User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2021/May

Anton.Cleary Australian Solo guitarist/street performer

Thanks Marchjuly for this information! I would love to have an article on me on Wikipedia and will heed your advice, and rather than write it myself, wait for a Wikipedia author to perhaps do it for me! Are you able to write the article or is that not part of your role? As far as providing relevant links for the article, how do I go about this? There are at.least 10 links I could provide for this purpose. Thanks again Marchjuly! Regards Anton Cleary. Anton Cleary (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Anton Cleary. This genre of article is not really in my wheelhouse which means you might be better off asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians to see if you can find someone there who might be willing to do so. If you decide to push ahead on your own, I strongly suggest you take a close look at (in no particular order) the following: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (particularly this and this), Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. These are general information pages that you might find helpful. While you and many others might love to have Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia has lots of policies and guidelines in place to try and figure out whether such articles should be written.

As for the 10 links you can provide, please be aware that not all sources are equal per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and what you're going to need to establish is that secondary/independent reliable sources have given you significant coverage at some point. If not necessarily the number of sources you can provide, but rather the quality of the sources you can provide as explained here; so, focus on any major publications (print or online) with an established history of rigorous editorial control which have significantly covered your activities over the years because those are going to be the ones that help establish your Wikipedia notability. Personal websites or other user-generated content like interviews or social media pages may show you exist and have some value, but such things are usually not going to be considered sufficient for establishing Wikipedia notability.

Finally, you can find out a little more about the technical aspects of creating articles at Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners, and how to add links to Wikipedia pages at Help:Link. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ladies Professional Shogi-players' Association of Japan

Hello, Marchjuly. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ladies Professional Shogi-players' Association of Japan, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

VTU

Hi MarchJuly,

thank you for taking the time to explain everything while staying polite and courteous, that is appreciated! I do take constructive criticism a very important form of feedback to improve myself in everything i do and yours help me greatly. my comments were not directly straight at you but at some of these other guys who seemed to take pleasure in hitting me as hard as they could with their comments instead of trying to help improve the encyclopedia. i did feel attacked and for a reason i could not pin point, with false accusations etc i could not help but feel like this was, again, some form of discriminatory behavior. i am hoping that they will stop now so we can all move on. One more question, French is my first language and i intend to translate the VTU article into french as Canada has both english and french as official languages, can i do that since it is only a translation ? Merci and have a good day ! Aïssa 93 390 (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aïssa 93 390. You can find out more about translating English Wikipedia articles into other languages at WP:TRANSLATEUS, and about translating other language Wikipedia articles into English as WP:TRANSLATE. If you're going to try and translate Wikipedia articles, however, there are a couple of points to try and remember (at least I think they're important).

1. The general licensing that the Wikimedia Foundation uses for all of its projects allows textual content to be pretty much re-used in any way with the only requirement be that proper attribution be given to the original source of the content. When editors add their original content (not original research, but their original summarization of things read in and sourced to reliable sources) to Wikipedia articles, they essentially own the copyright on this content but use Wikipedia and its licensing set up to make it more readily available and easier to re-use by others; so, these people need to be properly attributed per the terms of the various Wikipedias' licensing for any translation of these "summaries" to not be considered a copyright violation so to speak. You don't need to necessarily attribute each individual editor, but you should attribute at least the version of the article you're translating. Attribution may not be necessary in cases where you're both the creator of the original content and the translated content since you don't really need to attribute yourself, but articles are often edit by a number of editors after they're created; so, attributing a particular version will cover any of those edits as well.
2. You should avoid machine translations as much as possible. In recent years, the quality of machine translations (i.e. software or online translations) has improved greatly, but there are still issues and some projects like English Wikipedia still expressly state they should be avoided per WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. English Wikipedia does have its own translation tool, but I've never used it and its use is restricted. So, unless you've got a reasonable amount of competency in a foreign language (you don't need to be fluent per se), you might want to do lots of proofreading before adding anything to the mainspace. English Wikipedia does have Wikipedia:Translators available where you can perhaps find someone to help with this, but I think people just add their names to that list and don't think there's any guarantee of quality.
3. If you're going to translate an article from English into another language, it probably best to do all of your work (drafts, question asking, etc.) on that other language Wikipedia; on the other hand, if you're going to translate another language's Wikipedia article into English, then it best to try and do everything on English Wikipedia. The reason for this is that even though all of the various Wikipedias are part of the same family, they are separate projects with their own respective communities, policies and guidelines, and other individual quirks. There's lots of similarities and overlapping for sure, but there also are sometimes important differences. Since English Wikipedia is the largest with the most editors and the first to have been created (I think), many of these other language projects just mirror it for the most part; however, they have over time developed their own personalities and their special way of doing thing as they've matured, sometimes naturally and sometimes because of different laws in different countries. You're going to be expected to adhere to the policies and guidelines of whichever Wikipedia you're working on; so, it's best to familiarize yourself with them as soon as you can.
4. This is sort of related to 3, but I've made it a separate point. You shouldn't assume that just because an article exists on one Wikipedia that it should automatically exist on all Wikipedias. English Wikipedia tends to have more restrictive policies and guidelines than many other language Wikipedias about things such as Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Copyright, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living people because it has the most articles, been around the longest, and has the most editors. Even in cases when different Wikipedias have similar or the same policies and guidelines as English Wikipedia, they often might be more rigorously applied on English Wikipedia than they are on the other language Wikipedia simply because they're more editors assessing and evaluating articles. So, it's a good idea to think of a translation of any existing article as being not too different from simply creating a new article from scratch and you should expect for it to be assessed by whomever does the assessing as such. You're still going to need to establish how the subject you're writing about meets the notability guidelines of the Wikipedia where you want to create the article.
5. Images uploaded to Wikipedia Commons can be pretty much used on any Wikipedia project. Commons is a global project that covers all of the other Wikimedia projects, but it also has it's own policies and guidelines that are explained here. Images uploaded to English Wikipedia or another language Wikipedia are local images that can only be used on that particular Wikipedia. So, you can upload an image to English Wikipedia and then use it on French Wikipedia; it's technically impossible to do so and trying to do so will almost certain result in an error. Copyright laws vary from country to country, sometimes greatly, and Commons has be set up to cover these differences as much as possible; so, Commons requires that the image be freely licensed or public domain in the United States (where its servers are located) and the country of origin (where it's assumed the copyright holder is located) because those are the two places where copyright-related issues are likely occur. Local Wikipedias, however, have been set up to comply with laws of their location and many have placed country-specific restrictions on the type of images they allow to be used; so, like in 3 and 4 above, you will need to find out what these are by looking for info about image use on the Wikipedia where you're creating the article.

I wrote quite a bit, and apologize if I just confused you. Feel free to ask questions if you want, but I don't know many specifics about how other language Wikipedias operate; so, you might be better off asking there. Most Wikipedias have a "help desk" in their native language and some also have a help desk for English-speaking users, and asking questions at one of those will probably get you a faster and more accurate answer.

As for the other stuff you posted, it's unfortunate that you're experience so far hasn't been totally great and it can be quite a bumpy ride when you're just starting out, but try to assume good faith that those other editors were trying to help you out, at least at first until they start doing or posting something that they really shouldn't. Most editors mean well, and the ways people try to help can vary quite a lot; some are quite blunt whereas others might be more tactful. Interacting with others on Wikipedia is not too different from interacting with others out in the real world. Editors are encouraged not to "bite" other editors, especially new editors, but not everything that is said or done means you're being bitten. So, try to keep that in mind when interacting with other editors or when they interact with you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Re Special:Diff/1022949996

I mean... you're not wrong lol, but why since it's gonna be deleted anyway?Jonteemil (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The uploader of the non-vector version will eventually receive a notification that the file is now orphaned non-free use and as been tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5; so, the {{Vector version available}} template will at least (sort of) let them know and also let the administrator who reviews the F5 tag know why the file has been orphaned. It's also possible that in some cases that a png version might be preferred over a vector version per WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions if the vector version is not one officially released by the copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not argueing, just asking further. 1. The uploader will not eventually get a notification. They was notified the same moment the file was tagged as orphaned since I tagged it with Twinkle. 2. Since the file already sits in the {replacemet} parameter of {{di-orphaned fair use}} it shows both the uploader and the deleting admin why it's orphaned. Cheers :)Jonteemil (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think you were arguing; I was just explaining why I added the template. Per your clarification above, it does seem to be unnecessary; so, feel free to remove it if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Perfect, I think now we're on the same page. I won't remove it, it will follow the file to the grave:).Jonteemil (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Helping fix my Logos

I see you have fixed some of my logos on Wikipedia and I want to thank you for that. I am still learning editing on Wikipedia and I just started adding images to Wikipedia directly instead of using Wikimedia Commons (where all my logo uploads got deleted). So I understand correctly, you are saying to avoid issues with uploading the station logos, they need to be either Template:Non-free media rationale or Template:Non-free use rationale instead of the Template:Non-free media data I was using, is that correct? If that is the case I will change my other images accordingly and will remember this for future uploads. Thank you again for fixing them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilldoug750057 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hilldoug750057. Generally it's better to respond to posts on a talk page right below whatever was posted because it helps keep everything in one place, which in turn makes it a bit easier for others to follow. Not doing so is not a big deal in a case like this where it's just you and me involved in a minor discussion, but it might actually make a difference in some cases involving multiple editors or more complex/contentious matters. Not fragmenting discussions can also help when it comes to archiving talk pages because it allows the discussion to be viewed in its entirety at some latter date by others who might not have a similar concern or question.

As for you question itself, all files upload to Wikipedia are required to have two things: information about the file's provenance and a copyright license. Non-free files uploaded to Wikipedia are, in addition, required to have a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use. The bot removed some of the files you added because you didn't really provide the required non-free use rationale. The {{Non-free media data}} you were using is sort of like a {{Information}} template for non-free files; it provides information about the files provenance, but doesn't really provide any information about how the file is being used (i.e. it's not really a non-free use rationale); so, this is why the documentation page for the "Non-free media data" template shows it being used together with a {{Non-free media rationale}} template. Using these two templates together covers both the "information" requirement and the "non-free use rationale" requirement, and will stop the bot from removing files. The bot is looking for a something (e.g. a link) on the file's page which states where the file is being used; this information can be added a couple of different ways as explained in WP:FUR, but the bot will remove the file if it can't find this "something".

What I did was simply tweak the syntax you originally added to make it easier for the bot to find this "something". There are many different types of non-free use rationale templates that can be used (you don't need use a template though as explained in WP:FUR#Non-template) which cover both the "information" requirement and the "non-free use rationale" requirement, and I just picked the one that I though was most appropriate. The {{Non-free use rationale}} template does the job of "Non-free media data" and "Non-free media rationale"; so, it's sort of like killing two birds with one stone. You can also stop the bot from removing the files by simply adding "Non-free media rationale" to the file page.

Finally, one thing to remember is that providing a rationale is WP:JUSTONE of the things that needs to be done; there are ten non-free content use criteria that need to be met each time a non-free file is being used. The bot is only looking for non-free files "missing" rationales; it's not checking anything else. So, even if you provide a rationale for a file, another editor could still challenge the non-free use if they feel the rationale be invalid in some way.

As for Commons, Commons and Wikipedia are separate project with their own respective policies and guidelines. There are lots of similarities, but there are also some important differences. Commons doesn't, for example, accept fair use (i.e. non-free content) of any type as explained here. Commons will accept freely-licensed or public domain logos, but it won't accept still-copyrighted logos without the copyright holder's explicit consent. Most logos uploaded to Commons end up deleted because they are too complex to be ineligible for copyright protection and they've been uploaded without the consent of the original copyright holder. I'm not sure which might apply to the files you uploaded, but you can always find out by asking the Commons administrator who deleted the file for clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC

I see you participate in this discussion. You may want to comment at Talk:Southern Methodist University#Image gallery of former students. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, but my participation in the discussion on Talk:Stanford University was rather limited to the use of non-free images in such galleries. That doesn't seem to be the issue the RfC is trying to resolve; so, there's not really much for me to comment on. I will, however, read through the RfC and will comment if I think I'm able to contribute constructively to the discussion is some way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Overlinking at Teahouse

Hello, I saw you too have been hosting at Teahouse and responding to many questions, which is great! I also saw that you were overlinking in your replies, which I had pointed out earlier as well. I was wondering if you have read the Teahouse host's expectations or not so I am linking to it. Please do read that. Regards. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 03:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I read your first post, but didn't feel there was a need to respond. I'm familair with the host expectation section, but don't feel my use of link is really all that excessive; however, you're free to bring it up for discussion on the Teahouse talk page is you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)