User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2016/December

Looking for input

Hi there, I was wondering if you would be willing to share your input here on these files at FFD. Thank you! Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

AfD for Donnie Hogan

Hi, Marchjuly, I just wanted to let you know I removed the BALLOT tag from the Donnie Hogan AfD. This really does not seem to be the issue here. Thanks... reddogsix (talk)}

No problem. I saw that an IP was also commenting there, but didn't realize until I saw the COIN thread that it's probably the same editor who just forgot to log in. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

MIX5

--Pipera (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)- pipera

Re: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/MIX5

I have removed the speedy deletion from this because the person was causing mischief by adding this just 5 minutes after I created the page. This is totally unreasonable and not cool. I have expanded the article. I also don't appreciate this kind of treatment here at Wikipedia when someone is just pouncing on just created articles and content and slapping a speedy deletion on these articles. I would suggest you wait at least a day before acting in this manner in future as not to offend people simply wishing to add legitimate articles and content to this site. This is unacceptable and bulling to say the least. I have been a member here since 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipera (talk • contribs) 19:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC+9) (UTC)

Hi Pipera. Please try to assume good faith in such cases. Robert McClenon, the editor who added the speedy deletion template, is quite an experienced editor who reviews many newly created articles and drafts. It is very unlikely he did it just to cause "mischief", but rather because they believed the band does not satisfy WP:A7. This is why it's sometimes best to avoid directly creating articles directly in the article namespace, but instead to work on them for a bit as a draft until they are a bit more ready for Wikipedia. After looking at the additional content you've added, it is possible that speedy deletion will be declined by the administrator who reviews the article. However, it is still not clear how the groups satisfies WP:BAND or WP:GNG. So, even if the article is not speedily deleted, there is a good chance it will be nominated for deletion. It might be a good idea for you to ask for assistance with this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latin music to see if someone in that WikiProject can offer you advice on how to find better sources for the article.

Finally, please try to sign your posts after your talk page comments (not before) because it help other know who posted what and when and follow Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

--Pipera (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

--Pipera

They are only a new group just created I will on coming days add more content to the page, I will talk to the people and seek assistance. --Pipera (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Pipera

User:Pipera - Please explain your comment "I will talk to the people and seek assistance." Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

You should not remove templates from articles you have created yourself. An administrator will review the comment you added to the article's talk page and decide what to do. Since you say you've been a member of Wikipedia since 2001, you are not a newbie and you should be well aware of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and also that editors are expected to avoid edit warring and WP:3RR whenever possible. You should also be well aware that accusing others of things like "mischief" and "bullying" like you did above is something taken quite seriously by Wikipedia and that false accusations may be considered to be personal attacks. The best thing to do is to continue to explain on the article's talk page why you feel the article should not be speedily deleted and show how it satisfies WP:BAND. At the same time, if you feel other editors have been acting inappropriately, then please start a discussion at WP:ANI. Continuing to do what you have been doing, however, is going to be seen as edit warring and likely going to lead to an administrator being asked to get involved.

Since the band is a new group, it is possible that it might be WP:TOOSOON for them to have an article written about them on Wikipedia. Maybe it would be a good idea for you to ask for the article to be moved to a draft, so that you can continue to work on it and find better sources which show that the group clearly satisfies WP:BAND. Anything added to the article namespace can be edited by anyone at anytime, which includes nominating for deletion by anyone at anytime. The most improtant thing for an article to survive deletion is to provide sources which shows that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple. independent reliable sources. Adding colorful tables, etc. may make an article look nice, but that does nothing towards establishing Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

pipera I was asked to contact the Latin part of Wikipedia to expand the article of which I was talking about, I have no idea where you got the idea I was working for them. To the point I wish that I never placed this page here you know about 5 minutes later it was listed for speedy deletion by yourself. You could have waited at least a day before placing this tag on the site but you did within 5 or so minutes of the pages assistance, So I ask you to remove the speedy deletion tag and let the article well exist. I also find it difficult to understand why you have an objection to the page being here in the first place considering I have visited pages with less that this on it and they have never had a speedy deletion tag attached? --Pipera (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pipera. First of all, please add your signature to the end of your posts not to the beginning, OK? Doing so will make it much easier to follow. Also I think you're reply is in response to what Robert McClenon posted above so I've pinged him and will let him respond. For future reference, you can use Template:reply to when you're responding to a post made by a particular user on talk pages where multiple people are posting. It also helps if you add your post directly below the one you're replying to and use proper indentation. FWIW, Robert McClenon has stated at Talk:MIX5#Contested deletion_2 that he now feels that the page should not be speedily deleted per WP:A7, so I don't think the page is going to be speedily deleted. Please just be patient and wait for an administrator or another editor to remove the template. This does not mean that the article will not ever be nominated for deletion, so please continue to work on the article and look for significant coverage which shows the group satisfies WP:BAND. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:FFD

I didn't want to drop the participation matter, but I've left no choice but to do so. I was thinking about creating the RfC feedback on the process. However, I'm unsure whether this helps. --George Ho (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi George Ho. I'm sorry, but this does not ring a bell for me and my bell tends to be easily rung. Would you mind providing a link to the relevant discussion so that I can refresh my memory? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Here you go: WT:FFD#Insufficient participation in discussions? (diff, just in case). --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but not sure what more can be done other than what was suggested there. An RfC might help, but, then again, quite a number of people commented in the RfCs to merge WP:NFCR and WP:PUF into FFD, but not many ended participating in relevant discussion after those merges were completed. So, basically multiple pages of backlogs of file-related discussions were combined together into a single page with one big backlog of file related discussions without a corresponding increase of participation in said discussions. Not sure what the solution is and don't think there's ever going to be a way to keep up with the number of file's being upload without (1) direct action from the WMF and (2) a more stringent review policy for new files being uploaded. There are simply too many files and too few editors interested in file related matters. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I started the RfC on feedback. George Ho (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

African Union flag removal

Okay, I am kind of new on Wikipedia, but - I see for some reason that you have removed the file of Flag of African Union in article Flags of Africa. In fact, looking at the revision history, you have done this three times before.

.. Why? In what capacity a publicly displayed flag, in an article whose entire point is showcasing flags of Africa is not meeting these criteria? Especially since said file is already being used on main article for African Union, and its own article in Flag of African Union?

If the file itself is the problem - then it's a bigger problem than just this one article, since, again, it's used in several articles.

I'm sorry, I'm new so sorry if I misunderstand something fundamental, but I don't get what is so specific about this flag as compared to all the others in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinobody (talk • contribs) 06:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Shinobody. It has to do with the licensing of the file. File:African Union flag.svg is licensed as non-free content whereas all of the other flags in the article are either licensed as public domain or under a free license. Each use of non-free content on Wikipedia is required to satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria listed at WP:NFCCP. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC#10c which states that a separate specific non-free use rationale is required for each use of a non-free file.

You added the flag to the article, but you did not add the required non-free use rationale. In some cases, this can be simply fixed by adding the appropriate rationale for the desired usage, and I would've done that if a valid rationale could be written. The problem is that the intended use of the flag in the article is considered "decorative" since it would not be the subject or any sourced commentary within article and would not be used as the primary means of identifying the subject of the article. For public domain or freely licensed files, this is not such a big deal; for non-free files, however, this type of usage is not typically allowed per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES because the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is not provided. In other words, simply wanting to "show" the flag is not enough to justify it's non-free use, but rather there has to be a strong contextual connection to the article content, so that omitting the flag would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article. The article is basically a picture album of flags and not critical discussion of the each flag, so you're going to have a really hard time writing a non-free use rationale for that type of usage. Moreover, Flag of the African Union is a stand-alone article about the flag itself and in such cases a link to the stand-alone article is preferred over other uses of the file whenever possible per item number 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. So, that is why the file is linked to and not displayed in the list article.

This application of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is pretty consistent across other "list of flag" articles, but if you would like the opinion of others you can ask at WT:NFCC or WP:MCQ. You may also nominate the file for discussion at WP:FFD and see if you can establish a consensus for its non free use in the article. Finally, one last possibility might be to see whether the flag's licensing can be converted to public domain or a free license. You can ask about this at WP:MCQ, WP:FFD or c:COM:VP/C. Sometimes files which are really public domain are mistakenly licensed as non-free by the editor who uploads the file. Converting file copyright licenses, however, can be a bit tricky since copyright laws differ from country to country. So, I suggest you ask at one of the noticeboards I mentioned above just as a precaution before trying to convert the licensing yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Rectified

Thanks. I have rectified the error and made it normal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saikirantangirala (talk • contribs) 08:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That's good Saikirantangirala. Now just please try to remember to sign your posts so that there's no need for SineBot to do it for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Happy Holidays to you as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

DavidSmythe CV

Hello Marchjuly Thank-you for your helpful comments - and sorry if I'm replying in the wrong place. On reading your message I agree with you that writing an autobiography (or, in my case, a professional CV) is not necessarily a good thing. In any case, as I've pointed out in my reply to Dodger67, I am not (quite) notable enough as an academic, even though I did once hold a named professorial chair at an ancient major university. I only did the CV as an exercise in writing my first wiki article. I am happy to have the draft never published. Also, you are correct about my using my real name (naïvely believing in transparency and honesty) - so I'll apply for a change. Yours David DavidSmythe (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi DavidSmythe. It's OK that you replied here, but in general it's best to simply reply on same page as the other person's post. This makes it easier for others to follow the discussion without having to jump back and forth between pages. FWIW, I think it's commendable to be transparent and honest, but the Internet can sometimes be quite harsh towards those who choose to do so. As for Wikipedia notability, unfortunately Wikipedia notability is not something we can either give to a subject or take away from a subject. Subjects which have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources may find articles about them being added to Wikipedia regardless. If such an article is created about you, then your best chance might be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Deletion of BLPs. Always try to assume good faith and use Wikipedia processes in such cases by following "Steps for engagement". -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

DavidSmythe For the sake of your privacy, it's probably a good idea to delete your sandbox draft sooner rather than later. See my earlier reply to you at my talk page, if someone picks it up and decides to run with it the result might not be kind to you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Croatia National Football Team

Regarding [1], can you explain me what is difference in Copyright between logo od Croatian national football team and other european national football teams?! -Jure Grm, 29. day of December in Year of Our Lord Twotousandandsixteenth, at 14:27 o'clock. —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jure Grm. I can try to explain why I removed File:Croatia football federation.png from the Croatia national football team after you added it. The file is a non-free content which means that Wikipedia considers it to be protected by copyright, and therefore it's use any where on Wikipedia is subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. There are 10 non-free content criteria that use of a non-free image needs to satisfy and not satisfying even one of these criteria means that the file cab be removed from the article. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC#10 (more specifically WP:NFCC#10c) and this criterion requires that a separate specific non-free use rationale be provided for each use of a non-free image. The rationale is supposed to explain how the file is intended to be used and how it the use satisfies all 10 criteria. It is the responsibility of the editor wanting to use a particular non-free image in a particular article to provide a valid non-free use rationale for that particular use. You did not do that, so the file could be removed for that reason alone per WP:NFCCE.

There is another different reason as well. The non-free use of this particular file had been previously discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Croatia football federation.png. The consensus established at that discussion was that the file's use in the national team article was also inappropriate per WP:NFC#UUI17. The argument made at that time was that the logo is fine for the article about the national federation (the "parent organization"), but not for any article about the various national teams (the "child organizations") in order to try and keep the file's usage across Wikipedia to a minimum per WP:NFCC#3. Other similar logos being used in similar ways have been discussed at WP:NFCR or WP:FFD and the results of these discussion has typically been the same in principle: OK for national federation articles, but not OK for individual team articles.

As for the other logos of other football teams and there use in articles, it all depends on the particulars of each file's licensing. Some of the files may have been released under a free license or are considered to be in the public domain, and these files would therefore not be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Other files may also be non-free, have been previously removed for policy reasons, but simply re-added (in good faith) by someone who was not aware of the relevant policy. It's also possible that a particular file simply has yet to be noticed by anyone and thus it non-free use has yet to be discussed. The point I'm trying to make is that non-free use is generally evaluated on a per file basis, and the fact that other files are being used in a similar way is not considered a valid justification for non-free use. Each file's non-free use is supposed to be evaluated separately to determine whether its use is policy compliant. If you find an article where a similar file is being used and feel the usage does not comply with policy, you can check the file's page to see how it is licensed. If it's a non-free file, then check the file's page/talk page for a Template:Non-free reviewed or Template:Oldffdfull to see whether it has been previously discussed before. If the file has been discussed and re-added despite the discussion, you can remove the file and leave a edit sum explaining why (a link to the relevant discussion is typically a good idea). If the file hasn't been discussed and you feel it needs to be discussed, then you can start a discussion about it at WP:FFD. I do not advise just start mass removing/adding files from/to other articles since that is likely going to be seen as pointy and disruptive, and will not help resolve this at all. If you want to change the way the policy is being interpreted/applied community wide, then you should discuss those concerns at WT:NFCC because community-wide matters need to be detemined by the community and not a local consensus per WP:CONLEVEL.

Having written all of that, I can say the application of UUI17 to certain types of file usage, including files related to national football teams, is something that has been discussed as recently as last summer. That discussion stalled, however, and no new consensus was established. On Wikipedia, consensus can change over time based upon new policies/guideline being esablished or new information relevant to the discussion being introduced. So, if you feel that in this particular case the use of the file should be now allowed, then you can ask User talk:Stefan2 (the editor who nominated the file for discussion) about it or User talk:Brustopher (the editor who closed the discussion) about it and see what they say per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. If they are willing to reconsider their positions, then I have no objections. You can also nominate the file for discussion at WP:FFD and try and establish a new consensus for its non-free use by seeing what the community in general has to say. In either case, I wouldn't recommend simply saying the other team articles have logos so the Croatian team one should have one too because that line of reasoning is unlikely to be accepted based upon what I wrote above about "other files being used in a similar way". A better approach is to simply try and explain how the use of this particular file in Croatian team article satisfies relevant policy. I would not suggest simply trying to force the image into the article by repeatedly re-adding it without attempting discussion because that is eventually going to be seen as disruptive.

I apologize for the long response. I was not trying to write something that is too long so you don't read it, but wanted to try and be as detailed as possible. Image use, in general, is not always as clear and obvious as it may seem, and non-free image use in particular can be fairly complicated. If you have any questions, you can ask them here. If you want to hear from other editors, you can ask about this at WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for such a long and precise answer and thank you for suggestion for reconsidering positions of some users or nominating file for discussion, but I realy don't have enough time and nerves for this useless process in many things on this Wikipedia. -Jure Grm, 30. day of December in Year of Our Lord Twotousandandsixteenth, at 21:02 o'clock. —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)