User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2016/January

Thank you
Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I'll correct that right away. Cheers. --A.S. Brown (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries . There is the freely licensed File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1970-083-42, Magdeburg, zerstörtes jüdisches Geschäft.jpg which shows pretty much the same thing as the non-free File:Kristallnacht example of physical damage.jpg. Since freely licensed images are not subject to WP:NFCC, they can be used pretty anywhere on Wikipedia as long as there is a consensus to do so and WP:IUP is satisfied. FWIW, I think there's a good chance that the non-free file is going to be deleted, so you may want to add the free one to Herschel Grynszpan. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

COIN Orpheus (band)
Hi Marchjuly. There's a thread at COIN regarding the Orpheus (band) page. See COIN Orpheus (band). The COIN Orpheus (band) page has several issues, one of which is images. You also may want to see this and my post here regarding two of the images. I saw your posts at WP:FFD. Would you mind combing through the images on the Orpheus (band) page and take any needed action. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message Jreferee. I'm not too sure what I can do to help since those images have been uploaded to Commons and have OTRS permission tickets so everything needs to be resolved there. Not sure how familiar you are with Commons and OTRS, but generally OTRS volunteers check permissions emails sent in by those claiming to be copyright holders and vet the email/image to make sure everything is in order. I am sure mistakes sometimes happen, so if you have any doubts then posting on the Commons OTRS noticeboard was the way to go. I am not an administrator or OTRS volunteer on either Wikipedia or Commons so I cannot see the permissions email, etc. For reference, the OTRS tickets for each of the files were added by c:User:Anon126. Their Commons user talk page says they are inactive, but they did edit on both Wikipedia and Commons as recently as last month. It also looks like the once were an OTRS volunteer, but no longer are according to this. As for the post on Yann's user talk, Yann seems to have handled it here and an undeletion request for one of the files was denied for the same reasons. It sounds like the uploader is not too familiar with either Wikipedia or Commons because threats usually do not go down to well and typically backfire on those making them. Anyway, there's no automatic right to use an image, even freely licensed ones, in a Wikipedia article. Like written content, they can be removed if there is a consensus based upon discussion on the article's talk page. FWIW, if those images are deleted from Commons, then I think it would be a hard for any of them to satisfy WP:NFCC, especially as they are being used now. Maybe one of the band might be considered OK for the infobox (that's a big might), but usage anywhere else would be hard to justify per WP:NFCC. The "Orpheus" wordmark-like logo in File:OrpheusInMarin(2014).JPG could probably be uploaded as PD-logo to Commons, but any pictures of the band members themselves would probably fail WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it, Marchjuly. -- Jreferee (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Perhaps, , or  (just to name a few) would be of more help? They are all more experienced with this kind of thing than I am and thus might notice something that I have missed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Commons admin User:Ellin Beltz listed eight files for deletion in c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Orpheusband, and the whole set was later deleted by Commons admin User:Yann. Five of the files were later undeleted when something arrived to OTRS, but three pictures remain deleted. I don't have access to OTRS messages, so I can't tell if this is correct, but I don't see any immediate reason to assume that the OTRS agent who handled the ticket did an error. I note that one of the major contributors to the article claims to be the copyright holder to various promotional material related to the band (with OTRS tickets confirming this), so I assume that this contributor has some kind of connection to the band and therefore probably has a conflict of interests. If you find that the article is incompliant with the WP:NPOV policy for this reason or another reason, then it is fine to change the use of the images in the article (by moving them to other places, by removing some images or adding some other images), but I see no immediate reason to nominate any of the images for deletion on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Greetings: The eight images were nominated, five were undeleted based on volunteer OTRS ticket #2015031310001879.
 * File:Orpheus (1969)-2.jpg
 * File:Orpheus (1970)-1.jpg
 * File:Orpheus@BerkleeConcert (Poster).jpg
 * File:Orpheus@MechanicsHall.jpg
 * File:OrpheusInMarin(2014).JPG
 * As points out, these images will not be able to be nominated for deletion as they currently have valid OTRS tags.  I do not know why the other three were not restored, but my best guess is that they were not eligible for restoration.  I have no reason to question that review but if you wished to go to the Commons OTRS Noticeboard providing the image names and OTRS ticket number as above, a trusted volunteer would be able to review the situation.
 * The File:Orpheus (1969).png image is from Billboard, and its copyright situation is clearly explained and apparently acceptable.
 * The rules at Commons are a little different on "Conflict of Interest" than other parts of the project. Visual imagery often belongs to people very close to the issue/people/band/place, but other than purely "promotional uploads" (name/phone/facebook/business card/etc.) there isn't a WP:COI issue.  And as for that Insult linked above; for a Commons admin, that's nothing really.  It's a purely garden variety knee-jerk and we get worse pretty much every day of the year.  Commons admins joke about wearing welders gloves, goggles & a full rhino-skin suit to work deletions because people can get very upset, possessive and less than polite during the Commons Deletion Nomination process.  But even for all that, I've had far worse than that where we ended up working together afterwards. Copyright rules are arcane and can appear arbitrary and contradictory even to people who deal with them all the time.
 * If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to ping me here or write on my Commons talk page. Cheers!  Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you and  for taking the time to respond and also for taking a look at the images. The concerns about the images are of those of admin . Hopefully, they are aware of your replies, but I will add a talkback tag to their user talk just in case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adriana Sanford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ISSA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Really Sad
Clearly you need to get a life if removing images from my sandbox is a top priority. Images will only be in sandbox temporarily, is it really such a crime, how is it harming anybody, seriuously DjlnDjln (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Files for discussion/2016 January 9
Did you notice that the discussion was closed automatically after the first file was deleted as an orphaned non-free file? I guess you meant that we should delete one of the files and keep the other one, so if you are fine with this outcome, then maybe the ffd tag should be removed from the second file. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think one of the files was deleted per WP:F5 since it became an orphan when it was removed. I have no problem with removing the tag from the remaining file since my concern was there were two identical files when only one was really needed.. I thought the closing admin would take care of that by adding a oldffdfull to the file's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess didn't realise that the F5 deletion would result in the closure of a discussion about two files. Generally, I try to avoid using a filename as section header when listing multiple files in the same FFD/PUF section so that this problem is avoided. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't even think twice about the section heading (just followed the template instructions), but your suggestion makes perfect sense in such cases. Thanks for th tip. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

SWASTIK 25 block evasion
Good spot, clear DUCK, I have indeffed the sock and increased SWASTIK 25's block to 2 weeks - next time it will be indefinite. GiantSnowman 12:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It did seem a little bit unusual, but unusual can just be a coincidence. Anyway, thanks for taking alook. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect date added to FFDC tag on image
I notice that you tagged the use of File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg within the TV-am article to show that it was under discussion.

Unfortunately, after being rather confused when the generated link didn't take me to the discussion, I realised that it was wrong because the wrong date had been entered. I think this is because the then-current date was entered as a default when you filled in the tag, which wasn't the same date as the discussion had been opened! (i.e. I'm assuming it has to be explicitly specified if it's not the present date).

I've fixed this, but I thought you should know for next time. All the best! Ubcule (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I usually add ffdc tags the same day a file is nominated, but for some reason I forgot to do so for that particular file. I thought I double-checked the links for that ffdc, but seems like I didn't. Anyway, thanks for catching that and fixing the link. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I remember what happened. I originally began this discussion at WP:NFCR. There is no caption/uploader notification template for such discussions, only Non-free review which is added to the file's page (which I did). When NFCR was merged into FFD a few months back, and the intent was to slowly add unresolved existing NFCR discussions to FFD. The editor who moved this particular NFCR discussion to FFD did add fdw to your user page, but did not add the "ffdc" templates to the captions. I noticed this after the fact and added the templates, but alas forgot to check the dates. Anyway, I fixed the template for Good Morning Britain (1983 TV programme), so hopefully all the links are working correctly now. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for clarifying that. That explains why I only became aware of the discussion the second time round.
 * At any rate, it looks like you were actually tidying up behind someone else and that it wasn't a normal case, so I guess "stuff"(!) happens and thanks for trying to fix things anyway. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Malicious/Personal attack
Can I ask what your problem is? You don't leave messages on my talk page, rather you are vigorously editing things you know nothing about and you're questioning notability. Her family is the famous Tarachi family in Minna, the fact she's not known to you personally or in your region, doesn't change this fact. You're acting like this is the only page on Wikipedia and as if you own Wikipedia. I am going to add more sources as I find them but please, stop this Disruptive behaviour. This is the same behaviour that discourages people from editing on Wikipedia. Adrian Guildford (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There are several publications on her which are in print, a few aren't available online, others are. If you are taking this too far as if it's your own project, by all means, do your own research. But administrators should also cooperate with editors not obstruct activity merely because you have that power. Adrian Guildford (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

And even the tiniest correction/edit of changing the lowercase 't' to uppercase 't' has been reverted by you. This is personal attack not editing. Even correcting letters is a crime, why?? I can see you live on Wikipedia. Adrian Guildford (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, I am not an administrator. I am just a regular editor such as yourself. Having said that, I'm not sure how any of the edits I've made were even close to being personal attacks or disruptive editing. So, I suggest you try and assume good faith and be careful how you use those terms because improperly accusing someone of such things may actually be considered to be a personal attack. However, if you strongly feel that my behavior was incivil in anyway then please feel free to post a complaint about me at WP:ANI.


 * For the record, Wikipedia articles are not owned by their creators; they can be edited by anyone at anytime. Other editors are not required to discuss things with the article's creator in advance and get their approval. Editors are encouraged to be bold and make improvements they think are needed. If mistakes are made, then another editor will come along and fix them. This is how articles are gradually improved over time. I've actually been trying to help improve the article. "Notability" on Wikipedia is defined according to WP:N and it basically means that a subject needs to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources to be considered suitable for a stand-alone article. It's does not mean that the subject is not well known or not famous or not a good person. It just means that reliable sources need to be found which discuss the subject in more than a passing way. The better the sources, the better the article. That is the basic standard that all subjects of Wikipedia articles are expected to satisfy. The maintenance template I added is just meant to notify other editors that this article could use a little extra attention. More editors looking at an article is generally a good thing because one editor may see something that others miss or know where to find better sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to take a look at the page. Adrian, while it's considered polite to wait if someone says that they're actively editing a page, at the same time a live entry can and will be edited by multiple different editors. This is why I usually recommend that you not move a page to the mainspace if you're not finished adding sources and editing the article. Offhand I'm not seeing anything overly wrong with March's edits. They removed a piece from the article that was unsourced. Given that you hadn't edited the article in hours, it's reasonable for them to be concerned that you may not return to the page. There are many cases of people creating an article and then leaving it alone, so each editor that sees a problem has to assume that no one else will touch the page and fix the issue other than themselves. When you create a page - especially if you make it live - the onus is on you to have everything sourced from the start.
 * Now that said, I do see some issues with the page. One very big issue is that some of the sourcing is not considered to be reliable. For example, Readers' Favorite is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia because it's very well known for selling marketing packages and reviews to authors, and their awards are considered to be vanity awards. While a few reviews can be had for free, the business is very open that they'll give you a faster turnaround time if you pay them - and they only give out positive reviews, which does not reflect well on them. Because of this, nothing published by their site would be considered reliable and the site should not be used on Wikipedia at all. It even got mentioned on the Victoria Strauss site as a site to be wary of. As for offline sources, they don't have to be online but we do need to be able to verify them online. Not every source is considered reliable, as can be seen with the Readers' Favorite site, so we need to ensure that it'd be a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The same thing goes for awards: not every award gives notability on Wikipedia. A good rule of thumb is to see if the award is covered in multiple independent and reliable sources. Blogs and self-published sources will not be usable. I searched for the Virtue Christian Book Awards and found extremely little about it other than various authors stating that they'd won. The problem with industry awards is that there are so many of them that Wikipedia cannot assume that every award can give notability. I'd say that less than 5% of any award ever given in any category (books, films, sports, etc) give notability and even fewer than that would give enough notability to keep on that basis alone. Offhand I'd say that the Virtue Christian Book Awards would not establish notability on Wikipedia because I can't see where this is actually covered anywhere. Now the Shorty Awards would be able to give notability, but she didn't win the award and nominations themselves cannot give notability on Wikipedia. Other than that, the other sources on the article appear to be primary, as they're released by Tarachi or by people/places/organizations affiliated with her. These cannot show notability, they can only back up extremely basic details. Given that none of the sourcing on the article can establish enough notability to where she'd pass notability guidelines, it's entirely possible that another editor could come along and nominate it for deletion. I'd heavily recommend moving this to your userspace until you've finished adding sourcing to the article.
 * I also need to again stress that other people can and will edit the article, so you need to assume good faith from other people. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct Link
Hello, I added the correct link. The one linking to the VCBA, please have a look. Also, I don't know if you should remove the 'archive' link since the link I provided is current? Advise. Adrian Guildford (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding that link. I think the way you added it was OK; I just tweaked a few things, such as correcting the url and title and adding date and deadurl, to make the citation more complete. Just for reference, I think citation tempates will automatically default to the archived url when it is being used with an active "current" url so "deadurl=no" is needed to ensure that the "current" link is the one being linked to. Also. I don't think there's anything wrong with leaving the archived link as is because it's useful and helps prevent link rot. It's sort of like a pre-caution against the "current" url becoming a dead link someday.
 * Finally, I appreciate you leaving a message here, but please do not feel that you are obligated to do so. If you want to discuss something specific about the article, then feel free to do so at Talk:Rita Pam Tarachi because that will make it easier for other editors to make comments. My user talk page is probably not on the watchlist of many editors interested in Tarachi, but the article about here probably is. So, you're going to get a better response if you post there instead of here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation and please pardon the message, i am still learning. Sometimes i don't get notifications, that's why i turn on email notifications, just in case i miss a thing. Please, feel free to delete this after reading, thank you once again Adrian Guildford (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. There's no deadline when it comes to responding to posts here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

NFC
I do not agree with allowing a free pass for game screenshots. But, I'm apparently in the extreme majority. I've long felt that Wikipedia not only slipped on the slope, but fell off of the entire damn planet. We recently passed 500k non-free images (see the graphic on the top right of my userpage). That's insane. But, it doesn't matter. I'm almost a lone voice now, and whereas I used to care, I don't anymore. So, let's allow it. It does not matter that the Foundation has ruled that we can not erode their policy. The Foundation is in seriously bad shape now, with horrendous staff problems and massive leadership issues. Did you know that a survey of Foundation employees found that just 7% (~15 employees) felt senior leadership at Wikimedia communicated a vision that motivates them or keeps them informed about what is happening? I don't think they're going to care anymore that we liberally allow non-free content, despite their resolution. They've never cared enough to do anything about it before (even their legal counsel told use if it was fair use, it was ok). So why should I care?

Locally, most of the old-guard that would have defended our free content mission are long gone, either retired or kicked off the project. There's precious few left who care anymore. Even one of the supporters of the motion, long an ardent supporter of limited non-free content usage, has flipped over to the other side now and is arguing in favor of increased non-free usage. There's no fighting it anymore.

Whereas it used to be the case that overuse of non-free files on articles was policed within a few days, now there are articles that have languished for months with mass overuse of non-free images...and nobody cares. Here's an example; long ago we deprecated the use of album covers in discography pages. That was a decision made many years ago. It used to be regularly enforced. You couldn't create a discography and get away with album covers on them for more than a day or two at most. There's a discography out there that was created 2/3rds of a year ago. It has album covers all over it. Nobody's removed the images. This isn't isolated. Here's one from a year ago that is a catalog of ships (effectively a ship-ography, if you will): Starship Enterprise. The people who would have done something about that are gone.

If this free pass for game screenshots passes, there's no reason to not permit all sorts of screen shots for all sorts of other genres. The argument to force out screenshots of TV episodes for example becomes completely void. There's a ton of other examples. Movies, audio clips from radio shows, books dependent on imagery, and on and on and on.

As to the Ethnic galleries; I watched that closely. The deprecation of them though had little to do with NFC issues. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message . Your comments on non-free use are always helpful to me. Anyway, my post was, in some aspects, just a way to let you know that I did totally agree with your argument. I still do have some concerns that hopefully will be addressed before I decide which way to !vote. If I decide to oppose, it will be because I don't think it's a good idea. If that means I am the lone wolf, then so be it. I do strongly believe in consensus and don't intend to be disruptive if things appear to not go my way. Whatever is decided will be the end of the matter for me and I will support it. If someday it is revisted, then I will assess and decide what I should do at that time. My comment about the WT:ETHNIC RfC was meant more to be about the way it was done and the way it tried to involve more editors, and not so much about whether the images were "free" or "non-free". I think one reason why that RfC has been somewhat effectively implemented, at least so far though there are still issues to be resolved, is that it included the community as a whole and ran for a fairly decent amount of time to gain a broader consensus. One of the problems some editors have with the NFCC is that they feel it's a couple of "image deletionnists" or "jobworths" deciding things without proper discussion based upon their own personal whims. No. 17 issues see a lot of blowback like this. So, I think if an exception is going to be allowed, then it will be better for the sake of whatever consensus is reached if more were involved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Honestly, I think at this point it would be a good idea to gut NFC/NFCC, either by way of an MfD or some similar mechanism. They are both effectively meaningless now, and policy is supposed to reflect common practice, not the other way around. Common practice is liberal allowance for non-free content, as much as anyone cares to make. Few people enforce NFCC anymore. It's a void policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The more NFCC discussions I see, the more I think it is getting really close to its breaking point. It will continue to be ignored or missapplied until someone from the WMF offcially steps in and says what is what. If copyright matters are so important to them, they should be more involved. Although people on both sides of the issue believe they are right and are for the most part are discussing things in good faith, I believe you either have to apply the policy the same way across the board to all articles regardless or not apply it at all. Otherwise, you're going to have editors claiming they are being unfairly treated and singled out, or saying things are being decided for the many by a "cabal" of a few "jobworths" who don't really know what they are talking about. If common practice has evolved since NFCC was first established, then it should evolve as well. This, however, should be initiated by the WMF because of the possible legal issues. On the other hand, I also think that if the WMF wants NFCC enforced as currently written, then they should say so and give it some teeth to make it absolutely clear that repeat offenders will be strictly dealt with. NFCC repeat offenders should be treated the same way as repeat offenders of WP:BLP, etc. Certain editors simply keep inappropriately adding non-free content to articles, drafts, userpages over and over again despite being informed that it's not OK to do so because much of the NFCC is subjective. Sure, you can go to ANI with this, but it's going to be hard to gain much support since NFCC issues tend to be a low priority and do not typically seem to be considered to be "real" copyright violations. Anyway, that was my rant for today (or at least this hour). -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So much for one rant per hour, but non-free image use sort of reminds me of sports stats and embedded links. WP:CS says external links are never to be embedded articles, yet if you go to any sports team's eason page there is a good chance you're going to fine a table/list of results full of embedded links used in result templates. A MLB team currently plays 162 regular season games, plus 20-30 preseason games. Add more games for teams who make the post season and you could get close to 200 external links embedded into a single article. Are these citations or are the external links? If they are citations, they should be formatted as such per WP:CS. If they are external links, they shouldn't be added to the article like that per WP:EL. I've converted tons of embedded links to citations, and sometimes have received blowback that I am being unfair for singling out this article and not doing the same for that article as well. "Why is a single link needed for each result if there is one source that can be cited for all results?" is the question I ask myself whenever I decide to try and convert embedded links to citations, but trying to do that always get the response "that is not how it is done in other articles". Anyway, I've just decided that I need to go lie down because all this ranting I'm doing is beginning to get a little scarey. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In terms of fair use, there's effectively no legal ramifications to the use of non-free content here. We are an educational resource, and as such have wide liberty to use non-free content in the furtherance of education. Wikimedia's counsel was asked about this very point, and they indicated we could use non-free content quite liberally and not run afoul of fair use law.
 * The WMF is in disarray at this point. Attempts have been previously made, when they had their act together, to do something about the mass quantities of non-free content on the project. They declined to get involved. It's extremely unlikely, given the shaky ground the WMF is currently standing on, they will take up the cause even though it's written into their mission, values and resolution to the effect. Understand; they do not care, and will not lift a finger to help us. We are most decidedly on our own on this issue. Since so many that did care about the free content mission were forced off the project or retired on their own, there's really no one left to fight the good fight anymore. We're very clearly not a free content resource anymore. Any claim to the contrary is patently absurd when you consider the enormous quantity of non-free content that is on this project now. I'm reminded of the vegan parable. Worth a read. Just eat your fried chicken dinner, and be comforted that you're having a vegan dinner. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

AN notification
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)