User talk:Marchjuly

Kendra Haste

Hi Marchjuly - just a note to thank you for your contribution on User:Steel1943. I went ballistic when Steel listed all my images on Kendra Haste for discussion. He, and you, and everyone else who commented were kind to contribute in the discussion - I simply lost my temper. When I'm working on an article I consider it MINE for as long as I'm working on it - and those high res images are gold - except they don't work together as "Fair use" in one article. Silly me - but no matter - the author will now be forced to upload them to Commons if he wants them used so no matter - the article will survive. Happy New Year by the way. Mark^Dask 19:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the message Markdask. Everyone has a wikt:bad hair day every now and then, so it's all water under the bridge now. One thing about the files is that you can upload something on behalf of someone else as explained at c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. As long as the original copyright holder agrees to relase the files under a free license accepted to Commons, there is no real need to reupload the files. Even if they are deleted, they are not gone forever. Deleted files are in most cases merely hidden from public view, but they can be restored by an administrator. The copyright holder just needs to send a declaration of consent to Wikipedia:Contact OTRS and they will be sent an OTRS ticket number. If they then contact you and let you know this number, you can use it to get the files restored via WP:OTRSN or c:COM:OTRSN. An OTRS volunteer will tag the file with Template:OTRS pending, Template:OTRS received and Template:OTRS permission at various stages of the verification process. If you know for sure that the copyright holder has emailed OTRS, then you can also tag the files with the "OTRS pending" template. The entire verifiction process may take some time since there tends to be a backlog and only so many volunteers, but files legitmately tagged with OTRS pending are given a 30-day grace period before the template reverts back to Template:No permission.

Some things about non-free use images. Non-free use images of living people are almost never allowed per WP:NFCC#1 (see WP:FREER) because it is believed that a freely licensed replaceable image can be created by someone including the subject to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Typically, the infobox image is use to show the person for identification purposes so pretty much all Ms. Haste needs to do if take a selfie or have someone take a photo of her and then have it uploaded to Commons. Anywhere out and about should be fine, but I would try to avoid anything which might be copyrightable in the background unless it is clearly a case of de minimis. Photos of her work can be treated as non-free, but this is a bit harder to do because of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. The former requires that the image be strongly tied into the article content (usually by the image itself being the subject of sourced commentary) and the latter again requires that a freely licensed equivalent cannot be created. Since the UK's FOP is less restrictive than the US when it comes to 3D works of art, it's possible that someone can just take a picture and upload it to Commons without worrying about the copyright status of the sculpture itself. You should try asking at c:COM:RP or WP:RP for help. Lots of editors are really good at creating high-quality images and there's probably someone in that area who wouldn't mind doing it for you if you can't do it yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Image removal

DPLopes (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Dear Marchjuly, I noticed you removed the images I uploaded last year to illustrate a Wikipedia entry I submitted to. The reason you invoked is I don't have the rights of the images, an assumption that is not correct. Could you please look in to this? Thanks much in advance. Best, DanielDPLopes (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi DPLopes. I have not removed any files from Draft:Connect4Climate. I did tag some files that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as not having proper permission, but I did not delete them. If you look at the edit sums in the edit history of the draft, you'll see that the files were deleted from Commons by an administrator named c:User:INeverCry. Most likely this was done as a precaution because the required explicit declarations of consent for the files were not sent in to c:Commons:OTRS by the deadlines stated on the templates posted at c:User talk:DPLopes. If you actually are able to provide verification that you are the original copyright/holder creator of the files, then you can post a message at c:User talk:INeverCry and he will advise you on what you need to do. Just for reference, files which are deleted from Commons are typically not really gone forever; they have only been hidden from public view and can be undeleted in most cases without too much effort. All you need to do (if you are the files' copyright holder) is to follow the instructions on the templates on your Commons' user talk page and send in the required email(s) to OTRS. An OTRS volunteer will then review the email and determine if the license is appropriate for Commons. It sometimes takes a little time for the process to run its course, so you need to be patient and not re-upload the files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_January_12#George_Michael_cover_art

See the closure. I'll leave it to you as nominator to convert the files to {{PD-simple}} as suggested. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi BU Rob13 and thanks for the message. Maybe {{PD-USonly}} should be used instead of {{PD-simple}} since I've seen that used when the copyright is considered to be below the TOO for the US, but not for the country of origin? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's generally more specific to use {{PD-simple}} and {{Do not move to Commons}} with parameter "reason = USonly" ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification BU Rob13. I converted the licensing, but please double-check to make sure I did it correctly. I left the |author= and |date= blank in the {{Information}} because I wasn't sure what should go there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Might want to add the release date of the singles in the date parameter. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

iraq logo

you say you are not discriminating but if thats true, why have you not nominated the france logo, italy logo, portugal logo or netherlands logo to be deleted. these are four of the biggest national teams in the world, but instead of looking at their page you decide to pick on a small team like iraq? why you nominated iraq's logo and ignored other teams? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC08:7E00:346D:1E8D:D50E:83F7 (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi 2A02:2A02:C7F:DC08:7E00:346D:1E8D:D50E:83F7|2A02:C7F:DC08:7E00:346D:1E8D:D50E:83F7. Any editor can nominate a file for discussion at WP:FFD if they feel it feel if they have questions about it's use. So, if you feel those the non-free use of those files does not satisfy Wikipedia's non-free use policy, then you should feel free to nominate them for discussion. You do not need anyone's permission to do so and you don't need to accuse other editors of discrimination to do so. At the same time if you feel that the logo for the Iraqi team should be allowed to be used in its article, then you should start a discussion about it at WP:FFD, explain why and try to establish a consensus for doing so. Just for reference, there have been discussions on how relevant non-free use policy should apply to these national team logos, such as Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#Application of WP:NFC#UUI #17, so it's quite possible that the community's consensus has changed in favor of using those files in mens and womens national team articles or is at least moving in such a direction. If you want to discuss the policy behind this, then the place to do so is at WT:NFCC; if you want to only discuss this particular file, then the place to do so is at WP:FFD and it's possible that a new FFD discussion may lead to a new concensus for that particular use. I would not suggest continuing to ignore the FFD consensus about this particular type of logo use because doing so is eventually going to be seen as either disruptive, a copyright violation or a combination of both.

This is the third IP address that is being used to either add or comment on this particular file's use. I'm assuming that you are also 2a02:c7f:dc08:7e00:a541:a893:60db:7cae and 2a02:c7f:dc08:7e00:d103:43c4:1e2b:e3b7 because I've never had any interaction with this IP account before. So, if you are the same person, then it would be helpful if you register for an account if you're going to engage in serious discussion about this. New accounts which come out of nowhere and start discussing with their very first edits complicated policy-related matters, such as non-free image use polciy, or start making bad faith claims about other editors can easily give the impression that the account itself maybe new, but the editor behind the account is not. Such accounts tend to be more highly scrutinized by others, and their comments may not be given the weight they deserve by the community simply because of their suspicious nature. Wikipedia does not require that users register for an account in order to edit, but registering for an account will allow all the edits you make to be attributed to you and would make it much easier others to be sure they are discussing things with the same editor. This will not only reduce the chances of others mistaking the accounts for sockpuppetry or meatpupperty, but it will also increases your chances of establishing a new consensus regarding this type of image use. If, by chance, you already have a registered account and just forgot to log in, then that's OK. Just try to remember to log in each time you post to make it clear who is doing the posts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)