User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2018/February

Dom Luiz photo
Hello Marchjuly, how are you? So I saw that you removed the image I uploaded. Well, I am a longtime Brazilian monarchist, responsible for the administration of an organization called the "Liga Azul Monarquista Brasileira", I live in São Paulo and frequently attend monarchical events held at Pro-Monarchy headquarters, which is the official secretariat of the Imperial House of Brazil. With monarchism growing mainly through the internet, more and more images are popularized and disseminated, mainly by blogs without much credibility or truthfulness of facts, monarchist groups of facebook and more rarely for the mainstream media. The photo in question was taken by min during the recording of the Christmas message issued by His Royal and Royal Highness in December 2016. The recording took place at the headquarters of the Pró Monarquia, where Dom Luiz lives with Dom Bertrand on December 18 and aired on the 24th through the official website of Pró Monaquia on Facebook. I took the picture with my old personal camera, I posted it in four monarchical groups of which I am a part, I ceded it to a friend who edited for the Pró Monarquia and eventually it began to circulate frequently and without restriction of use virtually. I cut out the image using paint to fit the space of the biographical image in the Portuguese wiki and later on the other pages in other languages. I hope this explanation helps. Greetings.

HugoTol Talk 03:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC-2)
 * If you took the photo in December 2016, then I am not sure how it appeared on this website in December 2015. Perhaps the website and all the people who posted comments on it have the wrong date, but even in that case photos taken from Facebook are not acceptable for Commons because Facebook's licensing is not compatiable with c:COM:L. What you should do is upload the original file to Commons which contains the original EXIF data and then send a consent email to Wikimedia OTRS per the instructions given in c:COM:OTRS.
 * However, if by chance you are the same person as, , or any of the accounts listed in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Arthur Brum and c:Category:Sockpuppets of Arthur Brum, then you should be aware of WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK since creating new accouts to get around an existing block is something not permitted by both Wikipedia and Commons. What you will need to do is request that the Arthur Brum account be unblocked per WP:APPEAL.  So, if you are the same person trying, then to sneak by unnoticed is highly unlikely to work and a new request can be made via WP:SPI and WP:CHECK to verify that this newly created account is not connected in anyway to any of the other previously blocked ones. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

My sources
Banglapedia is a reliable source as many articles use it as a reference. I think there is already a consensus in favor of my general sources like Britannica and Banglapedia.--102.160.38.97 (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See my response below. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Banglapedia
This is clarify to that Banglapedia is not user generated content. It is written by paid professional historians and academics.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, it's published by the local branch of the Asiatic Society- a prestigious scholars' body.--102.160.38.97 (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If the source is reliable (a fact which is being currently questioned at WP:RSN), then it perhaps it can be used. That, however, does not make edit warring over it acceptable. Once the disputed content was removed the first time, the IP should've moved to discussing things on the article talk page to see if there's a consensus for re-adding it. An editor is bold and makes a change and if nobody says anything, then WP:SILENCE can be assumed; however, if someone removes or otherwise questions the change, then that is a content dispute, which means the person wanting to add the content is now expected to follow WP:DR. That was not happening in this case, and the IP keep trying to force the content into the article which is edit warring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Marchjuly, you are dealing with forces (IP) Sock Stables. see-Sockpuppet investigations/Bazaan/Archive. Good luck !  87.78.18.54 (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Majora and User:Marchjuly I am not Bazaan (nor am I a meat puppet). This IP is possibly User:Samudrakula (could also be User:Vinegarymass911) and a sockpuppet in his own right. You can revert my additions if you want. All I wanted was to improve the grammar of the article's lede and add historical facts like the introduction of railways. But I accept your arguments made from good faith and will move away from this WikiProject. I will not however tolerate rubbish from a possible sock puppet IP.--102.160.38.97 (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * First, sorry Marchjuly for having a conversation on your talk page. Second, anon IP, if I was wrong in this situation please accept my sincere apologies. I did not mean to potentially scare any contributor off the project. That is the last thing I want to do. I saw Banglapedia, saw that it was structured like a wiki, and removed the content. There were a few parts that were also unsourced and the featured article status of that page concerns me greatly. I want to make sure that our FA articles continue to exhibit the best Wikipedia has to offer. There is a discussion going on regarding Banglapedia and it does appear more and more that I was mistaken and should not have had such a knee jerk reaction. And for that, I am sorry. --Majora (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Norwegian Air logo
Hey there, just out of curiosity: Why is the Norwegian logo widely used on each of its pages (e. g. Norwegian Air Shuttle and Norwegian Air International) but is not allowed on other subsidiaries' pages? Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.24.155 (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll post a reply on your user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.24.155 (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the indepth explanation. And yes Norwegian Air Shuttle is the main company to all the others and yes, they all use the exact same corporate design and brand (there are more operational units rather than sub-brands). Best regards again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.24.155 (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You can post replies on your user talk to ongoing threads. It helps to keep things in one place. I was in the process of posting those message on your user talk when you first posted on mine. So, we probably should keep everything in one place if you want to continue this discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

File use qusetion
Hi! I want to ask a question: I see an editor do this. Is this edit OK? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the non-free use of either of those images is justified for that particular article, but at least for the first image a non-free use rationale was provided for that particular use. You can start a discussion of the files' non-free use at WP:FFD if you like. Just follow the instructions on the FFD page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox File
Dear marchjuly,

I appreciate the help you gave me in my sandbox, It meant a lot to me. I did not see your reply the first few times, and for that I am sorry. I would like to ask, how can I possibly get the permission to use the file File:Gravity Falls - Not What He Seems.png? And, if I couldn't get the permission, could I just screenshot the desired scene (Same, or different scene) and use it? (Of course, giving proper credit to the creator of the content)

Thank you for letting me know, ICorrectThings (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)ICorrectThings.
 * You don't really need copyright holder permssion to use a file, etc. as non-free content on Wikipedia, but you need to make sure that each use of the whatever non-free file you want to use satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. Sometimes this can be a fairly straightforward thing to do, but other times it can be a bit tricky. You should understand that providing a non-free use rationale does not automatically mean all the criteria are being met as explained in WP:JUSTONE. If you have questions about a particular use of a non-free file you can ask for help at WP:MCQ or WT:NFC; if you'd like to see if a particular consensus exists to use a non-free file in a certain way, you can nominate the file for discussion at WP:FFD.


 * You really only need the permission of the original copyright holder if you want to upload something under a free license. In such cases, the explicit consent of the original copyright holder needs to be verified, usually by an email sent to Wikimedia OTRS. Free content is not subject to the non-free content use policy, which means it can be more easily used on various pages. A free license, however, cannot be canceled, which is why the consent of the copyright holder is needed. You can find out a little more on how to ask for consent at c:COM:OTRS and WP:COPYREQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Alright, thank you for your information, it was very well needed.


 * Have a nice day, ICorrectThings (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)ICorrectThings.
 * I think you might have misunderstood what I wrote above. If you want to uploaded a screenshot from a cartoon, movie, etc. under a free license like you did with File:Ford Pines.png, then you're clearly going to have to show that it has been released as such by the original copyright holder (i.e., Disney). There are two ways this is typicallly done: (1) you provide a link to some kind of official website operated by the copyright holder (i.e., Disney)which clearly shows that the work in question has been released under a free license, or (2) the copyright holder (i.e., Disney) emails an explicit declaration of consent to Wikimedia OTRS stating they agree to release the content under a free license.
 * You cannot simply take a screenshot from a film, cartoon, etc. created by Disney or anyone else and upload it to Commons under a free license with permission of the original copyright holder. Commons also does not accept any files licensed as non-free content per c:COM:FAIR. Wikipedia does allow certain copyrighted content to be uploaded for local use only as non-free content as long as it meets the conditions of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.
 * It's a bit confusing perhaps, but it's important to understand that Commons and Wikipedia are not exactly the same when it comes to file licensing and hosting. Commons hosts files for all Wikimedia Foundation projects, including English Wikipedia, which means the licensing for any content uploaded to Commons has to be compatible with c:COM:L. English Wikipedia, however, only hosts files for use on English Wikipedia, so in this case WP:COPY is what matters. There's lots of similarities between Wikipedia's licensing requirements and Commons' licensing requirements, but there are some very important differences. The main one seems to be that Commons does not allow fair use content, while Wikipedia does as long as it's meets it's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Alright. I don't want to be accidently known as a vandal, so just to play it safe, I'll leave my sandbox without an image until I can get the hang of things. ICorrectThings (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)ICorrectThings.

Sandbox
Hello Marchjuly,

thank you for reviewing my sandbox - I wondered why you removed a picture I was using and is there a way to make it acceptable? also, i hoped to use gifs from film scenes she created under fair use but would this also be removed? thank you !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossadeghx (talk • contribs) 07:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi The licensing of each media file you see used on Wikipedia is determined by it copyright status and not every file you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same. Some files are licensed as public domain or licensed under a free licensed suitable for Wikipedia and these are often collectively referred to as "free images". Other files are licensed as non-free content because of their copyright status and these files are commonly referred to as "non-free". Non-free content use on Wikipedia is highly restricted and each use of such files must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free image use policy. One of these restrictions is WP:NFCC, which says that non-free content can only be used in the article namespace. For this reason and as explained in WP:UP, non-free content such as File: Makiko Futaki.jpg cannot be used in your sandbox.
 * Since Makiko Futaki is deceased it might be possible to use this file for primary identification purposes per item 10 of WP:NFCI in the existing Wikipedia article about her. The file already has a copyright license and and non-free use rationale for some use, but the file appears to never have been added to the article. In general, non-free images of deceased individuals are allowed as long as there is no reasonable expectation that no freely licensed equivalent image cannot be created or found which can serve the same encyclopedic purpose. For obvious reasons, a new photo of Futaki cannot be taken, but it may be possible to find a previously taken photo which has already been released under a free license or can be released under a free license. If you feel you've made a fair effort to find such an image and simply not been able to do so, then you can add the file to the article. If you basically did a quick Internet search and picked the first image you found online, then you probably should try and look a little harder. You might also try asking for help at WP:MCQ, WT:NFC or even maybe WT:JAPAN since someone at one of those pages might have suggestions on where to try and find a free image. Sometimes contacting the copyright holder of an image per Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission works since some people don't mind releasing one of their photos under a free license.
 * As for gifs, they most likely would be protected by copyright if they are from films. It's possible to upload screenshots taken from films as non-free content, but satisfying WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC can be tricky because the a strong connection between article content and screenshot is required. You can use the license Non-free film screenshot and the non-free use rationale Non-free use rationale 2, but you won't be able to use any non-free screenshots in your sandbox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:OWNTALK
You may wish to read WP:OWNTALK. Please note that WP:TPO refers to article talk pages, not user pages. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Striking the above. I misread the edit history and though John removed the comment. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)