User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2016/June

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Files
Hey Marchjuly, I have a question. Would you be willing to notify me of an image when you come across one that violates NFCC guidelines? I only want the ones that are university/college (NCAA only or Kansas schools) related (main university/college, main college athletics + sub-pages, etc.) If you notify me, there will be no need to FFD it. It will be much easier this way and I'd love to help out. Thanks, 🎓 Corkythe hornetfan  🎓 03:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Corkythehornetfan. I'm not exactly sure what type of images you're referring to. Did I recently nominate one of those for discussion at FFD? Nothing like that immediately comes to mind. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On 27 May you nominated File:Citadel bulldogs logo.png. Basically, if the logo is a college athletics team logo (e.g. Citadel's), or a university seal/logo (e.g. File:University of Missouri Seal.svg {which a different user nominated})... Hope that helps! 🎓 Corkythe hornetfan  🎓 05:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the advantages of FFD in such cases is that it does establish a consensus for how a non-free file is to be used. For example, I could've simply removed the file from the other articles and removed the corresponding rationales from the file's page, but they could've just as easily been re-added by someone else. If no rationale is provided for a particular usage per WP:NFCC, then removing the file per WP:NFCCE is pretty straightforward. Removing a file which has a rationale for a particular usage, however, could easily be seen as just "one person's opinion" and lead to edit warring. Removing copyright violations is one of the exceptions listed at WP:NOT3RR, but note that it does say "What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Files for discussion noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." A FFD discussion closed by an administrator who says the consensus is that a particular non-free file should not be used in a particular way equals "unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)"; my removing a non-free use rationale for a particular usage without any discussion at all, on the other hand, is not going to be viewed the same. FWIW, I saw that you added the wordmark to those team articles and think it was perfectly appropriate NFCC-wise for you to do so. There may someone else, however, who disagrees with us and decides to re-add the mascot logo. Our choices then would be to try and discuss or keep reverting back to our preferred version. The former is most likely going to lead to FFD anyway, while the latter is almost surely going to lead to WP:AN3. Just for reference, I haven't in the past always been very good at following my own advice, so I'm sure if you look hard enough you find examples of me doing exactly what I say should not be done. These days, however, I try to stick to FFD or Template:di-disputed fair use rationale or some other speedy template to give others a chance to respond and an administrator the chance to comment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get that reason. However, I've seen very few people argue that they should be kept and not be replaced by a PD image. I'm just trying to make it easier. If others disagree, then we can ffd it, like I've had to do before. 🎓 Corkythe hornetfan  🎓 01:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Understand. If I see anything like that then I will give your a heads up if I don't forget in the heat of the moment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Global F.C.'s logo
Regarding this: previously, the fair-use rationale was to illustrate the history of the football club by having an image of the subsumed team. I felt iffy about it, but if the article had appropriate commentary about the history of the football club, would the image still qualify for fair use? Thank you for your attention to this issue. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Rotideypic41352. Former logos like this are typically not allowed if the primary purpose is to simply show the reader what the logo looked like. Generally, discussion of the logo itself (preferably supported by reliable sources) is considered to be needed, so that removing the logo would actually be detrimental to the reader's understanding. NFCC issues, however, tend to be judged independently so it's always possible that what may be considered unacceptable in one case is considered OK in another. It's not so much that more about the history of the team is needed; it's a case of more content about the logo itself being needed. If you are able to provide that content with support from reliable sources (otherwise, someone could simply say it's WP:OR), then NFCC#8 would be met. You can ask for the opinions of others at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI
158.108.78.91 removed some of your s. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi JJMC89IT. I saw that, but 158.108.78.91 has also been removing the images in question from the articles. l guess that's one way of "fixing the problem". If the images remain unused, a bot will tag them for speedy deletion per WP:F5 and they will be deleted in a week by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

File:National Bank of New Zealand logo.svg
I responded at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 25 a week ago. I would appreciate the courtesy of reply if you are not going to withdraw the nomination. 2.27.75.26 (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi 2.27.75.26. I saw your post, but I'm not sure what you want me to add. It didn't seem like you were asking me or any one a direct question, but I'll post something in response. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

File:WOLO-TV_ABC_Columbia_News_Title_Card_Oct_2015.png
I made a little bit of addition to the article and the non-free rationale, but this is a title card specifically linked to the station with a distinguishing identification for that station. It may be subject to various levels of toleration, but the news program is considered the primary program produced at local television stations in the United States, and therefore, a visual identification is considered significant. If the rationale does not work, then we can certainly lead to its deletion, but I did want to provide some rationale in why this non-free media is being provided to the article. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. Dukefalcon2008 (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Dukefalcon2008 and thank you for the post. The screenshot is not needed to identify the station as the rationale claims because that is being adequately done by the two files used in the infobox. The "ABC Columbia" logo shown in the screenshot seems to be the same as what is shown in the infobox, so another non-free image is not needed to show that. So the primary argument for non-free use appears to be the "new look".
 * The information you added to the rationale and article is almost surely true, but none is supported by a reliable source. Is this new look something that was covered in reliable sources? What's to stop another editor from someday removing it as WP:OR per WP:BURDEN if not? Moreover, I'm not sure how the reader gets any of the "The station launched a new look, music, and a finalized studio for the debut in mid-October, with scenes of the capital city and the State House being particularly prominent in its imagery, tying to its unique location at the intersection of Main and Gervais streets" from that particular screenshot. To me, it simply looks like a generic skyline view of the city without anyway to know what the buildings are or that it's the intersection of those particular streets. In other words, there's nothing in that screenshot that improves the reader's understanding of the relevant article content to such a degree that removing the screenshot would be detrimental to that understanding.
 * I am just giving you my opinion as to why I feel non-free use is not justified in this case. I am not the final arbiter, so you can also post your reasons why you feel it is on the file's talk page for the reviewing admin to check. We can also move the discussion to WP:FFD to try and get the opinion of others if you want. There are a few other news open screenshots that you've uploaded which have the same non-free concerns in my opinion, I was going to tag with di-disputed fair use rationale as well, but they can also be discussed at FFD as part of one big discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Explanation about Paykan Club logo
Hi. All teams of the Paykan Club, have same logo. You can look at Amir Ghafour's shirt in this picture. So, please recover the logo to the article.Sarbaze naja (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi and thank you for the message. File:Paykan Qazvin.svg is a non-free image which means that each usage of it on Wikipedia must satisfy all 10 of the non-free content criteria listed at WP:NFCCP. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC which states that each usage of non-free content must have a separate, specific non-free use rationale. The file currently only has a rationale for use in Paykan F.C.; it does not have a rationale for Paykan Tehran VC. Per WP:NFCCE, it is the responsibility of the editor wishing to use a non-free image in a particular article to provide a valid rationale for said usage. So, if you feel that the non-free use of the file is justisfied for the article, please add the appropriate rationale for that particular use before re-adding the file to the article. Be advised, however, that simply adding a rationale does not automatically mean that the file's usage comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy. All that adding a rationale does is prevent the file from being tagged for speedy deletion by WP:F6 or being removed per WP:NFCCE. The usage of similar logos in similar articles has been previously discussed before at WP:FFD because of Number 17 of WP:NFC. Basically, such logos are considered to be OK to use in stand-alone articles about "parent entities", but are not considered OK in stand-alone articles about "child entities" regardless of whether the same logo is used. Both the volleyball and football team's are child entities of the organization Paykan Tehran Sports Club, so ideally the logo should be used in only that article. Team specific logos may be used if they exist, but the default is not for all teams to automatically use their parent organization's logo. If you'd like other opinions on this, feel free to ask at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you friend. There isn't anymore question. I convinced by your explanation. So, in future, in same cases I need a certificate. THANK YOU AGAIN.Sarbaze naja (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States
I uploaded a coat of arms of a diocese. It is under "fair use" as with many other diocesan coat of arms. What is the issue? Jgefd (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Jgefd. The files you re-added are non-free images and each usage of a non-free image on Wikipedia must satisfy all 10 of the non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC which states that a separate, specific non-free use rationale is required for each usage on Wikipedia. Those particular files do have rationales for the stand-alone articles about their respective dioceses, but they do not have rationales for the list article. So, if you want to use the files in the list article, then it is your responsibility to provide a rationale for said usage per WP:NFCCE. This is not so simple, however, because of WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES. Generally, the use of non-free images, etc. for individual entries in list articles or tables tends to be decorative and the context required by WP:NFCC is lacking; in other words, the file tends to be simply there for show and not because of any discussion of reflecting what is said about the image in reliable sources. Non-free files may be linked to using the colon trick and a WP:PIPE like Diocese of Mayagues Coat of Arms, but they shouldn't be displayed unless it's in a manner that satisfies NFCCP. You can ask about this if you like at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC if you want feedback from others.


 * One more thing about coat of arms is that many of them can be recreated using elements that are not subject to copyright (See c:COM:COA for more info). This is why you find files such as File:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Anchorage.svg available on Commons. WP:NFCC states that freely licensed content which can serve the same encyclopedic purpose is to be used instead of non-free content. Perhaps someone at c:Commons:WikiProject Heraldry may be able to recreate these COAs and freely license them. Freely licensed images are not subject to WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Iraq football logo
Hi my friend. I'm not too familiar with wiki rules, sorry. I do not really understand the reasoning why the logo is not allowed for team pages. Can u please explain why in plain english so I can understand better. Also can you explain me why logos like England FA is allowed on England team page but Iraq logo not allowed on Iraq team page. Thank you sir Hashim-afc (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . I think you will find the answers to your questions at WT:NFCC, but basically it has to do with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and how it's being interpreted and applied to the use of such logos. It's possible that you will see similar logos being used in various articles, but this does not mean that the usage is automatically considered policy compliant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It may take an FFD discussion to determine whether a particular usage is according to Wikipedia policy. For example, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56 was a discussion about non-free logo use in Brazillian team articles. If you see articles where non-free logos are being used in a way which you feel does not comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy, then you can start a discussion at WP:FFD to get opinions from other editors. I hope what I've written is not difficult to understand, but if it is then I'll try to explain it in another way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reply. This rule it does not make sense for me. I understand that Iraq national team is 'child entity' for Iraq FA, but I don't understand why that stops the logo from being use in both articles. Iraq national team logo which features on their kit (as you can see here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTjkKPbW4AAXtCA.jpg) is the same logo as Iraq FA. So why cannot be used in both articles if they share the same logo? It does not really make sense that a team like Spain, who uses a different logo for their national team than their FA logo, is allowed to keep their logo because of this, but teams like Iraq who share logos with their FA are not allowed to. This way we result in something like half national team pages with logos and half without logos which makes little sense for me. The Iraq FA logo has more than one use, it isn't only the FA logo but also the logo of all the Iraq national teams. Another thing I wonder is why only certain national team logos are being targeted and not others. For example, Portugal, Netherlands and Belgium all have the FA logo on their national team pages but they haven't been removed, whereas Brazil, Iraq and Iran got them removed. Surely if you remove one you have to look for other similar cases and remove them too instead of targeting specific pages only which I think its strange. Hashim-afc (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If a policy or guideline does not make sense to you or you disagree with how it is being interpreted or applied, then the thing to is to discuss your concerns on the policy or guideline's talk page, which in this case would be WT:NFCC. The thing not to do is to mass remove files from articles (even ones which have non-free use rationales) like you have been doing, especially by citing something in your edit sums that you do not seem to agree with. That's going to be seen as disruptive editing just to make a point and will almost certainly lead you to being blocked by an administrator. There are lots of non-free files being used on Wikipedia (I've read that there are more than 500,000 currently in use), and unfortunately not all of these are being used in a manner that complies with WP:NFCC. The fact that a non-free image is being used a certain way in another article does not mean that the same usage is automatically acceptable for other similar images in other similar articles per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. All Wikipedia editors are volunteers and non-free images are being added to articles non-stop daily so checking them all takes time. If you find an image whose usage you feel does not satisfy NFCC, and the image does not have a non-free use rationale for the usage in question, then you can remove it per WP:NFCCE. If the image has a rationale that you feel is invalid, then you can either tag the file with one of the speedy detetion templates found at Category:File deletion templates such as Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale or you can nominate the file for discussion at WP:FFD. I understand it's easy to get frustrated when something happens on Wikipedia that you don't understand or don't agree with and all editors get frustrated now and then. When that happens, the best thing to do is to try and keep your cool and not let your emotions get the best of you. The course of action you have chosen is not really a wise one and things will end badly for you if you continue to follow it. My suggestion to you is that you self-revert those edits and start discussing the usages of those files at FFD to see what other editors have to say and see if the consensus among them is to remove those logos from all or certain articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

File:India FA.svg
Honestly my friend, I'm not trying to be pointy. I think it is unfair that I keep being accused of this in all edits that I make to do with logos. What point would I even be trying to make with this edit anyway? The Iraq FA logo has got nothing to do with free licenses and threshold of originality. I'm only making edits which I think are helpful, I'm not intending to be disruptive. I have read the page about threshold of originality, and looking at the India logo I think it does meet it. All that is in the logo is a simple cartoon soccer ball, which is actually the exact same soccer ball that can be found here: http://cliparts.co/clipart/2320962, on a website called Cliparts which uploads free images which can be downloaded (the images there are not subject to copyright). Then there is some text around the ball and some lines. In my opinion this is not original enough to be protected by copyright. However that is only my opinion. Anyway, I'm not going to get involved with the India logo anymore, you can change it back if you think what I've done is wrong. I'm no longer going to make any more edits or get involved with anything to do with logos on Wikipedia except for logos that I have uploaded myself. It seems that all edits I make on this side of Wikipedia are reverted and I am accused of trying to make a point, I'm not even sure what this point is. I'm not prepared to go through that every time, so I'm only going to get involved in logos which I upload. Thanks for remaining polite and courteous throughout our conversations by the way. Not all editors are capable of that unfortunately. Hashim-afc (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you providing clarification regarding your edits. I've amended my comments about this logo accordingly. If it makes any difference, I amended them before reading this post because in hindsight I felt they might be a little strong. To be fair, your mass removal of those logos and your subsequent explanation as to why you did that is pretty much how Wikipedia defines "pointy" and I wasn't the only one who mistakenly assumed it to be such. There's no need for you to stop working with image files just because you've had a bad experience dealing with me and I am certainly not asking you to stop editing certain pages or files. This will all hopefully be sorted out through further discussion and it may turn out that your are correct about the India logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

File:MLSZ.png
But why? File:Federatia Romana de fotbal.png, File:England crest 2009.svg, File:Logo de l'Équipe de France de Football.png e.g. are used in several articles. I do not understand this discrimination. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Norden1990. Please read the post I left on your user talk page. If you have any questions about the close or would like it clarified, then you can ask the closing administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, because you were the only editor who voted in that discussion, so the closing administrator just closed following your opinion. Your vote: "[...] but remove from all the individual team articles and the tournament article. Also, suggest that the use of "File:MLSZ.png" not be allowed in any of the individual team articles where the "File:Hungry FA.png" is currently being used." My question: why? Because, as you can see, all football logos are used in multiple articles. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you've read the FFD discussion, then you know the reasons why I nominated the file for discussion. The closing administrator Explicit was not just following my opinion. He was following how No. 17 of WP:NFC has been interpreted and applied involving the usage of other similar non-free logos in various previous NFCR and WP:FFD discussions. The very first sentence of WP:NFCCP states that "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia" so the fact that similar files may be being used in other articles does automatically justify non-free use in each and every case or mean that their usage is NFCC compliant; it could mean that their usage has just not being discussed or evaluated yet. Your statement that all football logos are used in multiple articles is not true at all. Many are for sure, but many of those are being used in a way that does not satisfy the NFCC. There are over 500,000 non-free images uploaded to Wikipedia and many of these are being used in ways that do not comply with the NFCC. So, if you feel there's a logo being used in a way that does not comply with the NFCC, then you can nominate it for discussion at FFD. If you disagree with 's close, then you should discuss it with him. If you disagree with how the NFCC is being interpreted and applied regarding the use of such logos, then you can discuss it at NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I quit
I have no intention contributing any more time or money to Wikipedia;  you are & other volunteers have beaten it out of me. The "people's encyclopedia" has become wrapped around the ankles in its own red tape and it's too much for a simple guy like me to deal with. All of you volunteers should just produce the content yourselves. Catfish777 (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . I'm sure what the above post is referring to or why you decided to post it on my user talk page. As far as I can determine, my only interaction with you was to answer a question you posted at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2016/June. I don't believe I posted anything offensive or otherwise inappropriate in my answer; I only tried to suggest some ways to help resolve the image licensing problem you were having. FWIW, I am not an administrator so I cannot delete files, but Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons have specific policies when it comes to image licensing and those images which do comply with these policies may be deleted by an administrator. If you feel that a file was inappropriately deleted, then you can ask the administrator who deleted the file for clarification. You can also request that the file be undeleted per Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion or c:Commons:Undeletion requests. For reference, files that are deleted are not really gone forever and they can easily be restored by any administrator if the deletion was made in error, a permissions email has been verified by OTRS, or the image's copyright status has been further clarified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

additional charity for Robert Ira Lewy
like you evaluation of new charity addition for Galaxy Society at MSM. Thanks as always Kingseason (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

also "Lewy has also donated by bequest to the Enzo Society of the New York Zen Center for Contemplative Care" Kingseason (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)