User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2017/November

Unloading free images
Then does that me na that the Singapore presidential election 2011 images should be removed too Bryan4562013 (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Non-free content use on Wikipedia is highly restricted because such files are considered to be still protected by copyright, and each use of a non-free file is required to satisfy Wikipedia's ten non-free content criteria. In general, the non-free use of photos of deceased individuals is only considered acceptable when the photo is used as the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article about the person in question. Non-fee use can be tricky and you need to be careful when trying to justify it based upon how other similar apparently images are to be being used because the circumstances in which different images are used may not (as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE) be exactly the same. Unlike File:OngTengCheong-1993.jpg, the four files being used in the infobox of Singapore presidential election, 2011 are not licensed as non-free content; therefore, those four files are not required to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and can be used in the article about the 2011 election. The Ong file's non-free use was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 24 and the consensus reached was to remove it from the article about the 1993 election. If you disagree with this decision, you can discuss your concerns with the administrator who closed the discussion per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

About Usertalk
If you want to post a message you can post english message in my thai usertalk --EZBELLA (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the information, but I don't think you should expect editors of English Wikipedia to contact you on Thai Wikipedia. Discussions related to English Wikipedia should take place on English Wikipedia. Some of the templates used on English Wikipedia may not work on Thai Wikipedia and some editors may not which to have an account created for them on Thai Wikipedia by posting there. FWIW, I also edit on Commons and Japanese Wikipedia, and it is possible to set your user preferences to alert you to posts made on other Wikipedias if you plan to do msot of your editing on Thai Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Why did you reject?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2017/August#Non_free_file_use

Because contains this is insulting my friend. Music Video 123 (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking, but in general you should not refactor/edit another user's talk page post like you did execpt when you feel it is a truly violation of WP:NFA or for any of te other reasons listed as exception in WP:TPO. In that case, it's best to remove the post altogether. Some people use may post uncivil comments when they're frustrated and if it really bothered me I would've removed the post and warned the other editor more strongly than I did. While I understand the intent of your post at User talk:TravisGTAGamer, the original post was made a few months back and there's been no interaction between myself and this other editor since; so, there was really no need to bring it up again and I fear that doing so will only restart something that is of no benefit to anyone. Sometimes you just got to know when to just leave things be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Edits to my talk page
I was using my personal space as a place for drafting, per wiki policy. Sorry if that violated another wiki policy as your edits suggest. Sullidav (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but non-free content is really only supposed to be used in the article namespace. So, if you're working on some you hope to add to Wikipedia someday and you want to use a non-free file, you should add/upload the file after you add the content the article namespace. Just make sure that the way you want to use the file satisfies non-free content use policy because non-free use is not automatic and sometimes it can be a bit tricky to satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria. The file I removed from User:Sullidav/Hawk is already being used in Hawken School which seems to be an acceptable form of non-free content use so in this case there's really nothing more you need to do.
 * It's OK to work on improvements to existing articles in your user sandbox or on a user subpage, and lots of editors do that; in general, however, it's better to work on drafts for completely new articles in the draft namespace. Techincally, any Wikipedia page can be edited by anyone at anytime, but pages in the user namespace tend to be left alone as a courtesy unless there is an really good policy- or guideline-based reason to do so (see WP:UP. Since drafts, however, are intend for the article namespace (where they can be edited by anyone), pages in the draft namespace are also considered there for everyone to improve. The ultimate goal is to come up with a good article that is acceptable for Wikipedia, and more people working on a draft can sometimes help achieve that goal. Even so, if you're working on a completely original new article but want to do so as a userspace draft for whatever reason, then that's OK. In such cases though it's a good idea to add Template:Userspace draft to the top of the page, just to let others know you're working on a draft for an article. Regardless of where you decide to work on a draft, you will also need to make sure you properly attribute any content copied-and-pasted from other Wikipedia pages (see next paragraph).


 * In this case though, it kinda looks like you've copied and pasted the existing article into your usespace to perhaps work on some kind of improvement. It's generally not a good idea, however, to copy-and-paste large sections or entire articles onto any other page, inlcuding user pages/subpages, because doing so can be problematic for a variety of reason sas explained in WP:CWW. The first has to do with image files, category links, and templates which are found in the existing article; in some cases, they are only intended for use in the certain articles or in certain ways which might not include the new page they are added to. The other issue has to do with attribution of content in that all Wikipedia articles are freely licensed per say, but the Wikimedia Foundation does require proper attribution be given when copying content found in Wikipedia articles and using it somewhere else, even on other Wikipedia pages. Each edit made to a Wikipedia page is recored in the page's edit history and this shows who made what edit when. This bascially attributes the edit to the person who made it as required by relevant Wikipedia policy. When content is copied-and-pasted from one page to another, this information is lost since each page's edit history is unique to that page; therefore, the content is going to be seen as "original" unless the source page is properly attributed. There's more information on this in the WP:CWW page I linked to above, but generally it's a good idea when copying a pasting large ammounts of content from one Wikipedia or another Wikipedia page to at least attribute the source page in your edit sum. This lets others know that not all of the content you're working on is original, and where the edit history for this content can be found if needed.


 * Finally, in almost all cases, a "new" article for a subject does not need to be created if there's is already one about it existing in the article namespace; if the latter is in bad shape and in need of improvement, it's better to try and improve the existing article instead per WP:IMPERFECT. It's not a good idea at all to try and de facto delete an existing article by creating a new one to replace it for lots of reasons; so, if by chance this is what you were hoping to do, then you should stop. A new article is usually only really needed when the existing article has so many serious problems that it needs to be blown up because there's no way to fix it in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Per here
It has been determined that medical imaging from the US is in the public domain. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The file was licensed as non-free content, which is why it got flagged as a WP:NFCC violation. Since you've changed the license to PD, this is no longer an issue. However, unless there's a good reason to keep this file locally, I think it should be tagged with Copy to Wikimedia Commons. I've asked about this at WP:MCQ, so feel free to further clarify if you can. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

List of New Deal sculpture
You recently removed an image from this article. I don't know about the rights of the photographer, but WPA art is typically viewed as being in the public domain. Here is one article that touches on the subject, there are others that I will be looking at. Please consider returning it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe you're referring to File:KahlichFishing1938.jpg, but that file is licensed as non-free content and should not be cannot be used in the list article as long as it is licensed as such. As you point out, there are actually two "copyright issues" which need to be clarified: the one for the art work itself and the one for the photo of it. Even if the artwork is in the public domain, photos of 3D works of art are typically considered to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:DW. The file is tagged as "Do not copy to Commons", which means that there is something about it which someone felt is non-free.
 * There seem to be three possibilities about this file's licensing:


 * 1) Both the art work and photo are clearly free: in that case there's no need for any non-free license or for the file to be hosted locally on Wikipedia.
 * 2) The photo is free, but the art work is non-free: in that case, the file does seem to be licensed correctly which means that it's non-free use in the stand-alone article about the sculpture is OK, but its non-free use in the list article would almost certainly not be allowed per WP:NFCCP. (see WP:NFLISTS and item 6 of WP:NFC))
 * 3) The art work is PD, but the photo is non-free: in that case, the photo of it would fail WP:NFCC (WP:FREER) and the file should be deleted from Wikipedia; however, it can then be replaced by another free photo of the sculpture (which should be uploaded to Commons).
 * From the source given for the photo, it looks like the photo has been released under a CC-by-sa-2.0 license which is both acceptable for Wikipedia and Commons; so, perhaps someone felt the work itself is still protected by copyright. 3D works of art such as sculptures (even though publically displayed) are not automatically considered to be in the public domain per c:COM:FOP. The link you provided above seems to be to a personal email of some kind, which might not be the best thing to try and base a PD claim on. Moreover, the email itself states the following:"The documents make no mention of copyright, but I thought they would be of interest to the list (see the links below). As Tyler points out, the "employee"/"contractor" distinction is key. From what I understand, most of the WPA works depending on the particular program were created by "employees," and would be in the public domain. However, some works, especially extensive murals, were commissioned. Typically, the WPA required all rights in commissioned works to be transferred to the US Government, but this may not have happened in all cases. Again, from what I understand, the GSA assumes a WPA work was created by an employee unless there is some evidence to the contrary. I also understand the GSA is open to inquiries about particular works -- the more information you have about an artwork, the better. As with so many copyright inquiries, it's a case-by-case thing."
 * This seems to imply that in some cases a "a commissioned WPA work" might be eligible for copyright protection. So, if you 100% believe that the file should be licensed as public domain, then you can be bold and change the file's licensing yourself accordingly. However, I was not able to find anything about either the sculpture or the sculptor in Smithsonian Art Inventories Catalog which can be a pretty reliable way to verify this type of thing; so, my suggestion would be to ask for other opinions at either WP:MCQ or c:COM:VP/C just to be sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be bold except I am not sure about the photographer's rights here. SIRIS will (opinion) not be much help.  Later,
 * Carptrash (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've asked about this at WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Dabs
Hi MarchJuly. I got the logo from the main page of the official website on the day I uploaded it. Not sure what's happened with the archived copy. Cloudbound (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Do you remember if you combined multiple files into a sort of montage or just downloaded the file as is? The reason has to do with WP:NFG since the file looks like a combination of two seperate logos. If that's how the file appeared on the website, then it would be treated as one file; on the other hand, if it was actually two seperate logos combined together to make one file, then it might need to be treated as a user-created montage. Anyway, the whole thing might be a moot point since it appears the official site might have revised its logo once again and is using a different one at the moment. If that's the case, the older version is likely no longer needed and can be replaced by the newer one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I definitely downloaded the file as it appeared on the website, then added transparency. Cloudbound (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Escalating US Dissention
Hi MarchJuly

First THANK YOU VERY MUCH for your assistance. As you've noticed, we've ensured that the comments from the young people (now college freshman) are/were 100% non-promotional. One person (Nick) is making the changes while they all research and agree on the necessary changes in order to achieve compliance. As we are clearly novices it takes a bit longer but we can't even work before someone else now posts a quick delete to undo all of their work. Many "accomplished" adults with degrees running the gamut from Engineering to MBA's to Phd's etc were closely involved in the initial research - which is sound. However, our collective Wiki knowledge is obviously less than impressive lol. We would just like the deletion message removed (now for a 2nd time) as we iron out the wrinkles. This youth-led initiative does not generate income & the intention is to share the research. Despite your efforts, there seems to be yet another movement to throw the baby out with the bath water, unfortunately,Samuel Eleazer at The LOVE Movement (TLM) (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No offense, but the "article" was almost certainly going to end up deleted one way or another per WP:GNG or WP:ORG despite my cosmetic improvements. My suggestion to you would be to ask the deleting admin to consider restoring the article to the draft namespace if you wish to continue working on it on the condition that it be submitted for review via WP:AfC when you or whomever think it's ready to be re-added to the article namespace. Other than that, I think you're going to have a hard to having such an article accepted by the community, and if you or someone else recreates the article again, it will be deleted again and your accounts might end up being blocked as a result. I also suggest you read WP:YFA, WP:42, WP:PSCOI, WP:VNT, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:NOTHERE and WP:EXPERT. Those are alot of pages, but having a general familarity with the information found on them will help you better understand what Wikipedia is about and how to avoid any problems future problems. -- 15:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Paul Martin Sr. Image
Hi, Marchjuly, sorry about the Paul Martin Sr. image - didn't realise that there was a problem using it. I'm a bit uncertain about the rules for images; can you explain why an image can be used in some places on Wikipedia, but not on other pages? Thanks! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems you're referring to File:Paulmartinsr.jpg which was being used in User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz/Electoral history of Louis St. Laurent.


 * First, some general comments, files such as this which are licensed as non-free content are required to meet all ten non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP for each use and those which do not may be removed as explained in WP:NFCCE. In general, non-free images of deceased individuals are considered acceptable per item 10 of WP:NFCI when they are used as the primary means of identification in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone biography about the individual himself/herself, but the non-free use in other articles or in other sections of the individual's biography can be much harder to justify due to WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. In individual biographies, an article really only needs one non-free image for encyclopedic purpose of primary identification and anything else is generally considered superfulous or decorative per WP:NFCC, unless there is a pretty significant contextual reason for using multiple images that meets NFCC#8. In more general articles (for example, "List of XXX" or "Election of XXX" type of articles) where the individual might be mentoned by name, etc., but where the article is not really about the individual per se, providing the context required to meet NFCC#8 tends to be really hard and in almost all cases a link to the individual's biography is preferred per items 6 and 9 of WP:NFC and NFCC#1. In "List of XXX" articles especially, the image use tends to be decorative in a table/gallery markup just to "show" the person rather than the image being the subject of source critical commentary, so this type of use is almost never allowed per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES. In "Election of XXX" articles, even though the image may be being used in the main infobox, the article is about the election itself and the candidates are only discussed in that particular context along with many other things related to that particular election, unlike a biography which is about the individual from birth to death and all of the content is contextually about this person; therefore, the consensus established in various WP:FFD discussions about this type of use has been that the non-free use of such files in individual election articles is not considered to be policy compliant.


 * With respect to the specific reason why I removed the image, you were using it in your user sandbox which is not allowed per WP:NFCC and WP:UP; you can link to non-free files using the "colon trick" like I did above at the beginning of my post, but the file should not be displayed. There are no exceptions to NFCC#9 given for non-free use in the user namespace (at least to the best of my knowledge), so there's not much wiggle-room here to work with. If you often work on drafts for new articles or improvements for existing articles in your userspace, you should wait until whatever it is you're working on has been added/moved to the article namespace before adding any non-free images you would like to use. However, as I mentioned above, non-free use is not automatic and in some cases can be hard to justify and you need to provide a seperate specific non-free use rationale explaining how all ten non-free content criteria are met whenever you add a non-free image to an article. Files lacking such a rationale may be removed per NFCCE or even deleted per WP:F6. Moreover, simply providing a rationale also does not in and of itself necessarily mean the particular non-free is valid as explained in WP:JUSTONE. In some cases, the rationale may be disputed by another editor, tagged for speedy deletion, or discussed at WP:FFD. If you go to file's page for "File:Paulmartinsr.jpg", you'll see that the file's non-free use was previously discussed at WP:NFCR and that the consensus established was that its non-free use is only policy compliant in Paul Joseph James Martin pretty much for the general reasons I gave above. Of course, consensus can change, but I cannot see any possible way to justify the non-free use of this image in your draft (at least not as it was being used) even if that draft were to someday become an article.


 * I apologize for all of the techno-speak and links. If you have any further questions, you can ask them here, WP:MCQ or WT:NFC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the detailed explanation! Will avoid doing this in the future.  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

DB-F6
Hey, I noticed that some of your recent edits involving DB-F6 have been missing the date stamp. You might want to switch to "subst:nrd". Salavat (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note and thanks for the cleanup. I actually do use "nrd" more times than not, but for some reason I used "db-f6" on those files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiEd

 * Thank you . -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Glasgow Gladiators Powerchair FC club badge
Hi Marchjuly

I am new to wikipedia. I have been editing a page on Glasgow Gladiators Powerchair FC and the club badge keeps getting deleted by you. Can you explain why? I have the copyright as I am the designer.

KJMClark1966

KJMClark1966 (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The file is being deleted from Commons because it does not comply with c:Commons:Licensing, in particular c:Commons:Fair use. I have posted a more detailed response at c:User talk:KJMClark1966, so please read that. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask them there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Leonid Berlyand
Dear editor, can you please have another look at my article? I have added a number of independent sources of evidence to support notability: (a) editorship in journals (b) press-release (c) publications of other people confirming importance of his contribution (d) a post at the site of Univ. of Moscow to confirm honorary professorship (with photos of the event) (e) some more evidence from the PSU site not from his CV. Please see details in the Talk page of the article. Maybe you can consider removing or softening the tags? Thank you. --Asimsky (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)