User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2016/October

Request

Hi! I have an ardent request. Will you please make sure that File:India FA.svg remains in the All India Football Federation? It would be of great help. 14.98.243.29 (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you expect me to do that. Simply moving the image from one place to another in the article means that a completely new justification for non-free use needs to be established per WP:NFCC. Since you want to use the logo, the burden is upon you to provide a valid non-free use rationale which satisfies all 10 non-free content criteria in WP:NFCCP. Simply adding or tweaking the existing rationale only stops the file from being deleted per WP:F6. For logos like this non longer being used as the primary means of identification of the subject of article (i.e., in the main infobox or at the top of the article), non-free use is much harder justify because the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is almost never provided. Simply wanting the reader to see the old logo is considered decorative use and is not really sufficient to justify non-free use; the contextual relationship between the logo and article content has to be such that adding the logo significantly improve the reader's understanding of what is writtern to such a degree that removing the logo would be quite detrimental to that understanding. Moreover, any discussion of the logo should be supported by a reliable sources for verification purposes, so that it is not seen as just being one editor's opinion and removed as original research. That's the kind of thing you typically need to show to justify this kind of non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do something so that the image can be kept.14.98.243.29 (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As I posted above, you are the one responsible for providing the justification relevant Wikipedia's non-free content use policy requires if you want to use the image in the article. If you are able to find any reliable sources which discuss the former logo in some detail, then add that information and the relevant sources to the article so that a proper context for the logo's non-free use is established. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I've updated the source of the image. Can it be kept now?14.98.51.171 (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you the same person as IP 14.98.243.29 or someone new? You don't have register for a Wikipedia account if you don't want to, but editing from multiple IP addresses can be confusing for other editors when you're using different accounts. Anyway, the problem with the file's use in the article is not the source where you found the image; the problem is that the reader doesn't need to see the old logo to understand what is written in the article. Why does the reader need to see this logo? If there were some specific content in the article which discussed the former logo in detail and this content was supported by reliable sources, then non-free use could possibly be justified. Simply adding the image just for readers to see is not an appropriate way to use non-free content. You can ask for help at WP:MCQ if you want some other opinions. Perhaps somewhere there may be able to offer you some suggestion on how to better justify the file's non-free use. -- 10:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Then, why are former logos included in articles like Iraq national football team? 14.98.143.149 (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This is another new IP address so I'm not sure if you're the same person, but it has to do with the way the images are licensed. If you click on the former logos in the Iraq article, you'll see that they are uploaded to Wikipedia Commons under a free license which means they are not subject to the Wikipedia's rules on non-free content use. Even if they were non-free images, however, that would not really make a difference anyway when it comes to the India team article because each use of non-free content is evaluated on its own merits. The fact that other similar images may be being used in other articles in a similar way is not really pertinent. The licensing of the other images could be different, the circumstances of use could be different, or the use of the other images could be just as inappropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here again. I'm just requesting you to fix it, so that it comes under a free license.14.98.143.149 (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't "fix" something like that. I did not create the original logo and I do not own it's copyright, so I can't just decide one day to release it under a free license because I want it to be free. I am assuming that the All India Football Federation owns the logo, so if you want it to be released under a free license then you should contact them as explained in c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder and you should ask them to freely license the logo using a license that is compatible to Commons. If they agree to do that, then the file's use will not be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Your Teahouse response

You said here a non-free image of a living person would almost certainly be acceptable. I think you meant unacceptable.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the message Vchimpanzee. Yes, you are right. I meant to write that such an image would not be allowed per WP:NFCC. Thanks for pointing that out. I've amended the post to clarify this. If something else needs to be done or there's a better way to fix this mistake, please advise. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Riverbend images

Could you please explain in simple terms what the problem is with these image and how to fix it? They should fine in the no free equivalent category. See WP:FREER. Nyth63 11:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Each use of non-free content is required to satisfy all 10 non-free cntent criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. WP:NFCC#1 is only one of the ten so if it this is not considered to be replacebale non-free use, there still are problems with WP:NFCC#8. The has to be a strong contextual justification for non-free use. This is why the non-free use of an image is almost never considered OK for image galleries because such usage tends to be decorative and designed to show the image, rather than contextual by tying it into the article content. A non-free image should significantly improve the reader's understanding of the subject matter to such a degree that removing the image would be detrimental to that understanding. Why does the reader need to see these two images to understand what is written in the article and how would removing the images be detrimental to that understanding? The section on architecture is quite detailed, but nothing within that section seems to require the reader to see either of these images to be understood. It might be possible to move the exterior image to the main infobox, but if the house is still standing then a freely licensed equivalent of the exterior would seem possible.

The template {{non-free architectural work}} is primarily intended for proposed buildings, etc. It's assumed that once the building has been completed that the non-free image will be replaced by a freely licensed equivalent. It's not really intended to keep old non-free photos of existing structures permenantly in articles. It is possible that this could be considered an historical image per No. 8 of WP:NFCI, but that still requires stronger contextual significance then simply just wanting people to see what the house looked like back in the 1960s. If you disagree with my assessment, then you can give your reasons why on the files' talk pages. The administrator who reviews the tag should check the talk page for comments and take everything into consideration when deciding what to do. The files can also be discussed at WP:FFD if you prefer for the community to discuss. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Censorship Rules

I'll not post anything else here due to the treatment by yourself and CULLEN328. GOODBYE AND GOOD RIDDANCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Static (talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Captain Static. I'm not sure how I might have mistreated you or how I have censored you. You asked this question at the Teahouse and I responded. I don't think my response was rude or an attempt to bully you; I was just trying to inform you of some relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding image use and article content. FWIW, Wikipedia is not censored, but it is an encyclopedia and article content is expected to comply with it's five pillars. Wikipedia articles are intended to reflect what independent reliable sources say about a subject; they are not intended to be places for us to post our own personal anecdotes (true or not) or other forms of original research.

If you believe the content I removed from Ysgyryd Fawr is something should be in the article, feel free to initiate a discussion at Talk:Ysgyryd Fawr explaining your reasons why and see if you are able to establish a consensus for re-adding the information. If you're arguments are strongly based in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, others editors will likely agree with you and the content will be re-added. Wikipedians are encouraged to assume good faith and remain civil when discussing content disputes. Claims of bullying, etc. are taken quite seriously on Wikipedia and should not be made lightly. So, if you feel that I treated you in a manner that is contrary to relevant Wikipedia policies, then please provide proof of such a thing at WP:ANI for the community to evaluate and judge. Be advised, however, that spurious accusations do not tend to receive a favorable response and your own editing history/actions will also be subject to scrutiny. It's unfortunate if you decide to stop editing Wikipedia; it seems to me as if you're are doing so for the wrong reasons, but that is your choice not mine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I see no evidence that you or I did anything wrong, Marchjuly. I very much regret that this editor has responded so negatively, but I do not think that we did anything to provoke that reaction. Our job here is to defend the encyclopedia, no matter the provocation. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Page deletion

How dare, hoiw dare were you to cancel my page you did not even sent to me a messageRoger Delacroix (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure which page you're referring to, but just for reference I am not an administrator so I do not have the ability to delete articles. If I removed some content you added to an article, then I am happy to explain why if you can be more specific as to which article we are discussing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

enough

enough of this non sense, I am not going to participate in any afd. Riisen (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

STOP

stop creating edit conflicts, when I am editing. I told you, I have re created the article, you dont teach me wikipedia, with new sources, new content, new references, and notable filmography. now will you stop reverting my edits in this page again, could you please do that, could you could you please stop reverting my edits on this page. pleaseRiisen (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You can keep editing the page, but you shouldn't remove the AfD tag. I didn't remove any of the content you added; I only re-added the AfD template because it will be removed by an administrator after the AfD discussion is reviewed. Moreover, you need to be careful about telling editors to "stop editing pages". Wikiepdia article's are not owned by their creators and they can be edited by anyone at anytime, which means that edit conflicts are inevitable and natural. My suggestion to you is to explain why you feel each article satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines on the relevant AfD discussion pages. Your comments will be reviewed and they will be taken into account by the admnistrator who closes the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I need your help and intervention, as some one is not allowing me to participate in the Afd discussion. Most importantly, I am the same user Kamalika chanda, and I was blocked due to user name impersonation issues. So, I was forced to use a different name Riisen to comply with wikipedia policies.Riisen (talk) 05:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FYI: Riisen reported for personal attacks Jim1138 (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not personally attack the user March July, I was asking for his help, as some one is not allowing me to participate in the Afd discussion. Most importantly, I am the same user Kamalika chanda, and I was blocked due to user name impersonation issues. So, I was forced to use a different name Riisen to comply with wikipedia policies.

Keep the artcile Kamalika Chanda's work is being mentioned in the following national news papers. http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/regional/film-on-pinki-pramanik-to-spread-positivity/

http://www.hindustantimes.com/regional-movies/controversial-athlete-pinki-pramanik-s-life-now-on-the-big-screen/story-cVnvppfBgLGrkRjSfx0QUL.html

http://www.news18.com/news/movies/bengali-film-on-controversial-athlete-pinki-pramanik-to-shed-positive-light-on-her-life-998513.htmlRiisen (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Riisen: When you are asking another editor for help, then it's probably not a good idea to begin your post with STOP and then post things like stop creating edit conflicts, you don't teach me wikipedia and now will you stop reverting my edits in this page again, could you please do that, could you could you please stop reverting my edits on this page. None of that seems at all like a request for help. Moreover, using all caps text actually seems more like an order than a request for assistance. Since you have admitted here that you are User:Kamalikachanda, you should know that removing AfD templates from articles is something you should not do at all because I previously warned you about it here. You should also know that making personal attacks against other editors like you have been doing to Yintan is not acceptable because you have been blocked for doing so before by administrator Widr. For reference, you did not need to create a new account because you previously one had been soft blocked for impersonation; all you needed to do was follow the instructions left by administrator Orangemike and simply request a new username using Template:Unblock.

It might help you to avoid repeating the same mistakes and thus make it unnecessary for other editors to have to keep reminding you of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, if you slowed down a bit and tried to better understand the posts added to your user talk page. Wikipedia is not intended to be a battleground between editors, and when there are disagreements it is important for editors to try and resolve them through discussion in a civil manner and not by accusing other editors of racial bias, and calling them stupid or scoundrels. If you feel another editor has been acting improperly to you or has violated relevant behavioral guidelines, then the thing to is to request administrator assistance at WP:ANI.

In addition, nobody is preventing you from participating in any discussion, but posting personal attacks on various user talk pages or AfD discussions is not going to be tolerated and such posts will be removed by other editors. Once again, my suggestion to you is to keep your comments focused on content and how relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply, and avoid from making comments about other editors at all. If continue to be uncivil when discussion things, the community is going to ask for an administrator to intervene, which might lead to your account be blocked from editing.

Finally, you've posted that others have been trying to infringe upon your "creative freedom". Wikipedia does not care about your creative freedom, my creative freedom or any editor's creative freedom. If you want creative freedom to write whatever you want, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its article are required to reflect what independent reliable sources say about something, not what we as editors might want it to say. Subjects of Wikipedia articles are required to satisfy its guidelines on notability and the community makes the ultimate decision as to whether a subject is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. So, you need to convince the community that the subjects you want to write about are notable enough for inclusion. It might be a good idea in the future to develop drafts via WP:AFC instead of simply creating new articles in the article namespace. AfC reviewers tend to be very experienced editors and they can provide suggestions on how to bring articles up to Wikipedia's standards, so that they are less likely to be nominated for deletion. There's no 100% guarantee of course, but AfC reviewers only tend to approve drafts whose subjects are notable for inclusion: a lack of notability is the main reason why most articles are deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Well, I can't say you didn't try to explain it to him. I admire your patience. Yintan  09:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand that editing can be frustrating sometimes, but you've got to try to keep assuming good faith as long as possible, even when dealing with another editor who may be less than civil. The other editor will either get what you're saying or they will continue on doing what they are doing until they are eventually blocked, which is what happened in this particular case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your edit on the Cadet College Hasan Abdal article. I fixed the link that had been added but had intended to delete it since, as you say, See Also isn't for external links. I just couldn't find the point in WP stating that it isn't for external links and was starting to believe I might have imagined it! Misha An interested observer of this and that 00:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO begins with "Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles" which by the definition of "internal link" eliminates external links to third-party websites. It may be possible, however, to include such external links in the "External links" section if are not problematic per WP:ELNEVER and WP:ELNO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Undid revision 703804993

Why did you remove my link to a YouTube video of the projection booth of Back To The Future The Ride? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcrown (talk • contribs) 07:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Davidcrown. Please refer to User talk:Davidcrown#Linking to copyrighted material for reference. It is not clear if that YouTube uploader holds the copyright on much of the content they have uploaded to their YouTube channel. When there's any doubt, links are removed as a precaution. If a link was removed in error and it is clear beyond any doubt it is original footage created by the YouTube uploader, then simply re-add the link. If you're not sure you can ask for assistance at WP:MCQ or WP:ELN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Havnar Bóltfelag (Women)

Hi MarchJuly, I have reverted your removal of the logo from this article as you seem to have made a fundamental misunderstanding about the relationship between Havnar Bóltfelag and Havnar Bóltfelag (Women). Havnar Bóltfelag is not an article on the club, but is about the men's team, as is always the case unless the women's team can demonstrate wider coverage than the men's. As such, the women's team is not a child entity of the men's and so your rationale makes no sense. We simply don't do articles on a club as a whole, then a separate article on the main team. This seems to me to be further evidence of the unworkability of WP:NFC#UUI#17. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fenix down. I've already posted something on your user talk, but you seem to have incorrectly assumed the reason why I removed the file from the article. It might have been a good idea for you to check the file's page first before jumping to such a conclusion. If you feel non-free use is justified, please add the appropriate rationale for it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I presumed that this was a UUI issue. I assumed that if this was a missing FUR point that you would have simply duplicated the FUR for the men's team. This is a simple, thing to do and took me five seconds. Frankly, it is not helpful to remove these images on these grounds when there are simple solutions and seems needlessly bureaucratic. If you are unsure whether an additional FUR is appropriate, you should flag with someone else for assessment rather than just removing. There simply is no clear reason why the use of a logo would not be appropriate for the men's team but not the women's. I will look at the other clubs you mentioned as well. Fenix down (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It's simple perhaps if you feel that non-free use is justified, but not really so simple if you do not. Copying rationales for one use to another without much thought is one of the reasons there are problems with non-free use. As for no no clear reason why the use of a logo would not be appropriate for the men's team but not the women's, if you check the NFCR/FFD archives, you will see that similar images have been removed from other club teams by other administrators as a result. Whether that's the case here would be something for FFD to figure out. Anyway, just for reference, I do add rationales when I feel they are justified. I also use {{di-missing article links}} and {{di-missing some article links}} as well. I almost always never remove a file if it will make it an orphan, and I do always leave an edit sum explaining why I removed a file. If anyone feels that I have removed an image in error, they are welcomed to post here just as you did and ask for an explanation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Resnick photos

Hi Marchjuly, I am well aware of what you had written previously regarding uploading g photos. However, I did the best I could to find and use the old photos, my efforts were to no avail. That is why I uploaded another set. And please note the copyright holder sent in the license agreement with each photo so there is no reason these should be taken down now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelphmccarty (talk • contribs) 19:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Michaelphmccarty: An OTRS volunteer will verify the permissions email(s) which were sent in. The verification process may take some time simply because there are only so many volunteer trying to deal with all of the emails. If everything is in order, the OTRS volunteer will change the "OTRS pending" to Template:OTRS received and revise the file's copyright license and information as needed. If the process starts to drag on, then you can ask for assistance at c:COM:OTRSN or WP:OTRSN. The person who sent in the email should have received a reply which contained an OTRS ticket number. All you need to do is add that number to any request you make at the OTRS noticeboards; this will make it easier for the emails to be found in the system. If by chance the file is deleted before it has been verified, do not re-upload it. Deleted files can be easily restored by an administrator once OTRS has verified the relevant email. There is really only the need for one version of the file, so most likely the one uploaded to Commons is the one that will be kept after OTRS verification. Files uploaded to Commons can be easily used by any of the various language Wikipedias, whereas files uploaded locally to English Wikipedia tend to only be for articles in English Wikipedia. So, if you are planning to upload any additional photos/files with OTRS permission or under another free license compatible with Commons licensing policy, please upload them directly to Commons.

As for you images in articles, copyright licensing is only one part of the process. There is no guarantee that the files you add will not be removed by another editor who feels they are not needed. Like text, images have to be contextually and encyclopedically relevant to the subject of the article. If by chance another editor removes these files, don't automatically assume that it was some kind of vandalism. Check the article's edit history or talk page for an explanation and then try and address the other editors concern through discussion. Sometimes it may be necessary to establish a consensus for the use of a particular image on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)