User talk:Gerald Waldo Luis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Archive of talks, archived July 2020.

May 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Gundala (film) has been reverted.
Your edit here to Gundala (film) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hInjizD2qY4) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Transport aviation (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Transport aviation (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transport aviation (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fuddle (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ben Drowns Again (June 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bingobro were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Gerald Waldo Luis/Ben Drowns Again and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Gerald Waldo Luis/Ben Drowns Again, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bingobro (Chat) 08:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gerald Waldo Luis! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Bingobro (Chat) 08:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User airbag2

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, User airbag2, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

About Linktree - "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement"

Hi Gerald, and thank you for your message on my user talkpage.

I added the advert tag as a corollary of the notability tag: in my opinion, Linktree fails any number of tests for "notability", including the General notability guidelines and the organisation-specific guidelines. If an article does not pass those criteria for inclusion as a Wikipedia article, it would also be not the place to advertise a business.

Please do let know If I can assist you in any way about this, or in anything else related to the English language Wikipedia.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey there Peter, thanks for replying to my question! After I read your reply above, I checked the guideline links for notability and sources again, and I also checked the Linktree article once more.

I can probably see your opinion on it sound commercial-ish, by how the History section sounded. However I cannot see how it does not obey WP:GNG. There are independent inline citations for claims that are likely to be challenged. And only one of them is from Linktree.

If you can kindly clarify how it has several insufficient citations, and at which part does it sound like an advert, or whether it needs additional citations, please let me know, so that I could fix it. Thanks! (And sorry for my slightly broken English). GeraldWL 12:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020

Hello,

Apologies for responding quite late as I am still quite new to Wikipedia. When I went onto the official Xbox Store listing it only said (as of right now) that the game was on Windows 10 so I felt it was appropriate. However, after checking other sources I have realised I was incorrect and have since fixed the page.

AnonymoosUsr (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey there. It really is not late, its actually relatively fast for a reply. Thanks for the quick fix. There's always gonna be mistakes regarding verifiability we make, it's usual. GeraldWL 11:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Gerald Waldo Luis! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Link rot, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FS2020 thumbnail.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FS2020 thumbnail.jpg. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:The Arrow of Time artwork.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The file File:The Arrow of Time artwork.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in Timelapse of the Future#Soundtrack. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE and MOS:TVPRODUCTION.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Well, first of all, shit. I have multiple prods given in a day, and I am stressed rn having to face the US copyright. But whatever, I must follow it.

Assuming you have put this page on your watchlist, I have several arguments on the prodded deletion.

I feel like it's not a decorative purpose. I don't put it for decorations for an encyclopedia, though if appropriate I may try to make an article friendly. I feel like it is an additional information, showing what the artwork is like.

Okay, I may sound stupid, but I'll try point out: The World of the Married. That image is fair use, but the artwork is still included. Why? Because it gives an additional information.

And then, it is also tagged by a bot, which makes me more pressurized. I have reduced the size of the image to 50%. It is already low-res enough that people would not serve this article as a market substitute.

I respect copyright and people's will to protect their work, but I don't understand how is it not fair use in the TOTF article. Should I include a commentary or something? What kind? If there's anything I can do, please do let me know, as I feel like keeping the image is valid.

Sorry if I exploded my mind, I am so anxious currently. I'm really not used to this. An assistance would be very appreciated. GeraldWL 15:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the improper use of a non-free album cover in The World of the Married; that file has now also been prodded for deletion. There are lots (I believe more than 600K) of non-free files being used on English Wikipedia and more keep getting uploaded everyday. Just because a file is being used it a certain way doesn’t mean it should be being used in such a way as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE or WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED. Non-free files and non-free use are not pre-assessed before they are uploaded or added to article; so, sometimes a file may go unnoticed for quite some time. That, however, doesn’t mean the particular use or uses are policy compliant.

As for this particular file, if you check my responses to you on Commons, you’ll see that I pointed out that this type of non-free file use is not along. For sure, you will come across other similar files being used in other similar articles, but that doesn’t mean they should be being used. The kind-standing consensus is that this per WP:NFC#cite_note-3, WP:FILMSCORE and MOS:TVPRODUCTION is that this type of non-free is not considered policy compliant unless there’s specific sourced critical commentary related to the cover art itself (not the album). If you feel the album meets WP:NALBUM and want to create a stand-alone article about it, then the cover art could be used in that article for primary identification purposes.

As for the size issue, see WP:IMAGERES for more information, but if the file was tagged with {{non-free reduce}}, then a WP:BOT will come around and reduce the file to an appropriate size; so, you don’t really need to do anything. Actually, trying to reduce the file yourself may still lead to a bit further reducing the file if you don’t do it enough, which will mean more orphaned non-free revisions that will need to be deleted per WP:F5.

If you disagree with the prod tag I added, you can WP:DEPROD the file. A page can only be prodded once which means the next step would be to discuss the file at WP:FFD. Before you do that though, you may want to ask for other opinions at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC because as it’s currently being used, I don’t think there’s really much chance of the file being kept per a FFD consensus. — Marchjuly (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me an explanation, it really helps out for future uploads. By the way, I just reached out to the creator, John Boswell, via email, and he said that he distributes the video and the three photos under CC Attribution NC-BY-SA 3.0 Unsupported. I'm sure that is allowed here. If you need proof, I can show it to you via Discord or something. What do you think? GeraldWL 00:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The licensing that Wikipedia and Commons accepts are listed in WP:COPY and c:COM:L. If the copyright holder wants to release their work under one of these licenses, they can. There are a couple of ways they can do this as explained in c:COM:OTRS, but the a common way would be to email their WP:CONSENT to WP:Contact OTRS. You should make sure the copyright holder understands things like c:COM:LRV because basically they are going to be agreeing to release a their work under a license that allows anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at anytime and use for any purpose (inlcuding commercial reuse and derivative use), and once they do this there is no going back. As long as anyone reusing the file complies with the terms of the original license, they can continue to reuse it even if the copyright holder changes their mind after the fact. The copyright holder is not transferring their copyright to anyone else; they are just making a version of their work freely available to others under the terms of certain types of licenses.

The copyright holder should also understand that non-copyright types of restrictions are not going to apply to Wikipedia or Commons or the file's licesning. Any problems the copyright holder has with reusers are things that the copyright holder is most likely going to need to resolve; neither Wikipedia nor Commons will step in to prevent others from inappropriately reusing the work. I'm not tyring to discourage you or the copyright holder, only trying to clarify some things that are important for the copyright holder to understand. Many persons are happy to agree to let others use their work on Wikipedia for educational purposes, but they don't quite realize that Wikipedia and Commons will not accept any freely licensed content with a "for Wikipedia use only", "for non-commerical use only", "for educational use only", or "for non-derivative use only" or any combination thereof type of restriction placed upon it. There are licenses for such types of things, but they are not ones that Wikipedia or Commons accepts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Just want to add that if the copyright holder decides to email their CONSENT to OTRS for the files, they should (1) use an official business email account if at all possible and (2) include the names of the Commons file in the email. The email will be reviewed by an OTRS volunteer and if the OTRS volunteer will update the licensing for each Commons file if everything is in order. Using an official work email makes things a bit easier than using a gmail type of account and adding the names of the file will save the OTRS volunteer from having to search for the files on Commons. A single email can be sent to cover all three files. OTRS volunteers have to go through a fairly rigorous selection process and need to sign a statement in which they agree not reveal the contents of the emails they receive to anyone who's not cleared to see such information. They will answer general questions on noticeboards like WP:OTRSN and c:COM:OTRSN, but they won't discuss specifics on any public pages or with anyone other than those who are sending in the emails. Links to Commons files should be provided because that's where the files are going to ultimately be hosted and the Commons files are not going to be reduced in size due to WP:NFCC#3b.

If you receive word from the copyright holder that they have emailed OTRS, you can add the template c:Template:OTRS pending to each file's page and then add a corresponding note to each of the Commons deletion discussions; this will let others know that an email has been set it and is awaiting review. If the email checks out, an OTRS volunteer will replace the pending template with c:Template:PermissionOTRS; if not, they most likely will add c:Template:OTRS received and inform the copyright holder of the problem. When the copyright holder emails OTRS, they should get a fairly quick automated reply containing an OTRS ticket number; they can reference this ticket number if the they want to further discuss things with OTRS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

That's enough information needed. Thank you. I'm still trying to process the information, though. It is a myriad of stuff and copyright is a complicated thing, but I will get the hang into it. GeraldWL 08:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

So just to clarify, in a nutshell, I may upload the file under verified license, but contacting the OTRS is best? GeraldWL 08:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you mean be “verified license”. If you mean that the copyright holder intends to post their content on their official website under one of the free licenses that Wikipedia and Commons accept, then that would probably OK per c:COM:OTRS#When contacting OTRS is unnecessary. If you mean that the copyright wants to give their consent to you verbally or via email and then you somehow pass info along to OTRS, then that’s not really going to be OK and the copyright holder will need send a consent email to OTRS. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The first definition is what I'm talking about. Thanks. GeraldWL 10:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: And last thing: how will the prod tag be deleted? GeraldWL 11:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to upload a new file even if the current ones are by chance deleted. Files that are deleted aren't gone forever; they are only hidden from view and can be restored at a later date upon request by an administrator if the issues which led to their deletion are subsequently resolved. You also don't need to change the license since that will be done by the OTRS volunteer who verifies the CONSENT email sent in by the copyright holder. As I posted above, you can WP:DEPROD the file if you want, but the file's likely going to end up deleted per an WP:FFD discussion if you do. If you don't do anything, the tag will be reviewed by a Wikipedia administrator in a few days who will decide what to do; they'll either delete the file, or decline the prod and explain why.

If the copyright holder does release the files on some official website that Wikipedia or Commons accepts, you can go to c:COM:AN, post an explanation of what is happening, provide a link to the website where the license can be verified and then ask a Commons administrator to update the files' licensing. You could change the licenses yourself, but it would probably be better to let someone else like a Commons administrator or c:Commons:License reviewer do such a thing just in case there's some kind of problem. If the licensing doesn't check out, then the files will just end up being nominated for deletion again and this time people are going to be way less willing to help sort things out. Finally, one last thing, is that the Commons community is willing to assume good faith, but if they think you're trying to sneak something by them with respect to the files' licensing, the files will most likely not only get deleted, but your account will probably end up blocked as well. I'm not trying to scare you off or imply that's what you're going to try and do, but Commons's only concern is whether the files it hosts are licensed correctly and anything that seems questionable usually ends up deleted per c:COM:PCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I have asked the owner to email OTRS if he allows. We'll just wait to see if he does. GeraldWL 08:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:The Arrow of Time artwork.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Arrow of Time artwork.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Randonautica

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In your article update for Randonautica, you included the origin as a portmanteau of random and astronautica. Do you have a reference that astronautica was the word used? Curious as nautica is a word/suffix on its own (meaning "navigation") from which the word astronautica is itself derived ("star" + "navigation"). Also, I'm not sure that it would qualify as a portmanteau as that is usually the combining of two or more words into a new indivisible morph/word (slime+dog→slog would qualify) but this seems to be more of a normal compound word (slime+dog→slimedog would qualify, as would astro+nautica→astronautica). Many thanks in advance. :) — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Imeriki al-Shimoni Thanks for pointing that out, I never knew "nautica" exist lmao. I'm pretty sure it was a portmanteau, since the letter "m" is omitted in "random." That genuinely counts in my opinion. I'll edit that article straightforward. GeraldWL 08:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.