User talk:Marchjuly

BJP logo

I noticed you left a message on my talk page. A few things to say: 1. I used the visual editor, and the image was in the library. 2. Why are you saying that I violated the rules? That is the job of admins. 73.109.92.67 (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 73.109.92.67. Thank you for the message.

1. I mistook the file you added (File:Bharatiya Janata Party (icon).jpg) for a different one (File:Bharatiya Janata Party logo.svg) added by another IP editor the day before. The file you added is from Commons uploaded under a free license; the one the other editor added was uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content. So, I apologize if the {{uw-nonfree}} I mistakenly posted on your user talk page caused any confusion or ill will. Anyway, the Commons file you added has been nominated for deletion as a possible copyright violation; if it's deleted, which I think there's a fair chance of happening, then the non-free file of the BJP logo would still not be able to be used in List of largest political parties per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. I'm not sure which files can be found in the visual library, but not all files uploaded to Wikipedia and Commons are licensed the same way. How a file is licensed pretty much determines how it can be used on Wikipedia, i.e. which policy/guideline its use falls under, and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive.
2. Any editor may remove a file or flag a file as a possible policy/guideline violation; moreover, any editor may notify/warn another editor of any possible violations related to file use or file uploads by posting something on their user talk page. Only an administrator, however, can block another editor, or delete a file.

Once again, please accept my apologies for mistaking the file you added for being a violation of Wikipedia policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Vebjørn Sand images

HI there -- Wanted to reply to a message you posted on my talk page. Your original message was:

“Hi Taylorengstrom91. You've uploaded quite a number of non-free images for use in the article Vebjørn Sand. Non-free content use on Wikipedia can be quite tricky because Wikipedia's non-free content use policy tends to be quite restrictive in how such files may be used. While this policy generally allows non-free content to be used to support article content, the emphasis tends to be placed minimal and exceptional cases where there are really no other alternatives to using such files; this includes using text instead or images in cases where actually seeing the image is not really essential to the reader's understanding of the relevant article content. Anyway, there's a discussion about the images used in that article taking place at WT:NFCC#Vebjørn Sand; so, perhaps you could clarify a few things about the images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)”

To which I'd like to reply with:

This is a famous painter, it’s hard to talk about his historically charged motifs without showing his paintings - and since paintings are copyright protected from "the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." Would you recommend going the route of a free license like the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic or something else? It sounds like Fair Use won't work for us. Let me know!

--Taylorengstrom91 (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Taylorengstrom91

Hi Taylorengstrom91. The files were discussed at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 69#Vebjørn Sand. An administrator named JJMC89 tagged some of the files for deletion because their usage didn't comply with relevant Wikipedia policy on non-free content use. They were subsequently deleted by another administrator named Explicit who felt the same way. You can ask either of the two for more specific details if you like.

For visual artists, one or two non-free examples of an artist's work might be allowed as representative examples of a particular style technique in support of sourced critical commentary about such things, or when the works themselves are things which have received critical coverage (e.g. some kind of controversy about a particular aspect of the work) in support of sourced article content about such a thing; however, simply mentioning a work by name or as part of a list of works in and of itself is generally not going to be considered sufficient. Moreover, if a free-equivalent image is deemed reasonably possible to obtain or create, then a non-free image is most likely not going to be allowed. This doesn't necessarily apply to paintings by an artist, but it may apply to a picture of the artist themselves (if they are still living per WP:FREER) or to any publicly displayed works of art depending upon whether the country where they are located allows freedom of panorama for publicly displayed artistic works: some countries do and some don't.

You should only license the works under a free license like Creative Commons if the original copyright holder is willing to give their WP:CONSENT to do so. You can find out a little more about this at c:Commons:OTRS and c:Commons:Licensing. Releasing content under a free license like Creative Commons doesn't not mean the copyright holder is transfering copyright ownership to another person or organization (e.g. Wikipedia); it just means that the copyright holder is making available a free version of their work to make it easier for others to use in some way. Neither Wikimedia Commons nor Wikipedia, however, will accept any fee license which places any restrictions on commercial or derivative re-use, which is one of the reasons why many commercial artists do not agree to have their work uploaded to under such licenses. In addition, the free licenses accepted by Wikipedia and Commons are non-revocable, which means the copyright holder cannot take it back at a later date. For these reasons, verification of the artist's consent by Wikimedia OTRS is often required by email.

If I didn't really answer your question or you now have more questions, you can also try asking for help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or c:Commons:Village pump/copyright. Finally, you posted above It sounds like Fair Use won't work for us. Who's "us"? Are you connected to Sand in some personal or professional way? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Football helmet images

I continually get these notices from you regarding the football helmet images I upload:

"The file (in question) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-free helmet image whose use fails WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#10a. There is already a non-free file (shown in topic) of the team's logo being used in the main infobox of (said files) for primary identification purposes, so there's no need for another file basically showing the same logo on a helmet to be used per NFCC#3a. In additional, the source cited for the helmet (said sources) doesn't seem to be the actual source of the file. It shows the primary logo and shows picture of players wearing helmets with the logo, but this actual file cannot be found. This is a problem per NFCC#4 and NFCC#10a since the helmet image might actually come from a different website and the file might not be an official file released by the team itself.

"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."

First of all, the images of the helmets ARE accurate and the sites DO indicate that they are legit. Perhaps if they are not good enough sources for you, then consider going to YouTube and look up video of what these helmets look like. The logos on the helmets ARE the same as the logos shown, yes, true. But proposing deletion without thoroughly examining them by using EVERY means necessary, and not just search engines, should indicate that these helmets ARE legit and should NOT be proposed for deletion according to the confusing (and often time "run-around") policies, rules, criteria, etc. Please look at ALL avenues before you hastefully jump to conclusions and "nominate" images for deletion. I will guarantee you, these images WILL be spared from deletion. Otherwise, you will lose editors because of having WAY too many hoops to jump through. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

As I previously posted before on your user talk page and in various discussions, the question is not whether the logo files or the helmet files are legitimate representations of a team’s branding. The question has to do with whether two non-free files which basically show the same logo are going to be allowed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, and the established consensus is that multiple non-free files providing essentially the same encyclopedic information or serving the same encyclopedic purpose are not necessary. The sourcing issues have to with where the actual file comes from, not whether a photo or video showing the helmet is can be seen on YouTube or some other websites. Previous files you've upload with similar issues have been deleted for this very reason so I'm not sure what you're guaranteeing about how this time will be any different from those other times. In addition, you seem to be re-uploading files which have been deleted by administrators for violating Wikipedia's non-free content use policy without even attempting to address the reasons why the files were deleted with the deleting administrator.

I'm not the only editor whose tagged files you've uploaded for non-free issues; your user talk page is filled with various file related notifications which have been added by others over the years, yet for some reason you keep uploading files with the same issues. Your attempt to argue that "their are way too many hoops to jump through" is not a justification to continue to upload files which have non-free issues. The non-free content use policy has been in place for years and plenty of other editors seem to be able to comply with it; if you're unable to do so then perhaps that's more of an indication of WP:CIR when it comes to you uploading files than an indication of a problem with the exisiting policy.

Nobody wants to see you or anyone else leave the project, but at some point the Wikipedia Community is not going to lose any sleep over those who choose to leave if they continue to not listen what others are telling them and the problems they create start outweigh whatever positive edits they make. Multiple administrators have deleted some of your non-free uploads because they felt they didn't comply with relevant Wikipeida policy. It's unlikely that all of these adminsitrators were wrong which means that it might perhaps be time for you to slow down with your file uploads (and definitely stop re-uploading files deleted by administrators) until you get a better feel for Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; otherwise, someday soon someone is going to start a discussion about your problem uploads at WP:ANI which might end up leading to an administrator taking more formal action to stop you for uploading any more inappropriate non-free files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hello, Marchjuly,

I was just looking at some Teahouse questions and was really impressed at your responses to new editors. I didn't look at the whole page but I thought in the answers I looked at you were both a) compassionate and understanding to new editors and b) informing them about Wikipedia policies and customs that they might be unintentionally violating. Another example is your response to a difficult editor, Jack Melucci who posted a personal attack and was later blocked. You gave the best response I can think of for new editors who might be digging themselves into a hole and I appreciate that you spend the time to offer your advice to them. Wikipedia always has experienced editors who retire or find other things to do with their time so the project really depends on finding and developing new editors and I'm glad we have editors helping them stay out of trouble. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback Liz. Sometimes I think I give an OK answer; other times maybe not so much. Anyway, some people (like above), however, might not share your opinion of my overall contributions and might be hoping that my "retirement" comes sooner than later. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You've been reported

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.