User talk:Majora

Deletion of photos from "National Historic Sites in Quebec"

Several photos were nominated for deletion and, before any discussion or reply could take place, were removed from the page just 10 minutes after being nominated. If I read the timestamps correctly, they were then deleted from Wikipedia one minute after that. There was no time to reply, and the "Contest this deletion" button must have disappeared along with the files.

The site from which all images were taken has a clear provision for non-commercial use, stating that images "...may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the Government of Canada, or the provincial or territorial government counterparts." Important notices, Non-commercial use, Historicplaces.ca It asks that the name of the website be identified, which was done in the source entry. If there is any issue with the license selected, feel free to suggest one which might be a better fit.

I have posted a similar message under just one of the photos in question, and in a discussion about another one. If I need to post the same message on each photo's page, I can, but it may be redundant. Yoho2001 (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yoho2001: Speedy deletions happen quickly. That is why they are "speedy". Non-commercial restrictions are not acceptable here. Wikipedia may be a non-profit but we allow full reuse of our material so all images that do not fall under our strict fair use policy (which these did not) need to be under a license that allows anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). Those images are not {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Please do not just pick a random license because it looks good. Copyright licensing must be explicit or it isn't valid. --Majora (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

There are no restrictions for non-commercial use. The site's purpose is to share photos, and any taken from federal or provincial government sources is free to use. Only certain non-government photos require further permission, but the ones I selected do not. Feel free to suggest a better license. Yoho2001 (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) "No restrictions for non-commercial use" is a bit confusing, but I think what Majora means is that neither Wikipedia nor Commons will accept a free license which places restrictions on commercial use. So, if the website/copyright holder has licensed the files in a manner which does not allow their images to be downloaded and then be reused for commercial purposes, Wikipedia can't accept them as such. The copyright needs to clearly state on their website that the images in question are allowed to be used in such a way, or they need to email their explicit consent to release the image as such to Wikimedia OTRS. If the copyright consent can be verified, the file can be restored per WP:REFUND or by discussing things with the deleting admin. Files which have been deleted aren't gone forever, but rather only hidden from public view. It's not uncommon for a file which has been deleted to be restored st a later date once its licensing has been sorted out. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yoho2001: As MarchJuly said. There isn't a better license. The website only allows commercial use with written permission. That is a restriction. The specific quote from the licensing page is: Reproduction of multiple copies of material on this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution is prohibited except with written permission. Wikipedia requires unrestricted commercial reuse licensing. There can be attribution requirements but requiring written permission for commercial reuse is not acceptable. In addition, Canada governmental photos are not automatically ok to use here like US federal photos would be. Even Crown Copyright has a term of 50 years from publication. --Majora (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, @Marchjuly: and @Majora:. I will contact the website to see whether it might consider allowing free use for commercial purposes, as well as non-commercial; whether it might post that on the site or give written permission to do so. It's frustrating and discouraging to have gone to the trouble of uploading nine photos, with all the form fields filled in, only to have them removed so quickly. This, even though the site clearly allows use of the photos for educational purposes such as this. Yoho2001 (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

While I understand your frustration, Wikipedia's policy on this requires that files be licensed in a manner which allow unlimited re-use for any purpose by anyone anywhere in the world at any time, not just educational. Wikipedia's use of the photo may be educational, but someone downloading the file may want to use the file for commercial purposes, and it is that latter part which also needs to be taken into account. You would techincally need to license the files under an "NC license", but such a license is not accpeted by Wikipedia or Commons. This might seem a bit too harsh of an approach, but it is designed to protect the rights of copyright holders as much as possible. Anyway, as I posted above, deleted files can be restored at a later date once the issues which lead to there deletion have been resolved. You can also discuss your concerns with the closing admin, ask for other opinons at WP:MCQ or perhaps even ask at WP:OTRSN if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

• From the editors: The Signpost's presses roll again

• Signpost: Future directions for The Signpost

• News and notes: Photo of Kim Jong-un. Stephen Hawking death tops hits on many Wikipedias.

• In the media: The rise of Wikipedia as a disinformation mop

• In focus: Admin reports board under criticism

• Special report: ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide

• Opinion: Guideline for Organization Notability revised

• Op-ed: World War II Myth-making and Wikipedia

• Community view: It's time we look past Women in Red to counter systemic bias

• Discussion report: The future of portals

• Arbitration report: No new cases, and one motion on administrative misconduct

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Military History

• Blog: Why the world reads Wikipedia

• Humour: Our Favorite Places to Whine About Stuff

• Traffic report: A quiet place to wrestle with the articles of March

• Technology report: Coming soon: Books-to-PDF, interactive maps, rollback confirmation

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Gallery: A look at some famous and not as well-known border tripoints

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your maintenance efforts. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

Kevin submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate User Majora to be Editor of the Week for their long hard work maintaining our images and other media files. Majora's work makes our file copyright policies work, dedicating hundreds of hours and many edits to the cleanup of our file namespace – something many of us take for granted. A WP:Help desk volunteer and an editor dedicated to making forensic science a "good" topic, Majora embodies the spirit of the Editor of the Week, and it gives me tremendous joy to nominate them for this award. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)