This is an archive of past discussions with User:Majora. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello Majora, hope you are doing good. I remember you were one of the users who submitted customized Wikipedia logo(s) denoting Wikipedia's 5 millionth article, so I thought you could help. As you are aware, extendedconfirmed user rights are in place. And I thought it might be a good idea to have topicons and userboxes for the rights. Since you can design logos, if you can, can you please design a logo for extendedconfirmed similar to the autoconfirmed one, but with a blue (or whatever the color of the lock of Arbitration 30/500 protection is) tick, so that it can be used in {{Extendedconfirmed topicon}} and {{User wikipedia/Extendedconfirmed}}? You can also do what feels more right/good to you! Feel absolutely free to decline the offer, rest assured I won't be offended Thanks anyways. Regards—UY ScutiTalk10:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
"@UY Scuti: I'm okay with that. The problem is that there is already an image with a blue check mark for confirmed (not autoconfirmed) users: File:Wikipedia_Confirmed.svg. The check-mark will have to be red, yellow, orange, pink, or something like that. (Or, you could just stick with what I added.) Peter SamFan15:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Peter SamFan: Ah, thanks for the heads up. My opinion is to have a logo similar to the ones on other confirmed user logos, i.e. one large tick mark. I'm okay with any color (but note, orange is taken for autoconfirmed and green for autopatrolled). I'll leave the color choice with Majora, if he chooses to do this. Regards—UY ScutiTalk15:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@UY Scuti and Peter SamFan: Just letting you both know that I have seen this. I would be happy to throw something together, both a top icon and a userbox, using the blue padlock/colored check. I can do it both ways to see which one you like better although I am thinking the topicon should be the check and not have the padlock in there since it can be confused as the page being under 30/500 instead of being able to edit 30/500 pages. The userbox is a different story. --Majora (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@UY Scuti and Peter SamFan: So, I changed my mind about the padlock on the image. Primarily because there was one that was an unlocked blue padlock. Quickly putting the two images together results in http://imgur.com/u1Wqsxr. Thoughts? (Peter SamFan, please let me know if you want me to stop pinging you) --Majora (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@UY Scuti and Peter SamFan: Unfortunatley, the end result did not turn out extactly as I had hoped. The top icon is too small to really show the padlock very well and for whatever reason the icon has a white background in the userbox (see below). That was probably caused by an issue during the SVG creation since I converted it from the original PNG format since I don't have the program to directly work with SVGs. Going to try something else and see if I can make it better. --Majora (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The image looks good except for the white background. Is it not possible to design one with plain background? And for the topicon, I think we should go with the check mark, since it spans across the entire Wikipedia logo and will be more clear for a topicon, or you have a better plan? Regards—UY ScutiTalk20:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@UY Scuti: My problem is that I am using an online converter to change the file from a PNG to a SVG since that is the preferred format for images like this. The issue with that is that I can't seem to find one that will keep the transparent background. There are a few that will do it if you pay them but I would like to avoid that. Still looking. Worst case, I'll just upload it as the PNG and put a "please convert to SVG" template on it. --Majora (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Nevermind, I found one. All set for the userbox. Just have to update the template and that on is good to go. I'll work on the top icon after dinner. --Majora (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to have put you in this miserable situation, if something goes wrong with the one you have now, see if this works. Regards—UY ScutiTalk21:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I made new adjustments to the Fifth Harmony images that were notified for seeming to fail Wikipedia's first non-free content criterion. Is everything in the description correct or should I make further adjustments?
@Raul1798: Hi Raul1798, unfortunately it is not about the description. The first non-free content criterion states Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. What this means is that fair-use, copyrighted, images can only be used if it is unreasonable that a free use, creative commons or public domain, image cannot be made or is not already available. Since we already have free use images on that page, no fair-use image can be used. Even if a free use image was not already available, since the band is still together and still touring it is reasonable that a free use image could be created and therefore fair-use would not apply. I understand that you want to show a specific event but unfortunately that is not how copyright law, and the policies of Wikipedia, works. Sometimes we just have to work with what we have available to us. If you have any further questions please feel free to ask me and I will be happy to try to sort them out. --Majora (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:The Hot Sardines Jazz Band close up.jpg
Majora, thank you for the heads up.
RE: Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license.
The manager of the band The Hot Sardines informs me that the band owns the photo uploaded to File:The Hot Sardines Jazz Band close up.jpg. They twice sent emails to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to permit reuse under the CC-BY-SA license. They got no response. They emailed me asking what to do. I then forwarded their original email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 6:15 PM with the heading Wikipedia photos for submission. I also got no response. I do not know what else I should do.--Toploftical (talk)
@Toploftical: Ok, lets see if we can work this out. Right now File:The Hot Sardines Jazz Band close up.jpg has a "this image is under copyright" license. Is that not what you intended to do? Did the permission form that was sent explicitly say CC-BY-SA? Also, what version of CC-BY-SA did it say? There are a few of them. 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, and 4.0. If it just said CC-BY-SA, that defaults to the 1.0 license. The licensing needs to be figured out first.
Then, did you email the permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? That matters as the two sites are not actually the same thing and the different email queues go to different people. If you emailed it to commons please let me know and once all the licensing issues are ironed out I can move it over there. As for the long wait, I do apologize for that. We are trying to work our way though our email backlog and the volunteers that process those things are working as fast as they can. Did you receive a ticket number yet from your original email?
Once everything is all set I can tag the image with a "permission pending" label so that administrators don't delete the file. --Majora (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
@Majora: The license requested was explicitly CC-BY-SA 3.0.
I used "this image is under copyright" license because I thought that the image was copyrighted by the Hot Sardines. What license should I use?
We sent our requests for permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org NOT to permission-en. I did not know about the english -en suffix. See my email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 6:15 PM for the content. IAC I never received a ticket number of any other sort of response.
Another problem is the the business manager does not seem to understand what a URL is. The two photos that we would like to use are in a dropbox location which can be accessed from the Hot Sardines website at http://hotsardines.com/about/ (we only want the first and third photos on that page). BTW, I made a low-res image of the first photo and uploaded that. I needed it for the Hot Sardines infobox. Was that a good strategy?
Thank you so much for looking into this. If this involves too much time and the licensing issues cannot be sorted out, so be it.--Toploftical (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
@Toploftical: A CC-BY-SA 3.0 license is a release from copyright. It is considered a free license. So while there does have to be some attribution, the license means that it can be used or modified by anyone at any time for any purpose. Is the business manager aware of this? Also, is the business manager LeAnn Mueller? Since according to that site, the copyright is owned by Mueller and Decca Records so only Mueller or a legal representative of Decca can legally release it for our use. The low-res image is fine, although once released under a CC license you can use whatever resolution you want. Once worked out it really doesn't take that much time and I am happy to do it as Wikipedia articles look so much better when we have images to go along with them. Copyright is just a complex subject so specific things have to be done to make sure everyone is covered.
What form did you fill out and send in? Was it the one listed here: c:Commons:Email templates#Declaration of consent for all inquiries? I actually don't have the proper rights to view the email queue as that system is limited to a specific subset of volunteers. Would you mind forwarding the email to me and I can ensure that it is valid? If it is I can forward it again to the proper queue and place all the necessary notices on the image until the people who have the proper rights gets to the email. I can be reached at majorawpoutlook.com. Please note that if you don't want to do this that is fine. However, I would recommend sending the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org with the above form if that is not the one that was already filled out. Please make sure you include links to the uploads that are already hosted here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Hot_Sardines_Jazz_Band_close_up.jpg). Let me know what you decide to do. --Majora (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
@Toploftical: I have received your email and everything looks to be in order. The OTRS agent that gets assigned to it may need to contact the business manager just to double check but I have went ahead and tagged the images with the proper notices. You should be good to go and I can act as an intermediary if anything comes up. And to answer you other question, yes, I do enjoy Forensic Files as it is one of the only shows that actually shows real forensics instead of the fake, made-for-tv stuff you see on a lot of police dramas. --Majora (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:ROBIN AT 3 BARNSsmall cropped.jpg
Hi Majora,
Thanks for your message as I was a little unclear how to complete this permissions process. Also I trust this reaches you..I'm finding my way with Wiki communications! I have now contacted Lillian Delevoryas and asked her to formalise her permission by sending an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating her ownership of the photograph and her wish to publish it under a free license. Once I receive her confirmation I will add a {{OTRS pending}}. If there is anything further I need to do please let me know. Best wishes Awenparadigm (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Awenparadigm: Yep that is the template you would add to the page to notify patrolling administrators that permission has been sent. Please let Lillian know that we have a specific form that has to be filled out to completely verify that the image is licensed under something we can use and the person releasing the image knows exactly what they are doing. The form can be found here: WP:CONSENT. Please let me know if you have any further questions and I will be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora, Many thanks for this. Lillian has now sent the permissions letter you referenced to Wiki and she received a confirmation of receipt of email [Ticket#: 2016041110016103]. As a result I have now posted ORTS pending notice. Will the process complete automatically or shall get back in touch with you when Lillian lets me know she has received a reply? Thanks for your time. Awenparadigm (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Awenparadigm: It is not automatic but you do not have to do anything else. When an OTRS agent gets to the permission form they will verify and complete the process. You are all set. If you have any further questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
New article question
Hi Majora
I would like to make a new page for a film I am working on but would like to download the template to fit my information in. Not having much luck with that! Please help. Thanks so much, Peggy April 13, 2016 Mickey501959 (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mickey501959: It looks like you tried to start the article here: Draft:Radio Silence. There really isn't a template for an entire page. There is something called an infobox which is a quick summary that sits at the top right of an article but that does not fill in the rest of the information for you. Has the film received media attention yet? Wikipedia requires that all articles be summaries of published, independent, third-party sources. These sources must also be what we call reliable which basically means they have editorial oversight and a history of fact checking. Major news companies and reputable magazines are what we are looking for. Without these sources there can not be an article. We do have a tutorial that can walk you through how to edit (Wikipedia markup is a little archaic and can take some time to get used to). Please let me know what exactly you are looking for and I can try to point you in the right direction. --Majora (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@HipHopRijeka: Unfortunately, no. That is not exactly what we are looking for. There has to be a fair use rationale that covers all ten parts of WP:NFCCP. We have a template that you can fill out and use that covers it all. You would just need to fill it out and put the code on the image page. The template can be found here: {{Non-free use rationale 2}}. Please let me know if you have further questions and I will be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Citation Barnstar
Thank you very much for correcting the error. You contribute to the task of making better the lemma and perfect the Wikipedia effort. (Aris de Methymna) 23:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Fair use questions
Hi Majora,
Thanks so much for getting back to me so soon with your helpful information. Let me ask you another question. What about a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivative Works license where the artist allows the photo to be shared? (either a photo of their paintings or a photo portrait of the artist by a professional photographer)
Here is the original exchange between us
Hi Folks,
I have an artist who gives her permission to upload photos of her paintings to an article about her. (Sol Kjok) What does this entail? I know you either have to have them put a Creative Commons license on the work, but what if they want it to remain in the non-free category but are giving Wikipedia sole permission to reproduce it. How do I provide evidence of this to the Wikipedia editors? I don't understand how I prove fair use. Every time I have tried to upload the photos, they get rejected.
Extremely confused.
Many thanks
TWB1934 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@Twb1934: Sole permission is not really how we do things here. They can either be under fair use if they meet all of the criteria at WP:NFCCP or they have to be free use (public domain, creative commons, ect.). In this instance fair use would not apply since you want to use them on the article about the artist. It would apply on an article about the painting. There is a slight difference there but it is a difference that matters. So if you want to use the paintings on the article about the artist they must be under free use. What that means is that the image is open to used or modified by anyone for any purpose. To get permission for this please have the artist fill out the form here: WP:CONSENT and email it into the permissions email detailed on the CONSENT page. If you have further questions about this please let me know. --Majora (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 (talk • contribs)
@Twb1934: Unfortunately, as mentioned at the help desk, that would not be free use if commercial use was not also included in that. Remember, a free use release means that the image can be used by anyone, at any time, for any reason. If the artist wants to release only one of their paintings for this purpose that would be fantastic but it cannot be used as fair use on the article about the person. See below for next part of this response. --Majora (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
another question about copyrighted images for artists
Hi Majora,
I just wanted to add a question on using paintings for pages about the artist. From what I understand, you said that the image of the painting must be free use if it is to be used in the article about the artist. (not an article specifically about the painting)
Is there a reason why the articles for the artists below have paintings under fair use? I am confused because this seems to contradict what you said.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have started to go through the images on those pages and I have already removed a few of them from pages they were not supposed to be on. I am working my way though the rest of them. The main concern here is the contextual significance of the image. This means that the image must significantly increase the readers' understand of the article's topic. While this criterion can be rather subjective there is one point of clarity. The article's topic. An image of a painting would have contextual significance on an article whose topic is the painting. But it would not really have that same significance on an article whose topic was the painter. Unless of course it was an self-portrait since that would be an image of the person. It is all about context. I'm going through those pages you mentioned above and will be removing the ones that are blatant violations and starting discussions for community input on the ones that are not. --Majora (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help again Majora. Another question, if I uploaded a photo portrait of the artist by a photographer, could I put it up under fair use since the article is about the artist. I have permission from the photographer but I don't think they created a CC license for that photo yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Twb1934: It is probably going to seem like I am just leading you in circles but unfortunately that would also not meet our fair use criteria since the person is still alive. That would fail WP:NFCCP #1. What #1 means, is that a free use image could reasonably be created or found. Since the person is still alive and there is no mitigating circumstances it is reasonable that a free use image can be made or found. So fair use would not apply. The thing with fair use is that it has to meet all 10 of the criteria in order to be acceptable. Miss just one and it can't be used. I know it must be frustrating and it seems like I am making you jump through hoops but sometimes we just have to work with what we have. If you can get the photographer to release it under a free license that would be fantastic and it would be greatly appreciated. --Majora (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering why you reverted the article about the campaign back into a redirect? Are you referring to the article Battle of Ia Drang? I think the reasoning of the IP editor who forked the Pleiku Campaign page was that it makes more sense to have a main article about a campaign and then link to the battle that was part of the campaign rather than talk about the entirety of the wider campaign within the article about the battle. That seems to make sense to me, unless there's something I missed? Intelligentsium21:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@Intelligentsium: Going back over it I may have been too hasty. I misread it and thought it was the other way around (content fork for battle from campaign). Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have reverted myself on the redirect. Pinging Tnguyen4321 to try to keep involved parties up to date. Sorry for the revert. --Majora (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I am Tnguyen4321 (talk·contribs·logs), I comment as following to (talk): "I am an expert on this, since I have written 50+ articles about the subject (see http://www.generalhieu.com/pleime-2.htm) and since I am mainly responsible for expanding the page Battle of Ia Drang - as instructed when I submitted the article Pleime Campaign and had it struck down and redirected to Battle of Ia Drang. It is about to almost becoming the Pleime Campaign which comprises three battles Pleime-Chupong-Iadrang. The Battle of Iadrang is actually the Battle of Chupong (LZ X-Ray is located at the eastern foot of the Chu Pong Massif, not in the Ia Drang Valley as generally thought). My suggestion is to rename Battle of Ia Drang,Pleime Campaign and have Battle of Ia Drang redirected to Pleime Campaign. I also suggest to redirect Pleiku Campaign to Pleime Campaign, since the same campaign is named Pleime Campaign by Vĩnh Lộc and Pleiku Campaign by Kinnard.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora, I have made changes to the ProWorkflow article as discussed in chat. please review again and let me know if there are any further changes required? Thank you, Rattan Rattan1912 (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Rattan1912: Much better but you still some things that are unsourced. In the "API and Data Security" section the entire second paragraph does not have a source. The "History" section seems a little promotional. Phrases like the idea and realizing that it could also benefit other businesses is a little too close to advertising for my tastes. A good rule of thumb is to stick with dry, simple, facts that can be referenced back to a reliable source. No additional "buzzwords." You can also submit your article for an official review by clicking on the blue button at the top. That will place the article into the reviewing queue and you can continue to work on it while the reviewers are working their way towards it. --Majora (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
If Furious Slaughter 1972 is published with the same amount of info I do not agree with the reviewer's reason for declining the submission of Ma Su Chen which is a sequel to the aforementioned movie. If I am a fan of Jimmy Wang Yu and saw his film Furious Slaughter, I would definitely want to watch Ma Su Chen and find movie information for it. Presently, there is none. Therefore, I took the initiative and trouble to do it. This should be reason enough for it to be published without any prejudice or bias of individual(s).
I'm sorry but the article did not show that the movie met our criteria for inclusion. As to the other article, it is never a good idea to compare your article to another one as there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that do not meet our standards. Now that you have mentioned it I will take a look at Furious Slaughter and if it does not meet our standards I can nominate it for deletion. If you have any further questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora - I just wanted to say thanks for reviewing the first draft of page Robert Curtis (actor), it was much appreciated. I didn't expect it to get approved without references and have been busy sourcing these and trying to make sure they meet the criteria. I mainly submitted to see if there were any formatting errors/flags as it's my first full wiki page and I've been getting to grip with the code.
I'm hoping to resubmit again this week with all references in place but thank you again for reviewing so quickly when I know there is a large backlog of pages awaiting review.
Hi Majora,
Thank you for reviewing the Melissa Del Pinto artist page.
I put in the inline citations and footnotes as you requested. I also added 3 pictures and sent in the required templates covering the copyright release.
Thank you,
Best Regards,
Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Cianciullo (talk • contribs) 03:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
question on submission
Hello Majora,
This is my first time trying to add to Wikipedia. Wikipedia had a list of Kentucky Newspapers but it did not have the Gallatin County News. Apparently I was successful adding that to the list. My next attempt was to provide info when users clicked on the Gallatin Co. News link in the newspapers list. That was not successful. The article was basically a compressed version of the "history" page on the Gallatin County News' own webpages.
Here is my question: how do I go about the submission if I want to create a link from the list of newspapers to the Gallatin County News website?
thanks,
Joyce 207 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbhowell207 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jbhowell207: Ah. I was not aware that it was a "compressed version." That is a major problem. According to copyright violation detection tools it is 78.4% similar to [1]. That is too close and constitutes close paraphrasing. A copyright violation. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot allow pages like this to exist due to copyright law and I have marked the page for deletion. You can start over with a clean slate but please, rewrite everything in your own words.
As for meeting our criteria for inclusion, all Wikipedia articles must show that the topic has been the source of in depth commentary in independent, third-party, reliable sources. This may be difficult for a local newspaper to accomplish. Has the paper been discussed in other news sources? Mentioned anywhere else? Talked about by something other than the paper itself? That is what we are looking for. If you have any questions on this please feel free to let me know and I will try to assist you in any way I can. --Majora (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Majora. I understand completely your repsonse on both the notability and copyright issues. I will write a short descriptor with basic information, similar to what I find when I click the links to the other newpapers in the KY newspapers list, and do some searching for references to the Gallatin Co. News among press associations and the like.Jbhowell207 (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Jbhowell207
Dear Majora, Thank you for reviewing my submission for Italian Artist Walter Noetico, which is greatly appreciated. Sadly, Assistant Ringbang had declined it again, after I have actually made numerous corrections and additions to the citation materials and external links. I am sorry, but I think that you have made a mistake in declining the page for this Artist.
I have cross-checked the Rules of “Verifiability” of sources, and considering the requirements of the Wikipedia for the content to qualify as an “encyclopaedic” one, I think that there is a big error, not to consider Walter Noetico as “encyclopaedic” Artist. This is because with the quantity of sources (citations) which Walter Noetico already has, his profile already greatly exceeds the minimum requirements asked by Wikipedia rule.
For example: in the “Context Matters” section, it says that the sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. And I have prepared the “External links” where every single paragraph finds its supporting source (i.e. exhibition catalogues, TV broadcasting of RAI2 and France 3 Tèlèvisions).
The Section “Definition of a source” has also been adhered to largely widely satisfied, for example including in the case of the book which he wrote, the Publishing House also is cited as source and external links provided in support.
Furthermore, for an Artist is determinant (very important) for his encyclopaedic importance, a support of Art Critic, and Walter Noetico has had the support of the three greatest Art Critics on a international level, such as: Alexandre Cirici (the President of the International Art Critics Association 1978-1981), Gillo Dorfles (the friend of Cirici and important International Art Critic), Raffaele de Grada who has also been a Commissioner of the Venice Biennial, and also it was Raffaele de Grade who invited Walter Noetico to the Venice Biennial, and also it was the same Art Critic who had presented the Neoilluminist Movement of Noetico in 1989 Exhibition Catalogue).
The sources are abundant and of enviable quality, considering that the summit of Noetico’s artistic career was hit about 30 years ago, when there was no internet support for information, and the sources in my possession are enviably of good quality, and are on paper material also (exhibition art catalogues, articles etc). In addition, if I may also add please, Walter Noetico who is a rare Artist, as he is an Innovator of Art, whose art innovations had been backed by the best Art Critics of that time, and who merits to be open to the World. If Walter Noetico is not "encyclopaedic" - then none of the Artists are.
I noticed a very beautiful citation on Ringbang's page, dear Majora, by Ian Maclaren, saying: “Be pitiful, for every man is fighting a hard battle.” – and perhaps you will find in your heart to kindly review my submission again please, and assist positively and justly.
If you do require the original hard paper material documentation in support, I am at your complete disposal to provide it.
I have left you a comment on your draft with details on what exactly we are looking for. Please read it and let me know if you have questions. --Majora (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Majora. I truly appreciate your valuable advice and shall look at what I can do to make it better and in accordance with the rules. All the best, Richard Morris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard F Morris (talk • contribs) 00:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I am quite thankful to you reviewing my submissions and guiding me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargkk (talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I am Dr Kewal Krishan (forensic anthropologist) based at Panjab University, India. This discussion is about the about Notable forensic anthropologists in the "Forensic anthropology article". I have seen the talk page and read your comments "two things written by the person (not independent) and a website where anyone can write anything (not reliable) are still not good enough". I understand Sir, kindly guide me which website/paper can I cite here?
1. I have contributed 131 articles to the literature and more than 100 articles belong to major contributions to the field of forensic anthropology in India. Through these articles, I have contributed to the forensic anthropological knowledge of the Indian populations.
I have contributed five chapters to the Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences 2013 and Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine second edition, 2016. Kindly guide me, how can I cite here. As you pointed out that an independent source is to cited, Can I mention my Researchgate profile, Google scholar profile, Scopus profile, OR Pubmed search link to my articles...Can I give the link of FRAI directory of Royal anthropological Institute..
I understand, I cannot cite my CV or my profile at Panjab University website etc..
If you want I can send you my latest CV..
@Gargkk: Content on Wikipedia should be sourced to independent sources that have editorial oversight and a history of fact checking. To be blunt, what you have published and what has been said about you on a blog mean absolutely nothing to us. We need to see that you have been talked about by people who have nothing to do with you. Has the Times of India talked about you? Have they called you a notable forensic anthropologist? Things like that is what we are looking for. I don't need your CV, I really don't care all that much since that is not what Wikipedia is for. All of your profiles on various research websites mean nothing. We need someone independent to make that determination. I looked at your standalone article to see if I could find something and almost every reference is to something you wrote. That really isn't helping at all. Independent sources. Remember that. Discussion by people who have nothing to do with you is what we are looking for. --Majora (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Where the Hindustan Times clearly points out that "Dr Krishan is a renowned forensic anthropologist who has published more than 100 papers in reputed journals of forensic sciences and anthropology. He is on the editorial panel of 40 journals of repute and on the reviewer panel of 50 journals. He has recently contributed invited chapters to the most coveted Encyclopaedia of Forensic Sciences published by Elsevier, USA."
and The Tribune says"Dr Krishan got this award in recognition of his contribution to the advancement of scientific methods in forensic anthropology. This scientific advancement is reflected in his 113 publications in reputed journals and encyclopedia."
Dear Sir, Can I cite these two independent references?? Kindly guide — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargkk (talk • contribs) 17:25, June 18, 2016 (UTC)
I have readded the line on forensic anthropology using the hindustantimes article as a reference. Things like that is what we are looking for. Thank you for finding it. As a side note, when talking on talk pages like this please remember to sign your posts. This can be done with four tildas like this: ~~~~. --Majora (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Inconsistency in applying the notability & verifiable condition
Can you explain why articles on these four movies - "Intimate Confessions of a Chinese Courtesan (1972)", "Furious Slaughter (1972)", "Fist of Fury (1991)", "The Behaeded 1000", and "Insomnia Lover (2016)" - can be accepted to be published in Wikipedia? These articles have more or less the same source references as "Ma Su Chen (1972)". "Furious Slaughter (1972)" originally has fewer information and no source reference.
Links:-
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_Confessions_of_a_Chinese_Courtesan
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furious_Slaughter
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fist_of_Fury_1991
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beheaded_1000
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insomnia_Lover
I doubt you can explain because I believe you have some kind of discriminatory hang-up. A very unprofessional attitude to have for a reviewer. The "templates" that you idiots see now in "Intimate Confessions of a Chinese Courtesan", "Fist of Fury 1991", and "Insomnia Lover" are not there originally until I query your idiot colleague on why these movies' articles were published when they also fall short of the notability and verifiable condition. That idiot shit instead of answering the query just post those templates.
Thank you very much for all your precious guidance and assistance, without which I could not have managed to complete this task. In accordance with your instructions, I have now included (inasmuch as I could) all the necessary sources/inline citations in the Walter Noetico page, so that the page appears suitable for encyclopaedic publication. I hope to have done my work in a way that you find to your appreciation.
It is necessary to also kindly bear in mind, however, that Maestro Noetico had his greatest artistic activity when the internet did not exist, and thus, did not exist the computerized archives of all the newspapers, magazines, galleries, museums and all forms of information that today can be found on the Internet.
Fortunately, the Maestro Noetico had in his archives - spanning over 30 years - a very rich bibliographic and photographic material, to make him considered as one of the most important contemporary artists.
In addition, Maestro Noetico has had the support of the most important international art critics, when the art critics was the main tool that delivered to history the Artists, and this renders him, undoubtedly, encyclopaedically “with merit”, i.e. that he deserves to be in an Encyclopaedia, Wikipedia as a reference to a Post-Modern Artist, coherent with the Utopia of the New Enlightenment.
Also, we must consider that the art of Walter Noetico is inspired by the aesthetic essays of the great French philosopher Denis Diderot, who was the paramount creator of the modern encyclopedia, and perhaps without Diderot, even the Wikipedia may not have existed today.
I am most obliged to both of you, for your kind attention and time, and remain with infinite thanks for your indispensable support.
If the page meets your joint approval, could kindly advise me as to the best way to proceed with the publication of this page, I would be most grateful.
I remain at your complete disposal for any other clarification if needed. Richard Morris
--Richard F Morris (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi Majora. I am Mselmast, and last night in Live Chat, you solved an editing problem for me, and I want to thank you. A person at Live Chat directed me to your Talk Page.
I recently created the Right is Right in America Wikipedia page as part of an assignment for my class. There was a reference to Amnesty International that was flagged. If you can lift that flag, I would appreciate it. I have deleted the reference to Amnesty International.
@CurtDCollins2017: It was not flagged because of a reference. It was flagged because you copied and pasted almost the entire thing from a PDF from Amnesty International. You just can't take someone else's work and attempt to pass it off as your own. That is copyright infringement. See WP:COPYVIO for more information. It does not matter that it was for class. In fact, it kinda makes it a little worse. Please don't take other people's work. --Majora (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
05:44:20, 4 June 2016 review of submission by Collins149
Added two more objective sources and expanded on his contribution to the expansion of Portland Airport (went from 7 million to 14 million passengers during his tenure there). I have not found web-based citations for his award from the Emperor. -Paul Collins -- collinsfamily@yahoo.com
Thank you for your information. I am really quite new to this, and do not yet have a command of the "rules". I suppose I am in an edit war, which I really did not mean to start or have. I will use the article's talk page -- thank you so much for pointing that out to me. HerdMusic209 (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm inviting frequent Wikipedia helpers to meet with me this Friday to discuss the script outline for my video project. Would you like to join the meeting? It will be at 4 PM Eastern time on IRC. --Pine✉20:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
@TexasMan34: Well to start with the Arbitration Committee (the people who have the final say in user conduct disputes) have authorized admins to use discretionary sanctions on that article. They have also authorized something called WP:1RR which means that you are only allowed to revert once per day on that article (except for a very few defined exceptions such as blatant vandalism). You blew so far past that that you really need to be aware of what you are doing. If you do not abide by the expected behavioral guidelines of editing Wikipedia your editing privileges will be revoked. This is a collaborative encyclopedia. You are expected to discuss with others and to not unilaterally attempt to change things. --Majora (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining me :@Majora: I appreciate it, it wasn't my intention to misconduct or be rude, the only thing with the photo is that in the talk page, everyone seem to agree that the current photo is better than the older one, I will get more involved on working with other people, but, can we get a vote on which picture should we use, so we can prevent all those problems. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasMan34 (talk • contribs) 01:39, August 2, 2016 (UTC)
Generally if someone reverts you it is always better to just take it to the talk page. Reverting back and forth solves nothing. It is easy to just hit undo. It it hard to actually open a dialog and talk things out. We even have a nice three letter acronym for that. WP:BRD. Be bold, revert, discuss. --Majora (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Not surprised that there was a rule against it that I had overlooked, but I disagree with your public comment that it is 'really unnecessary'.Zootsuit7 (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
RfA vote
Hey Majora,
For what it's worth I think your vote there makes a lot of sense. Apologies for any abrasiveness on IRC; I got some time for wikistuff for the first time in a while and it was... underwhelming, to say the least.
Hello, I saw you are pursuing the RFC regarding deleting images and OTRS permissions. I have what is probably an unrelated question, but I hope you can help.
I came across File:Vishal Vashishtha for See N Pic.jpg, which as far as I can tell was uploaded from twitter in May and an email has been sent to OTRS. Am I correct in understanding this happened more than three months ago but hasn't been resolved yet? Does that mean it is now eligible for deletion tagging? Apologies for what might be a basic question. I have little experience dealing with images so far. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Athomeinkobe: That image is tagged {{OTRS pending}}. Which means that the email was supposedly sent but has not been reviewed by an OTRS agent. The expiry that is in question in the RfC is for {{OTRS received}}. What that means is that the original email has been reviewed by an agent but the permissions was not deemed sufficient. At that time the agent tries to resolve the issues with the permissions with the emailer. Generally, the issues are resolved quickly. Other times the inquires by the agent are just not responded to. If after 30 days it is still not resolved it is eligible for deletion under F11. --Majora (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response Majora. I see that {{OTRS pending}} says there is currently an 87-day backlog. So assuming that the email has been sent, it must be close to the top of the list for being dealt with. If nothing happens in the next month, would it be correct to assume that an email was in fact not sent? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Athomeinkobe: OTRS tickets are not reviewed in the order they are sent. Much like everything on Wikipedia, agents skip around and tackle the tickets they want to. So that backlog number is a little bit misleading. It is more of a guideline than anything concrete. There is no automatic tagging when a OTRS pending tag becomes older then the backlog. Everything is still reviewed by an agent (at least it should be). Our ticket backlog right now is rather high but we are working on it. Once we get it down to a more manageable level we will be going through all the remaining OTRS pending tags and seeing what happened to the email (if it was ever sent at all). Sometimes the agent forgets to change the tag over to {{OTRS received}} as well. So there is that. I can run a search for it to see if I can find something. --Majora (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you once again for your explanation. I don't want to create work for you. As long as it will be done eventually, there is no hurry. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Athomeinkobe: It wasn't a problem. I did find an email regarding the image but unfortunately it did not contain valid permissions. I have marked the image as {{OTRS received}}. If the issue is not resolved the image will be deleted. --Majora (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@J. Johnson: I always preferred LDR over any other style because it keeps the code of the text clutter free and it makes editing long lists of references much easier. If you are going through references and repairing dead links you don't have to hunt down where each one is in the code. They are all right at the bottom (nicely organized hopefully). Also, since all the references are already named it makes it really easy to reuse them in multiple places as well. I've never really used Harvard referencing style so I had to look up what it is to really answer your question. WP:HARVARD shows that it is parenthetical referencing. I just don't see that as advantageous. Why have parenthetical references when you can just have a footnote popup ([1], [2], ect.) that leads you directly to the reference you want? Harvard style adds extra fluff to the text that I just don't see as necessary and frankly, a little distracting. Instead of, "Text to cite.[1]" you are stuck with "Text to cite (Smith 2016)." All that extra text in an article with a lot of references can get very distracting. Also if there are a lot of similar references, like multiple articles with the author but different material, you would have to distinguish that somehow in the parenthetical references. Take the examples at {{Harv}}. One of them renders as (Smith, Jones & Brown 2005, p. 25) which would be inline at the end of a sentence. I just don't see that as better than [1]. --Majora (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I thank you for your thoughtful comments. In my mind the merits of "Harv" seem so obvious that I am amazed others think, well, otherwise. So I would be very appreciative if you would explore this a bit with me.
I find it curious that the points you state in favor of LDR are pretty much the same points by which I favor Harv. That is, getting the full citations out of article text and into their own area. However, strictly speaking this is not really a characteristic or requirement of either, it is only something which is possible with either approach.
At the point our views seem to diverge I detect a misunderstanding. When I asked for your views on "Harv" I should have marked it as {{Harv}} to indicate I was referring to the use of the template. "Parenthetical referencing" (a.ka. "Harvard referencing", what WP:HARVARD links to) is something else. The latter is one form of parenthetical referencing, which puts various forms of shortened citation in parentheses in the text (instead of in footnotes). In its extreme form one might see things like "(JONES 84)", which I grant is pretty ugly.
What you may not have realized is that, first, parentheses are optional in the {{Harv}} templates (e.g., see {{Harvnb}}). Second, they can go into notes such as are created with <ref>...</ref> tags. Thus one can still have something like "Text.[1]", where hovering over the link would show the short cite to the full citation (except on Talk pages, where the hovering feature doesn't work).
With the understanding that the {{Harv}} family of templates (and particularly {{Harvnb}}) are not necessarily "parenthetical", would you feel more favorable to the use of {{Harv}} templates? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@J. Johnson: So I have been thinking about the proper way to respond for a day now and I guess I don't really know the difference between the different citation styles beyond CS1, which puts the cite templates in the body of the text, and LDR, which puts them at the bottom. The Wiki help pages don't really help much either which is a shame. When I typed in WP:HARVARD what came up was parenthetical referencing. Even the {{Harvard citation}} template says that it is a "form of short citations using parenthetical references). If that is not what Harvard style is, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I see that {{Harvnb}} does kind of the same things at say {{cite web}}. What is the actual difference between those two things? To me, what it boils down to is citations in the text versus citations at the bottom of the text. Citations templates in the text along with the actual prose of the article makes it much harder to work around. That is why I always preferred LDR. --Majora (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Please, no apologies necessary! There is indeed much confusion on this topic, but that is hardly your fault. (Slightly my fault for not specifying template, but that seems fortuitous.) And I am quite grateful that you are helping me figure out how to deal with this confusion. I'm out of time now, but I'll try to get you good explanation tomorrow. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
My apologies for the delay. And the length, but it is a big, deep topic.
Much of the confusion with the practice of citation at Wikipedia arises from confusion of terms and concepts. So right from the start we need to define some terms. A full citation contains the bibliographic details (such author, title, date, etc.) of a source that describe it, and aid in identifying and locating it in the scope of the whole world. A short citation, or short cite, contains just enough information to identify the source (or the full citation of the source) in the scope of a given article. (It may have additional details such as the location within the source where the material is to be found.) Most commonly a short cite uses only the last name of the author (or authors) and the date of the source; "author-date" refers to certain methods of citation that use this kind of short cite.
To start answering your questions: Citation Style 1 (cs1) and Citation Style 2 (cs2) refer to certain styles of how the full citation is formatted. They have nothing to do with where the full citations are located.
Cs1 and cs2 are also associated with the two main kinds of templates used to generate full citations: the {{cite xxx}} family of templates (including {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc.), and the general purpose {{citation}} template. And again, these do not imply any location.
Something very important to note: the {{harv}} family of templates do not generate full citations. They generate short cites that link to the proper full citation. And here there is an implication of location. Short cites generally cite specific material, and so must be "in-line" with the material. If short cites (whether implemented with {Harv} templates or not) are used in the text itself, and inside parentheses, we have "parenthetical referencing". However, short cites do not require parentheses. And they can be put into notes, substituting for the full citations commonly found there. Short cites also imply that the full citation is somewhere else. It is usually most optimal that the full citations be collected together in their own section, but that is not actually required.
Here we must note that the <ref>...</ref> tags that often contain citation templates are not part of the citation. They generate a note (footnote), which may contain a full citation. Or a short citation, or other material.
You have seen named refs (the "<ref name=..." form), that provide multiple links to a single note. These were created to solve the problem of how to "reuse" a citation when a source is cited more than once (actual duplication of the full citation being deemed undesirable). However, they don't "reuse" the citation, they reuse the note. And they don't admit of page numbers or comments specific to individual cites, and citation of multiple sources at a given point generally results in a string of bracketed links.
Short cites (as implemented with {Harv} templates) have these advantages: only one note is needed at any point, which can contain multiple short cites, each with page numbers and comments specific to that cite. Also, when editing a section you don't get big red error messages when the master named-ref is not found. And there is less hassle trying to track the various "ref names".
@J. Johnson: That actually makes a lot of sense and thank you for explaining everything in such a clear manner. One of the advantages that you listed can be negated with the use of {{rp}} in CS1 (long) style citations. I have used this a lot actually. This added a :XX (where XX is the page number) after the [1] superscript. So to take an example [2]: 342 can be used. to indicate that that specific citation can be verified on page 342 of that journal. In the reuse of that reference you can just change the {{rp}} value to a different page to indicate a different article in that journal. The big read error messages are an interesting, and frustrating, feature of the CS1 templates. They are designed to get people to notice and fix their mistakes but more often than not people just leave them and let someone else deal with it. I have never personally let an error stand myself as that just bugs me. The use of LDR also makes finding the specific ref name much easier as all the references are already at the bottom and you can just scroll through until you find the one you want. As opposed to CS1 which are all in the body of the text and take substantially longer to find. If given the choice, from what you have explained, I would still stick with LDR as my primary choice but Harvard seems like a close second. Certainly much better than the normal referencing that has become the prevalent style across Wikipedia. The cluttering up of the article code with references just makes everything harder to work with. --Majora (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Glad you liked it. But I think we need to work on this some more: your comments are at variance with what I thought I was communicationg.
By the way, let's dispoase of {rp}. In the first place, it in no way "negates" any advantage of any other form. It is merely an attempt to deal with a major disadvantage in using named refs (and implicitly LDR). It's ugly, it puts a specific detail in the text whereas the citation it applies to is in the note, it doesn't indicate that these are supposed to be page numbers, and indeed, it is an odd and generally unknown usage. On the otherhand, an advantage of short cites that there is no need for {rp}.
And please note that in advocating the use of {{Harv}}templates I am NOT advocating use Harvard stylereferencing (a form of parenthetical referencing). How is it that I haven't been clear on this? What I have been suggesting is some form of short cites, such as described at WP:CITESHORT. But my main goal is to clear away a lot of conceptual and terminological wreckage that leads to these kinds of misunderstandings.
A major disappointment for me is your statement: "As opposed to CS1 which are all in the body of the text ...." There are several problems here. First, "CS1" refers to certain templates (particularly, a subset of the "cite xxx" templates; see Help:Citation style 1#Style for details) which implement a certain style of formatting a full citation, exclusive of other citation templates, and I very much doubt that is what you meant. Second, and more importantly, your assertion that they "are all in the body of the text" is not just wrong, it inverts the key point I am trying to make: that a source's full citation does NOT have to be imprisoned between <ref>...</ref> tags (whether "named" or not).
Consider this: at forensic chemistry (nicely done, btw) you already generate full citations with templates in the "References" section. If you wanted to convert this article to using {Harv}-style short cites, all that you would need to do in "References" is strip off all of the "<ref name=...>" and "</ref>" baggage, prefix each citation template with "*", add the |ref=harv parameter to each citation (because you used {cite xxx} templates instead of {{citation}}), and remove |refs= from the {reflist}. The full citations are in the exact same place as before, retaining all of the benefits you ascribe to LDR. As an example take a look at Puget Sound faults.
I was directed here from JJ's talk page, might as well keep it together. I need clarification as to what this debate is about, and as to what we hope to accomplish. As JJ has said above, there is no choice between LDR and any citation style, as LDR is not a citation style. That being the case, do we seek to sell LDR or something else to the community as the preferred method? If so, I seriously doubt that is going to happen, as much as I appreciate the benefits of simplification. If not, what are we discussing? As I said in the other discussion, (1) LDR has a downside, and, after extensive experience with it in at least two articles, I'm not convinced it's a net positive, and (2) my attempt to reduce that downside received very little interest. Why should we spend the effort to improve something that is rarely used? LDR presents a chicken-and-egg problem. Not many editors are going to use it if they are not familiar with it, and they can't become familiar with it unless they use it. At the two articles I mentioned, LDR existed only because I was willing to devote almost full time to maintaining it. Editors did cites the "normal" way, and I followed along behind and converted them to LDR. Not once did an editor notice what I was doing and go, "hey, why not help out and go ahead and code this cite as LDR to begin with." They just couldn't be bothered. Despite the couple of barnstars resulting from that work, I don't think I'll feel inclined to do that again. ―Mandruss☎23:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Majora and I are exploring the supposed benefits of LDR. He uses it for various reasons (which I share); I think those reasons are better served with short cites (as implemented with {Harv} templates). For me this exploration is of why I am not able to persuade him of that. And even when (if?) he is persuaded I hope to get a better understanding of why this process seems so difficult. If you want to help with the explaining, fine, but perhaps even better you might help assess the process, tell us where we are not connecting, etc. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so I gather it's essentially a debate between two editors without a larger goal. Nothing wrong with that, especially on a user talk page. I can't help much with an LDR-vs-harv debate, as I don't have enough experience with the latter. My impression is that harv is preferred by academics because it's closer to what they are exposed to off-wiki. Are you an academic? CS1 has adequately served my needs in the types of articles that I edit, so I haven't felt the need to investigate alternatives. It's the same thinking that I apply to choice of consumer product brands. There may be router brands that are a little better than Netgear, but I see no reason to switch unless Netgear lets me down (and I did switch brands twice for that reason, before trying Netgear). Just as importantly, there's the "when in Rome" factor. harv is almost never seen in the articles I edit, and there is benefit in following the crowd. If you could achieve a community consensus for harv preference, I would happily comply, but as I said that's not going to happen. ―Mandruss☎00:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not certain what you would consider "an academic", but I do have experience with various styles of citation across diverse fields. I have also noticed that the practice of citation on WP is, for most editors, a very sensitive topic. I think this is because it is so confusing (and in my opinion, unncecessarily so) that when editors finally work out something that works they don't want to change. Discussion of the relative merits of various approaches is practically impossible because of this sensitivity, and because of different understandings of the key terms and concepts.
E.g., you say that "CS1" has adequately served your needs. Can you explain just what "CS1" is? Can you describe its essential characteristics, noting what alternative forms and uses it may encompass? Similarly, what exactly do you mean by "harv"? Majora takes it to mean a form of parenthetical referencing (which is not unreasonable, given the unclear language of the documentation), while I take it mean the use of the {{Harv}} templates.
This isn't an LDR versus "harv" debate so much as an exploration of what we mean by these terms. Like, what do you mean by "CS1"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@J. Johnson: As I said, I'm relatively ignorant as to exactly what "harv" denotes, but I know it's an alternative to CS1, as seen in limited use of {{harvnb}} at Shooting of Michael Brown. That limited use is a compromise between, primarily, me and one other editor, about a year ago. Those cites could have been done with CS1 instead, consistent with the rest of the article. As for CS1, it's my impression that the term is adequately defined at Help:Citation Style 1, including a list of the templates that support it. Among those templates, given the kinds of articles I edit, I do virtually all of my cites using {{Cite news}} and {{Cite web}} (as do other editors in those kinds of articles). I occasionally also use other CS1 templates such as {{Cite journal}} or {{Cite magazine}}. ―Mandruss☎23:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Mandruss: CS1 initially defines CS1 as "a collection of reference citation templates that can be modified to create different styles for different referenced materials." [Emphasis added.] But at Help:Citation Style 1#Style CS1 is constrained to a subset of styles that format the citations in certain ways (whether periods or semicolons are used to separate fields, and whether titles are italicsed or quoted). It also says that not all of the "cite xxx" templates are compliant with CS1. Note that none of these characteristics are affected by whether one uses {Harv} templates (or not), implements parenthetical referencing (or not), or where the full citations are located (in <ref>...</ref> tags, or elsewhere). That most editors put their full citations in a note (because they don't know they can do it any other way?) is not specified, let alone required, by "CS1". "Harv" (however one defines it) is not an alternative to CS1, as they work at different levels, and in no way constrain each other. Which is to say that "CS1" (like many of the other terms here) is not adequately defined, certainly not in how people tend to use the term. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
You don't have to be an expert to read the documenation, and a plain read of the documentation shows that it is, as I just showed, inadequate. Dig into the archives at Help talk:Citation Style 1 and related pages, and you'll see that even the supposed experts can't agree on on basic terms. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
If we haven't exceeded my competence in this particular area, we have at least exceeded my degree of interest in it. I'm here only because I know LDR fairly well, and I thought that's what this discussion was mainly about. ―Mandruss☎04:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Mandruss: At one level the here discussion is about why people prefer (or not) LDR, and that is always relative to the alternatives (e.g., "harv", whatever that is). But discussions of any aspect of citation "relative to the alternatives" always fail because of differing, inconsistent, and out right incorrect conceptions of what we are talking about. E.g., you seem to consider the use of {Harv} as an alternative to "CS1", but I say it's not, it's actually supplementary, which makes a big difference. So how can we discuss any of this without sorting out the terms and concepts we are using? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@J. Johnson:Before I spend some of my limited brain power (and time) on something, I want to see some potential benefit. Even if we sorted something out between us two (or three?) editors, it would have no weight and therefore no benefit. That makes it a pointless discussion in my view, and it should occur at Help talk:Citation Style 1 where it might have some beneficial effect. ―Mandruss☎19:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I've been there, and other venues, and what I have found is that even to start the discussion needed to rectify these issues raises so much controversy that we can't get anywhere. I have begun to suspect that the process has to be bottom-up, starting with numerous quiet discussions between two or three editors where we can delve deeply into specific issues without getting swamped by other editors that want to proclaim their views. If I can persuade you and Majora to my formulation, that might be progress. If not, I would like find out what has to be changed in either the persuasion or the formulation to be effective. Your comments could be very beneficial in helping me get somewhere with this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Deletion of Adam_Bornstein.jpg
Hi Majora,
Thank you for alerting me to a copyright issue with the file Adam_Bornstein.jpg. If I understand correctly, the file is released under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0, which makes it appropriate for use on Wikipedia. This license is displayed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143606564@N06/27910103226/in/dateposted-public/ . You said in your message that this image has a free equivalent. Could you elaborate on where to find this equivalent please? Thank you!
Dbarvinok (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@Dbarvinok: That image from Flickr does not allow for commercial reuse. Commercial reuse is a requirement for images uploaded to Commons so that one isn't going to work unfortunately. For the list of acceptable licenses please see c:COM:F. The image that was deleted was placed under our fair use policy. For living people, this is generally not acceptable. This is because it is plausible that a free use equivalent already exists or could be created. That last part is the most important part. One "could be created" does not mean that a free equivalent exists at the current moment but, since the person is still alive, it could exist. Since a free use image could exist, images cannot be placed under fair use per our policy on non-free media. The non-free use policy is a little confusing if you aren't used to it but if you just remember that images of living people cannot generally be placed under fair use you should be fine. Let me know if you have any other questions. --Majora (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
19:09:02, 3 August 2016 review of submission by 76.184.180.111
Hey so I am trying to figure what content on the page is ok to stay and what are the specifics I need to change that will make the page look like less of an advertisement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.180.111 (talk) 19:09, August 3, 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora, sorry about that rogue edit, complete mistake on my part. It's a huge embarrassment that I edited that in in such a rush, I can't believe I didn't even bother to verify my claims with any sources or anything!
Hey Majora previously i made edits about akshay kumar's nationality but someone changes it on the basis of old source of information but i made changes on the basis of new source of information but someone changes it.So tell me who is changes it i want to talk him/her.So i can convince him/her that my source of info is latest one.plz replyKumajay12 (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)kumajay12 20:08, 19aug2016
He has a Canadian passport. He is a Canadian citizen. This is sourced to April of this year (4 months ago). India does not allow for dual citizenship so when he became a Canadian he forfeited his Indian citizenship. Unless you have a source that says he regained Indian citizenship somehow, he is a Canadian and it will stay that way on the article. If you wish to discuss this further please use the article's talk page.
@Kumajay12: You don't seem to understand how we work here. This project is run by volunteers. We are not going to contact any government and I can guarantee you that no government agency is going to care one bit about what it says on an actor's Wikipedia page. Second, four months ago he was stopped at an airport with a Canadian passport. I don't know how I can make this any more clear. He is a Canadian citizen. Period. End of discussion. He is Canadian. This is not going to change in the article unless you can prove, with a reliable source that he somehow regained his Indian citizenship that he forfeited when he became a Canadian citizen. This is not contested. It simply isn't. He is a Canadian citizen with a Canadian passport. Finally, I already informed you that discussions about article content should be on the article's talk page. If you find a source that says he regained his Indian citizenship you can bring it up there. If not, the article is not going to change and nobody is going to be contacting any government agency. --Majora (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
RfC
Are words such as insanity appropriate for use on a serious RfC? I think not. I further consider it to be a direct ad hominem at the drafters of the proposal. Your opinions in debates are welcome but not if you disregard the need for objectivity and civility. As such, your suitability for OTRS gives me pause. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Wow! My very own threat from a Wikipedia administrator! I'll cherish it forever and ever. But seriously, where do I start? With the misunderstanding of the phrase "ad hominem" or ridiculous threat against my work on OTRS which has absolutely nothing to do with this? Oh and take note, I didn't say you were insane. No, no, no. Just that the proposal would be such a detriment to the project as a whole as to approach the level of insanity. Also take note that the Twinkle restrictions are the only problem I have with the entire proposal, as stated many many times already. Anyways, don't you have better things to do then to go around threatening people who disagree with your "serious" proposal to restrict access to a vital tool that is being used by thousands upon thousands of people to maintain the project? Here I'll help you: Category:Administrative backlog. Why don't you work on one of those instead of going around leaving threats on people's talk pages? This post gives me pause for your suitability for adminship as you clearly don't seem to have the temperament to deal with people who disagree with you. So I guess we are even. Oh, and next time, if you have a problem with me take it to WP:ANI where it belongs. And if you want to follow through on your threat here is the list of people you can contact. Good luck. --Majora (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Marion Rodgers
Thanks for catching the copyvio on the new Marion Rodgers article. This article clearly needs a lot of work, but I have removed the Speedy Deletion tag from it because the creator has made a lot of improvements on it since yesterday, is clearly still working on it, and I really don't want to discourage a newbie. I think the refs provided prove notability but that could be discussed in an AFD. I'll jump in and help with rewrite if that becomes necessary. ABF99 (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello Majora
You have left me a message regarding the File permission problem. Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia. Perhaps you can help me here. The file owner is unknown. The photo was taken for the person depicted there before a fight in Sochi, Russia by am unknown person. I have not seen such photo in the internet anywhere. I have asked and received it directly from Valentin Slavikovski by WhatsApp. Can I still not use it? Stepka o (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Stepka o: Due to copyright restrictions we can't have ambiguity I'm afraid. If we don't know who the copyright holder is, we can't have a proper release. If we can't have a proper release, we can't use it. As for receiving it from Valentin, that won't work either. The copyright holder is the person who took the photo, not the person in it unless the copyright license has been transferred by contract or legal action. At this point, I'm not seeing how we can keep it. Sorry. --Majora (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@A21sauce: By page I meant the file page (now deleted). Not the article. Every article is a page but not every page is an article. Sorry about confusion. That is the standard wording for those speedy deletion notices. If permission is eventually confirmed the image can be undeleted. If you have any other questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Edit for Stacie Huckeba
Thank you for your help. I think that I fixed the necessary information, but please let me know if I have not.
EDIT 09.06.2016 16:29
@Majora: I have sent an email to Nathan, Stacie and her staff to send me another email and to use the permissions format that you linked me to at
@Waldolc: Permission needs to be verified as we don't just take people's word for it. Please see the instructions on your talk page. If you have questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
File:Hughie Gallacher.jpg
Hi Majora. I saw the message you left at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 26#File:Hughie Gallacher.jpg. Since the thread has been closed, I just post a sort reply here. I am aware that the NFCC requires a fair use rationale for each use of an image; sometimes, however, some editors see a keep close as meaning that non-free use in other articles is automatically NFCC compliant. That is why the old {{Non-free reviewed}} template included the text "This file's use on other pages or in different contexts may require additional review at Wikipedia:Files for discussion". No such text has been added to {{Oldffdfull}} since NFCR was merged into FFD last year, so closers of FFD often add something such as the above to their closes just to avoid any possible misunderstandings. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Sorry about the delay. Seems a little redundant to me but I also know that nobody actually reads any of the policies on copyright law so...the page has been adjusted. Let me know if there is anything else you would like me to do. --Majora (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your note. I will forward an email to permissions at Wikimedia that outlines permission to use the photos from the person who created the file. How do I note that I am not being paid to make the edits, nor do I have a conflict of interest? I do not work for or represent the subject of the article. I see all the edits I made have been removed - can you please provide me with the content that was removed? I'd be happy for any tips on how to make my submissions stronger. The information I added to the Melville Sask page is more current, accurate, and relevant than what is currently noted.
@Kstreel: The information on that page was directly copied from another website in violation of copyright law. It has been removed from the history and I cannot retrieve it. Even if I could, I wouldn't as the changes you made to that article were so incredibly promotional that they do not belong on Wikipedia. We are not here to advertise or promote anything. We are not here to get people to visit someplace or to work for a tourism board. Material on here must adhere to a neutral point of view and be stated in a way that does not promote or advertise anything. Please see WP:NOTPROMOTION. If you have further questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora,
Thank you for your note and for your helpful comments. Do your comments apply to all of the content I uploaded? I ask because some of the information e.g. under history, infrastructure, and sports, to name a few, where simply updates to outdated information or new information that readers would find as interesting facts about the city. Information in these sections where not directly copied from another website. I can adjust my language to have a neutral tone and I now understand the importance of this. I look forward to your thoughts.
@Kstreel: I only looked at the end result. Which was pretty much a blatant advertisement for the tourism board. The copyright violation was introduced in your very first edit. So every edit after that also contained the violation. That is why all of your edits had to be undone and all of your edits had to be removed from the history. Since leaving any of them would have still left the copyvio in the article's history. --Majora (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nathaniel Eaton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Harvard. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
@Shelyric: Great. Now please follow the rest of the instructions and place {{OTRS pending}} on the image page. DO NOT post email address, the content of an email, phone numbers, or other personal information anywhere on Wikipedia. I'm sure you wouldn't want that happening to you so please don't post other people's private information. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora, Just wanted to say no worries inregards to the image, We all make mistakes so it's all cool :),
Admittingly having seen the closure on my watchlist I was originally going to come here moaning and ranting however seeing your replies here and at Commons and the fact you sincerely apologized I just couldn't rant & moan, I also extremely appreciate you apologizing and admitting the mistake instead of just closing without saying anything so thanks for that :),
I suppose I could drag you to the dismal swamp and create tons of dramah which is the norm over there these days :P,
Anyway thanks again & happy editing :), –Davey2010Talk13:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Davey. I was more than a little embarrassed that I missed that and then told you to transfer it to Commons. When I saw the DR my first reaction was more in the "oh crap..." range. Everything is all set now though. So that is good. Happy everything worked out in the end. --Majora (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Retaliatory
I feel a challenge to my motives is both improper and unwarranted. Not gonna make a stink about it there, but not gonna just let it pass either. Oppose the proposal if you like, that's what proposals are for, but hands off my ethics without clear evidence please. ―Mandruss☎03:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I call them like I see them. And you managed to go from a thread about self-promotion in images to requesting a TBAN on someone completely else. You did that. Not me. I'll oppose your proposal for whatever reason I damn well please. --Majora (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Unlike you, I don't feel the need to choose sides, and I have not done so. This is not binary for me. All I said was that Stemoc and Winkelvi are not the right people to deal with Calibrador because they are not capable of keeping cool heads with regard to that issue. Battleground mentality crusaders are not solutions. If you need links, try WP:BATTLEGROUND and maybe WP:AGF. ―Mandruss☎03:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
You managed to deflect Calibrador's issues onto somebody else while simultaneously giving Calibrador a pass on his self-promoting behavior. I noticed you didn't !vote on the restrictions that would actually affect Calibrador but instead jumped right into a proposal against Stemoc. But alas, the second you decided to link me to policies, and especially AGF, is the second this conversation was over. I certainly don't need to be linked to policies, and certainly not on my own talk page. I'm fully aware of the policies Wikipedia has. I don't need to be "reminded" of them like I joined the project yesterday. Good day to you. --Majora (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora. Please note that I have declined a number of CSD G5 nominations you made for files uploaded by Reema Kumari 01. In order to be eligible for G5 deletion, the edits/uploads must have been made contrary to a block or ban. As the master account was blocked concurrently with the sock accounts, this is not the case with these edits.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots20:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ponyo: Yes I saw. I'm going through and undoing the rest of them that I tagged. Wasn't aware of that stipulation. Sometimes the letter of the policy doesn't really make a while lot of sense to me but meh. I'll undo the rest. --Majora (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi there Majora. Thanks for fixing up my tagging of this image. As you might realize, I know next to nothing about which exact templates to use for which image problems, so your help was appreciated. If I come across a similar issue in the future, with an image that has been OTRS tagged as an insufficient release for a long period, is F11 the right tag to use? The documentation in different places seems to imply different things, so it would be helpful to know. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
That particular speedy deletion tag can only be applied by OTRS agents since the F11 criterion requires that the ticket be checked to make sure no attempts to resolve the permission issue is ongoing. I'm slowly going through all the old images that should have been deleted a while ago but in the meantime if you find one that you want me to take a look at you can let me know here or at WP:OTRS/N. --Majora (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy response. I'll keep that link in mind as one more resource. At the moment I'm mostly concerned about images of McMullin - not because of any particular animus toward him, but because the same non-free images sourced to his campaign keep getting uploaded without adequate permissions. These are all obviously part of the same photoshoot, so if you see another from the same set you can probably assume that the same lack-or-response from the image above applies - for what it's worth. But as I said, thanks for the response (and for tagging that other image on Commons before I could get to it). 64.105.98.115 (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Cesar Santos
Hi. First off, I am sorry to have offended you by my double request. That was not my intention. I just wanted to upload this painting of the artist to the page. How can he release the painting under creative commons? Please go ahead and reject the request. Thyymepeek (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering what the blp violation was with regard to the education and career history entries? I read the guidelines and I couldnt find any. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall tor (talk • contribs) 11:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Randall tor: You added information about a living person that was not sourced. Specifically about Maia Deguito. This is a violation of our BLP policy. Also, take a close look at WP:BLPCRIME which is particularly relevant for this matter. If you have any questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Majora: you're right about that. My bad. I put the entry in thinking that I would link it to the source after but completely forgot about it. Sorry about that. But what about the education and career history, you also took it down and I was wondering if it is ok to put it back up? Unless there are other sourcing problems that still need to be resolved.– User:Randall Tor —Preceding undated comment added 07:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Randall Tor: If you are asking if it would be alright to put it back as it was, the answer would be no. Those entire sections had no sources at all. Our biographies on living people policy requires that all information on BLP articles be sourced to a reliable source. Any information that is not sourced is subject to immediate removal. If you wish to add that information back, you are going to have to provide sources. --Majora (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Majora. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 17:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello Majora, I saw your note about declining the mentioned image but I could not find the reason in FFU or the archives, anyway please note that I am a new user to Wikipedia and the image I was uploading is copyrighted for Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University (http://www.pmu.edu.sa/Default.aspx), which is authorized by the prince himself to create a wikipedia profile for him and I am working in this university, so what I am asking is to help me to upload his photo on his article name
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Fahd.
@Steefash: Again, you linked to the main page of a University. Not to an image. Not really sure what you want me to do with that but I am not going to go searching through a website to try to find an image when I don't even know what I am looking for. Second, all images are copyrighted automatically. Saying that we can use something on Wikipedia does not fulfill the proper copyright law requirements that we need to actually be able to use an image. Photos of living people have to be release, by the copyright holder, under a free license. What that means is that the photo is free to be used or modified by anyone, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial use). Saying the prince authorized a Wikipedia page means absolutely nothing to us and does not meet the copyright requirements we are required to enforce. Also, it is likely that the price is not even the copyright holder of the photograph so wouldn't be able to release it to us. The copyright holder is the person who took the photo unless the copyright has been transferred by contract or by legal action. We need the copyright holder to release the photo to us. Nobody else can do that. Please see WP:COPYREQ for more information and let me know if yo have further questions. --Majora (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
@Steefash: Er...actually you just confirmed my concerns with the image. The image is copyrighted and any attempt to upload it here as is would constitute copyright infringement. We also will not just take your word for it that you are authorized to release the image under a license we can use. The copyright holder needs to fill out the form at WP:CONSENT and follow the instructions there. No further action will be taken until that is processed and any attempt to use that image will be deleted until that time. Please ignore the email address stated on that page and have the email sent to photosubmissionwikimedia.org with that image attached. If you have questions please feel free to let me know. --Majora (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Ansel Elgort Image Change
Hi Maura! I'm new to Wikipedia and I can't quite figure out how to reply to your message on the original thread. However, I sent an email to the address you provided about the Ansel Elgort image change. Hopefully this will be an adequate amount of information to change the picture. Thank you!!
Julie Oneto 10/2/16
Joneto13 (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@Joneto13: I'm sorry it took me a little longer to take a look. I'm not seeing any email in the queues. You should have received a confirmation autoresponse back with a ticket number. Could you tell that to me? If you did not receive this response please try resending the email. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@General George Marshall:I didn't remove anything. An administrator deleted the file since it was a violation of our fair use policy. I only tagged the file for deletion. Our fair use policy is highly restrictive and you can't just use it for any photo you wish. In this instance, the photo was replaceable with a free alternative by anyone who visits the house. Therefore it fails criterion #1 of the policy. In addition, there is already a free alternative of the house (File:Dodona Manor.jpg) so a fair use file would be inappropriate. --Majora (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
@General George Marshall: Nothing. You can't use a copyrighted photo of the house on that page since we have free use images available. If you want to try to hunt down the copyright holder of that image and ask them to release it under a free license see WP:COPYREQ. Otherwise, there is nothing to be done. The photo can't be used. --Majora (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@Cotton2: Nope. FFU is a manual-only area. Besides it isn't configured to remove bot archival tags as it is an old, unmaintained, script. As a side note, File:Reliance Insurance logo.png isn't copyrighted. As stated on your talk page it is {{PD-textlogo}}. FFU requires a knowledge of copyright law to help out there effectively. If you have questions about it please let me know. --Majora (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Circus circus requests same named file that's already available. I uploaded an update to that old file. How do I close out the request? Cotton2 (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
@Cotton2: Remove the do not archive tag, put {{subst:ffu a}} below the header, put {{subst:ffu b}} on the bottom, and leave a note saying you uploaded it with {{subst:ffu|file=Filename.extension}}. You can also leave a note on the requester's talk page using {{subst:ffu talk|file=Filename.extension}} but that isn't necessary if you don't want to. These instructions are located at Wikipedia:Files for upload/Reviewer instructions and the templates are all contained in an edit notice when you are responding to requests as well. --Majora (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
May I ask you why is it that on the Wikipedia pages of musical bands there's a profile picture of the band itself instead of the logo of the band? In my opinion, the logo should go there. What do you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutaito0321 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I want to say thank you for interest in my work. I want to learn upload Book covers, Film posters and other images and if you can, teach me please. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luka Padiurashvili (talk • contribs) 08:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jacknot: As stated in my edit summary they did not meet WP:NALBUM, the criteria for inclusion for musical albums. Just because something exists doesn't mean it gets an independent article. --Majora (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: The tag cannot be removed by the article's creator. This is considered disruptive. This restriction is stated in the speedy deletion template, "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself", and we have warnings for those that do so. You may also want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS since that is your primary argument in the AfD and it is not generally an accepted reasoning in deletion discussions. --Majora (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Could you please explain what is too complex about this logo to meet PD-logo? It is basically stars, circles and text. Bcharles (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@Bcharles: The different shading effects force it over the threshold of originality for the United States and therefore it is assumed that it is copyrighted unless that can be proven otherwise. Just the text and the stars/circles would be different. --Majora (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@Bcharles: You didn't have the shrink the size of it. Other than that, the removal of the texturing works. Just for reference sake, the same thing had to be done with the Trump/Pence logo. In that case, someone removed the background entirely to ensure that it fell below TOO. --Majora (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I shrunk it partly to get rid of artifacts of processing, and partly because it really does not need to be larger. Bcharles (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I just wanted to apologize to you again for not knowing c:COM:ART#Original work. I wanted to make certain the photo would not be removed later, and believed, after having been told by one photographer that I could not use his photo of the mosaic, that it was essential this different photo be connected to the 'proper' permissions. Now I know better! Thank you again for bearing with me. I'm sure you grow tired of dealing with neophytes again and again and again. Piledhighandeep (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Piledhighandeep: No problem at all. Like I said, copyright is a complicated area and I completely understand the desire to be able to use the images that you want to use without running into issues down the road. If you have any questions about copyright please let me know. It is primarily what I do around here so I like to think I understand it pretty well --Majora (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Meltingwood: Oh it wasn't me. It was Oshwah that did the cleaning. I just happened to see it in motion and notified the people with the big guns. They did all the work. As for what it was, it was a compromised admin account. --Majora (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Pointy edit
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Serena Williams. Doing so violates Wikipedia's factual statistics policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Wikipedia articles should be based on FACTS. Not your own personal agenda. I follow tennis very well, and Serena Williams "HAS BEEN HAILED" by commentators, players and sports writers as the greatest female tennis player of all time. Until you can dispute that FACT, don't write me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aries009 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Chaheel Riens: An administrator will take a look at it and decide what to do with them. Seeing as it is a clear violation of of fair use policy and there wasn't any legitimate extenuating circumstances it is now just a waiting game. FFD is historically a very backlogged place. It could be looked at tomorrow, it could be looked at next month. In the meantime, I wouldn't worry too much about it. And thanks for the above by the way. --Majora (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Majora. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. With regards to your ES comment, invitations to discussions are Wikipedia's way of ensuring all interested users have their fair say. These are not mass sent bot messages; they are sent manually one by-one according to the canvassing policy for RfC. There is therefore no master list and no log. Perhaps one way to avoid being messaged on subsequent RfC of a same topic, is not to participate in discussions on topics that do not interest you, particularly on discussions where it is stated that according to the outcome there may be further discussions.
Saying that I should not participate in any discussion if I don't want repeated notifications for all time is antithetical to Wikipedia principles. Any editor worth anything would be watching T:CENT and the pumps for anything they want to participate in. I don't need multiple notices, including mass messages which you did sent regarding the topic. The topic did interest me only so far as the opposition to the further stratification of editors here. Now that it is passed I couldn't care less. In accordance with WP:NOBAN, I am asking you to stop posting here Kudpung. I don't want you on my talk page, especially after the threat that you left me previously. I don't want to be notified about NPR. I can pay attention to the discussions myself using my preferred means. I don't need you to tell me about them. --Majora (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a conversation on WP:FFU#Tony Murnahan on Piano.jpg regarding dual licensing. I understand the concept of dual licenses. What I don't see is anywhere that a CC license is asserted. License: should be the license found in the Link To License Information:. In my view this is not a release of the file to WP but a link to the license where the file is located. Whatever is entered here should be what's at the license info on the original location. So in that request the requester has mistakenly entered a CC license where none exists because the original location is ARR. No dual licenses situation exists, with links provided. Cotton2 (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Cotton2: Look underneath the Flickr username on the left hand side. It says, This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License.. We only require a written statement to that effect to indicate that a photo is acceptable for upload here. The problem is that the license statement is incomplete as it doesn't say which version of the Creative Commons Attribution License they wish to use. --Majora (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Would you prefer the edit to say something to the effect of "Flowers is widely considered a bust." Or something to that effect? Billywhack (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello Majora, HarryOtter has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I thought you might be amused to discover the existence of Scientific Detective Monthly, perhaps the only magazine ever devoted to forensic science fiction! I took it to FA recently and just realized while I was thinking about your current FAC that it was, in a very oblique way, relevant. I wouldn't recommend trying to read any of the stories, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Neat! I was not aware such a think existed. I know you say that you don't recommend it but I kinda still want to read it. As for the book you mentioned in the FA review I have not read that one. I have similar books but none of them are online. I know we allow offline sources but for some reason the inability to click a source and instantly verify the information bugs me in a way. So I try to keep everything I write sourceable to online material. I feel like I owe it to the readers to keep myself to the same ridiculous standards I would want. --Majora (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm the same way about preferring online sources when possible, though for much of what I write it's not possible. I was more wondering about the content -- i.e. did it have material that could be used for the article. However, if you have multiple other sources that cover the same ground I have no reason to think this particular one would contain anything additional. It does seem to be partly available online so it might be worth a look to see if it appears useful; I've sometimes ended up ordering things like this through the library system to make sure I haven't missed anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora,
I need your help please. I have uploaded the photo file again and I've sent the photographer email confirmation to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
File:Muna Al Gurg.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muna_Al_Gurg.jpg
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Forensic firearm examination you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Felsic2 -- Felsic2 (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
joanne Mitchell
Thanks for your comment. I can't say I entirely get it. The photo was given to me by the copyright holders, as a news style photo, the subject at a public event, licensed for use by anyone. There's certainly no question of a copyright violation here. If I have somehow transgressed the Wikipedia rules, then maybe I have just uploaded it under the wrong tick box., that's all. I was already acting on advice from another Wikipedia editor. It seems to be pot luck. One editor will give the ok, another won't. But it's no way to run a railway!Picknick99 (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I have reread the criteria again - and again - and can't see the problem. The file in question had already been the subject of discussion with other editors and neither raised any doubts about the licensing. Picknick99 (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Picknick99: So, there are some licensing issues that have to be worked out here. Your use of {{non-free promotional}} indicates that you wish to use the image under our fair use policy. This would not be acceptable since images of living people are not generally acceptable under fair use (anyone can walk up to the person, take a photo, and release it to us). What we need is a free use release. The statement you put in the summary, Owned by Frightfest, freely given for unrestricted use is ambiguous and unfortunately ambiguous is not a good thing when it comes to copyright. In order for the image to be free use it has to be licensed in such as way that allows anyone to use or modify the image at any time and for any purpose (including commercial use). The confirm that the image is released in such a way the copyright holder needs to read and fill out the form at WP:CONSENT and send it into permissions-enwikimedia.org. Please note that the copyright holder is the photographer unless the copyright has been legally transferred by contract or other legal action. If you have further questions on this matter please let me know and I'll be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The copyright owner is definitely Frighfest film festival, who own copyright on all photos taken by the event's official photographer, their employee. Those same photos are then used if and when to promote films and guests attending the event. I don't think it's the copyright that the problem here, it's me trying to understand the rules, not written in the clearest of language. Mind you they do say that that the UK and the US are divided by a common language! I like the photo, but if it's going to be a major issue I'll just replace it or dup it. At the end of the day, it's the sheer time all this takes isn't it. cheerioPicknick99 (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Picknick99: We would need a release from the copyright holder for all questionable images. Copyright law is rather strict and we have to be sure. Not entirely sure what you mean by "dup" it but unless you have physically taken the photo yourself or it is explicitly released under a free license at the source, any photo you upload will probably be questioned. I understand that it is a pain and a lot of hoops to jump through. But it is the world we live in I'm afraid. Copyright is serious business. Again, if you have any questions at all about an image don't hesitate to ask. --Majora (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Whoops, I meant to write 'drop it'. Incidentally what's your take on references that link to websites where you have to pay-to-view. Seems to me to be entirely out of keeping with the Wikipedia ethos - and discriminatory too.Picknick99 (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
forgot to ask, what's the low-down on drawings done by someone in the employ of a now defunct newspaper 1915. I can see no reference to such works and Wiki seems to have forgotten that newspapers did not always use photographers but sketch artists.Picknick99 (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Picknick99: Pay-to-view things are just part of the game I'm afraid. Much like how we accept offline sources that someone would have to go and find at a brick-and-mortar library. Personally, I try to only use sources that can be found online. But, depending on the topic, sometimes that just isn't possible.
As for the newspaper, it depends on whether or not you can prove when it was published. If it was published in the US prior to 1923 it is public domain by now. The license would be {{PD-US-1923}}. It doesn't matter the media it was published in. Copyright works the same for everything. The chart for US copyrights can be seen here: File:PD-US_table.svg. --Majora (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I doubt if it was ever published in America. It was published in Britain in 1915, coincidentally on the paper I used to work for.
If a reference is 'pay to view' then how can it possibly be checked, by me or you or anyone? And what's the protocol on unwanted references? Someone has put two of these pay-to-view refs on what was a carefully crafted page The Flower of Gloster ad quite spoiled the ambience. If I'm not allowed to remove them then - is that vandalism? - then I would request a responsible admin person to move the. The page is about a lovely old book and this person has quite spoiled the introductory paragraph solely about the book, by plonking in two reference to the 1967 TV programme - so if I'm not allowed to dump them then they should definitely be moved to a more appropriate place where they can stay, entirely useless to anyone! Thanks for all your time and advice today. Picknick99 (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Picknick99: Every country has their own copyright laws. For the UK it is the life of the author plus 70 years. So as long as the author died before 1946 it has passed into the public domain. The full copyright rules for the UK can be found on Commons.
As for the sourcing question. In these cases we must assume good faith on the part of the editor that included it. You can ask them to provide proof of some sort to their claims if you wish. Or you can try the Wikipedia Library and see if anyone over there has access and can confirm the claim. It would not be alright to summarily remove it. As for referencing in the lead. Generally, we don't do that anyways. The lead should be a summary of what is in the article, just as what is in the article should be a summary of the sources. To reference in the lead indicates that it isn't in the article, which is not what the lead is for. But that is more Wikistyle than actual policy and removing references just for that is not a good idea. The same principle applies for that references as for any offline source. They are acceptable. --Majora (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I always assume good faith. But if an editor such as he does not even have the common courtesy to reply to a talk page message, then that assumption must be revoked. You know how much we Brits hate bad manners! Anyway, as I said, I wouldn't really want to remove them, so I will relocate them to the appropriate section of the article. Anyway, I do thank you for all your time and patience..Picknick99 (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
Thanks for being a helpful fellow Wikipedian and friend both on-wiki and on IRC. You'll need the coffee to keep you awake! JustBerry (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
"Keep" Elena Taube Bailey Wedding at the Washington National Cathedral photo
This photo does NOT have any copyright infringements. It was provided by the owner of the photo. The photo is readily available for everyone on the web and the photo has no copyright and does NOT require a license for usage.
Please remove the tag for speedy deletion since this photo does not infringe on any copyright rules.Dove.Leesa (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@Dove.Leesa: As stated on the file talk page, just because a photo is online does not mean it isn't copyrighted. This is a common misconception. Every photo is copyrighted upon creation. That copyright is not voided by the author publishing it somewhere. That would be like saying, just because a book is published to the public that anyone can go and make as many copies of it as they want. Doesn't work like that. If you want to request that the photo be formally, legally, released under a license we can use please see WP:COPYREQ. At the current moment, that photo is a copyright violation. And it will be deleted. Sorry. --Majora (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Majora, although I understand your procedural decline over here, that begs the question of what the recommended alternative is. Mainspace currently has a photo which fails NPOV, and makes wikipedia not just look un-aesthetic, but well into intentionally-biased territory. We have a single libre-licensed alternative photo, which esWiki and simpleWiki currently make use of, but it is almost as bad in terms of failing to achieve any semblance of NPOV -- not merely un-aesthetic, but makes the biographical subject look bad, which the readership naturally interprets as bias on wikipedia's part. Is there really no option, besides either 1) waiting patiently additional months whilst 'accepting' the POV photo at the top of the BLP article, 2) physically travelling to the home or workplace of the multimillionaire in hopes of getting a libre-licensed photo taken, or 3) removing all photos from the article entirely and page-protecting the biography to prevent re-insertion? Because I don't really like any of those options. Which is not your fault of course, but perhaps you can advise on whether those really ARE the only three options that NFCCP effectively permits. Thanks, 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas Majora!!
Hi Majora, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
-May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health. --Cameron11598
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 7#File:Vodafone logo.png
Hi Majora. I see that you have closed Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 7#File:Vodafone logo.png. While I am not disagreeing with your close, it think it would've been best to leave the close to an uninvolved editor/admin since you were a participant in the discussion. FFD discussions do not typically attract the same response from the community that you might find at some of the other XfD discussions. So, if three people comment and then one of them decides to close the discussion as a WP:SNOW, the close could end up being challenged per WP:BADNAC. Also, since you are not an admin, you should make that clear in your close as explained in WP:NACD. Personally, I think it would be best for you to re-open the discussion and leave it for someone else to close, but that's your call, not mine. It's a really bad habit to start closing discussions you have been involved in and you need to be extra special careful when doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Short answer: No, to all of that.
Long answer: My previous comment on that FFD was simply stating my intended actions which I followed through on. I was going to watch the DR at Commons and depending on the outcome of that I would close the FFD here accordingly. I did not "SNOW" close anything. I neither said I did that and actually invoking SNOW at FFD would be laughable at best. I closed it based on the DR outcome, my understanding of copyright law (which is pretty good if I do say so myself), and my understanding of our fair use policy (which is based on precedent at FFD). Undoing the close just to force another person to follow the breadcrumbs to Commons and back to reach the same conclusion is the definition of an unneeded bureaucracy and I won't do that. I won't force someone else to have to do that when the close was perfectly justified and in no way a "badnac". I would have taken the same actions if I stayed silent. Again, all my previous comment was was a statement of intended actions, and a courtesy that I didn't have to do, that you (or anyone else) could have objected to. If you believe it was in error or that the close was actually improper, you know where to take me. I also don't participate in any other XfD area so you don't have to worry about me screwing up a close somewhere else. Files and copyright are my thing and I intend to stay at FFD and assist in the enormous backlog. So I won't be voluntarily reopening anything. Sorry. As for marking myself with the {{nac}} template I won't be doing that either for two reasons. One, I find it absolutely pointless. An admin close and a non-admin close are no different from one another. Admins do not hold any special close power nor are their closes any more "correct". If someone wants to find out if the closer of a discussion is an admin there are numerous avenues to do so. Besides, everyone who visits FFD normally, and I can count them on one hand, would know who's who or be easily able to find out (again that is the only XfD I participate in). Secondly, the script that I use to cleanly and easily close FFD threads doesn't do that and I'm not going to go back and make a whole additional edit just to slap on a nac template that I find pointless to begin with. If you want to ask Evad37, the designer of the script, to make that change you are more than welcome to do so. --Majora (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
My reference to WP:SNOW was misleading so I apologize for that. It wasn't my intent to imply you that was your reason for closing the discussion, only that all the comments (including yours) were in favor of removing the files from all the child entry articles (which I'm not disagreeing with) which make it seem like a "snow" close. Moreover, whether you consider your comment a !vote or an opinion, you said you were going to remove the file for the other articles if the Commons file was deleted and then went and closed the discussion as such. In other words, you participated in trying to establish a consensus regarding the file's non-free use and then proceeded to interpret that consensus and close the discussion in support of your position.
As for the difference between admin and non-admin close, there must be more differences than you seem to think because if there weren't there would be really no need to differentiate between the two. It's great that you are helping to reduce the backlog at FFD by closing discussions, but there are plenty of discussion in which you have not commented where you can do that. In addition, the fact that script you're using does not automatically add the "NAC" template to the close does not in and of itself seem to be a good reason not the go back and add one yourself as suggested by WP:NACD. The discussion is not just for editors who regularly visit FFD, but for any editor who may want to use the file within an article and who may not be familiar with who is and who isn't an administrator. Just for reference, I asked Explicit for an opinion on this because he is an administrator who regularly closes FFD files and he also participated in the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Instead of beating around the bush and bugging an admin who can't really do anything anyways just take me to AN if you really feel the close was improper. I'm not undoing it and I'm not going to start going back and adding a pointless template. --Majora (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Although I wouldn't have closed the discussion in Majora's position, I also don't see the point in reopening the discussion at this point. Majora, your view on the copyright status of the image does constitute as an opining on the discussion, so you should have refrained from closing it. There are very few administrators who work in the venue, but pinging them or leaving a message on their talk page would have sufficed. And per WP:NACD, you should be using the {{nac}} template in your closing rationales. — ξxplicit06:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
When you hold the bureaucracy above transparency you become a failure as a wikipedian and you definitely become a failure as an administrator. When you harangue another person, not because the decision was against copyright law or the fair use policy (which would have actually been a large problem) but because they wanted to be transparent with their intended actions you become an embarrassment. And lets be honest here, it is about transparency. If I had said nothing, and did exactly the same thing without saying a single word we wouldn't be here. The bureaucratic bullshit that has shown its ugly head here is an excellent example of why people refuse to apply for advanced permissions. It simply isn't worth it. You got your wish. Close undone. Let someone else deal with it. Hopefully before July. --Majora (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to note that I have re-closed it. I'd also like to note that I don't see the point of raising an issue with a close when nobody disputes it. Disputing an action based on the letter of the rules, without disputing the action itself, seems to be what WP:BURO tries to prevent. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me)22:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what the temper tantrum is all about. I clearly said there is no point in reopening the discussion. It was more a suggestion of how to approach situations like this in the future. If I've failed as an administrator, I implore you to highlight my questionable judgement to a relevant discussion venue and persuade the community to have my rights stripped from me. I'll wait. — ξxplicit00:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Failure is not the same as abuser. Your questionable judgement is the violation of NOTBURO. As you haven't abused your tools your bluff will not (and cannot) be called. Great job though. Just had to continue poking didn't you? Don't you have better things to do? --Majora (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ramaksoud2000: Tagging fair use images of living people as F7 ({{Di-replaceable fair use}}) would be absolutely huge. It would take an additional step or two, and I don't know if it is actually possible from a coding standpoint, but it would be immensely helpful. The bot could check to see the article it is being used on, see if it is in category:living people, and then tag accordingly, notifying the person in the process. There might be some hiccups with this that need to be worked out. There are very limited instances where a fair use photo of a living person would be acceptable. If the person is in a maximum security prison and is otherwise inaccessible, for example. The bot would have to look for {{Rk}} and skip those images when it comes across them. --Majora (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
To update, I've done some testing, and have concluded that there are way too many false positives to automate this. I have instead decided to have the bot generate a list of possible NFC violations at User:Ramaksoud2000Bot/Possible NFC violations. Bot approval is not required for edits to the userspace. I have already generated a list for all images with the {{non-free biog-pic}} template that are only used in articles of living people, and tagged the images that needed tagging. Now, the bot is generating a list of images that use the generic {{non-free fair use}} template and are only used in living people articles. The bot ignores images that also have a free license template on them, images with {{rk}}, images that have been at FFD, and images used on articles of people whose living status is disputed or who are at Gitmo prison. Although the list has false positives, going through it is much more effective than than just going through the category. If you have any more ideas, let me know! Thanks, Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me)09:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ramaksoud2000: That's too bad about the false positives but the list that your bot created does help immensely. Perhaps we can create a category that can be looked for that will force the bot to skip those whenever it creates that list? Since {{Rk}} is for when an image deletion was declined. I'm thinking this category could be more along the lines of "Fair-use rationale checked. Does not qualify for F7". So future updates could be more targeted. Thoughts? --Majora (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I've slowly been going through the "removable once checked" image maintenance categories. There are just so many of them. Category:Files from freely licensed external sources is a big one that I've been working on lately. There were so many copyvios in there and I now watch that regularly for newly uploaded files. Most of them are F9. --Majora (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Madman Anime Festival logo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Madman Anime Festival 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).
Hello Admin, I hope you are doing fine. Recently you deleted few of my images at Wikimedia commons, I also received a last warning from User:Srittau. Those deleted images were released by the photographer at Flickr under public domain license. Later when I communicated with Srittau (You may check our conversation here), they instructed copyright holder of the image to contact OTRS team. After contacting we received this OTRS ID 2017010910002555. Now I have uploaded the image as instructed for OTRS related uploads. I may have not formatted it correctly as I am not an expert on this, neither the copyright holder is an expert at Wikimedia commons. So, if there are some errors then help me rectify it. If I shouldn't have left a message here then I am sorry. I can copy this message to your Wikimedia commons userpage. Thanks in advance. Everypruner5 (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not an admin but I'll take a look at it when I have a moment. No promises on anything as I haven't looked at it yet. --Majora (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern about possible copyright violations, in my uploaded images, which I have always have done in good faith, with the best of intentions. Please, do not report me! These images and many others like it, are generally accepted and used by many other websites, as acceptable for educational purposes. Could you all please, help me to fix this problem, by going in and fixing it for me. I would greatly appreciate it, as it seems like my edit contributions are little appreciated. This frankly, threatening attitude and lack of understanding, by Wikipedia, will discourage me, from making any future contributions, on non-free rationale images. I hope, you understand from frustration, as I have done over 10,00 edits, since 2010. I give my best and timeless, hours in this endeavor. Do you want me to quit, what I have been doing for so long? Chitt66 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Chitt66: Of course I don't want you to quit. However, threatening to do so will not help in this manner. Copyright issues take precedent over everything and your use of these images also shows that you do not understand fair use. Even if a proper FUR was filled out the images would not be acceptable as they are not critically discussed, there are far too many of them, and you are using them on articles where they should not be used. It is clear that you do not understand images and their proper use here. That's fine. Many many people do not. That is why I am asking you to refrain from uploading more images until you can clearly explain the proper use of them. If you can't, that's fine. There is plenty of other things you can do as is clearly evident by your other contributions. If that is the case, I must insist that you do not upload any more images. --Majora (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you reading any of my messages? Will you, at least, be more objective and listen to and consider my image choices. I do have valid information for images, from existing Wiki Articles and Wiki Commons Images. If you feel what I am doing using these Wiki copyright, non-free use images. If think the Wiki provided image resources are not correct and illegal, please review and delete the Wiki Commons and Wiki Articles that are illegal to use. This would be an undertaking, by Wikipedia standards, that is a real can of worms and an impossible task for the few doing editing all the free images that are supposedly copyright free. Chitt66 (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Please, review these Wiki links with an open mind and understand what we volunteers (I have been told by Wikipedia, that I have done over 10,000 edits, since starting in 2010).
@Chitt66: First of all, stop leaving me barnstars. You know that you can communicate without having to do that right? And sending me "wikilove" in this situation just seems like you are being disruptive to try to make a point. Just use the edit button like everyone else. Second, you clearly do not understand fair use policy and you persist in putting these images into articles against policy even after I pleaded with you to stop. I tried being nice. Now, it is up to the admins to decide what to do. --Majora (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Please see this note I added to your intervention request and this discussion I had with him. WP:SELFCITE is allowed and I believe this author could contribute to this project. In the recent set of edits here, he put the citation in the wrong place, but didn't unduly promote his book. It would be nice if we could get him to cite other sources besides his own book. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Richard-of-Earth: A six and a half year old account is not new and "biting" doesn't apply. All you are doing is being complicit in their attempts to self promote their book. It is at ANI now. --Majora (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Second, the consensus is not strictly determined by the number of votes. Per WP:RFCEND: The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome. Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." When closing, a summary of the arguments should be given (see Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus) and "arguments that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" should be discarded (Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus).
First, most of the oppose votes raised the issue of the images possibly being subject to copyright in the future if the country of origin joins the Berne Convention, but did not respond to comments that templates could be made for those individual countries therefore allowing easy deletion of such images when a country joins the Berne Convention. Second, many raised the issue of the reusability of the content outside the US; however, as mentioned in the general discussion section, this is logically fallacious because 1) the images are free of copyright in most Berne Convention member states (currently 174 of the roughly 200 sovereign states) since copyright is based on reciprocity and countries like Iran and Somalia aren't party to significant other copyright treaties, 2) copyright exceptions (fair use & fair dealing) vary considerably from country to country, and 3) such a policy is inconsistent with other policies on WP, like allowing images of architecture that is not copyrighted in the US because of a freedom of panorama exception (which vary few countries' copyright laws have) or allowing works that are copyrighted in the country of origin but not the US (eg. some countries' copyright length is life+100 years).
It is important to note that even though the outcome was given as "no consensus", it relates to a Wikipedia policy and so the status quo should be kept, which is to consider such images on a case-by-case basis. However, the explanation given is that "There is no consensus to host content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S.", which implies that the policy has been changed, when in fact a lack of consensus about a departure from current policy should require keeping the status quo. AHeneen (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Take it to AN if you want to dispute the close. As that is the proper procedure. The close stands until overturned by the community there. There is no consensus to host those images here and no wall of text is going to make me reopen anything voluntarily. --Majora (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
As Majora has said here. ANI isn't intended for this sort of thing - AN is. Please move this request to AN so that it may receive the consideration that it deserves. SQLQuery me!05:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
No, the proper procedure is to discuss the matter with the closing editor first (I also raised these issues at User talk:Ramaksoud2000#Improper closure of copyright discussion. From Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures: For other procedures, whether formal RFCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. ... After discussing the matter with the closing editor, you may request review at the Administrators' noticeboard. That's why I've raised these issues here. AHeneen (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Majora. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
