User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2016/July

National team logos
Hi my friend Marchjuly, do you know what will happen about this situation. I pinged Explicit but he didn't reply, then I pinged a load of others but no one seems interested in the discussion anymore. I hope this situation really is sorted out with a clear definite consensus, because the situation it is not acceptable as it is at the moment and we simply can't allow the discussion just to end without any conclusion. Hashim-afc (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not get a ping from you. You added the ping templates to a previously signed post and I don't believe they work when you do that. This might explain the lack of response you got. You need to ping someone and then add a new signature for it to work properly. It's also possible that even if you pinged someone that they will not get it because they've turned off their notifications feature. Finally, it could be that they just have chosen to ignore the pinged.


 * For what it's worth, I think this kind of change will have implications beyond soccer team logos, so it that it would be best to get feedback from as many editors as possible in addition to those who have already posted. I agree that a clear consensus either way will be the best way of avoid repeating the same discussion over and over again for different types of articles and logos. I asked Hammersoft about this a few days ago, and his response was that one option was to try and turn this into a WP:RfC, but he also advised to try and keep the focus narrow. I had already suggested an RfC in one of my posts at WT:NFCC, but nobody responded. So, I was going to post the same suggestion again. I've never filed an RfC so I think it would be best for someone with a little more experience to do so perhaps, especially since the RfC would be for a discussion already in progress where a number a editors have posted their opinions. I also think it would probably be best for someone wishing to change the way things are currently being interpreted since they can best explain what they want the RfC to achieve. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, I did not realise my ping did not work so I will try and make it work now. To be honest, I barely know anything about RfC's and have never done one before, so I'm definitely not the one to try and carry it out, but if it will help solve the situation then I fully support it. Hashim-afc (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

King Kong Encounter links
You removed some of the links I added to the King Kong Encounter page. How do you propose I use those links in the page? This is attraction specific audio and video content which shows the attraction in use.Davidcrown (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . I assume you're referring to this edit, but please correct me if I am wrong. As I sated in my edit sum, Wikipedia's guidelines regarding the use of external links and citing sources do not really allow external links to third party websites to be embedded into the bodies of articles. If the link meets the criteria of an "external link" as explained in WP:ELYES then it can be added to the "External links" section, which are typically found at the end of the article. If the link is more of a citation to a reliable source, then it can be converted to an inline citation and added to the article as a reference. The links I removed were to YouTube pages where it is not clear they were uploaded with the permission of the original copyright holder. As I try to explain at User talk:Davidcrown, links to YouTube may be allowed per WP:YOUTUBE, linking to anything which might be considered a copyright violation is not allowed at all per WP:COPYLINK. In other words, links to the "Cow Missing" YouTube page are almost surely not going to be allowed simply because that account seems highly unlikely to have created the content itself and is also unlikely to be the copyright holder of such content. Basically, it looks like the account holder found interesting videos, etc. online and simply uploaded them to YouTube, which by the way seems to be a violation of YouTubes' Terms of Service. You can if you like ask others at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Media copyright questions about this if you like since it's possible I am missing something.
 * As for alternatives, perhaps there is something on the Universal Studios Hollywood's official YouTube channel or the official YouTube channel of the news station (if one exists) where the same video content can be found that can be added to the external link section of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry images
@Marchjuly The images I requested for undeletion, I'm adding to Tom and Jerry articles, so I'm using them. Can I ask just two more images to be undeleted? YoshiFan155 (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . You can ask for as many images to be undeleted as you want. I was only letting you know that the each use of non-free content such as the files you are requesting to be undeleted must satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria listed at WP:NFCCP. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC which says that non-free file needs to be used in at least one article. Non-free files not being used in any articles are subject to speedy deletion per WP:F5. However, simply adding a file to an article does not mean it still cannot be removed or deleted. There's another non-free content criterion called WP:NFCC. This basically says that seeing a non-free image to such has to improve the reader's understanding to such a degree that removing the screenshot would be detrimental to that understanding. Simply adding the screenshot with a caption is not enough; the use of the screenshot should meet the conditions as explained in WP:NFC. That can be a hard thing to do, so it would probably be best for you to more clearly show/explain how you intend to use the files when you request undeletion instead of just saying "I want to work on it". If an administrator undeletes a non-free file for you but the same file is subsequently deleted again for WP:NFCC reasons such a not being used in any articles or being used inappropriately in articles, your future undeletion requests are not going to be very well received by other administrators. That is why I suggest you try not to work on getting too many images undeleted at once. Many of these were probably deleted for a good reason. This means you have to clearly demonstrate how circumstances have changed and how you can fix the problems with the file's use so that it's not deleted again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed that message because I was trying to show Graeme Bartlett the revision of the pages' deleted history and confirm they're not non-free orphaned images. YoshiFan155 (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You could have added that without removing my post. You may remove posts made by others from your user talk page as explained in WP:UP if you wish, but you should not do so on article talk pages, or community pages like Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion per WP:TPO unless you have a really sound policy-based reason for doing so. I understand you weren't trying to be disruptive, but you need think really hard before doing so because it could cause problems with other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Revert of edit on UK 1964 election
I undid your rollback. The picture of Jo Grimond is the same one in use here -- the exact same file -- and you failed to remove it from there. Either finish what you start and provide back up proof of your claims or stand down. Dkendr (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Dkendr. Although it is impossible to tell from just looking at them, there is a difference in the way some images are licensed for use on Wikipedia. Some images such as File:Harold Wilson Number 10 official.jpg and File:Alec Douglas-Home (c1963).jpg are either in the public domain or are freely licensed, which means their respective use in only subject to WP:IUP. Other files such as File:Jo Grimond.jpg are treated as non-free content, which means that their respective use is also subject to the highly restrictive WP:NFCC in addition to the IUP. I did not remove the file from Jo Grimond because the file has a non-free use rationale for that particular non-free use in that particular article. If you look at the file's page at File:Jo Grimond.jpg or click on the links I left in my edit sum and carefully read those sections you probably would notice that. Non-free files such as this are generally allowed in biography articles about deceased individuals per No. 10 of WP:NFCI. However, each use of a non-free file is required to staisfy all 10 non-free crtieria listed in WP:NFCCP. This particular use fails WP:NFCC because there is no rationale provided for it for the use in United Kingdom general election, 1964. As it says it WP:NFCCE, "A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added"; moreover, the  burden on providing a suitable rationale falls upon the person wanting to use the image. So, please provide the appropriate rationale if you feel that non-free use is justified. I did not provide the rationale myself because of  Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 30 where the non-free use of a similar image in a similar article was discused, and the result was that non-free use is only deemed OK in the bio article, not in the individual election articles. Of course, each non-free use is judged independently so it is possible that the circumstances of use of this file in the 1964 article are different enough to allow such use, but I don't think they are. If you feel differently, then (once again) please provide an appropriate rationale for the file's use in the article, add it to the file's page, and then re-add the file to the article. Please note that simply adding a rationale does not automatically make a particular use NFCC compliant, all 10 criteria need to be satisfied, and that any editor can nominate the file for discussion at WP:FFD if they disagree or tagged the file with Template:di-disputed fair use rationale. Anyway, if you're not sure how to do this, then you can ask for help at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC. Finally, my use of the all caps "THIS" is this edit sum was simply meant for emphasis; I was not trying to shout or express anger, so apologize in advance if it came of as such. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry trivia
The trivia section started on most Tom and Jerry pages in nine years ago and most was removed by Edward321 6 years ago. I'm now adding it and don't think it's unsourced. I discussed the issue in Talk:Tom and Jerry YoshiFan155 (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have added content to an article that has been removed by another editor, then it might be a good idea to try and discuss things with this editor per WP:BRD on the relevant article's talk page. If, however, you feel the removal was some kind of vandalism, then you can revert the removal per WP:R VAN. You should be careful though and make sure it's a clear case of vandalism and not just someone disagreeing with your edit. When you discuss things on the article's talk page, you should try and explain your specific reasons for wanting such content to be included in the article. Simply saying that something has been in an article for a long time is generally not a good argument to try and make as explained in WP:LONGTIME; it's possible that such information shouldn't have been added in the first place, but went unnoticed by someone until now. Also, simply saying I like it or I want to include it for your own personal reasons is not going to get you very far as explained in WP:ILIKEIT. You may need to establish a consensus for inclusion on the article's the talk page, so you should base your argument for inclusion upon relevant policies and guidelines as much as possible. Be advised, trivia sections are generally not considered appropriate for such articles per MOS:TV and WP:TRIVIA, but you might be able to convince others that this particular case is the exception to that common practice. You can also post a version of the content you want to add on the article's talk page per WP:CAUTIOUS and ask others for feedback; the more specific you are about the content you want to add the better the feedback you're likely to get from others. I don't know too much about TV articles, so you probably can get more specific opinions at WT:TV. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

South Korean Football Club Crest
Hi Please don't delete south korean football club crest files, If you can't check out informaion about file source, Because you don't read korean language. Please use google translator or ask me. I can help.

I think most files don't have problem. File source have korean lanuage information, Don't to justify deletion.Footwiks (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Footwiks. First of all, I am not an administrator so I cannot delete files myself. I did tag a number of non-free image files for speedy deletion per WP:F7 or nominated them for discussion at WP:FFD because in my opinion the way they are currently being used does not satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content policy. The use of non-free content is highly restricted on Wikipedia because of the copyright status of the content and each time a non-free image file is used it is required to satisfy all 10 of the non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. Using non-free image files in galleries is generally not allowed because such usage tends to be more decorative (i.e., only showing the image) than contextual (i.e., actually discussing the image). Now, if you can be more specific about which file you're referring to, then I can probably provide you with a more specific answer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)