User talk:Marchjuly

Re:User:WWE Y ECW

Hello, Marchjuly. You have new messages at Sjb72's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy

No problems, I'll leave the image out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HoldenV8 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC+9) (UTC)

Re: Seattle Mariners Insignia

Hello, Marchjuly. You have new messages at NetWitz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

License plate usage

Your edit intended to bring this discussion of license plate table formatting into compliance drew my attention to just how screwed up and inconsistent the licensing and/or rationale metadata is for the various license plate images. I'm pretty sure the metadata for the Alabama image used in the talk-page example is wrong and that this does not constitute the use of a logo. I'm almost as sure there's a pretty significant degree of public ownership of these images and that (if things were tagged correctly), we wouldn't need to hide the images. Sadly, that's about where my knowledge ends.

I tried to find an example license plate image with metadata that seemed competently assembled, but a random sampling of a dozen images turned up nothing promising. I looked at examples from U.S. coinage for comparison, and clearly that's much more rationally organized, but that's only helpful to a degree. I'm not sure if this is your wheelhouse, but I thought you might at least have a little better lay of the land than I do. Do you have any idea where I should be looking for precedent and/or the correct template? Cheers —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 15:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi JamesLucas. For reference, I was only going by how the files were licensed for use on Wikipedia. There is always a chance that the editor uploaded the file with the incorrect license. The problem with using non-free images in such a way is that that type of usage is typically considered decorative per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES because the images is primarily used for "show" and lacks the context required by WP:NFCC#8. The files I removed also were lacking the seperate specific non-free use rationales required by WP:NFCC#10c for those particular uses. If you feel such a non-free use can be justified, please provide the required rationales for each use before re-adding the file's to the article. However, as posted above, I didn't feel that valid rationales meeting satisfying all ten non-free content criteria could be written, so I converted the files to links because in some cases a link is preferred to nothing at all or a placeholder; the links, however, can be removed altogether or replace by a palceholder if that's the local consensus.

In general, the works of US federal government employees are considered to be within the public domain as explained in WP:PD#U.S. government works as long as the work was created as part of their official duties. Things, however, are not so clear for various state and local governments. Some states such as Florida and California are similiar to the US government in that works created by their employees as part of their official duties are released into the public domain. The majority of governments below the US federal level seem to do things differently and copyright their works. So, simply being released/viewable to the public or "owned" by the public does not always automatically mean public domain. In the case of license plates that are more than simply just numbers and text, there may be a creative element involved (perhaps by a third-party and not a state employee) which is still considered to be subject to copyright protection. In general, Wikipedia's licensing requirements pretty much allow free use of all its content by anyone anywhere in the world for any purpose, and anything uploaded to Wikipedia is considered to be under that licensing unless clearly specified otherwise. Often times logos/images, etc. are treated as non-free content out of caution as explained in c:COM:PCP unless they can be clearly shown to have been released under a free license or within the public domain. It might be possible for the two Florida license plates to be PD, but I think it would be a good idea to ask about those (as well as Alabama) at either WP:MCQ or c:COM:VP/C. Asking about this type of things at Commons is often helpful because Commons primarily deals with image issues and if Commons will accept an image, there's no need for a local upload to Wikipedia. If the licensing of any of the files is incorrect, it should be able to fairly easily convert to the correct licensing without re-uploading/deleting any files.

Finally, US curency might not be the best comparison to make in this case simply because (I believe) currency in general falls under the purview of the US federal government, whose works as explained above, tend to be within the public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@JamesLucas:. Just though you should know about WP:MCQ#Florida license plates. It appears that those two files are actually PD-FLGov, so I've re-added them to the list article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

This is amazingly helpful. It's going to take me a little time read this carefully and follow links, but please know that I'm already appreciative! —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 15:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think there's much that can be done about the Alabama plate. Alabama does not seem to operate like CA and FL and declare the work of its employees to be public domain. Moreover, the plate itself is a bit more than simple text, numbers or ultilitarian symbols, so it's likely not OK as {{PD-simple}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for your good work at wp:commons on the licence for Keegan's photo. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:TPO

Hello Marchjuly,

As I said in the edit summary, per WP:TPO, you should never edit or move someone's comment. Also, if the file is permissible on the project, then it's permissible on the project. Perhaps you misunderstand the policies? But if you still feel you're correct, kindly take it to a noticeboard for confirmation. Send me the link and I'll monitor it there. Upon confirmation, I'll voluntarily remove it myself, without you having to resort to editing my comments. But please self-revert your edit of my content until then. X4n6 (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

As I posted in my edit sum and on your user talk, non-free content is only allowed in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9; it cannot be displayed on article talk pages per WP:TPG#Hiding or resizing images (which is in the bullet-point subsection of WP:TPO following " Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:" ). So, there will be no self-revert. If you feel that NFCC#9 does not apply in this case, then you should provide a non-free use rationale use the file for Talk:Harvard because each use of non-free content is required to be provided with a spearate specific non-free use rationale showing how the particluar use satisfies all ten non-free content criteria per WP:NFCC#10c. The problem is that there's no way to provide a valid rationale for such a use because of NFCC#9. If you think there should be some kind of exemption to the NFCCP given for article talk pages, then I suggest you start a discussion at WT:NFCC.

For reference the other non-free use of File:Crypt keeper crime patrol 15.jpg is not being challenged. It has the rationale required by NFCC#10c and it is being used in the article namespace so NFCC#9 is not an issue. The file is not being nominated for deletion; it's only been removed from Talk:Harvard. I really suggest you ask about this at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC because it is actually you who seem to be misunderstanding relevant policy. Removing the file is permitted by both WP:NFCCE and WP:NOT3RR, but continuing to re-add the image will lead to either a thread being started at either WP:AN3 or WP:ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCC#9 it only applies "when they are a topic of discussion," which this image was not. While WP:TPG#Hiding or resizing images also clearly says "Another common and acceptable image-related edit is re-sizing images that were posted in full size and take up too much room on the talk page."

Meanwhile, you've inserted yourself into something that did not involve you and you've violated the first tenet of TPO which says "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning..." in the process. You've also refused the offer to self-revert; as well as the request for noticeboard clarification; and my offer to remove the material myself if appropriate 3rd party confirmation is obtained. So it seems odd that you would mention WP:AN3 or WP:ANI, rather than being concerned about them yourself. X4n6 (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to the last two sentences of WP:TPG#Hiding or resizing images which is part of WP:TPO. It states "Non-free content can not be used at talk pages. If they are being discussed, they must be linked with a colon, as described, and If they are included for decorative purposes, they must be removed.", so I'm not sure why this is confusing. I didn't self-revert because this type of non-free use is clearly not allowed per WP:NFCC#9 and the file was removed completely in accordance with Wikipedia7s non-free content use policy. NFCC#9 does state that non-free images can be linked when they are the topic of discussion on article talk pages, but what that means is that they are to be removed when they are not. It does not mean and never has nmeant that you can use non-free images decoratively on article talk pages.

Now if you feel the beginning of TPO takes precendence over WP:NFCCP and WP:TPG#Hiding or resizing images, then be my guest and start a thread about me at WP:ANI, or if you feel that adding non-free content to article talk pages is an exemption to NFCC#9 or WP:NFCC#10c. then continue to re-add the file and claim WP:NOT3RR. All you need to do is ask whether non-free content is allowed to be used on article talk pages. You can ask this at WP:MCQ, WT:NFCC or even at WP:THQ. If you don't want to ask yourself, then I can ask for you. I, however, am quite sure that it is not, so it seems better for you to ask since you can phrase the question as you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

For me, the prohibition against editing other user's comments is paramount. With few exceptions, it's anathema to this project. I've seen people warned and blocked for it. While I don't recall ever seeing that level of sanction for a possible non-free use of an existing image on a talk page. Since you've now made the offer, go ahead and ask at whichever forum you wish. Send me the link and I'll monitor it. You've referenced sections you believe support your view, as have I. So at this point, it merits some clarification. X4n6 (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I started as dicussion about this at WT:NFCC#Clarification of NFCC#9 with respect to article talk pages. I believe I correctly stated what the issue is, but please feel free to point out any errors you feel I might have made.

NFCC#9 and "Hiding or resizing images" are well established exceptions to TPO. NFCC#9 means that non-free content use is not allowed anywhere outside of the article namesppace except for the exemptions listed in WP:NFEXMP. I too have seen ANIs and AN3s where editors insisting otherwise have been blocked. Removing clear violations of WP:NFCCP such as in this case are not considered violations of WP:3RR per item 5 of WP:NOT3RR and would not be considered in appropriate in anyway at ANI, so I am not concerned about my edits/behavior being discussed at either at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Marchjuly, you're absolutely wasting your time. The IDHT is strong in this one. EEng 06:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)