User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2020/September

Hick Hargreaves advert

Moved to File talk:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg#Non-free use in B. Hick and Sons

 – As previously suggested below, the best place to continue this discussion is on the file's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for clarifying the reasons for questioning the use of this image [1]. I'll have another look at the rationale etc and see if I can get it to fit. Regards Rstory (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Revised the rationale, please let me know if the present version stands up? Regards Rstory (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Ideally, the best place for you to discuss this would be at File talk:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg because that's where (not here on my user talk page) the reviewing administrator will be checking. However, since you posted here, I will reply here as a courtesy.

You seem to be misunderstanding why I disputed the file's non-free use and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. It's not really what you write in the rationale that matters or is being assessed, but rather how the file is actually being used in the article. Providing a non-free use rationale is just one of the ten non-free content use criteria that each use of a non-free file needs to satisfy. As stated in the template I added to the file's page, if you're able to add specific sourced critical commentary about this particular advert to the article or otherwise add content to the article which makes the omitting this file detrimental to reader's understanding of content related to this advert, then that might better clarify need to for the non-free use of the file. Simply adding a non-free image to an image gallery just to show the image is almost never allowed per WP:NFG; there needs to be quite a strong contextual connection between article content and image, which almost always is seen to be sourced commentary directly about the image itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No misunderstanding, shortcommings and the Template are mentioned on the file page that I addressed. 1 and 8 of the 10 criteria are relevant as stated in the template.

The intention here is definitely not decorative as the image contains encyclopedic examples of power engineering supported by the text contained therein, in other words the image can inform the reader provided the text is legible. Attention is drawn to power engineering in the caption.

The context is clearly Soho Iron Works, generally what they look like, its achievements and what it produces, including this example of publicity material. Caption adjusted accordingly with commentary about the advert. Regards Rstory (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

KIAH

The logo completely changed, so the orphan tag was on-purpose and justified. Nate • (chatter) 04:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

​Thank you for responding, but I'm not sure why you didn't you didn't just respond on your user talk page. Anyway, if the version you uploaded was completely or significantly different from the previous one and non-free, then you shouldn't have updated (i.e. overwritten) a PD file with it but rather uploaded it as a separate file altogether. Moreover, if the version you uploaded is currently the one that is visible, then that file seems to be clearly {{PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO United States; so, even if the two versions are significantly different but both are PD, it would've probably still been better to upload the newer version as a separate file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

On the licenses

Hope the title is good. I think that the best place to respond is on your Commons page, but I find Wikipedia better.

First of all, I hope that my past actions on Commons have not frustrated you. You all of a sudden stopped talking so I'm quite worried. During the time, what I didn't realize was: without admitting mistakes and accepting them, I will become stagnant. I have since improved thanks to you.

I was, initially, scared to admit this, because I feel like the red tags is just not what I love to see, but given that I want to wipe out these mistakes, I would love you to nominate these commons I uploaded: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:QuarantineChat_notification.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antonov_in_Kualanamu.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alexander_IRL_poster.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:12-28-48-artworks-zBSS2EorkK9y94r2-SEJbFA-t500x500.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ben_Drowns_Again.jpg. And no, before you say anything, I am not being the "fine! fine!" person. Perhaps a speedy delete will be good. I have now understood the dangers of copyright violation based on some of my observations recently.

Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating right now, haha. I hope I am not blockable due to these unintended copyright violations. When I first discovered Wikimedia Commons, I thought of it as just another photo-putting service. In my area, copyrights are usually just some kind of decoration in a work. So I never really knew things like fair use until those nominations.

Anyway, would love to receive a response. GeraldWL 14:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't remember off hand having any interaction with you. I'm not trying to be rude; I just don't remember. If I nominated a file of you uploaded to Commons for deletion or review and the issues with it have been resolved, then great. If the file was deleted instead and you have subsequently solved the problem(s) it had and would like it restored, then that's great too. You can ask the Commons administrator who deleted to file to restore it. If there are other files you uploaded that you want deleted, you can start a c:COM:DR for them yourself or you can try tagging them for speedy deletion per c:COM:CSD if they qualify for one of the reasons there.

I'm not sure what you mean by You all of a sudden stopped talking so I'm quite worried. because (once again) I don't remember any discussion we were having; however, if I stopped posting, then it was probably because I felt that the issue had been sufficiently explained or resolved and that no further comments from me were needed. Finally, I'm not an administrator on either Wikipedia or Commons which means I can't block an editor or delete any files/pages; so, if either of those things happened, then I think you'd be better off discussing them with the administrator who actually did such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

[2] Here's the talk to try remember it. GeraldWL 06:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, but according to the link you provided, you were in contact with the copyright holder and they agreed to email their CONSENT to OTRS. There's nothing really to discuss beyond that; either they emailed OTRS or they didn't. I'm not an OTRS volunteer and I can't tell you whether they did. So, if that's what you're trying to find out, then you can try asking at WP:OTRSN. OTRS volunteers won't be able to discuss any specifics about any emails they received, but they probably can tell whether they received one.

c:File:The Arrow of Time artwork.jpg is tagged with {{OTRS pending}} which means it's still not yet been verified by an OTRS volunteer. The file has also been tagged with c:Template:No permission since and apparently the file will be deleted after 15 days have passed (starting on August 30) if OTRS is unable to verify the flie's licensing. So, if the copyright holder hasn't emailed OTRS yet, then there's still about 12 days to go before the file's deleted. Even if they don't meet that 15-day deadline, the copyright holdr can still send in their consent and have the file restored per c:COM:REFUND. The version you uploaded locally to Wikipedia, however, still seems to fail WP:NFCCP which means it most likely cannot be kept unless the copyright holder's CONSENT can be verified by OTRS. The FFD I started to discuss that file is still open, but that's only because no administrator has gotten around to closing or relisting the discussion. The administrators who typically review FFD might just be waiting to see what happens with the Commons file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Reverted grammar fixes

@Marchjuly:Hi, I'm Akmaie Ajam. I have two questions for you:

1. Why a significant portion of my fixes to Wikipedia pages (not any articles, but articles starting with Wikipedia:) are reverted?
2. Why removing "own" make the text less clear?

When I came across the Wikipedia:Non free content article, I read it and noticed a potential error. "US law" did not have "the" before it. But, I doubted the error and checked it with Grammarly. When I clicked the "Clarity" tab, I noticed an entirely different error, and it was "own". I looked the error and it said "Own may be redundant". I don't have the details here because I need to edit quickly before the server is down for maintenance and I cannot edit it until a few minutes later. Thank you. ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭᕮ ᐱᒍᐱᕬ (Talk) 13:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Akmaie Ajam. I'm not sure I can answer your first question other than to say that pages in the Wikipedia namespace tend to be Wikipedia policy and guideline pages and that changing even a single word may sometimes change the intended meaning of the policy or guideline in a way that might not be a good way. Changing such a page by adding or removing even a single word might make the page less clear or more restrictive and this could have an effect on many other pages as a result. Many such pages were created a long time ago after a considerable amount of discussion and the choice of wording was agreed upon by consensus; so, for this reason, many editors tend to be quite cautious when it comes to such pages and it's often better to discuss even a small change on the page's talk page first to see whether there's a consensus to make it. Most editors watching these pages will leave an edit summary when they revert any changes made to them and you can ask the editor to clarify their reasoning by posting a message on the page's talk page.

As for myI reverted of the change you madeto here to WP:NFC, I don't think it'sa wisething for you to go around trying to correct articlespages using some kind of application like Grammarly, particularly when it comes to articles. Such software is not perfect and it might not be capable of understanding the specific reasons why a certain word was used or not used. Such software might also be trying to correct everything in terms of American-English or British-English and might not be aware that Wikipedia allows the uses all kinds of English. In this case, I believe the word "own" was used because someone felt it's important to make a distinction between an logo image being protected by copyright solely because of its creativity of expression and an logo image also having an additional copyright just because it's in svg format. That's the distinction that was being made and that context is something that Grammarly almost certainly is unable to understand. Now, the current version might not be the best way to express that idea and thus can be improved, but that's something that should be discussed at WT:NFC. Perhaps through such discussion a better version can be agreed upon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post revised by Marchjuly to change articles to pages in the first sentence of the second paragraph as well as to make some other minor corrections. -- 01:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)]

@Marchjuly: Ok, thank you for explaining, even if you cannot answer my first question. ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭᕮ ᐱᒍᐱᕬ (Talk) 00:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

​ Just for reference purposes, pages located in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia namespace (i.e. pages which begin with "Wikipedia:") aren't WP:ARTICLEs; so, they don't need to necessarily as free from grammar mistakes, etc. as an article might need to be. Wikipedia has many different namespaces and there are different policies and guidelines that apply to each. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Ok, thank you for the information. ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭᕮ ᐱᒍᐱᕬ (Talk) 01:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

1965 Castrol Drive

Hi MarchJuly and thanks for your comments. As a very new user I am on a very steep learning curve and find navigating around Wikipedia very confusing. However I appreciate your advice which is very helpful. I would like to create an article on the 1965 Castrol Drive because it is a part of motoring history which has little or no presence on the internet. The Parliamentary article I have uploaded does appear in a Google search, but that is all I can find. I was the National winner and the photos I have uploaded were taken by an official photographer on our behalf at the presentation and were given to me personally as a record. As this is 55 years ago I have no record of the actual photographer and I don't believe there are any copyright issues with publication of them. I would appreciate your comments on this aspect because the photos are an historic record of a public event and should be available to the public. If Wikipedia are prepared to publish them I will proceed with preparation of the Article for submission, but it appears sensible to address this aspect first. Thanks again for your help.Farmer Chris 1944 (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Farmer Chris 1944. As I posted at the Wikipedia Teahouse, my suggestion to you is to create a draft and then submit that draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think it's ready. Commons is not the place to try and create Wikipedia article and, to be frank, the content in the Commons sandbox you created isn't ready for Wikipedia article status; it might be a good place to start, but it would almost certainly be declined at the time if you were to submit that "draft" as is. So, my suggestion to you would be read Wikipedia:Notability (events) and look for significant coverage in reliable sources that would help establish the subject matter's Wikipedia notability. If you're able to find such significant coverage, then you can find suggestions about writing and sourcing Wikipedia articles at Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. Since the subject appears to be an Australian motor race, you might also want to try asking for assistance at a Wikiproject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian motorsport to see if you can find any editors familiar with the subject matter who might be able to help out. Simply being part of racing history might not be enough to create an article if you're not able to find any reliable sources which discuss the subject matter; however, reliable sources don't necessarily need to be available on online as long as they are published and accessible.

As for the photos, since you're not the copyright holder, I don't think there's much you can do without the copyright holders permission or at least without providing more information about the provenance of the photos than what you seem to currently know. Fifty-five years is not really a long time when it comes to copyright status (see c:COM:HIRTLE and c:COM:AUSTRALIA for more on this) and simply being given a copy of the photo is pretty much never considered a transfer of copyright ownership. Commons really only accepts photos which are 100% free of copyright protection or which have been released under a license that meets c:Commons:Licensing, and even photos taken at a public event are not automatically considered to be within the public domain. Australian copyright law might allow fair use or fair dealing for copyrighted images taken by others, but Commons doesn't accept such content at all. So, your best option might simply be to post the photos on your social media accounts (if you have any) or on another website instead of Wikipedia if you want others to see them.

Finally, it's best to think of Wikipedia and Commons as separate websites. They are part of the same family so to speak and there's quite a bit of overlap, but they each have their own specific purpose and their own specific policies and guidelines. Commons only concern is whether the images it hosts are properly licensed from a copyright standpoint; it's not really concerned with how the images it hosts are used on Wikipedia or on any other website. Wikipedia's primary purpose is to be an encyclopedia; so, it's mainly concerned that the content it hosts meets its policies and guidelines for inclusion. Wikipedia does host some images for use in its articles, but again it will only host images that meet its licensing requirements. Wikipedia considers images to be important and helpful, but it places more importance on textual content and there are plenty of Wikipedia articles that don't have any images at all. So, if your ultimate goal is to create a Wikipedia article about this race, then I think you should focus on the textual content first and then worry about images after a viable article has been accepted. On the other hand, if your ultimate goal is just to let others see these photos and then maybe add some brief text to explain the photos, then Wikipedia is probably not the place to try and do that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Farmer Chris 1944, sounds like you might be better served by getting a blog. There are numerous hosting sites that are cost efficient and some that are free (bandwidth is too limited to have many pictures tho). And if your host allows that kind of hyperlinks (not good at html personally) then you might be able to link to photos on Commons. Love your username! John from Idegon (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank

thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvin kipchumba kosgei (talk • contribs) 14:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Marchjuly, for your advice. I have substituted with a homegrown photo. Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "homegrown" photo. Taking a photo of another photo doesn't necessarily make something your "own work". All you seem to have done once again upload a photo you took in 2020 of a photo that has to have been taken on much earlier date since Draft:Oswaldo Castro Intriago is supposed to have died in 1992. You can't just take photos of other potentially copyrightable works and claim them as your own. See c:COM:2D copying, WP:Derivative works and c:COM:DW for more details on this. Basically, copyright of the photo you photographed also needs to be considered. If you're not the copyright holder of the original photo, you can't upload any photos/scans/copies of it to Commons (or Wikipedia) without the consent of the person who is the copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Good evening, Marchjuly. I left a message for you in Wikimedia. Sorry. I cut and pasted it here:

Good evening, Marchjuly. I don't understand the alert you sent me in reference to the Castro with hat picture. It was taken by a Castro family member (my brother) and has been in my possession for some time. Also the Army Barracks picture was from a book published in 1911. The book has been in the Castro family possession and Castro has written on several of its pictures, as you can see by his writing on the Army Barracks picture in the draft. To whom do I write for permission? A final question: Wikipedia editors are improving my draft for which I am grateful, but where can I see a history of these changes? I appreciate your guidelines and help. Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar Waldoosty (talk • contribs)

I’ve already responded to your question on my Commons user talk page. Please check there for more details. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

New message from Stifle

Hello, Marchjuly. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 08:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)