understood. For the biography page - Uma Ukpai, I am working on uploading acceptable image soon that does not brige the policy. Moreover, there are other works of mine that require updates with my own photos and images. Thanks. Morg4kele (talk)
 * I did not ban you from anything. You still have the ability to upload images. But please ensure that the copyright status of those images is acceptable here. If you have any questions about a particular image please don't hesitate to let me know. Thank you for your understanding. --Majora (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You have a dispute
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I have brought forward a dispute against you regarding your continued harassment of me and my uploads and the Grace Akinlemibola page that I created. --TheWikiKing7 (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7

Judgment: Apocalypse Survival Simulation logo
Hi, Majora! I just saw your message about Judgment logo, and that you declined to upload it because I didn't respond to you. For family reasons I was swamped for the last couple of weeks and couldn't even open wikipedia, sorry about that. As for your doubts about the logo being fan-made or something, it is totally official: you can find it easily in the game's press kit http://presskit.judgmentgame.com/ or in the official trailers (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFiSHC_UaXCgceVZkathgFg). I hope it's still possible to have it uploaded :)

Thanks in advance for your time, and sorry again for my delayed answer. Ainxo (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sorry about delay and thank you for getting back to me. All set. --Majora (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Ainxo (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please explain your revert
You said in this edit that there was enough information to upload. Yet all the person who posted the request put there was the location of the picture. No author name, no purpose for uploading, no licensing information, etc. How is a request lacking this information good enough to upload? Saku ura Cart elet  Talk 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The license is non-free logo which doesn't require an author. The article they want it on is Bridgeport Indian Colony (a redirect to Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony of California). The purpose is the same as any non-free logo, to identify the topic. You can find proof that it is the logo from the official website. It only takes a little investigating to find out the details. I'd rather do that than reject it out of hand. Like I said, I just haven't gotten to it yet. The reason why it has sat there is that I have been looking for a better rendering. --Majora (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok I guess that makes sense then. Thanks for further explaining it. I'm still new at handling FFD requests so I thought I'd err on the side of caution and decline it. Saku ura Cart elet   Talk 01:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do you people keep deleting my photographs
Help, i dont know how to use the talk page, sorry. Not only did my original photo get deleted, which i spent two hours in teh chat rooms, but now you deleted a public image that is able to be used by italian copyright laws. I am administrator of Mauromerlino.com and my client MauroMerlino wants this picture on his wiki page. It is from mantova.tv and I cited why it is able to be used. Cindy Fahnestock Schafer, iramency thanks you can google the whois for my site to prove it's true. I don't know what else to do. I will try to upload yet another photo but you guys just keep on deleting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iramency (talk • contribs) 02:37, April 2, 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said on the file page before it was deleted, we really don't care about Italian law. We care about US law as that is where the Wikipedia servers are located. And US law attaches copyright upon creation regardless of whether or not the photo was taken "in public". If you want to use a photo you are going to have to prove that you are releasing the copyright under a license that complies with United States copyright law. What your client wants is irrelevant. That fact that you are an administrator of the site is irrelevant. The law is all that is relevant and we will continue to enforce that law. If you want to use a photo I recommend going through the consent verification process. Please note that only the copyright holder of an image can release a photo to us. The copyright holder is the photographer of the image unless the rights have been transferred by legal action or contract. If you want to use a photo the copyright holder needs to verify that they are agreeing to release it under a license that we can use. Please see WP:CONSENT for instructions and a legal release form that must be sent into our volunteer response team verifying that the image has been released under a proper license. If you continue to upload images that do not follow these rules you will be committing repeated copyright infringement and your editing privileges will be revoked. As a side note, your editing of the page Mauro Merlino is in violation of our conflict of interest guideline and our Terms of Use as you have not disclosed that you have a financial interest in the content of that page. Please read the financial interest link regarding paid disclosure and follow the instructions. This is not negotiable and must be done. If you have questions please don't hesitate to ask. --Majora (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Ministry of Sound Logo's have been added incorrectly
Hi there,

Thanks for approving the upload of our Ministry of Sound logo which I requested and can be found here: http://club.ministryofsound.com/media/1542/mos-lockup-thick-hrz-black.png

There's an issue with how the logos are being displayed on the wikipedia page. The logos should be displayed exactly like the image above, in side-by-side format. Underneath we can enter the text: 'The original logo on the left is used for heritage products, events, and recordings. The new logo on the right is used for club and related activity.' Are you able to update this for us so it's the side-by-side image?

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Barney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barney Blackhurst (talk • contribs) 09:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the infobox template that is being used to display the images does not really support side-by-side images like that. It is technically possible using another template and some fancy coding but it would distort the images as they would be forced into a size that is not suitable. I can do what you want if you are ok with them being further down the page. Once out of the infobox the same fancy coding mentioned above can be used. It is just not normal operating procedures to have logos anywhere else besides the infobox at the top of an article. --Majora (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the insight. I've re-uploaded our logo so it's vertically stacked here: http://club.ministryofsound.com/media/1550/mos-lockup-thick-vrt-black.png . Would you be able to use this image to replace the two separate current versions? If the logo could be made smaller too that would make it a bit slicker as they look a bit too big at the moment. Underneath the logos you can include the text 'The original logo on the top is used for heritage products, events, and recordings. The new logo underneath is used for club and related activity.'


 * Thanks,


 * Barney Barney Blackhurst (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, I shrunk the logos per your request and moved the caption to the bottom of both of them. This would simulate if they were uploaded together but there is a problem with actually uploading them together. The upper logo is copyrighted in both the US and the UK and is uploaded under our fair use guidelines. The lower logo is only copyrighted in the UK and is considered public domain in the US (it does not meet the threshold of originality for US copyright protection). Because the Wikipedia servers are located in the US it has been uploaded under a different copyright license. See PD-ineligible-USOnly. The different copyright licenses make it impossible to actually upload the images as one logo as one would be under fair use and the other would not. It is a quirk in copyright law but it is what we have to work with I'm afraid. If you have any questions about this or want some additional tweaks to the logos please let me know. --Majora (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the shrinking of the logos and the insight into the copywright law. The simulation of having them together works fine, I appreciate your help here. Are you able to remove the photo taken in 2008 from the page with the green lights and caption 'Ministry of Sound Lights'? It's a very poorly taken image and I've since uploaded a better one. Thanks, Barney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barney Blackhurst (talk • contribs) 10:35, April 4, 2017 (UTC)
 * I can remove it. The problem right now is with the images you uploaded. You are bound to run into problems with those because some of them can be found elsewhere online. Take File:Dolby Atmos at Ministry of Sound.jpg which can be found on with a very clear "© Ministry of Sound 2017" notice on the bottom of the page. To comply with copyright law (and to protect ourselves from any future issues) there can be no question as to the proper release of photos under an acceptable copyright license. Logos are different as they can be placed under fair use, but general photos have specific requirements to ensure they are acceptable (and won't be deleted later for lack of proof). There are two options here. It seems like you are the administrator of the Ministry of Sound site in some way. You were able to reupload the logos in a vertical format and post it to the club's website. The easiest way would be to put these images on a subpage of the site with a clear notice that says "These images are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license" somewhere on the page. That was the license you chose when uploading the images but you can pick any free license you want. Then all you (or I) would have to do is change the source parameter on the file information page to a link to that page. The other way would be for you to file a consent release form with our volunteer response team. The form can be found here: c:COM:ET Please let me know what you are planning to do and I would be happy to assist you if you have any questions about this. --Majora (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. I've created the page on our site with a clear notice: http://club.ministryofsound.com/image-copyright . I'll add these as the source parameter. Are you then able to remove the old photo? Thanks, Barney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barney Blackhurst (talk • contribs) 15:55, April 5, 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I also moved around the other images so that they flow better on the page. If you have any other questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Deleted pictures
If I put source name or link on each picture, would the pictures not be deleted then? These pictures are important to educate people about my culture. I do not have any bad intention. Until the owners of the pictures themselves deleted it, then that is more acceptable for me. I found all of the pictures from Google Image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexarih (talk • contribs) 08:25, April 7, 2017 (UTC)
 * That would not be acceptable, no. The pictures would still be deleted. Education is fine but images have specific laws (called copyright) attached to them that we are required to follow. In general, you should assume that every photo you find on the Internet (yes even on Google Image) is copyrighted under an "All Rights Reserved" license. What that means is that you cannot upload it here as that would be copyright infringement. You can, however, take a photo yourself and release it under a "free" license. What that means is that you agree to allow anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial use). That is what we require for images here (not including very limited exceptions that I don't want to get into as it gets very complicated very quickly). If you have any other questions please don't hesitate to let me know. But please do not upload any more photos you just find on the Internet. --Majora (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Gambia Football Federation (association football federation) logo.png
Hi Majora. I'm wondering if you can help me sort out File:Gambia Football Federation (association football federation) logo.png. It looks like the file was originally uploaded as public domain. Someone else, however, updated the logo as a non-free version instead of simply uploading a new file. this is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to in Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/April and the problems it can create. Any suggestions on how to resolve this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll ping since he was also involved in that MCQ discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well there are a few things you can do here. You can request a histsplit be done on the file and break the two apart. The deleting admin could just rev'del the middle icon and leave the PD one. That would require the reviewing admin to know the difference (not always a guarantee as I have found). In this case though, it might just be easier for the reviewing admin to actually delete the old file. Not rev'del, selectively delete. The old image would have been PROD'ed or FFD anyways as an unused logo and that would keep the history in tact while still solving the issue. --Majora (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Or...I could just ask an admin to take care of it. Which I did and it is done. Thanks ! Now that is what I call service . --Majora (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks and thanks to you as well  for sorting this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

File:'The Rabbi's Concert' by Fred A. Precht.jpg
I came across File:'The Rabbi's Concert' by Fred A. Precht.jpg when checking on some other images and noticed that it had been previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 27. Would it be possible to reopen this discussion and relist it so that it's non-free use can be further discussed, or should a new discussion be started? Generally, non-free images of works of art such as this are considered OK as the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article about the piece itself, but a much stronger justification is required in other articles. There is no sourced discussion of this painting anywhere to be found in Fred A. Precht (the painting is not even mentioned by name) so it's not clear how the context required by WP:NFCC is being provided. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It would probably be better to start a new discussion, and just link the old one (since it was archived). I only remember this vaguely, but IIRC my statement was just about it's potential eligibility for actual 'fair use', not if it met WP:NFCC (I likely did not look at where it was actually used, since I said 'might). I would agree that the use on that article doesn't seem to even vaguely meet the criteria. Revent talk 15:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If my signature wasn't attached to that discussion I wouldn't believe it was me that said that. I apologize, profusely. You are absolutely right, that image does not meet fair use standards for use on that article. I don't know what I was thinking at the time but whatever it was I was wrong. I can undo it later today (I'm just hopping on and off between errands) or you can start a new FFD per Revent's comment. Again, I apologize for my mistake. --Majora (talk)
 * There's no need for anyone to apologize since any errors made were almost certainly made in good faith. Anyway, thanks to both of you for taking another look at the file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: Replaceable fair use File:Crystal UnitedStates2.png
Hello Majora, I've made the non-free use justifications for this file under the dispute template. There's also a more detailed explanation on the file's talk page. Blue Riband► 22:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We have so many free photos of the ship that I don't see how that would pass our, admitted, very strict fair use policy. Regardless of its "proposed" status or not. It just seems like an unnecessary copyrighted photo being used on an article. Especially considering that the redesign looks strikingly like the original design with a fresh coat of paint. Afraid, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. We'll see what the patrolling admin thinks. --Majora (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for help on Great Southern Grammar page
Thanks for your help, Majora, with editing the Great Southern Grammar page. I do work at the institution, but another colleague was incorrectly editing the page anonymously. I've added some new edits, used appropriate references, and will ensure impartial writing. Thanks again for your help, and I'll ask if I have any more questions. Ingenious27 (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. As long as you understand why I reverted the other person. Their additions were pure advertising for the school. Phrases such as "a world-class school" are really really frowned upon here. Especially if the added material is unsourced. The material you have added has been sourced, and for that I thank you. Just be aware of the need to remain neutral when writing content here. And back everything up with sources. If you have any questions at all please don't hesitate to let me know. --Majora (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do have a couple questions, being new to Wikipedia, that you may be able to help with. Can we block our IP from allowing anonymous edits (we've recently changed to a new IP. Also, how can I get access to upload Fair Use images? Ingenious27 (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't generally block IPs (or accounts) unless there is continually disruption from them. See our blocking policy on the matter. If there is continual disruption I can ask an administrator to take a look at it but at this point in time (and from past experience) I doubt anything would happen right now. As for uploading images, you do not have the proper rights to do that yet. Your account needs to be autoconfirmed for that. However, you can always make requests at WP:FFU like you did for the logo. I patrol that page and I usually answer pretty quickly. Please note that fair use images are bound by our non-free use policy and are highly restricted here. You can't just upload any image you want under fair use. Logos are easier since they aren't usually replaceable by free media but most other things don't qualify. What did you have in mind that you wanted to upload? --Majora (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that information on fair use makes sense. Will not abuse. I will update images with appropriate creative commons. Ingenious27 (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

FUR
Hello, how can I do a FUR on the image of the climate of Spain to put it in the other 2 articles? Regards. --TechnicianGB (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Responded to on the FFD. Please keep the conversation all in one place. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Bad Neighbor Beats Cover Upload Request Declined?
Hello, it seemed like you have declined my request for an upload of Madlib's Bad Neighbor Beats album, for the reason that we already have the cover. I believe there was a confusion, because the request was for the instrumental release, which has a different cover than the main one. I.e Main Release: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bad_neighbor_cover.jpg vs Instrumental Release: http://i.imgur.com/80bnb5n.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomasTomasTomas (talk • contribs) 11:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah. That is what I was afraid of. My complete rejection reason explains further why we can't accept this image. Our policy on the use of copyrighted images is very strict. We cannot have two copyrighted album covers on the same article since both of them would not qualify for our interpretation of fair use. Unfortunately, this is a common practice that I have been fighting for a long time. Whenever I find articles that have two copyrighted album covers I am forced to nominate one of them for deletion. Because the inclusion of both would just result in one being deleted, I had to decline your question. Sorry, copyright is complex and I hope that explains it. If you have any other questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

File:VCU Rams Old Wordmark.png
Hi Majora. Do you think File:VCU Rams Old Wordmark.png is simple enough to convert to PD-logo? If not, then its non-free use needs to be evaluated. It can't beused in the draft namespace per NFCC#9, and probaly can only be justisfied for use in one season article (ideally the one for the season in which the logo was first used). On the other hand, it wouldn't need to worry about WP:NFCCP if PD and could also be tagged for a move to Commons. The one possible obstacle to conversion might be sourcing it because it appears to have been superceded by a new wordmark according to the source link provided. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. The US has a higher threshold of originality than that. I've changed over the tags on the image. It is definitely PD. If it needs to be updated, that one may need to be uploaded as different file depending on when the new logo came into use. That way its use can be differentiated between the various yearly articles. Interesting note though, there is also a .svg version of the file (File:VCU Varsity.svg). I'm a little confused about the comment made by regarding WPian (I don't even know what that is)  (Oh! Wikipedian...duh). But seeing as the image is definitely PD and .svg is the preferred format once that is figured out the .png uses should be replaced and the obsolete file format nominated for deletion. --Majora (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Duh, WPian = Wikipedian. Seeing as it is PD I don't see how that note is necessary. Going to wait for Masem to respond though. Perhaps they know something I don't. --Majora (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look at this. FWIW, the file kept showing up as a non-free image being used ioutside of the article namespace. Normally, I just remove such images, but this one seemed like it might be below the US's TOO, so I figured I'd ask for feedback from others. As for Masem's comment, "WPian" probably means "Wikipedian" and his comment may be related to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64 and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64. The concern seems to be or seems to have been that unless the original source data provided is in svg format, the downloading of a non svg file, converting the file to svg, and then re-uploading the svg file to Wikipedia might not be policy compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If the image is a non-free image that would make sense. Converting it to a .SVG format certainly doesn't void any sort of copyright over that image. However, a public domain image can be modified however and whenever you want at any time. Converting it to .SVG/.GIF/.TIF/.JPG (I could go on) has really no bearing here since the logo itself is in the public domain and there are no restrictions on it. I'd still like to hear from Masem regarding their thought process but a public domain image carrying any additional copyright simply because of its file format seems pretty copyfraudy to me. --Majora (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually not necessarily. SVG is code, whereas the other formats are all data. Intraconvertsion between JPG/GIF/BMP/PNG/etc. is a mechanical aspect for all purposes and there's no copyright change there (you can't claim new copyright). SVG on the other hand is human-readable (albeit messy) XML-compliant code. It might be possible to copyright the underlying code that generates a give image. (I know of at least a few people that do hand-massage SVG after generating the base image to gain optimization improvements in its diplay). However, case law is very lacking here to provide the right answer here, and thus we should be extremely careful. Generating an SVG from a raster image (typically via tracing), even if that raster image is at high resolution, can introduce elements that were not present before, and that is why we do not allow user-made SVGs of non-free logos and only non-free SVGs if they original from the organization that owns the logo/wordmark. PD-textonly wordmarks are different, and I would agree this falls into that category, at least, PD-USonly. --M ASEM (t) 01:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. It is a US based logo (from Richmond, Virginia). So it is public domain in both the origin country and the US (which happen to be the same). So it can be uploaded to Commons without any issues. I'll go ahead and transfer the .SVG file over to Commons, make the necessary updates, and tag the .SVG F8 and PROD the .PNG as obsolete. Technically there are software copyrights for computer code but I'm not aware of any case law that would guide us on the .SVG conversation of non-free material. It doesn't apply for this case but it is certainly an interesting, albeit complex, area of copyright law that I'm not familiar with. --Majora (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ on the move to Commons. Everything should be all set now. --Majora (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Majora and also for helping to sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

File:RajKrishna Kapoor (1946).jpg
Hi Majora. Was wondering if you'd mind taking a look at File:RajKrishna Kapoor (1946).jpg and checking its licensing? It's also being flagged as non-free, most likely because of the PD-India tag added to it. If this is non-free (or partially non-free), then it probably needs a non-free use rationale for Raj Kapoor and should also be removed from the sandbox. Furthermore, I'm not sure a non-free use rationale can be written for Raj Kapoor. Although the image is "nice", I don't think there's really much justification for this particular non-free use. On the other hand, none of the this matters if this can be converted to "full-PD". -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Gosh I hate URAA. The tags on the image are correct and since we care about the U.S. copyright I was forced to nominate it for deletion. See Files for discussion/2017 May 11. --Majora (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look at this and also for the clarification on its copyright status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Sortable things in NASCAR articles
Thanks for remove the sortable things, I remove but he continues to put that things, now he put in 2015 Xfinity Series, 2016 Xfinity Series, 2017 Monster Energy Cup and 2017 Truck Series. Someone need to stop this guy. Not the first time, earlier this year this guy do the same thing.

Lukscheese (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Eddie Eagle cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Eddie Eagle cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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) 17:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for uploading File:Eddie Eagle cover.jpg. The image was deleted from the article Eddie Eagle under the mistaken impression that it had no fair use rationale, and subsequently the image was deleted. The policy-conformant fair use rationale and the original URL of the image may be found at Files_for_upload/April_2017. See also . Can you please re-upload the image and add it to the article? Thank you again. 2602:304:CC61:8BD0:78C7:333B:2016:1D53 (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

re File:TrumpOrb.png
(Cross-posted to 2 other editors who edited the file talk page) Hi, I'm a little unclear on the exact procedure that's going on here and what to do next. An editor tagged the article for deletion, and there was a bit of back-and-forth, with an editor saying (in an edit summary) "You must leave the di template in place until decided upon by an admin" (emphasis added).

This sounds like a speedy-delete situation where one person decides the issue and that doesn't seem right to me. I want a full-dress discussion at Files for discussion or wherever and let's get consensus to delete the image, if it is going to be deleted. If it was a contested-speedy-delete another editor could just remove the deletion tag (one did, but it was reverted). Not sure of the procedure here so I don't want to jump in myself, but could whomever is responsible and knowledgeable move this over to where it goes? Files for discussion I guess, or of not there let's have WP:MFD or whatever applies. Herostratus (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It was a "delayed" speedy deletion situation per WP:F7. Per your request, I have moved the discussion to FFD. --Majora (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Herostratus (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Lebanon men's national ball hockey team
Hi Majora. Would you mind watching Lebanon men's national ball hockey team? It's another NFCC#10c matter and the editor wanting to use the file seems pretty unfamiliar with non-free content use. I've tried to explain things on my user talk and don't want to bite anyone, but from the look of this editor's user talk page they seem to misunderstand quite a bit about Wikipedia. Anyway, any suggestions you might have in resolving this would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I put it on my watchlist . I'm not too sure about its use in general though. I see that it was put to FFD (by the uploader???) but I haven't really decided how I feel about it yet. --Majora (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raking a look. The uploader did start a FFD discussion so hopefully things will be resolved there. I think the uploader might have started it more as a comment abour me; the logo, however, might actually be OK to convert to PD, so more discussion of it will be a good thing.-- Marchjuly (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg at FFD
The file, File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg, is nominated for deletion at, where I invite you to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

deletion of file rl-conny.jpg
i gave up uploading images to wikipedia, too much bureaucracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinlebon (talk • contribs) 13:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

About Akshay Kumar's Nationality
You edited a page last time named "Akshay Kumar", He has citizenship of Canada not nationality. Because he born in India and no one can change their nationality only a person can change their citizenship..... So i think you have to use citizenship not nationality in this page. Dheerendra Mishra (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As cited and discussed numerous times over many many months, he has a Canadian passport. Therefore, he has Canadian nationality. Period. You can attempt to gain consensus to make the change you want but I can guarantee you that you aren't going to get it. This has been discussed to death already and further attempts to make that change are going to be shot down rather quickly by other editors who are fed up with the constant steam of single purpose accounts who don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. --Majora (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but there is a difference between nationality and citizenship. Dheerendra Mishra (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

CNN
Majora, hello how are you? You gave consensus as the sole reason for reverting my edit. I almost never revert another edit. Consensus is supposed to work by editing and re-editing. That's how you improve an article. Reverts are just a way of saying I don't like a particular topic or editor. Also it says on WP: consensus that lead summaries should include criticisms as well. That's all I was doing was trying to improve an article in good faith. Here is a good example for you: Foxnews. There is a criticisms paragraph in the lead. No one asked for "permission" to put it there. It just appeared recently and has been edited and re-edited many times always with reliable sources.Aceruss (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Reverts are certainly not just a way to say you don't like a particular topic. It is a critical step to start the process towards consensus. Unfortunately, the discussion on President Trump's "feelings" towards CNN has been discussed numerous times. The President is not a reliable source by our definition of the phrase and his personal animus towards the media should be taken with a grain of salt. Leads are summaries of what is in the article. If you want to include that you can discuss it on the talk page and put it in an appropriate section. Then the lead can summarize that. Since you brought up Fox News there is an entire, large, well referenced section on bias in the main body of the article. The lead then summaries that. That is how the flow of content works on Wikipedia. Previous consensus has also landed on keeping such things, for the most part, on CNN controversies. There is already a section there regarding the retraction story. As for your actual edit there was some problems with the references. The New York Times article does not verify the content. It does not say that CNN is bias or that there is public skepticism. The Washington Post article is from their blog section. Blogs aren't considered reliable. And I'm not even going to touch The Blaze. Just like I wouldn't trust what MSNBC says about Fox News. The second part of your edit could also fit in the main controversies article. The main article is for major things regarding the network. If they lose the court battle that could be discussed but people and organizations get sued all the time. Being sued is not a major incident. --Majora (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Majora as you say there is plenty of criticisms of CNN in the article itself. This should be summarized in the lead. WHY summarize criticisms in lead of Fox news AND NOT CNN? Also your first revert was made a mere 25 minutes after my post, hardly enough time for you to read all my sources articles, and that's assuming you came upon my edit just when I posted it. This is why I said you reverted because you didn't like it. Also the public skepticism was mentioned in the Yahoo-Newsweek piece. Let's not argue let's work together.Aceruss (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

July 10 2017
Why did you tag a deletion on the picture Fernbus Simulator? Its from steam and other photos from steam are not being reported. So I suggest you to fuck off bukkake-conducive jerk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravisGTAGamer (talk • contribs) 03:57, July 10, 2017 (UTC)
 * And now they have been reported for deletion. Cheers! --Majora (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sam Amidon new artist picture
Hi Majora, thanks for bringing this to my attention - I have the written permission of the photographer who took this picture to use it on Wikipedia. I was unsure how to properly upload it (as was a bit confused by the different Creative Commons licence wordings!), but thought I had uploaded it correctly stating that it was not a copyright violation? I will request undeletion. Please could you let me know if there's anything else I could do to prove that I have her permission? Many thanks. (Kpendleton1 (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Responded to on 's talk page. --Majora (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Help with Woven Digital / Uproxx Media Group
Hi there! I've been looking around at articles for digital media companies and saw that you've previously contributed to the articles for CNN and Vox, so I wanted to see if you'd be interested to look at an edit request for Uproxx Media Group (formerly Woven Digital), which owns sites including Uproxx and BroBible. On behalf of the company, I've written a new draft to improve the article and in my edit request, I've also proposed moving the article to the company's new name, Uproxx Media Group. I have a conflict of interest, so I'm looking for neutral editors to review the draft and discuss the name change suggestion. Would you be able to help? Thanks in advance. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have time to go over this tonight. I will let you know when I am done. --Majora (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Let me know if you have any questions as you're looking at it. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 18:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. Time got away from me yesterday. I've started to go over it now and will let you know. It might take me a little bit to go over the entire draft but I have started. --Majora (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I may not like that you keep removing my threads
But I have to at least give you props for drinking your coffee black. That may be the one thing we have in common. Some degree of transparency (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

New box art for Kingdom Come: Deliverance
Hello,

thank you for creating page about our game! I would like to inform you that we changed the box cover, can you please update it? https://press.warhorsestudios.cz/press/projects/kingdom-come-deliverance/gallery

Thank you!

J.R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRfromWarhorse (talk • contribs) 08:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Clan MacAlpine
Clan MacAlpin(e) producted from the researched and written by Dr Bruce Durie This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.

Hello, I have remove the Boars head with crown image and want to know if Dr. Bruce Durie can create the Clan MacAlpin(e) article? EarlMcAlpine (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In order to be acceptable the license must allow reuse for any purpose, including commercial use. A Non Commercial license would still not be acceptable. Dr. Durie would have to agree to relicense the material he owns under an acceptable license. While this site is more for images it lists acceptable licenses for use here: c:COM:L. If you have any questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, If Dr. Bruce Durie creates in his sandbox and the agrees that it free work by saving with "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization." Would this work? Also without the image of the "boars head with crown" Best Regards, EarlEarlMcAlpine (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why can't you just write it yourself? In your own words? Wouldn't that just make the situation that much easier? Anyone can write in a sandbox, and yes, anything posted anywhere on Wikipedia is automatically released under an acceptable Creative Commons license provided it was not infringed upon from elsewhere to begin with. You can't for example, copy and paste material (like you did) and post it here without running into major issues. So why can't you just write it yourself? --Majora (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thinking of you
Hey man - haven't seen you around in awhile. Just wanted to say hi and see how you're doing. Just dropping a line to let you know that I was thinking about you :-). I hope to see you around soon!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Oshwah. Thank you for thinking of me. It really does mean a lot that someone cares. I'm going to start, slowly, working my way back into Wikipedia but I want to focus purely on the article side of things. I got a little bit too involved in the governance of the site and I think that is what caused the issue. I always said that if Wikipedia ever became more than a hobby to me that it would be time to take a step back. The way some things were going I just became a tad emotionally attached to how the site itself was governed. It was time to drop it and take a few months off to regroup and reevaluate. I'll be around here and on IRC a little bit more in the coming days and hopefully even more after that. I still have work to do after all. Those forensic articles aren't going to rewrite themselves. Thanks again for taking the time. I'll see you around. --Majora (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You did the right thing by stepping back and taking a break when you felt the need to. We see too many people who don't do this when they probably should, and the result needs no explanation... lol. It's good to see you back. Until we meet again ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Say "Wow" is not neutral.
Careful with you biased wording when censoring edits. Saying "Wow" in the edit history clearly shows you are not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanvaldez (talk • contribs) 23:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Parachute Band Billboard.jpg
Hi Majora - Thank you for bringing the license attribution to my attention. I had Sarah Barlow (photographer) confirm her giving me permission to use the photo of the listed Wikipedia page and sent it to the Wikipedia email. Waiting on their confirmation receipt.

Thank you for the helpful info! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsnippoets (talk • contribs) 22:52, October 12, 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for being patient and teaching me the ways of Wikipedia and images - haha just learning!

Tonys94 (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC) 

File permissions for File:Nikil Viswanathan Profile Picture.jpg
Hi Majora! Thanks for the feedback on the file. Looks like it has the correct license as far as I can tell? I accidentally clicked the non share alike version in the upload wizard and was trying to figure out how to change that - it looks like its still public domain to me? thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonys94 (talk • contribs) 21:59, October 14, 2017 (UTC)
 * It has non-commercial and no derivative restrictions on it. Therefore, we can't keep the image. Please see WP:F3 for why I had to mark it for deletion. Not all creative commons licenses are created equal. In order for it to be ok for upload here it needs to be a license that allows anyone to use or modify the image at any time and for any reason. That license doesn't meet those restrictions. Sorry. --Majora (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Majora - thanks for the explanation! I'm a bit confused - are we looking at the same page? I don't see the non commercial or derivative restrictions? Maybe I'm looking at the wrong page or seeing a different version of it? Tonys94 (talk)
 * If you look at the source page where you got the image from you will see that the license they are using for that image is CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. The "NC" part is a no commercial use restriction and the ND part is a no derivatives restriction. Unfortunately, both are not acceptable for use here. Our sister project, Commons, has a list of acceptable creative commons licenses that can be used. If you have any other questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

ND residence halls
Hi, i respect your participation and eventual withdrawal of the AFD at Articles for deletion/Notre Dame residence halls. Hey, i do think there is too much coverage of the topic. Some editing in the main article would be justified, e.g. to establish in the lede that some of them are more note-worthy than others, and then to chip away at the coverage of the less-worthy ones. I'm not adequately motivated, though. I'd be slightly more motivated to help edit at the "common outcomes" guidance. Hmm, that would probably require consulting some of the past AFDs about dormitories / residence halls. I wonder if it's easy to search through past AFDs. Anyhow, i just want to sympathize that you did have a legitimate concern, which the AFD doesn't resolve. Hope you keep up your good participation in Wikipedia. cheers, -- do ncr  am  17:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Files without license
Hi Majora. I recently put together a recurring weekly report identifying files which may be missing a license tag. When you have some time, would you help me chip away at the list? Thanks,  F ASTILY   03:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to. I can start going through them tomorrow. I was just about to log off for the night when you posted. Out of curiosity, is there a way to mark images as "has a proper license" so it gets removed from that list? Take the first example, File:Inno Setup screenshot.png. I just glanced at it but it seems to tick all the boxes for an acceptable license (reuse even commercially, modification, etc.). Obviously I would need to investigate further but the info says it is a modified BSD license. If that is accurate it seems to be ok for use here but the actual BSD template would be incorrect. How would I remove that from the listing? --Majora (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Files categorized with All free media, All non-free media, or any category in the blacklist are omitted.  The report is still a work in progress, so there may be the occasional false positive.  Regards,   F ASTILY   07:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sam Hyde picture
It is on the source I listed, just click the one that looks nearly the same but at an angle and slightly blurred, then click on the small arrow to your right on the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KawaiiChurchill (talk • contribs) 15:54, October 27, 2017 (UTC)
 * And where on that page does it say that that image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License? Or did you just pick a license without verifying that it is correct? Cause at this point that photo still doesn't have proper permissions. Just because something is uploaded to the Internet doesn't mean you can take it and do whatever you want with it. It still maintains the same copyright status, of All Rights Reserved, unless stated otherwise. --Majora (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sam Hyde has given me permission for the picture to be returned https://www.facebook.com/ssam.hyde/posts/1740921239282698?comment_id=1744975122210643&notif_id=1509329087183187&notif_t=feed_comment Carlos Supremo is my account. KawaiiChurchill (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A few things here,, I am helping you purely because I want to see as many images as possible be used properly here. However, if you act like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sp00n_exe&diff=prev&oldid=807633844 this] again I will not only not help you, I will report you for egregious personal attacks. Something that is forbidden here. Now, down to business. I understand that our copyright policies are confusing and we ask a lot and for that I am sorry. For legal reasons we have to follow strict policies. "For use on Wikipedia" type releases are not acceptable. That statement on Facebook means nothing, legally speaking, so we can't use it. You must follow the instructions that I put on your talk page and have the copyright holder fill out the legal release form and send it into our OTRS team. If you need assistance doing that please let me know. But beyond that, you must follow the instructions or the image will be deleted. --Majora (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How does it not mean anything? KawaiiChurchill (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Because in order to be able to be used here the image must be licensed under a copyright license that allows anyone to use or modify the image at any time and for any purpose (including commercial use). Legally, the only way to change a copyright license is for the copyright holder to explicitly state that they are changing the license to a different one. Simply saying "yes you can use it on Wikipedia" is nowhere near what is legally required. It is also highly useful if they acknowledge that they understand the consequences of relicensing that photo under a different copyright license. That is why I asked you to follow the instructions that I posted on your talk page. It gives you the consent form that ticks all those boxes. This is the normal process that we ask everyone to go through for licensing images and confirming copyright permission. --Majora (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Vox (talk)
Let's try to work this out together.

You and others have reverted several times relevant, accurate and sourced information that I've added to the Vox (website) page. The only reason given for the reversion that was provided was by another user which cited "unreliable sources", of which I have since addressed in the most recent attempts of reversion.

Why are the edits I've made just? Three reasons: relevance, precedent and primary-sourced. First, relevance: at a time of unprecedented scrutiny on all media from across the political spectrum, Wikipedia regularly updates its pages and elevates information relevant to modern times. Several polls (and I can send you links) indicate historic levels of distrust among the public of the press. Second, precedent: the Wikipedia pages of several digital publications known to have liberal and conservative leanings and biases have that pre-existing context on their pages for transparency (Slate, Breitbart, The Weekly Standard, The Huffington Post, The National Review, Mother Jones, Salon, etc.), Vox who approaches their editorial decision-making from a skewed perspective no less apparent than the Huffington Post or The National Review ought to be held to the same standards. Third, primary-sourced. Ezra Klein, the editor of Vox, is a registered Democrat who prominently commentated on Democratic politics, garnered a reputation as a liberal wonk at The Washington Post, and directly stated in the source I provided that the audience for Vox skews to the left.

I'm looking forward to reading recommendations you have to include this important and relevant additional context to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs24 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't use articles from Vox as sources about Vox. That is pure original research on your part and is not allowed by policy. Your take on Vox's articles is completely meaningless to us here. Independence in sourcing is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia and needs to be followed. Now, lets take the only other source that you put in that edit that was not by Vox . Where in that article does it explicitly state that Vox is a liberal leaning website? It doesn't. That is synthesis and is also a violation of the "no original research" policy. You can't say something that a source doesn't explicitly state and saying that it is "regarded by some" is a cop out and a WP:WEASEL phrase at that. This is what people were trying to tell you. You can't use primary sources and you can't engage in original research. Both of those formed your entire edit. That is why you were reverted. If you have any questions about the "no original research" policy please let me know. If you still want to attempt to make this edit please discuss your changes on the article's talk page. Since this involves numerous editors it is best to keep discussions on article content on the article's talk page. --Majora (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I accept the rule on original research. The intent of these edits isn't to inject a "take" on the articles Vox publishes. The other source I published does include an admission by Klein directly that the site leans to the left. Search for "And overall our audience leans a bit left, but it doesn’t lean overwhelmingly so." I'd like to take this to the article's talk page, but I wanted to begin and hopefully end by addressing this with you because you are one of the people who are reverted the edits I made. I accept your sourcing feedback and have explained how and why the source I provided is valid, but you did not address the additional sources, not in the edits but in my original message here, to which I referred that include information about Klein and his political identity and perspective. If not the original edits I made, then revised edits that take into account your feedback along with the sourcing I provided ought to be included in the Vox article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs24 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I know that this is going to seem like semantics, and that is because it is. But that source did not say that the site leans to the left. It says that their readers do. That is a completely different thing. If you want to say that their readership leans to the left, that would be what is supported by the source. Although that source is rather weak as all interviews are since they are primary sources and therefore not independent. Semantics matters a great deal on Wikipedia. How you say something is almost as important as what you mean. "Site" is not the same as "readers". Again, I recommend bringing this up on the talk page. --Majora (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Combined DNA Index System
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Combined DNA Index System you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

admin nomination
I've been here for 7 knows, I know that pales in comparison to the time a lot of admins have been on, but I've made over 100 edits. So can I at least go through the nominating where I'm asked questions and such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status of photos on Fuller_(artist)
Hi Majora,

All photos used on this page are from the same Flickr photostream here. The "About" section of this photostream says the following:

"After requests by followers and media outlets, this selection of images have been released for use under the attribution/non-commercial creative commons license."

I'm new to Wikipedia so please let me know if I'm missing something obvious, but I don't understand why you have labelled these photos copyright violations when the artist himself has said they can be used under a CC license.

Could you explain your reasoning here? Thanks.

Throwbackthursdays (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not all Creative Commons licenses are created equal. There are many of them that we do not accept because they are not "free enough". In order for a license to be acceptable it would have to allow anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). The non-commercial restriction on those images is the issue. There was one that was labelled as "All Rights Reserved" as well. That is the one I labelled as a copyright violation. The others I labelled for deletion under the WP:F3 criterion. Our sister project, Commons, has a nice list of Creative Commons licenses that we do accept. If you have any other questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, that makes sense. Thank you so much for the clear explanation. I'm going to read about the different types of CC licenses then I'll try contacting the artist to see whether I can get permission to use these on the correct license. Thanks again. Throwbackthursdays (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Jeff_Johnson_(musician)
The information is dated and needs to be resorted and organized, especially the discography. I am not being compensated by Johnson, but I have written dozens of articles on him and have reached out to him regarding inspiration and sources. Any help you can provide me I would appreciate.

Jeff Johnson (born 1956) is a recording artist, composer and producer who has released numerous solo and collaborative recordings on his own Ark Records / ArkMusic label since it’s establishment in 1977. He also creates and leads Christian contemplative worship featuring music, readings from the Psalms and silent prayer called the Selah Service. Originally from the Port-land, Oregon area, he currently resides in the San Juan Islands in the state of Washington, Unit-ed States.

Vocal recordings Johnson’s early vocal recordings were stylistically progressive rock. The lyrics were inspired by a diverse group of authors, artists and historical figures including CS Lewis, Charles Williams, George MacDonald, Blaise Pascal, Francis Schaeffer, Tom Stoppard, William Shakespeare, Auguste Rodin, Paul Gaugin, Pierre-Auguste Renoir and Ludwig II of Bavaria.

His more recent vocal works are more liturgical in theme and include words from the Biblical Psalms as well as prayers by early Irish saints Columba and Patrick as well as Teresa of Ávila and Francis of Assisi.

Instrumental recordings Johnson’s instrumental releases cover a broad spectrum of Celtic, New Age, Jazz and World music genres.

His collaborations with Irish flutist, Brian Dunning, include music inspired by the stories of Ste-phen R. Lawhead as well as a series of Celtic Christmas releases which were licensed by Wind-ham Hill for that label’s Winter Solstice and Celtic Christmas compilations.

He also collaborated on several releases with Portland, Oregon bassist, David Friesen and addi-tional releases with world- renowned guitarist, Phil Keaggy.

Related recordings Johnson’s recordings have been licensed and featured on numerous commercials, compilations, spoken word and movie soundtracks including the Martin Scorsese film, “Gangs of New York,” Ruth Bell Graham’s “A Quiet Knowing,” the Hearts of Space “Celtic Twilight” and Windham Hill “Winter Solstice” and “Celtic Christmas” series, Eckhart Tolle’s “Music to Quiet the Mind,” Angela Elwell Hunt’s “The Tale of Three Trees,” Keith Patman’s “Centerpoint: Poetry & Music for Christmas and Scott Cairn’s “Parable.”

Discography

If I Do Not Remember (2016) Jeff Johnson, Brian Dunning & Wendy Goodwin

Jonathan’s Lullaby (2016) Jeff Johnson

Home Again – Single (2015) Jeff Johnson

WinterSky Live EP (2015) Jeff Johnson, Phil Keaggy, Brian Dunning & Wendy Goodwin

Broken, Gazing (2014) Jeff Johnson (featuring Wendy Goodwin)

Parable (2014) Poetry & readings by Scott Cairns Music by Jeff Johnson & Roy Salmond

WaterSky (2012) Jeff Johnson & Phil Keaggy

Two Songs For Holy Week EP (2015) Jeff Johnson

Winterfold (2013) Jeff Johnson, Brian Dunning & Wendy Goodwin

Antiphon (2011) Coram Deo Ensemble – Jeff Johnson, Janet Chvatal, Brian Dunning, Wendy Goodwin & Marc Gremm

Under The Wonder Sky (2010) Jeff Johnson, Brian Dunning & Wendy Goodwin

Frio Suite (2009) Jeff Johnson & Phil Keaggy

Journey Prayers (2009) Jeff Johnson

Selah Audio Meditations – Vol. 3 / The Way Of The Cross (2009) Featuring readings by Jeff Johnson with music from various ArkMusic recordings.

King Raven, Vols. 1 - 3 (2008) Jeff Johnson & Brian Dunning

Dreams Of A Christmas Night EP (2007) Jeff Johnson & Brian Dunning

Standing Still (2007) Jeff Johnson

Selah Audio Meditations – Vol. 2 (2007) Featuring Celtic prayers written by J. Philip Newell read by Jeff Johnson with music from Ark-Music recordings.

A Thin Silence (2006) Jeff Johnson

Selah Audio Meditations – Vol. 1 (2006) Featuring readings by Jeff Johnson with music from various ArkMusic recordings.

Vespers – light into Light (2005) Jeff Johnson with Janet Chvatal

Stars In The Morning East – A Christmas Meditation (2005) Jeff Johnson & Brian Dunning

The Katurran Odyssey – A Musical Journey (2004) Originally released by Hearts of Space Jeff Johnson & Brian Dunning

Patrick (2003) Jeff Johnson & Brian Dunning

Benediction (2002) Jeff Johnson, Brian Dunning, John Fitzpatrick & Jozef Lupták

The Memory Tree (2002) Jeff Johnson

The Enduring Story – A Retrospective (2001) Jeff Johnson & Brian Dunning

A Quiet Knowing Christmas (2001) Jeff Johnson, Brian Dunning & John Fitzpatrick

Byzantium – The Book of Kells & St. Aidan’s Journey (2000) Jeff Johnson & Brian Dunning

A Quiet Knowing – Canticles For The Heart (2000) Jeff Johnson, Brian Dunning & John Fitzpatrick

The Bard & The Warrior (2001) Originally released in 1997 as “Music Of Celtic Legends” (Windham Hill) Jeff Johnson & Brian Dunning

Prayers Of St. Brendan – The Journey Home (1998) Originally released by Hearts of Space Jeff Johnson with Janet Chvatal & Brian Dunning

Navigatio (1997) Jeff Johnson with Janet Chvatal

Psalmus (1996) Jeff Johnson with Janet Chvatal

The Isle Of Dreams (1994) Jeff Johnson

Songs From Albion 3 (1994) Jeff Johnson & Brian Dunning

Songs From Albion 2 (1993) Jeff Johnson & Brian Dunning

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupzip (talk • contribs) 02:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite a few things are wrong with what you are trying to do. Your conflict of interest aside what you are trying to put on that page is pure, unambiguous, advertising. Wikipedia is not for promotional or advertising purposes. We don't care one bit what the artist or the label wants on their page. That isn't how Wikipedia works. We have specific policies on what is and what isn't appropriate. All material on all pages should be sourced to a published reliable source that has editorial oversight and a history of fact checking. You removed sourced content and inserted material without sources. That isn't acceptable. In addition to your removal of sourced content, the content that you did add was incredibly promotional. It looks like it came straight out the PR rep's mouth. That isn't acceptable. If you want to learn how to properly use Wikipedia please take a look at the Tutorial. --Majora (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I do PR for a living for USPS, so I guess that's how I write! I'll try to be a little less polished ! And the removed sourced material actually went some of my articles. However, I understand and will be more compliant in my edits. Can I at least reorder the Discography and link to their source? Rupzip (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)rupzip
 * Provided there is a published reliable source that can be used to verify the content you want to add/reorder, please do. --Majora (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Snow
I do not accept this, Because a *❄️* can not prevent policy change--Persian-iran (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW is not an essay. You may, of course, challenge the close but I must warn you. Doing so would be incredibly unwise and probably result in a BOOMERANG. We are here to build an encyclopedia. It really doesn't seem like you are here to do the same. It really appears like you are here to "right great wrongs". --Majora (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Scottish National Antarctic Expedition
You reverted my edit to this page and threatened to seek sanctions if I made it a second time, so I'd like to talk a bit about why you object to it so strongly.

It strikes me as a costless bit of humor that serves us well. Thousands of people see it (e.g. this tweet). It doesn't make Wikipedia any less accurate or informative, and it might encourage people to join in, because it shares a sense of fun. I haven't yet understood the objection. Mortee (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker) Mortee I can't speak for Majora but here's my take on all this. I am generally sympathetic to your point of view because I have also trolled the Wikipedia a couple times and in fact one my "jokes" is still there after 10 years (although its arguable whether there's actually anything wrong with it). Anyway what I would say is, if you get called on a joke you have to back down, you can't defend it. The default state of any article is complete seriousness. This is necessary for the project to work IMO. In addition, WP:BRD requires you to get consensus for most any challenged edit. Which you won't get for a joke. Then, on the merits, I think the "(right)" and the "indifferent" are a bit broad -- they're admirably dry, but perhaps at least a bit too obvious as jokes.


 * I agree that people are a bit too serious here. Even Samuel Johnson made a few jokes in his dictionary ("Patron: One who countenances, supports, or protects. Commonly a wretch who supports with insolence, and is paid with flattery"). I recall hearing of a serious work of computer science where the index held the entries "Endless loop: see Loop, endless" and "Loop, endless: See Endless loop", heh.


 * It would be fine (IMO) if we had ten or twenty jokes in the entire encyclopedia. However, you're never going to be able to stop at that number. And many of the jokes will be broad and stupid, because many of editors are broad and stupid (and some are thin and stupid). We used to have a tradition here of putting silly stuff on the front page on April 1, but some moron (an admin, but I repeat myself) put a juvenile, unfunny, and somewhat offensive joke on the front page, and that put paid to that.


 * What I do is make occasional forays into humor on the talk pages. Even there you want to go light since these are also for serious purpose, but at least not presented to the public. (Sorry for hijacking your talk page, Majora. As I say Majora may have an entirely different take on the matter). Herostratus (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you . This was beautifully written and well-argued as well. Rather than take up space here I'll reply to a couple of your points on the talk page for the article. Mortee (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

SD
I've contested the speedy deletion of File:Bryn Mawr, Granville, OH, US.jpg - see the talk page. Google specifically permits it for non-commercial use. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, "non-commercial use only" licenses are generally not acceptable, at least for Wikipedia purposes. Because Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, most images have to be freely licensed. That means that the copyright holder allows anyone to use the images for any purpose, including commercially. If there's a good reason to use an image that does not meet that criteria, it can be used in a limited form under the WP:Non-free content guidelines, provided that an appropriate rationale is written on the file's description page. Non-free pictures of living people and towns or buildings in the US are almost always replaceable by freely-licensed images, and therefore shouldn't be uploaded to Wikipedia. If you've got a question about the copyright status of a particular work, stop by the WP:Media copyright questions page. --AntiCompositeNumber (Ring me) 01:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Dana Milbank
I can't make sense of the IP's comment. Can you? The only significant content on talk:Dana Milbank was in 2008. I reverted and left a EW message. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. There is nothing in their contribs either to indicate that they discussed those changes anywhere. Who knows what they mean but that removal obviously wasn't discussed anywhere. --Majora (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

FIle:Dr. Robert F. Turner.jpg
I thought I followed the instructions. I added a link to the copyright notice for all photos. Txantimedia (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I just saw that you removed the tag since you put the link way at the bottom of the page. All fixed. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. I don't do this much (this is only the second photo I've uploaded, and I struggled with the first one as well), so I'm sure I did't do it in a way that it is commonly done. Everything is OK now, though. Correct? Txantimedia (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. Everything is all set. --Majora (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply to help-me on anonymous IP account
I noticed that you declined to answer a helpme in. I think the user was asking how to create an individual Wikipedia account when they're on a rangeblocked Internet provider, which is what the IP block message probably told them to do. Was this a misunderstanding, or was it actually declined because that user might actually be the abuser? --Closeapple (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Asking about something that happened over a month ago is a little strange but ok. My reasoning is contained within my edit summary. I assumed it wasn't about editing Wikipedia. I assumed it was about using, creating, or logging on to their Verizon account (as in the use of https://login.verizonwireless.com/amserver/UI/Login). They didn't respond or ask anything else and I would have known if they did. Helpme requests are automatically transmitted to IRC so they are picked up immediately and the template also contains a link to log on to the IRC help channel where I was present and would have assisted if I was proven incorrect. Why do you ask? Did they use a different IP to ask the same question? How did you stumble across a random talk page like that? --Majora (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I went in this order:
 * While removing the unsourced garbage from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2606:6000:624E:CE00:F81A:20C3:F486:35D0, which goes back several months, I went to clean up Danny Wells.
 * Sometimes that user from 2606:6000:624e:ce00::, in order to insert unsourced claims, would make sloppy edits then clean it up in a following edit so the last edit looked like an improvement. But in this case, 2606:6000:624e:ce00:: left the sloppy edit, and 2600:1000:b008:8e2a:460:e51f:9923:e3a2 cleaned it the next day, and then I noticed that 2600:1000:b000::/41 was also blocked, so I wondered if they were the same sockpuppets.
 * So I looked at the contribution history for 2600:1000:b000::/41, and the latest thing that popped up was that request, which seemed like it had an odd response in that, instead of something like User talk:2600:1000:B071:A8E3:3C8C:4013:B491:FA7E, it just had a "does not relate to Wikipedia editing" response, so that made me wonder whether maybe experienced responders were reluctant to point out anonblock instructions to that IP range.
 * The sockpuppet on 2606:6000:624e:ce00::/64 (and a few IPv4 addresses) is a specific sockmaster with a specific focus. So I was trying to figure out whether 2600:1000:b000::/41 is just a huge rangeblock with a lot of collateral damage, or whether it was a specific insidious sockmaster that experienced responders were trying to avoid helping.  Looks like just collateral damage to me now.  There are 3 or 4 questions of that nature in August to October in the 2600:1000:b000::/41 contributions. --Closeapple (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Should have known it was SPI. Digging is their specialty over there (and they are very good at it too). I very well could have made a mistake in tagging that as "not about Wikipedia". In any case, I would have just pointed them to WP:ACC which probably wouldn't have touched a rangeblock like that with a ten foot pole anyways due to the LTA issues. I agree with you about it probably being collateral. That is quite the large range of IPs being IPv6. My bad for misconstruing their request. --Majora (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

hi
you can keeep his family details ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:8401:705C:55AA:B39C:5D67:7BE9 (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about since you have edited from an IP address that does not have any other edits. I'm assuming it was about a revert I did and if it was about family details I'm guessing it had something to do with WP:BLP. What that policy states is that any information on a biography on a living person must be sourced. Any non-sourced material should be removed immediately. If you have a source for these details then please provide it. If this is about something else please let me know and I'd be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I need your help
I screwed this up: File:Dr._James_S._Robbins.jpg

It's not non-free use. It's the same as the previous one I uploaded. I misunderstood the form when I was uploading the file. I should have chosen free use with the copyright from this page: https://www.vvfh.org/index.php/research/books. I have no idea how to fix this. I hope you can. One day I will figure all of this out. Txantimedia (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * All fixed. The image has also been moved to Commons. Our centralized repository for free images. It can be found here File:Dr.JamesSRobbins.jpg. --Majora (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks you so much. I promise, I'll do better in the future. Txantimedia (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it at all . It takes a while to learn all the ins and outs here. If you need any other assistance don't hesitate to let me know. I'd be happy to help. --Majora (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Blake Ricciardi
The photo was taken by someone specifically for Blake and he owns the original photo. How do I remove the copyright and allow it for upload? Thanks!

Jkingaround (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Only the copyright holder can release a photo under a different copyright license. "Owning" the photo doesn't make someone the copyright holder. Generally the copyright holder is the photographer unless the copyright has been transferred by legal action or contract (such as a work for hire). You can request that the copyright holder release it under a license we can use. Please note that in order to do this the holder must agree to release it in a way that allows anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). If you wish to do this you can ask the copyright holder to read and fill out the form located at c:COM:ET and send it into our volunteer response team. They handle copyright release requests. If you have questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I was guessing on the copyright as there was never any actual copyright on the image. Is allowing modification even for commercial use the only way to upload the image to wikipedia? Jkingaround (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Copyright attaches upon creation. They don't actually have to list it on the image in question. It is still there and defaults to "all rights reserved". And if the image is that of a living person then, yes. Modification even for commercial reuse is required. --Majora (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 Merry Christmas !!

Hi, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,

– Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Combined DNA Index System
The article Combined DNA Index System you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Combined DNA Index System for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Ceramium - categories
Thanks for the "categorisement" (!) A few comments from you how to do this will be most welcome (if simple).Osborne 21:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , categories are placed at the bottom of the page and all begin with a Category: prefix. So for the article in question you would [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ceramium_secundatum&action=edit edit] the page and scroll down to the bottom. There you will see . That is placing the page into the Red algae category. Then if you click through to that category you will see it there. You will also see subcategories of the Red algae category. If it belongs in something more specific you can always place it there. Wikipedia has tens of thousands of different categories. Unfortunately there really isn't a list of them all for you to pick and choose from. The best way to do it is to look at the categories on similar articles or go with the broadest category you can think of and work from there. For this article I started with Category:Algae and then saw that there was a subcategory called "Red algae" that was more specific. Does that make sense? As a side note, you may want to fix your signature by going to your preferences and then scrolling down to where it says Signature. It should have a link back to your user page or user talk page so people can more easily contact you. --Majora (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks - at first glance it looks rather difficult and long! I have printed it out for further study! Many thanks.Osborne 15:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh crumbs! On further study I cannot find  ! Will study your helpful note again.Osborne 16:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that printing it would show that code. You won't see nowiki on the actual article. I had to use it here otherwise this page would have been categorized into the red algae category. The nowiki switches block normal Wikipedia behavior when it comes to "wiki-syntax". On the article you will see what is in between the switches. Sorry for the confusion. --Majora (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Paul Sheard
Hello,

Can you please tell me if you moved the Paul Sheard page? It is now showing up on the second page when searched in google and it says it's been moved/redirected and a draft.

I took down the photo you mentioned even though it was free to use as per the official WEF photographer allowing the picture to be used by the speakers, etc. Although I will replace it with a new one.

I would greatly appreciate your feedback on how to get the page back in it's original place.

Thank you. LRClement (talk)LRClement —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. Paul Sheard is where it has always been. What Google does with our pages is completely out of our control. Those are sorted by their algorithm. If you have a problem with their results you are going to have to take it up with Google. As for the photo, "being used by the speakers" is not what we need. We need a photo to be released under a completely free copyright license. That means that the copyright holder, generally the photographer, has allowed anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). There are ways to ask for a copyright holder to release their photo under one of these licenses which I can get into if you want but if you upload another photo that doesn't allow for those things then unfortunately the same thing is going to happen. I'd be happy to help you through getting a proper photo release if you want. Just let me know. --Majora (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Christ Episcopal School Center of Inquiry dedication 2013.jpg
Thanks for correcting my error.

Can you help me understand which scenarios newspaper photos can appear in wikipedia articles under fair use doctrine?

Many thanks

John.sterling (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair use? Generally, none. Wikipedia has a much more strict interpretation of fair use than pretty much any other website. This is because we are striving to be a completely free and open encyclopedia that can be used by everyone. So in that regards, only things that are deemed to be completely irreplaceable fall within the acceptable use of non-free content. The exact policy can be found here: WP:NFCC and the 10 points in the "Policy" section each need to be hit in order to use a non-free image. In this particular case, an image of a still standing building would never be acceptable under our fair use policy as anyone could just walk up to the building, take a photo, and release it under a free license. Does that make sense? If not let me know and I'd be happy to assist you further if you have any questions. --Majora (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Advice
Sorry to bother you. I just wanted to ask: may I upload, only locally (eng wiki and not Commons), the following picture, with a CC BY-ND 2.0 licence? Thanks (link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/hoppegroup/14197378975/). Thanks, --Conte di Cavour (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , Non-Deriv licenses are not compatible with Wikipedia's licensing. There could be a fair-use claim made, but we already have a free image (it's not as "pretty" but it is free) so it cannot be used. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I did know that it was not allowed on Commons but I could not find any guidelines specific for local-compatible licensing. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I hope you you don't mind me coming to you directly
You were so helpful before. I have another image I would like to upload. I am the owner of the image - it is an 1890s(?) photo of an individual there is already an article about. I have scanned it. What are my options to upload it regarding method and copyright options? Thanks again. Reaper7 (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Define owner, . Was it taken by one of your ancestors? Did you buy the photo? How did you come into possession of it? I also need to know where the photo was taken (what country)? If it was taken in the United States you should be fine. If it was taken in another country I'm going to need more details. --Majora (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I own the copy and scanned it. Yes, it is of my great great grandfather discovered with many other images of him in a bag that has always been in the family - most likely for his own personal/family use. For example I think he simply went to a photographer to get a picture taken of him. There are a fair few of them showing various points in his life - some mention the studio where he got the picture taken, others don't. They were all most likely taken in Spain. For example this one of him - a Carte de visite shows the studio where he had it taken at the bottom: https://www.flickr.com/photos/24784058@N03/34866855345/in/album-72157682271617300/  This one is simply on thin paper and no mention of any studio: https://www.flickr.com/photos/24784058@N03/34866854355/in/album-72157682271617300/ Reaper7 (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, . I just have to do some investigating into Spanish copyright law and then I'll update you. I just need to sit down and do it and I keep getting sidetracked by other things. I'll try to get to this tonight. --Majora (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Majora. Reaper7 (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , do you think the photo could have been by Pau Audouard? Is there any indication in your papers as to the photographer. Spanish copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. If it was Pau Audouard you should be good to go to upload it to Commons. It would be public domain in both Spain and in the US. --Majora (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My goodness, the studio at the bottom of the first picture above says Audouard y Cia - lit Audouard and Company. Seems it was taken in his studio (no idea by whom?) and all this would have been well over 70 year ago. What about the second photo with no reference - would the same apply anyway as it is so old? (around 1890s) Reaper7 (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That one is much harder . Because we can't really tell who took the photo we don't know if 70 years has passed since their death. I'm going to assume that the first one was taken by Pau Audouard who died in 1918. That means everything he took in Spain passed into the public domain January 1, 1989. If he had lived to the ripe old age of 91 (instead of dying at 61) then his images won't fall into the public domain till next year (January 1, 2019). Spanish copyright is different from US copyright and different terms apply. I'm thinking right now, just to be safe, I would say that only the first one is safe to upload to Commons. --Majora (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I spose the only positive about the one with no reference is 10 years older. Reaper7 (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

SG 39 Cipher Device.jpg
Hi Majora, I am trying to save this image. The image comes from this document: https://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic-heritage/historical-figures-publications/publications/wwii/assets/files/german_cipher.pdf Which is an NSA document. The person who provides this document and who controls it, is Rene S Stein, who is the NSA librarian He is the NSA and the owner of this document. He explicity gave me permission to use the images in the document in manner I manner I see fit. What is the exact problem with it. scope_creep (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Rene is a women, . And due to the confidentiality agreement I cannot discuss OTRS related business here. Private correspondence has been sent. --Majora (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Crap, I never realised she was a women. I thought it was a French Rene, a male name I think. Bit a faux pas. I'm resigned to losing the image. Ok. scope_creep (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Vodafone logo question
Hi Majora. I just pinged you about another matter, but I'd like you're opinion on File:Vodafone.svg. In Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 7, bth you and commented that File:Vodafone logo.png was not below c:COM:TOO. For reference, the Commons file has replaced the non-free in Vodafone and is also being added the infoboxes of various other Vodafone articles by Special:Contributions/186.179.100.137. If the Commons file is OK, then fine. If not, then the non-free will be deleted per WP:F5 when it probably shouldn't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * All fixed . Image on Commons nominated for deletion and the ones here removed/restored to the way it was before. --Majora (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again Majora. Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays to you and yours.
 * What's your take on File:Vodafone.png and File:Vodafone Greece logo2017.png? I can't see how Commons can keep these if all the other similar files have been deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you as well! I've nominated both of them for deletion. The design itself is likely copyrightable in the UK (where Vodafone is based). They are a "sweat of the brow" country and pretty much everything is. --Majora (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look at these. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Found another one at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:VodafoneGroupPLC NewLogo2017.png. I'm wondering if something specific about Vodafone logos should be added to some page on Commons because people keep on re-uploading it or variants or it since the consensus seems to be that it's not "PD-logo". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything we can do expect to watch for them. They wouldn't be able to add "Vodafone" to a blacklist since there are quite a few images with that in the title that aren't the logo. Even if we were to put it on a Commons: page somewhere I doubt it would help. Most people that upload to Commons do so via cross-wiki uploads. Those that actually do it via the Commons upload wizard rarely stick around long enough to even read the delete notices. Thank you for tagging it. Just going to have to continue to keep an eye out. --Majora (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Understand. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Vodafone Albania.svg is a new twist on trying to get this onto Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Two more in c:Category:Vodafone logos. Tagged for deletion. This is starting to become laughable at this point. --Majora (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The file I tagged for speedy deletion has been moved to c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vodafone Albania.svg. I'm not sure if I understand the rationale given for doing so though because it seems to imply that the country of origin of the logo doesn't really matter and it's the country of use which is important. If that reasoning is correct, then it seems to mean that PD versions could be uploaded to Commons on a per country basis depending upon a country's TOO, which essentially makes the logo de facto PD everywhere. Moreover, if the logo is PD in Albania and can be kept, then there's no need for any non-free version such as File:Vodafone logo 2017.png at all, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I responded to the DR,. I'm not convinced by Taivo's reasoning there. --Majora (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. FWIW, if it is PD, it would make things a lot easier since a non-free would not be needed and the logo could be used in all the Vodafone articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If Taivo is correct, then that the same reasoning could apply to c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vodafone Greece logo2017.png, right? I mean anyone could simply upload Vodafone logos using country-specifc names and the same would apply to them as well. I am seriously misunderstanding something here because if that's all it takes to make a UK company's logo PD on Commons, then there would seem to be more cases where this would be applicable and many non-free UK logos might not need to be non-free. All one would need to do is find one country where the parent company has a subsidiary and determine whether its TOO is less restrictive than the UK's; for example, something Wikipedia might treat as PD if the US was the country of origin could be reuploaded to Commons as "ABC Company US logo2018" sourcing the US subsidiary's website. For legal reasons, the subsidiary would most likely need to be registered in the US to conduct business activities so the threshold used by Taivo would be met. The logo could then technically be used in pretty much any article about the parent company without having to worry about the NFCCP. I'm wondering if this might be something worth discussing at WT:NFC because of the implications on non-free use it might have. If the Albania logo is kept, then it could be added to the Vodafone Greece article, even if that particular file ends up being deleted, since the two seem essentially identical to me. However, in my opinion, it seems pointless to keep one as PD-logo and delete the other for not being PD-logo if they are essentially both the same logo owned by the same company; at the same time it would seem pointless to keep a non-free UK logo per NFCC#1 when pretty much exactly the same file can be found as PD-logo for some other country on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Lets not get ahead of ourselves. It is highly unlikely that that logo is actually going to be kept. Primarily because of their precautionary principle. If it is kept for some reason we can cross that bridge when we get there. I just highly doubt that it will be. --Majora (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. As you say, it’s best to wait and see what happens. —- Marchjuly (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

RimWorld Logo
Hi, you declined the upload of another version for the RimWorld logo. It seems I did not make it clear where I got the image. You can download it from here: http://ludeon.com/downloads/logo.zip I gave a link to a drive document because that other link contains multiple other versions. This is from the official website. The link itself can be found in: https://ludeon.com/blog/faq/ which is the link I said cited the information on the license. 46.127.26.206 (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Just remembered that this was here. It looks like it is fine (my bad with the decline). I just have to do a little bit more research to be sure and I'll update the logo tomorrow. Sorry about the wait. --Majora (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sorry about the delay. --Majora (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Banglapedia
Hi Majora. Not sure what to make of this and not sure what it has to do with whether the source is a WP:RS. Have you come across these this thing before? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Images
You recently deleted the files I uploaded and brought them to my attention on my talk page. I was wondering if you would be willing to help me find public domain images, or with ideas of how to get a file uploaded to a page for its image - properly? I'd appreciate your help.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To find a true public domain image of a living person would be incredibly rare. But that doesn't mean we are out of options. There are other types of licenses that are acceptable here. All you would need is a license that allows anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). These include Creative Commons licenses that do not have non-commercial and non-derivative restrictions on them. You can attempt to search the commons for such images. Or you can message someone whose image you want to use and ask them to relicense it under a free license. See Requesting copyright permission. --Majora (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

File:USA national junior hockey team uiform.jpg
Hi Majora. Do you think File:USA national junior hockey team uiform.jpg needs to be non-free. I guess it's tecnically a derivative of File:USA national hockey team jerseys - 2014 Winter Olympics.png so maybe it's eligible for it's own copyright. However, at the same time, I'm also wondering if the new logo on the non-free file might be considered to be a type of c:COM:DM in this particular case since it represents only a small part of the total image, which would mean that even a derivative would not be protected by copyright. Of course everything I just posted is based upon the assumption that the licensing of the Commons file is correct; if that file needs to go, then this would also need to go as well or a better source would need to be found, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Uniforms have...issues. I forget what FFD it was on but there was a court case that gave copyright to uniform designs if I recall correctly, . Obviously there are exceptions for things that are too simple to be copyrighted or whose copyright has expired. That particular one, at that size, would probably be de minimus but resizing it any larger would be a problem. I believe the USA shield on the Commons page is out of copyright. It is quite an old symbol. But I could be wrong. In terms of the one hosted on enwiki under fair use I would say leave it as is provided a better source could be found and it can be verified that that is indeed the correct uniform. Otherwise, treat it like a hoax. --Majora (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look.Uniform files do get deleted from Commons as seen at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:CanucksBySeason.png, but there are also tons still there in c:Category:Sports uniforms. Of course, it probably depends on the exceptions you mentioned, but there are probably some as well which shouldn't be there. I'll see if I can find a better source for this, but I have the feeling per User talk:ANTbook365 and File:USA hockey logo.gif that the uploader might have just created it based on their own observations. I don't believe its a hoax, but at the same time I believe the uploader concern with meeting the NFCCP is superficial at best. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Edits to David Feldman
Thank you for removing the copyrighted picture from David Feldman (lawyer). I was not clear on the rules for pictures, but will be more careful in future!

Arjun Dhar (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Dr Hal Paz photo
hello - how do we add a photo if we are not the owner but do have permission? tried adding it but the photo got removed. thank you for any advice!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Paz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandfog (talk • contribs) 19:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The copyright holder would have to agree to release the photo under a copyright license that allows anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse) with varying degrees of attribution required depending on the exact license chosen. If you know the copyright holder please have them read, fill out, and send in the form located at c:COM:ET to our copyright response team. They handle permission verification requests. --Majora (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

thank you so much - we will see if we can get that process started! appreciate the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandfog (talk • contribs) 19:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

File:EastWestRailServiceMap.jpg
You recently marked the image that I uploaded for "discussion", you should probably look at my response (Files for discussion/2018 February 17) so we can try to create a draft fair use licence. Many Thanks, Joshua Marooney (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It may not meet Wikipedia's policy for fair use. I'll say as much on the FFD. --Majora (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response, I have stated on the FFD page that it should be deleted and replaced. Joshua Marooney (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

help desk
Thanks for reverting me, I was editing in a hurry, got into a couple of edit conflicts and abandoned without checking what carnage I'd left. It looks as if 15 years isn't long enough for me to master the basics :( <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  06:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. I assumed it was some sort of copy/paste error. No biggie. --Majora (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Jim and Tammy Bakker 1986.jpg
I’m very disappointed that some of my images may have violated Commons policies. However, for Jim Bakker image, the reason it is public domain is stated on Flickr (it even says its Public Domain). LovelyGirl7  talk  12:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the template please, . The PD mark means nothing and isn't an actual copyright license. Open the two collapsed sections on the template to find out why that mark isn't acceptable. --Majora (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's the reasons why it is part of the Public Domain Mark: . -- LovelyGirl7  talk  23:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is now the second time I'm asking you to read the template. The public domain mark is not a copyright license. Here. I'll even link you to the template from here: c:template:Flickr-public domain mark --Majora (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll let it be deleted. I saw it and images like this aren't allowed. -- LovelyGirl7  talk  19:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

John Beebe photo
Please pardon me. I did some editing on Wikipedia a few years ago but seem to have lost some of my skills/knowledge. With regard to the photo of John Beebe, and the question on the alert on my account, the email is headed "Subject: Re: [Ticket#2018020210009923] Authorization to use my photo on Wikipedia": that must be the ticket number wanted. Hope this will help resolve the issue. Thanks, --Halcatalyst (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the permissions I received were not valid for that image . I'm bound by a confidentiality agreement that makes it difficult to say anymore. Sorry. --Majora (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please pardon me again, I overlooked this message from Dr. Beebe: "Can you explain to me what documentation I must have to satisfy Wikipedia that I have the right to use the photo? I am going to China at the end of the month and could get the necessary signature(s). I see the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 license online, but it is just legal text, not a form to fill out and sign."


 * Can you help? Thanks, --Halcatalyst (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The copyright holder of that photo, which is the photographer, would have to fill out the form located at c:COM:ET and send it into us. If they have any questions they can still respond back to the ticket. It is still assigned to me and I'll be notified. --Majora (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

File:TV5 (ABC5) Logo.png
Hi Majora. Any ideas on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2018/February? The latest updated version is quite a bit different that the older version, so it may no longer need to be Non-free logo. If that's the case, then Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 22 may no longer be applicable as well. Finally, if this new version is PD, then maybe it would be best to re-upload as a new file and not as an update to an older non-free logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is certainly PD-ineligible-USOnly. I'm not familiar with the threshold of originality for the Philippines and Commons doesn't have any information on it. It does appear that that FFD is no longer applicable. However, reuploading it under a new name is probably not necessary. Just a relicense. That way continuity can be maintained. --Majora (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the feedback. The suggestion about reuploading the new file was only made if it might possibly be moved to Commons as “PD-logo”. It would also allow someone to possibly reuse the older version if they felt its non-free use could somehow be justified. If, however, none of that seems likely, then there’s no real need to reupload. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Help
Hi i needed yr help in fixing this new error. Please help me in the same link thanking you -- ✝iѵ ɛɳ  २२४० †ลℓк †๏ мэ 15:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've started to mess with it, . There seems to be a language code issue from what the error is saying. I'll work with it some more over the weekend. --Majora (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok take your time. Meanwhile for a permanent solution for it I would like if you explain the core problem so we may find a permanent solution for it.

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T189405 -- ✝iѵ ɛɳ  २२४० †ลℓк †๏ мэ 07:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Voluntary Arts logo.jpg
Hi Majora. I'm wondering about the licensing of this file. It was originally licensed as "cc-by-4.0" which seemed wrong, so I tagged the file for speedy deletion. It was subsequently converted to "PD-textlogo" by a Commons admin. This is something I thought might be possible, but seemed unlikely given that the country of origin is the UK and c:COM:TOO is fairly low compared to some other countries. I discussed things with the Commons admin who did the conversion, and starting a DR was suggested. I can do that, but before I do, I just wanted another opinion. There's no point in DRing anything that is clearly PD. Any thoughts? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I doubt that'd qualify for UK TOO. DR it. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Marchjuly, I was going to DR it when I found the time. I'm just in and out right now but I should be able to do it later tonight if it hasn't already been done. --Majora (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You'd think after all this time I'd learn to sign my posts. Repinging since it didn't work the first time, --Majora (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Image DR'ed. --Majora (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Majora and for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Image
Sorry sir, but I don’t understand what I did wrong with the picture of the F-4C. I said it wasn’t mine and I filled out all of the information and you tagged it. Could you please give me some consent as to why? ReeseMcClain (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All rights reserved is not a valid license. You stated that the image was under a creative commons license and it wasn't. Please do not just select a license when you upload an image. It has to match and it has to be a license that we accept. "All rights reserved" is not a license we accept. Images must be under a "free" license which means that anyone can use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). All rights reserved allows for none of those things. --Majora (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended summaries
I desperately want to edit the link in your proposal to this, but felt it wasn't appropriate to do so. It took me a while to work out what you were trying to demonstrate as a lot of recent editing activity had put your example onto another page. That could lose you support, so you might want to consider updating it. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh. I may have started it but it has grown legs of its own by now. I'm using the truncation script that Gryllida created so while I still oppose the increase to 1,000 I really don't care all that much anymore. That particular diff is the first link in the discussion section. Changing the RfC header now after so many people have opined seems disingenuous and I would rather avoid that unless there are actual factual errors in there (like the dewiki line). --Majora (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Brave Frontier 2 logo.png
You didn't upload the image URL: https://www.bravefrontier.jp/bf2/img/logo.png, you just made the current image badly transparent. Please upload the image on this url: https://www.bravefrontier.jp/bf2/img/logo.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.151.26.64 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The image is transparent. That is the entire point of a .PNG image. It allows for transparency. I only resized it. If you can't see the transparency it is your monitor or computer settings. --Majora (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the image at the url? That image is different and better than the current image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.151.26.64 (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I already told you. I only resized the image. I see no difference between the one on the source and the one I uploaded. Again. I only resized the image that you provided. If you are seeing something different it is on your end. Perhaps the resize is causing issues? We can't have a logo that large under fair use so I had to make it smaller. And please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ~ . Thanks. --Majora (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I reuploaded it again. Let me know if that helps or not. --Majora (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Congo – A Political Tragedy poster.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Congo – A Political Tragedy poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * G7'ed. Meant to do that after the AfD closed. Thanks for reminding me. --Majora (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Kate McKinnon IMG
Thanks for pulling the image, it's been a while since I tried to upload an file to wiki and always forget which CC is accepted! I appreciate the clarity Amintly (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh no problem, . Sorry we couldn't keep it. In the future, Commons has a great list for Flickr files. You can find it here: c:COM:FLICKR. --Majora (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Vodafone logo revisited
Hi Majora. Just thought I'd let you know about c:COM:VP/C since the logo has been once again uploaded to Commons. Maybe this time the matter can be resolved once and for all one way or the other. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

File:MurielPetioniMD.jpg
You're welcome :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Which is your fixation in deleting the same map uploaded by several users?
Hello, I see you nominated for deletion again that map of the Iberian climates made by AEMET, it is the only trustworthy map to show the climates of these countries, as all of the others are just bad done computer estimations.

First I uploaded that map and you proposed it for deletion and it got deleted, then I didn't upload it no more as I understood it won't last. After that, some other users did the same and from time to time it seems you check the page Climate of Spain to see if it's there. Can I ask why this fixation? Where did you read exactly on the AEMET website or at the copyright page of that guide, that it's not allowed to use if it's not for commercial purposes? As far as I know, Wikipedia is not meant for commercial purposes, and it seems they allow to use the map as long as someone says who made it, and as long no one deletes their logo.

Btw I will also reply on the deletion page (probably it won't be useful for nothing) and I also kindly ask you to not to delete it from the page Climate of Spain until it gets deleted. Fair deal? Thanks. --TechnicianGB (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is quite a lot of misconception going on here. One, AEMET does not allow derivative works of their maps. This immediately bars it from being on Wikipedia unless it meets our strict fair use policy. It does not. Commons also does not accept fair use, period. In order for an image to be on Commons it must be under a license that allows anyone to use, or modify, the image at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). Yes, Wikipedia is a non-profit but our images are not just used on Wikipedia. They are used around the world by anyone that wants to. That image is not acceptable here. --Majora (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, now I understood it, thanks for the fast and resumed reply. So if I do a similar map or if someone else does, me or he will be able to upload it here since it's free to use? I would create a map for this topic based on the official guide, but since I have no time I can't do it at the moment. Anyways, I wrote a good part of the description of the page Climate of Spain based on the official climate guide, so at least it gives a more realistic info and leds to a bigger comprehension of the climate of Spain. Regards! --TechnicianGB (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Flag
Hi, Majora. I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the New Page Reviewer flag. Would you please consider heading over to PERM and requesting it? (check the flag requirements HERE)

As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag. Of course, if it is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at the NPP tutorial. Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application. Cheers and thanks for helping out at AfC, —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

thank you for your help with the infobox
Thank you, Majora! I woke up this morning and the photo of Mel Tanner was centered in the infobox. I don't know if you did that, but I am grateful to whoever it was! Barry Barryraphael (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

OTRS received
Majora, I see you marked a video that I helped a user upload with a "OTRS recieved" template. What specifically is the problem with Johan's email to OTRS that is causing problems and how can I help? --McChizzle (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, . The OTRS confidentially agreement that all agents have to sign restricts my ability to respond to such questions here. I have responded to the email with instructions on how to proceed. I can't say more. I hope you understand. --Majora (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I had no idea of such an agreement existed. My apologies for bothering you with the question.  I was CCed on your email and I'll work with the author. --McChizzle (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Files for discussion/2018 April 10
You are invited to join the discussion at Files for discussion/2018 April 10. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Majora. Since you have experience dealing with non-free content issues and also are an OTRS volunteer, maybe you can help resolve this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of photos from "National Historic Sites in Quebec"
Several photos were nominated for deletion and, before any discussion or reply could take place, were removed from the page just 10 minutes after being nominated. If I read the timestamps correctly, they were then deleted from Wikipedia one minute after that. There was no time to reply, and the "Contest this deletion" button must have disappeared along with the files.

The site from which all images were taken has a clear provision for non-commercial use, stating that images "...may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the Government of Canada, or the provincial or territorial government counterparts." Important notices, Non-commercial use, Historicplaces.ca It asks that the name of the website be identified, which was done in the source entry. If there is any issue with the license selected, feel free to suggest one which might be a better fit.

I have posted a similar message under just one of the photos in question, and in a discussion about another one. If I need to post the same message on each photo's page, I can, but it may be redundant. Yoho2001 (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletions happen quickly. That is why they are "speedy". Non-commercial restrictions are not acceptable here. Wikipedia may be a non-profit but we allow full reuse of our material so all images that do not fall under our strict fair use policy (which these did not) need to be under a license that allows anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). Those images are not Cc-by-sa-4.0. Please do not just pick a random license because it looks good. Copyright licensing must be explicit or it isn't valid. --Majora (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are no restrictions for non-commercial use. The site's purpose is to share photos, and any taken from federal or provincial government sources is free to use. Only certain non-government photos require further permission, but the ones I selected do not. Feel free to suggest a better license. Yoho2001 (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "No restrictions for non-commercial use" is a bit confusing, but I think what Majora means is that neither Wikipedia nor Commons will accept a free license which places restrictions on commercial use. So, if the website/copyright holder has licensed the files in a manner which does not allow their images to be downloaded and then be reused for commercial purposes, Wikipedia can't accept them as such. The copyright needs to clearly state on their website that the images in question are allowed to be used in such a way, or they need to email their explicit consent to release the image as such to Wikimedia OTRS. If the copyright consent can be verified, the file can be restored per WP:REFUND or by discussing things with the deleting admin. Files which have been deleted aren't gone forever, but rather only hidden from public view. It's not uncommon for a file which has been deleted to be restored st a later date once its licensing has been sorted out. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As MarchJuly said. There isn't a better license. The website only allows commercial use with written permission. That is a restriction. The specific quote from the licensing page is: Reproduction of multiple copies of material on this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution is prohibited except with written permission. Wikipedia requires unrestricted commercial reuse licensing. There can be attribution requirements but requiring written permission for commercial reuse is not acceptable. In addition, Canada governmental photos are not automatically ok to use here like US federal photos would be. Even Crown Copyright has a term of 50 years from publication. --Majora (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, and . I will contact the website to see whether it might consider allowing free use for commercial purposes, as well as non-commercial; whether it might post that on the site or give written permission to do so. It's frustrating and discouraging to have gone to the trouble of uploading nine photos, with all the form fields filled in, only to have them removed so quickly. This, even though the site clearly allows use of the photos for educational purposes such as this. Yoho2001 (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * While I understand your frustration, Wikipedia's policy on this requires that files be licensed in a manner which allow unlimited re-use for any purpose by anyone anywhere in the world at any time, not just educational. Wikipedia's use of the photo may be educational, but someone downloading the file may want to use the file for commercial purposes, and it is that latter part which also needs to be taken into account. You would techincally need to license the files under an "NC license", but such a license is not accpeted by Wikipedia or Commons. This might seem a bit too harsh of an approach, but it is designed to protect the rights of copyright holders as much as possible. Anyway, as I posted above, deleted files can be restored at a later date once the issues which lead to there deletion have been resolved. You can also discuss your concerns with the closing admin, ask for other opinons at WP:MCQ or perhaps even ask at WP:OTRSN if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
Kevin submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * I nominate User Majora to be Editor of the Week for their long hard work maintaining our images and other media files. Majora's work makes our file copyright policies work, dedicating hundreds of hours and many edits to the cleanup of our file namespace – something many of us take for granted. A WP:Help desk volunteer and an editor dedicated to making forensic science a "good" topic, Majora embodies the spirit of the Editor of the Week, and it gives me tremendous joy to nominate them for this award. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 23:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! ― Buster7  &#9742;   14:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hoping for Help with Files for Upload!
Hi Majora! I hope all is well with you! I'm a new user here on Wikipedia, and a new editor. I have recently created three separate pages relating to the singer Jessie J's upcoming album release and her previous two singles. I have sent in a request to have the album cover and the covert art for the two singles uploaded, and I was hoping that you could take a minute to go over them and hopefully approve them if you deem them acceptable. This would be greatly appreciated, and it would help me out a whole lot in completing these articles! Much thanks in advance if you choose to do so! Here's the link to the three requests (They are listed one after another): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_upload#Jessie_J_-_Not_My_Ex.jpg

Kind regards,

LordVisionz — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordVisionz (talk • contribs) 04:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I was only able to accept one of your requests. The main R.O.S.E album cover has been uploaded locally under fair use so it won't be deleted. As for the other two images, those articles (Not My Ex and Queen (Jessie J song)) have been turned into redirects as they did not meet our requirements for standalone articles (these can be found here: WP:NSONG). If you have any further questions about this please let me know. --Majora (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:New York Rangers wordmark logo.gif
Hi Majora. First off, congratulations on being recognized for your contributions to Wikipedia as "Editor of the Week". Now, I am wondering whether this really needs to be non-free or can be converted to PD-logo. Most wordmarks I've come across tend to be considered too simple to me eligible for copyright protection and my hunch is that this was just uploaded as non-free just out of caution. Anyway, if it does need to be non-free for some reason, then I don't see how the way it's currently being used can be justified per WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Yeah, that can be PD-textlogo. It has a trademark on it as well so that should be on the file information page. Feel free to convert it. --Majora (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Rebecca Sommers entry
Hey Majora Mrs. Sommer is absolutely unknown in Germany. She uses this entry purely as advertising, since she didn´t get a German language entry. It does not match any relevance for an Encyclopedia. Best regards Lucius
 * There is a credible claim of notability. Do not blank something just because you don't like it. There is a protocol in place for such things. If you want to go down that road, you should follow it. WP:AFD. --Majora (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am really sorry. I follow that way! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucius~dewiki (talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyrights
Hi Majora,

Sorry about the copyright issues, however the website does not mention any licenses, however the website does state that it is allowed to reuse the maps on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lainjahno (talk • contribs) 07:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "For use on Wikipedia" type releases are not valid here, unfortunately. In order to be used here they must be under a license that allows anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). Without having to ask beforehand. Those are the requirements. That release is not a "creative commons" type release and it isn't any other type of release that Wikipedia allows. I'm sorry, but please do not upload any additional maps from that site unless they change their terms. --Majora (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I now understand, the issue was that I had previously seen another Wikipedia page using a map of the same type from the same website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user&#32;13:06, 5 June 2018

Grape Ape is really a kaiju
he's a 40-foot tall ape. that sounds like a kaiju to me. --KaijuFan4000 (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Vodafone 2017 logo.svg
Hi Majora. I'm wondering what you think about this file's licensing? The non-free file which was being used in Vodafone was probably deleted per WP:F5 because people kept replacing it with files they uploaded to Commons. If this is OK locally as PD-ineligible-USonly, then that would at least mean it could be added to all the local Vodafone articles. I'm pinging because he was the admin who deleted the non-free. For some reason, nobody ever converted the non-free to this license, but I'm not sure if that was just because nobody got around to doing so or because the consensus was that it should remain non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion,, is that that is indeed PD-ineligible-USOnly. It certainly reaches the threshold in the UK but the US has a much higher bar. --Majora (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, PD-ineligible-USOnly is fine for this logo. The non-free JPG is a lower-resolution version of the vector file, so it's fine for it to remain deleted. <b style="color:#4B0082;">ℯ</b> xplicit 23:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for taking a look and clariying things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

New Hampshire state government files
Both files have now been deleted. I wrote the following text before the deletion happened.

The file at File:NHDOL Franklin Pierce University Report.pdf is not corrupt or empty. I checked it before removing your speedy tag. Click on the link and you will see that the file at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/NHDOL_Franklin_Pierce_University_Report.pdf is a valid PDF. I do not know why the file page gives its size at 0 x 0, but perhaps the scanner on which it was created did not implement the PDF specification completely.

I acknowledge the copyright issue, but as with a traffic ticket or a court filing, the material could probably have been used as fair use. PDF is probably the most appropriate format for a multi-page document. <b style="font-family: Times;">Eastmain (talk • contribs)</b> 19:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair use claims on text are almost universally rejected as it could simply be rephrased. In any case, it was being used as a reference not as an actual photograph on the page. That would 100% be rejected under our fair use criteria. If there are traffic tickets or court filings under fair use here please let me know where they are so I can take a look at them. The file namespace is basically all I do here and file maintenance is kinda my thing. It is certainly possible that the court filing paperwork may actually be PD. New Hampshire documents don't enjoy that same copyright status however. --Majora (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)