User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2019/August

File copyright problem with File:Lycos no results.jpg

Hi, Marchjuly. I see you flagged the image for deletion. It's a low resolution screenshot for the Lucos article illustration, that is taken by me and is uploaded under the clearly chosen "Non-free use rationale". Is this rationale no longer available at Wikipedia? AlexBern73 (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@AlexBern73: All non-free files need two things: a non-free use rationale and a file copyright license. This particular file has the former, but not the latter. If you don't add a copyright license, the file can be speedily deleted per WP:F4. As for the non-free use rationale, providing one doesn't automatically mean that the corresponding non-free use it represents complies with WP:NFCC. Providing a rationale is only one (actually one part of one) of the ten non-free content use criteria which need to met each time a non-free file is used as explained in WP:JUSTONE, and I don't believe the file's current non-free use meets WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) and WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS); that, however, is a different matter unrelated to why I tagged the file for speedy deletion and something requiring a different discussion. If you've got any further questions about this you can ask them below; if you want another opinion, you an ask for help at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC.

Finally, when someone posts something on your user talk page, it's OK to respond there; in fact, it's generally better to do so because it helps keep all relevant comments in one place. In addition, when starting a new discussion thread on a talk page, common Wikipedia practice is to do so at the bottom of the page. The easiest way to do this is to click on "New section" at the top of the page and the software will automatically add the post to the bottom of the page. If you're adding a new comment to an already existing discussion, you simply add you comment below the last one in the discussion thread or below the comment you're responding to (sometimes they might not be the same thing). In this case, you go to the discussion thread and click on it's "Edit" button. If you've got any questions about talk page use, take a look at Help:Talk pages or Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Understood, on all counts! Many thanks for the detailed explanations! AlexBern73 (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

NFCC vio for Media: link

Hi, where was this being reported? It shouldn't be, since the Media: prefix doesn't display anything. Your edits have also changed the sense of the discussion, since the point was to compare Media: with :File:, and you have altered it so that people are being asked to compare :File: with :File:. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64. It was showing up on the file's page as being used in Wikipedia:SVG; so, it was getting flagged by a bot for a NFCC#9 review. See User talk:JJMC89#File:2018_AFC_Women's_Asian_Cup_logo.svg for more. Maybe there's another way to show the difference between the Media and File namespaces; for example, instead of using the internal link [[Media:2018_AFC_Women%27s_Asian_Cup_logo.svg|here]], maybe using the external link[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/2018_AFC_Women%27s_Asian_Cup_logo.svg here] will work just as well. I don't think neither the Media namespace nore WP:SVG are exemptions to WP:NFCC per WP:NFEXMP, but if they're commonly used this way then maybe they should be proposed as an exemptions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: This file is still getting flag as an NFCC#9 violation at Wikipedia:SVG help. If discussion on that thread has been resolved (no new comments in 16 days), then maybe "Media" link should be converted to an external link as suggested here by JJMC89; I'm not sure how archiving works on that page, but as long as the "Media" link is valid the file will still continue to be flagged as an "violation". -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Where is this alleged NFCC#9 violation actually being reported? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It's showing up at User:JJMC89 bot/report/NFCC violations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for your advice and help about 3rr on the teahouse! <3 SunnyBoi (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse correction

Hi. At Wikipedia:Teahouse#Verifying a source in languages other than english, you wrote ... if you can't read it, do just assume it is automatically OK to use .... I assume you meant do not?

As a practical matter, do articles with entirely non-English sources really stand a chance of being considered notable in enwiki (assuming there are no English-language RSs found on the subject)? I stumbled over this earlier at Teahouse and was called offensive. Though I've done a lot of work here, article creation and notability is really not my thing, so I'm asking. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that; leaving out the "not" does change the meaning of the sentence. As for the other thing, I guess it depends on an individuals interpretation of notability and English. Notability isn't temporary and not necessarily limited to only the English speaking world or things being written about in English, but each article is different and each source is different, and a case-by-case discussion might be required to sort things out. For example, an author might sell lots of books in his own language, which are then translated into languages other than English. The author might receive tons of significant coverage in these other languages, but barely be mentioned in English sources execpt for a few blogs, reviews, etc. Does that mean the author doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR just because he/she is pretty much ignored by the English speaking world? Some might say yes, but others might feel differently. This is one of the points made (see item 6) in WP:BIAS#Nature of Wikipedia's bias. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my problem with it. If the book is notable among English readers, and not just translated because it can be, you would think it would be written about in English – just as with other, originally English, books. I'll read the links and more about the purpose behind notability guidelines to see if I can understand better what's supposed to be here and what isn't. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is technically "English Wikipedia". How you interpret that depends (I guess) on whether you think about it as "ENGLISH wikipedia" or "english WIKIPEDIA". Each person is different which is probably why it's a good thing that WP:AFD is not really based upon one single editor's perspective. For books, there's WP:NBOOK, and the word "English" is mentioned four times on that page: once in the banner at the top and thrice in WP:NBOOK#cite_note-9. There's nothing in the guideline about a book needing to be originally written in English or even needing to be subsequently translated into English for it to be considered Wikipedia notable. Notability guidelines provide some basic general information which usually works well most of the time; they can be used for quick self-assessments or to weed out the obvious chaff. They might, however, not always be so clear in more complex cases which is where further discussion might be needed when individuals interpret things differently. The Teahouse is typically a place where general answers tend to be given since most questions tend to be general; a Teahouse, like a guideline, might not always perfectly work in some more complicated cases and further discussion might be needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

New message from Doug Weller

Hello, Marchjuly. You have new messages at Doug Weller's talk page.
Message added 06:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doug Weller talk 06:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft of Paul Combs page

Hello Marchjuly, Thank you for the information on removing talk page posts, it was very useful. I am new to Wikipedia and I apologize if I didn't do things correctly.Blinshnikt (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Qaher-1 Missile lunch.jpg first non-free content criterion

Hey Marchjuly, I would like to thank you for removing Qaher-1 Missile image, "UAEAF F16F Block 60 image, and all images that might be as a seen as a propaganda to normal readers in this article I would like to notice that I'm the one who've added this image back in 2016 when the article had only Saudi side weapons and didn't had any Yemeni weapons, so I've added it to balance the article for all the readers with different backgrounds

Please do not delete the image , just unlink it from the post, it might be used in another article

967Bytes (Contact) 15:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Non-free images are not used to "balance articles" just for the sake of "balancing" purposes; their usage needs to meet all ten non-free content use criterion in WP:NFCCP. I'm not an administrator so I cannot delete files and I didn't "remove" those two files from the article; I only tagged them for speedy deletion per WP:F7 because I feel they violate non-free content use criterion #1. An administrator will review the speedy deletion tags I added in a few days and decide whether to delete the files. Finally, all non-free files are required to be used in at least one article per non-free content use criterion #7 and those which aren't will be deleted per WP:F5; so, "un-linking" the file will also lead only lead to its deletion (just for a different reason) if a valid non-free use for the file is not found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hi, maybe you can help me. You've posted a warning about an image I posted quite awhile ago. Saying that I was not properly using the image. I may have incorrectly identified it as fair use when its real date of production in 1923 should actually identify the image of a prominent statement by a former president is actually in public domain, not in fair use.

I do not know how to go back and correct this, I believe the image should be allowed to stay for this reason.

Energynet (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

If you believe the file should not be deleted, you can add the template {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} to the file's page. There's room for you to in the template for you to add an explanation as to why you feel the file shouldn't be deleted, but you can also post a more detailed explanation on the file's talk page. Generally, content which can be verified to have been published for the first time in the United States prior to January 1, 1924 is, in principle, considered to be with {{PD-US}}, but not always. If you can know the source (i.e. the original copyright holder) as well as the date of publication, then look at c:COM:HIRTLE to see which type of public domain license is generally applied. You can also ask for help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

However, in addition to the copyright status of the file, there also is another issue with the file. Wikipedia tries to avoid using images which are simply images of text as explained in WP:TEXTASIMAGES; if there's content in the letter worth mentioning within the article it's OK to use some short quoted texted per MOS:QUOTE as long as the quotes are properly attributed and supported by citations. There's usually not always a lot of encyclopedic value to scanning a printed work, etc. and presenting the content as an image file. Unlike a company logo or an actual photograph, etc., a visual representation of textual content usually doesn't need to be seen to be understood absent a particular visual aspect about the work itself, unless the printed work is itself the subject of a stand-alone Wikipedia article. So, if the article was about Roosevelt's "warning", then using an image of it at the top of or in the main infobox of that article for primary identification purposes would make sense; however, the article is about the Electric Bond and Share Company and Roosevelt's concerns that it was becoming a monopoly, which are things that don't necessarily require the reader seeing a photo of the "warning" to understand the content of the warning. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)