User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2018/January

John's talk

That was some really impressive writing! Perhaps a little bit TL;DR, but impressive nevertheless. I tend to keep myself brief – anyway, happy new year! Alex Shih (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Alex Shih and MJ, this is a difficult issue, for the editor has created a good chunk of the content on athletics in Indiana. However, the reference issue is also widespread. It isn't the first time I've butted heads with him. It also happened about a year ago over those weird little boxes you see in the school articles in question containing state championship info. I didn't want to press him over that, as it was, and is somewhat trivial, as this is, but geez, that rant....Also, I see no indication there even is a Wikiproject, or even a task force, on southern Indiana. John from Idegon (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Brevity is not one of my strong points so it's something I need to continue to try and improve. Hopefully, I didn't ruin the flow of the discussion; feel free to hat as needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: FWIW, I also didn't find any such WikiProject, but figured pointing that out wasn't going to help things. Besides, it wouldn't have changed anything if there was. You probably already know this, but some editors have their pet genres of articles that they spend most of their time and energy working on; so, they feel they know best in all cases regarding them. It's OK to WP:STEWARDSHIP, but it becomes a problem when STEWARDSHIP drifts into WP:OWN. I think that's what might have happened here, and hopefully things will settle down now that others have commented. Further reverting probably will only make things worse, so maybe starting talk page discussions on the relevant article talk pages would be best at this point even though technically it should be the other guy doing such a thing. At least then, it cannot be said that feedback wasn't sought and the other guy wasn't given a chance to make their case for inclusion. It might also keep the focus on the two articles in question and the disputed content since more general commentary (including the ocassional "rant") appears to be more tolerated on user talk pages than article talk pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding an article deletion

Hello Marchjuly, Thank you for your guidance in a recent topic of non-copyrighted image upload of mine. Can you please help me on this topic - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahalakshmi (Kannada actress) ? -- Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ganeshprasadkp. I'm not sure how I can help in that AfD. You need to clarify how the subject meets either WP:BIO or WP:NACTOR and the way that's typically done is to add citations to reliable sources which provide the significant coverage needed to justify a stand-alone article. Articles being discussed at AfD can still be imnproved while the discussion is ongoing, so you can still improve the article.

Regarding the image of Mahalashmi you uloaded, you are claiming the file as your "own work"? There is no Exif data provided which shows that this is a photo taken by you; rather it shows that it is something created by photoshop. Did you take the original picture yourself or did you find in somewhere online? If you found it online, you can't claim it as your "own work" unless you are the original copyright holder. If you are the original copyright holder and the picture is found online, then you will need to follow c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?; if you're not the original copyright holder, then you will then need to follow c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Bascially, you can't claim ownership over a photograph or an image you did not take or create. Downloading something from some website and then re-uploading it to Wikipedia does not make you the original copyright holder, so the file will need to be deleted unless the original copyright holder gives their explicit consent to release it under a free license. The same applies to movie screenshots; you cannot take a screenshot or screencapture from a movie or TV program, etc. and then claim it as your "own work"; you will need the permission of the original copyright holder. Without such permssion, the file will be treated as non-free content and non-free images of still living indoviduals is almost never allowed per WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly, Thank you for your consent. -- Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. I've not given you my "consent" to do anything and even if I did it would have no meaning with respect to the files you've been uploading. You don't need my consent to upload a file under a free license, you need the consent of the original copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Pottersville Album Cover

Hi!

I have the rights from the creator to put this album cover on Wikipedia, particularly this specific page. How do I ensure that I can post this image and not have it continually taken it down - legally I am 100% in the clear.

LaCroizy (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@LaCroizy: You have licensed the file non-free content which means that each use must comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy regardless of who has given you permission to upload the file. The permission of the original copyright holder is only needed if you or they wih to release the file under a free license which is compatible with Wikipedia's copyright policy. If the original copyright holder wishes to release the file in such a way, then they will need to explicitly give their consent via an email to Wikimedia OTRS. Please advise them that once something has been released under a free-license, it cannot be revoked. Moreover, a free license for Wikipedia's purposes means there can be basically no restrictions (commerical or otherwise) placed on the file's use; in other words, the original copyright holder is essentially agreeing in advance to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at any time for any purpose, including to make derivatives and to use to make money. Wikipedia will not accept a free license which says "for use only on Wikipedia" or "for non-commercial or non-derivative use only". So, if you think the original copyright holder would be willing to agree to something such as that then please have them re-upload a better quality version of the album cover to Wikimedia Commons as their "own work"; they should use the Interactive Release Generator when they upload the file. If the original copyright holder does not want to agree to such a license, then the only other option would be non-free content, as the file is currently licensed. This means, however, that it's use is subject to the aforementioned Wikipedia policy, which means it cannot be used in drafts or anywhere else outside the article namespace.

Just so you know, files which are deleted are not gone forever, but only hidden from public view. Such files can fairly easily be "undeleted" once their licensing issues, etc. are resolved. So, if the draft you're working on is someday approved as an article (you will need to meet WP:NALBUM for that to happen), then the file can be re-added to the article. If the file is by chance deleted while the draft is still being reviewed, just message the deleting admin and they should restore it since non-free album cover art is typically allowed when the file is used as the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article about the album in question (see WP:NFC#cite_note-3). If any of what I written above is unclear, please let me know and I'll try and clarify. You can also always ask for other oppinions at WP:MCQ or WT:NFC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Katryn Tappen photos

Mi Marchjuly,

Thank you so much for the posts on my talk page! I am trying to edit this Kathryn Tappen page for a school project and we haven't had much direction with it so I'm not too sure what I'm doing. Is there any way to keep those two photos on her page? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlopi761 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nlopi761: It's pretty much a good idea to always assume that any photos, images or even textual content you find online which was created/posted by someone else belongs to someone else, unless it clearly says so otherwise. So, if you find a photograph of Tappen online that you did not personally take, then you shouldn't upload it to Wikipedia. What needs to be done in such cases is (1) determine who is the original copyright holder and (2) obtain that person's explicit consent to release the content under a free license compatiable with Wikipedia's licensing policy. The first part can be tricky because many people/organziations upload photos, videos, images, etc. that they find online to their personal websites or social media pages even though they are not the original copyright holder of the material; they may have permission to use the photo on their website, but that permission may not be applicable for Wikipedia purposes. The second part sometimes means contacting the original copyright holder by email, etc. and asking them to either donate the content to Wikipedia, etc. or release it under a free license Wikipedia can use. Some copyright holders might be willing to do this, but others may not. This is because the types of free licenses that Wikipedia accepts basically require that the copyright holder agree in advance to release the content for use by anyone anywhere in the world for any purpose, including commercial; moreover, once content has been released under such a license, the license cannot be taken back or revoked. That's basically it when it comes to images about Tappen; if you did not take it yourself or did not purchase the copyrights to it in some sort of official copyright transfer agreement, you probably shouldn't upload it to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons.

Now, regardng your school project. Can you clarify that a bit more? Is this something associated with Wikipedia:Education program? If it is, then your project should've been assigned a Wikipedia Content Expert to help guide your course instructor and you and your fellow classmates through the ins and outs of Wikipedia editing. If you're class project is not something "official" per se, then you're best is to try and get help at Wikipedia Teahouse for any general editing questions you have. You also need to realize that being a student working on a class project for a grade of some sort may not be the same reasons that other editors are editing on Wikipedia. In other words, if you're just here for yourself and your grade, you're going to find yourself having problems with editors who are here for Wikipedia. Any edit made by one editor can be undone by another a second later, and what determines whether an edit sticks is how it complies with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines; so if you're edits are not policy/guideline compliant, someone will likely undo them regardless of how it affects your grade. I am going to ask a Content Expert named Shalor (Wiki Ed) to see if she give you anymore suggestions about editing as a student, but you might want to read through Wikipedia:Student assignments as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Matt Stahl

Hey can you please put the content you removed from the matt stahl page back? It's accurate. If you have a way I can speak to you that is not on a public board I can send you documentation that you were wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F418:83A6:F56D:5D38:1210:9945 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi 2600:1:F418:83A6:F56D:5D38:1210:9945. Wikipedia has various policies and guidelines that each editor is expected to adhere to when they edit and one of the most important of these is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Bascially, only content which can be supported by citations to reliable sources should be added to such articles. Anything unsourced or poorly sourced is subject to immediate removal. Moreover, Wikipedia article's are not owned by their subjects or creators which means that any discussion of article content should take place on the relevant article's talk where others are free to comment. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project and off-Wiki communication, etc. is not really conducive to such a thing. If the sources you have have been published somehwere by a reputable reliable source, then please list them at Talk:Matt Stahl so that they can be evaluated by other editors. If they've not been published anywhere, then I'm afraid they are not of any use to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Seabee

Your deletion of the Marvin Glenn Shields image was incorrect. The owner of the image is the U.S. Navy which places the image in the public domain. It can have no copyright placed upon it despite what the Wikipedia page says. The Seabee Museum archives have this image and it is staggering that someone would remove it from the Seabee article.
http://www.seabeesmuseum.com/seabee-history/marvin-shields https://seabeemuseum.wordpress.com/tag/marvin-g-shields/ Mcb133aco (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mcb133aco: I did not delete the image; I removed from the SeaBee article. The file is licensed as non-free content which means that each use of it needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; the file's non-free use in the SeaBee article does not comply with this policy, so it was removed per WP:NFCCE. Not every photo you find on a government website is automatically within the public domain; some government websites use photos taken from other sources as explained in WP:PD#U.S. government works. The immediate source for this photo is given as www.peninsuladailynews.com which is a private newspaper not covered by {{PD-USgov}} {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}; moreover, the link leads to the newspaper's main page and not a specific page showing the photo and any possible copyright information. The two other links you provided above are also not to official US government or US Navy websites, but to a museum's blog; so, it's not clear if they are covered by "PD-USGov", etc. If you can find anywhere where it clearly says that this photo was taken by a US government employee or a member of the US Navy as part of his/her official duties, then that can be used as the source of the image. Otherwise, Wikipedia will treat it as non-free content until original copyright ownership can be verified. Please don't re-add the image the SeaBee article or your userpage until its licensing can be properly verified; instead, ask for assistance at WP:MCQ or WP:FFD. I have started a discussion about this at WP:MCQ#File:Marvin Shields.jpeg, so feel free to comment there. The file's non-free use in the biography about Shields seems acceptable per item 10 of WP:NFCI, so it's not in any danger of being deleted. However, its use on your userpage fails WP:NFCC#9 and its use in the SeaBee article fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. The same file was subsequently removed from your sandbox for the NFCC#9 reason by JJMC89; it will keep being flagged as NFCC#9 violation and keep being removed by one editor or another as long as the file is licensed as non-free content. Continuing to try and force it into your sandbox will eventually be seen as edit warring and you'll end up at WP:AN3 or WP:ANI, so it's best to sort the licensing out first and then re-add it if possible to your sandbox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mcb133aco: Just wanted to let you know that the file's licensing has been sorted out and is now licensed as {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. This means it's use is no longer subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and can be used in your user namespace it you like. I've also re-added the file to the SeaBee article, but you may want to move or resixe it accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of image

What was the rational behind the removal of an image in this edit? As coat of arms are granted to bodies (the council), rather than geographic locations (the borough) then surely this falls under fair use to serve as primary means of visual identification in the Milton Keynes Council article. Should the image fail to comply with fair non-free content criteria it would be in regards to the Borough of Milton Keynes where it is currently being used. I am not entirely familiar with copyright and free use however, so apologies. Regards, ToastButterToast (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi ToastButterToast. Each use of non-free content is required to satisfy all ten non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. One of these criteria (more specifically one part of one of these criteria) is WP:NFCC#10c which says that a separate specific non-free use rationale is required for each use. The file didn't have a rationale for it's use in the Milton Keynes Council, so I removed it per WP:NFCCE. If you believe the non-free use of the file in the article is justified, please provide the appropriate ratioanle before re-adding the file to the article. Please be advised, however, that adding a rationale does not automatically make a particular use NFCCP compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE; so, try to clarify how the use meets the criteria in the rationale for this file and just don't copy-and-paste the article name into another rationale. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll familiarise myself with the WP:NFCCP a bit better before making the change. I believe this situation has most likely arisen because the file was uploaded in March 2004, and Milton Keynes Council existed only as a redirect to Borough of Milton Keynes until January 2014 when it was spun off into a separate article. ToastButterToast (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Promotional photo of the hosts of Revolution 618 from the first season.jpg

Hello Marchjuly, Thank you for reaching out to me on my talk page User talk:Techform. I only wish others were respectful like you to do this with careful, direct, and succinct steps on how to fix image issues like this one. I've placed your 'Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason" below the original replaceable fair use template to the best of my abilities. On the file discussion page, I also wrote the full explanation of why it's believed the file is not replaceable. Happy new year and again I appreciate your asistance in getting this right Techform (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

BC Highways

Hello, I urge you to take a look at my response on my talk page, in response to this issue. It may assist you in this case. Thanks, Fhsig13 (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see my response there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Buckler Cars

Hi I am obviously having trouble adding the images to the article that is in may sandbox. I have got permission from the copyright holders for all but 2 of the pictures, both of which are in the process of being approved. What do I need to do to add these pictures correctly. I have added pictures before which are still on WIkipedia. Aharrygill 21:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC+9)

Hi Aharrygill. Two quick things first: (1) New posts added to talk pages generally go at the bottom of the page, and the easiest way to do this is to click on the "New section" post at the top of the page, and (2) your signature did not format correctly for some reason and there was no time stamp; you should try to sign your talk page posts as explained in WP:TILDE.

Now about the images. There are basically two types of images used on Wikipedia: "free images" and "non-free images". A "free image" is something which is either in the public domain or which has been released by the original copyright holder under a free license accepted by Wikipedia, while a "non-free" somethig treated as non-free content.

A public domain image is something not deemed eligible for copyright protection for some reason (e.g., it's too old so it's copyright has expired or has not been renewed, or it's design is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection). A file released under "a free license accepted by Wikipedia" is protected by copyright, but the copyright holder has decided to give their explicit consent to let others use it for any purpose, including commercial; in other words, the copyright holder has willing decided to waive their copyright so to speak and allow the file to be uploaded to Wikipedia for anyone anywhere in the world to download at anytime to use in any way they want. In the first case, no permission is needed because the file is not eligible for copyright protection, but it the second case the permission of the original copyright holder is needed for obvious reasons.

A non-free image is something uploaded as non-free content because it's still considered to be protected by copyright. This type of usage is way more restrictive than that of a "free image" and each use of non-free content must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is Wikipedia's version of the US copyright law concept of fair use, but it's much more restrictive. Permission from the original copyright holder is not needed for non-free content, but there are ten non-free content criteria which need to be satisfied for each use on Wikipedia.

When you uploaded File:Buckler Cars Logo.jpg, you chose Template:Non-free logo for the file's licensing. As mentioned above, there are ten non-free content use criterion which need to be satisfied each time the file is used, and one of this if WP:NFCC#9 which states that non-free content can only be used in the article namespace (i.e., it cannot be used in drafts, templates, user sandboxes, etc.). This is why I removed the file from User:Aharrygill/sandbox. Just in case you didn't know, there is already an article titled Buckler Cars. If this is the same company as the one you're writing about in your draft and this is the logo used by the company, then the file can probably be added to the top of that article per item 2 of WP:NFCI.

As for the other files you've uploaded, I am not an administrator so I cannot see them anymore since they have been deleted. It looks like almost all of them were deleted by Explicit per WP:F4 because they lacked proper source information. You should probably post a message at User talk:Explicit if you have any questions about how to get these file's restored. For what it's worth, files which have been deleted are not gone forever; they are only hidden from public view. A deleted file can be restored by an administrator if any licensing, etc. issues are sorted out.

If you have any more questions, let me know. You can also ask for help at WP:MCQ, WT:NFC or the Wikipedia Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Talkpage Category removal

Hi Marchjuly,

I saw your edits to my sandbox page. I'm relatively new at creating pages and was working on slowly updating this one for future publication (and was using an existing page's text as a template). Did it show up in those categories? And if so, what should have I have done instead? Thanks,

Squatch347 (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Squatch347. If you enable a category template on a particular page, then that page will be added to the category. Some categories are reserved for articles and, therefore, should not be "used" (i.e., "enabled") in drafts or user pages, etc. You can find out more in WP:DRAFTNOCAT and WP:USERNOCAT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the references. I'll keep that in mind going forward. I'm assuming then that we apply the categories once we get approval for the article/update. Sorry for any problems it might have caused

Squatch347 (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You can add "article categories" to drafts or userspace drafts you're currently working on; you just shouldn't enable them. There are a couple of ways to do this: (1) the "colon trick" where you place a colon before the word "Category" like [[:Category:ABC]], or (2) by hiding the category by placing the category syntax between <!--[[Category:ABC]]-->. The first method makes the categorys visible as WP:WIKILINKs within the body of the draft and clicking on the link takes you to the categories page, but you have to disable each category seperately; the second method hides the categories so they are only visible in the editing syntax, but makes it possible to hide an entire list of categories as group. Once the article has been approved via WP:AFC, the AfC reviewer should re-enable the categories when they move the draft to the article mainspace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Cliff Padgett reply

Hello - thanks for posting the info about COI re my interest in the Cliff Padgett page. As a descendant of the late Mr. Padgett, I am keen to preserve his legacy. I have lots of external sources (mainly newspaper articles), at least one periodical reference, and knowledge of the existence of his trophies and other memorabilia both in the Quincy Boat Club and the Quincy Historical Museum. My last name is different from Padgett's, so it would take a bit of an effort to even confirm that he and I were related. There is no personal benefit to me to struggle through all the hoops of assuring that the Padgett page survives - other than the personal pride in making this small contribution to the historical record. Anyway, I write this in the interest of full disclosure and hoping that the Cliff Padgett page will outlive me. Not much else I can do. QuincyBoatManQuincyBoatMan (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@QuincyBoatMan: I think it's good that you're being upfront about your connection to Padgett, but the fact that you're his grandson does mean you have a conflict-of-interest with respect to anything written about him on Wikipedia. As I posted on your user talk, you need to be aware that COI editing is something highly discouraged by Wikipedia because it can (even unintentionally) lead to other problems, particularly when it comes to other editors and neutral point of view. I also think that it's great that you want to preserve your grandfather's legacy, but Wikipedia might not be the best place to do such a thing. Wikipedia article are not intended to be written to "preserve the legacy" of those they are written about; they are only intended to reflect what reliable sources (preferably independent and WP:SECONDARY) might say about the subject. Wikipedia article's are also not intended to include every bit of information which can be found about the subject, but only that deemed encyclopedically relevant which also is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Articles can technically be edited by anyone anywhere in the world at any time, and no single editor (not the creator and not the subject) has any final editorial control over article content; it's collaborative editing through WP:CONSENSUS which determines how an article takes shape, and what is left in or taken out. All of these things are probably why it might be a better idea for you to try and find another way to preserve your grandfather's legacy, perhaps by creating a website specifically devoted to him where you can post whatever content or what ever images you like.

Please understand that I'm not saying there can't be a Wikipedia article written about your grandfather and not making a judgement about the currently ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Padgett. There are plenty of COI editors, some who are even paid for their work, who make positive contributions to building the encyclopedia. These editors tend to have no issues because they comply with relevant policies and guidelines, and things should be fine if you do the same. I do suggest though that you add the Template:Connected contributor to the top of Talk:Cliff Padgett; if you don't, someone else probably will. I also suggest that you consider WP:DISCLOSECOI and add something to your user page about your connection to Padgett.

Finally, one last bit of advice: when someone posts on your user talk page, it's better to reply to them there. You don't need to specifically respond to them on their user talk page. Keeping things in one place is helpful because it makes it easier for others to follow along. This is not a big deal here, but it can be when you have long discussion threads with multiple people posting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your candid advice. This whole experience makes my head spin. I can't understand how these diff. pages relate to each other and how to find them. I clicked on the two links you gave me (the Template:Connected contributorand the WP:DISCLOSECOI, but I don't know how to insert them where they should be. Sorry, this is way above my pay grade. Also, it's not just preserving his legacy, but making sure that his contributions to history are not lost. A web site needs attention and money. When I go, it's gone. QuincyBoatManQuincyBoatMan (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@QuincyBoatMan: There are some websites such as Wikia which are similar to Wikipedia, but do not have as many policies and guidelines. There are also some free internet providers (see Comparison of free blog hosting services and Comparison of free web hosting services) and even social media sites like Facebook which might be worth considering. That might help with the cost, but keeping the content updated, etc. is kinda up to you. Anyway, it's important to remember what Wikipedia is not intended to be and one of the things it's not intended to be is a free webhost for any content the Wikpedia community doesn't feel satisfies its relevant policies and guidelines. This is the primary reason articles are deleted from Wikipedia, and most likely the reason someone nominated the article about your grandfather for deletion. I'm not saying they were correct in doing so, but this is part of the process of maintaining the standards established by the Wikipedia community. Lots of articles are added daily, but a large number of these have issues. No article is perfect and Wikipedians tend to try and fix what can be fixed, but deletion is necessary to keep Wikipedia as free as possible from spamy/crappy/hopeless articles about non-Wikipedia notable subjects which have no real chance of being improved. Again, I'm not specifically referring to the article about your grandfather; I'm just making a general statement about how Wikipedia sort of works.

WP:DISCLOSE just states that if you have a COI with respect to a particular subject that it's better to be open about and not try to deceive others. You are already doing that so no problem there; I only suggested you add some kind of statement to User:QuincyBoatMan stating your connection to Cliff Padgett just to further clarify things. You can write out something if you want or you can just add Template:UserboxCOI to your user page. Just click on the above red "User:QuincyBoatMan" link and copy and paste {{UserboxCOI|1=Cliff Padgett}} into the editing window. Click "Show Preview" to make sure you did it correctly, and then "Publish page" to save the page. As for the CC template, just go to Talk:Cliff Padgett and click on "Edit". At the top of the page you'll see various templates (things in curly brackets). Just copy and paste {{Connected contributor|checked=|User1=QuincyBoatMan|U1-EH=yes|U1-declared=yes|U1-otherlinks= Editor is a relative of Cliff Padgett, COI declared on user page and [[:Special:diff/QuincyBoatMan/822151871|here]]}}. When you've finished, click on "Show preview" to check to see that you done it correctly and then "Publish page" . I'll leave a hidden note on that talk page showing you where to add the template. Just copy and past the CC template over my note. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MTV Hits (Europe), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You might wanna consider it.

Hey! one of your edit notices has "Too money cooks will spoil the broth..." I guess it's a typo. You might wanna change it to 'many'. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That sounds like a typo. Can you provide a link to the page where I made it? — Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Revdel

Done, thanks. You can request these by adding {{copyvio-revdel}} to the article, as long as it's an obvious copyvio. Hut 8.5 07:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Image in WIRN

Greetings. Your deletion of the image in one of my userboxes ("Canterbury scene") was entirely correct. However, some other image deletions you made seem unwarranted, e.g. the deletion of the thumb image in WIRN. You justify it by claiming that "its use in this article does not comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy". However, I find that the use meets all the criteria required by WP:NFCCP. Could you, please, be more specific about the deletion? Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi The Gnome. Each use of a non-free file is required to satisfy all ten of the NFCCP criteria and one of these is WP:NFCC#10c which says that a valid separate specific non-free use rationale (nfur) is required to be provided for each use or it can be removed per WP:NFCCE. File:MPR logo.png does have a nfur for Minnesota Public Radio, but it does not for any of the other articles where it was being used; so, I removed it. Now, it may seem that all that is needed is for a nfur to be provided for each of these other articles, and if it was that simple I would've have done that instead. The problem is that, per WP:JUSTONE, providing a nfur does not in and of itself mean all of the other NFCCP criteria are met. In this case, we have a situation where a "parent" organization's logo is being used for identification purposes in articles about "child" entities, which is something generally not allowed per item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Basically, the consensus reached regarding this type of logo use has generally been not to allow the same non-free logo of TV/radio parent companies to be used over and over again in articles about individual stations which are part/members of the parent network. Rather, it's preferable to find station specific logos and use them instead. If such logos do not exist, then the automatic default is still not to use the parent logo. You can ask about this at WT:NFC or even WP:MCQ if want more opinions.

One thing about this logo is that it's possible that it might not even need to be licensed as non-free content; it might be considered to be simple enough to be treated as {{PD-logo}} based upon c:COM:TOO#United States. This might also be something worth asking about at the two talk pages I linked to above. A PD file would not be subject to the NFCCP and thus would be able to be used in these other articles without problem. However, license conversion can often be more complicated than it seems, so it's typically a good idea to get some feedback before doing so.

Lastly, if you truly believe this file's non-free use is justified in all of these other articles, then please provide the required nfurs explaining why. You shoud try and make them as specific as possible to each individual use and not just copy-and-paste them from one file page to another. However, as I pointed out above, providing a nfur does not automatically mean compliance and the file may be nominated for further discussion at WP:FFD. Hope that answered your question. If you have any more, just ask. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. You say you "removed" the image but also that the image is used legitimately in WIRN, though not in others. Well, then, the correct procedure is to remedy what is incorrect. (Or am I missing something?) I'd presume the right thing to do is remove the image from wherever it is inappropriately used and leave it up in WIRN. Throwing the image out altogether amounts to the baby/bathwater malpractice, seems to me. -The Gnome (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)!

The file does not have a non-free use rationale for WIRN, which means that particular use does not satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria, which in turn means it was not being used legitimately in that article. Can you point out where I said that the file’s use in that particular article was legitimate?

WP:FU is a guideline that explains different types of non-free content use, but it is not policy and the examples mentioned on that page are not automatically justified per WP:ITSFAIRUSE. As I posted above, it is the responsibility of those wanting to use a non-free file in a certain way to provide a valid non-free use rationale for the particular use as explained in WP:NFCCE; so, if you believe the file's use is justified in WIRN article, then please provide the non-free use rationale for said use and then re-add the file to the aritcle. If I or anyone else disagrees with whatever rationale you provide, then the file can be further discussed at WP:FFD. As I said above, this type of non-free use has been discussed before and the consensus seems to be OK for the parent organization, but not OK for any subsidiaries or child entities. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This pretty much cuts to the chase: "[T]his type of non-free use has been discussed before and the consensus seems to be OK for the parent organization, but not OK for any subsidiaries." Thanks for clarifying the point. In case you happen to have some link to the discussions where the respective consensus was reached, I'd appreciate it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I posted about parent logos and child entities in my reply to your original post, but maybe you didn't notice it. I also am still curious as to where you feel I said or implied that the file was being used legitimately in the WIRN article. As for links to FFD discussions, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 28#File:Channel Ten logo 2013.png, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 13#File:Vodafone logo.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 April 6#File:Discovery Channel International.svg, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 3#File:Sydney Metro logo.svg, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 27#File:ATENEO-SEAL.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 14#File:Disney Channel 2014.png are some, but you can find more if you search the archives for WP:FFD or WP:NFCR. Please note that an FFD discussion deals with a particular file, so a single discussion in and of itself may not seem like much; however, there have been enough of these individual discussions regarding a variety of different types of files and articles in which the consensus as been to not allow this type of usage that I think it's fair to say that the general consensus has been established against it; however, if you want to discuss the interpretation and application of the NFCC or NFC in general terms with respect to this type of use, then the page to do that would be WT:NFC -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers and the links. As I said, it was a case of misreading what you wrote re WIRN. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Marchjuly/Archives/2018. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk • contribs) 00:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)