This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hello Majora, hope you are doing good. I remember you were one of the users who submitted customized Wikipedia logo(s) denoting Wikipedia's 5 millionth article, so I thought you could help. As you are aware, extendedconfirmed user rights are in place. And I thought it might be a good idea to have topicons and userboxes for the rights. Since you can design logos, if you can, can you please design a logo for extendedconfirmed similar to the
autoconfirmed one, but with a blue (or whatever the color of the lock of
Arbitration 30/500 protection is) tick, so that it can be used in {{
Extendedconfirmed topicon}}
and {{
User wikipedia/Extendedconfirmed}}
? You can also do what feels more right/good to you! Feel absolutely free to decline the offer, rest assured I won't be offended
Thanks anyways. Regards—
UY Scuti
Talk
10:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ UY Scuti and Peter SamFan: Just letting you both know that I have seen this. I would be happy to throw something together, both a top icon and a userbox, using the blue padlock/colored check. I can do it both ways to see which one you like better although I am thinking the topicon should be the check and not have the padlock in there since it can be confused as the page being under 30/500 instead of being able to edit 30/500 pages. The userbox is a different story. -- Majora ( talk) 22:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
It looks nice! Peter Sam Fan 14:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@ UY Scuti and Peter SamFan: Unfortunatley, the end result did not turn out extactly as I had hoped. The top icon is too small to really show the padlock very well and for whatever reason the icon has a white background in the userbox (see below). That was probably caused by an issue during the SVG creation since I converted it from the original PNG format since I don't have the program to directly work with SVGs. Going to try something else and see if I can make it better. -- Majora ( talk) 20:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
This user has extended confirmed rights on the English Wikipedia. ( verify) |
Alright, that works then. I guess everything is all set. Topicon and userbox done. -- Majora ( talk) 20:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I made new adjustments to the Fifth Harmony images that were notified for seeming to fail Wikipedia's first non-free content criterion. Is everything in the description correct or should I make further adjustments?
Thank you, Raul1798 — Preceding unsigned comment added by raul1798 ( talk • contribs) 00:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.What this means is that fair-use, copyrighted, images can only be used if it is unreasonable that a free use, creative commons or public domain, image cannot be made or is not already available. Since we already have free use images on that page, no fair-use image can be used. Even if a free use image was not already available, since the band is still together and still touring it is reasonable that a free use image could be created and therefore fair-use would not apply. I understand that you want to show a specific event but unfortunately that is not how copyright law, and the policies of Wikipedia, works. Sometimes we just have to work with what we have available to us. If you have any further questions please feel free to ask me and I will be happy to try to sort them out. -- Majora ( talk) 17:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Majora, thank you for the heads up.
RE: Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license.
The manager of the band The Hot Sardines informs me that the band owns the photo uploaded to File:The Hot Sardines Jazz Band close up.jpg. They twice sent emails to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to permit reuse under the CC-BY-SA license. They got no response. They emailed me asking what to do. I then forwarded their original email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 6:15 PM with the heading Wikipedia photos for submission. I also got no response. I do not know what else I should do.-- Toploftical ( talk)
Then, did you email the permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? That matters as the two sites are not actually the same thing and the different email queues go to different people. If you emailed it to commons please let me know and once all the licensing issues are ironed out I can move it over there. As for the long wait, I do apologize for that. We are trying to work our way though our email backlog and the volunteers that process those things are working as fast as they can. Did you receive a ticket number yet from your original email?
Once everything is all set I can tag the image with a "permission pending" label so that administrators don't delete the file. -- Majora ( talk) 17:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
What form did you fill out and send in? Was it the one listed here: c:Commons:Email templates#Declaration of consent for all inquiries? I actually don't have the proper rights to view the email queue as that system is limited to a specific subset of volunteers. Would you mind forwarding the email to me and I can ensure that it is valid? If it is I can forward it again to the proper queue and place all the necessary notices on the image until the people who have the proper rights gets to the email. I can be reached at majorawpoutlook.com. Please note that if you don't want to do this that is fine. However, I would recommend sending the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org with the above form if that is not the one that was already filled out. Please make sure you include links to the uploads that are already hosted here ( /info/en/?search=File:The_Hot_Sardines_Jazz_Band_close_up.jpg). Let me know what you decide to do. -- Majora ( talk) 19:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Toploftical: I have received your email and everything looks to be in order. The OTRS agent that gets assigned to it may need to contact the business manager just to double check but I have went ahead and tagged the images with the proper notices. You should be good to go and I can act as an intermediary if anything comes up. And to answer you other question, yes, I do enjoy Forensic Files as it is one of the only shows that actually shows real forensics instead of the fake, made-for-tv stuff you see on a lot of police dramas. -- Majora ( talk) 21:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora,
Thanks for your message as I was a little unclear how to complete this permissions process. Also I trust this reaches you..I'm finding my way with Wiki communications! I have now contacted Lillian Delevoryas and asked her to formalise her permission by sending an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating her ownership of the photograph and her wish to publish it under a free license. Once I receive her confirmation I will add a {{
OTRS pending}}
. If there is anything further I need to do please let me know. Best wishes
Awenparadigm (
talk)
13:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora, Many thanks for this. Lillian has now sent the permissions letter you referenced to Wiki and she received a confirmation of receipt of email [Ticket#: 2016041110016103]. As a result I have now posted ORTS pending notice. Will the process complete automatically or shall get back in touch with you when Lillian lets me know she has received a reply? Thanks for your time. Awenparadigm ( talk) 10:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora
I would like to make a new page for a film I am working on but would like to download the template to fit my information in. Not having much luck with that! Please help. Thanks so much, Peggy April 13, 2016 Mickey501959 ( talk) 22:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I think i put in the correct usage term if you could please check if everything good now I'd appreciate it! --> HipHopRijeka ( talk) 19:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The Citation Barnstar | |
Thank you very much for correcting the error. You contribute to the task of making better the lemma and perfect the Wikipedia effort. ( Aris de Methymna) 23:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
Hi Majora,
Thanks so much for getting back to me so soon with your helpful information. Let me ask you another question. What about a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivative Works license where the artist allows the photo to be shared? (either a photo of their paintings or a photo portrait of the artist by a professional photographer)
Here is the original exchange between us
Hi Folks, I have an artist who gives her permission to upload photos of her paintings to an article about her. (Sol Kjok) What does this entail? I know you either have to have them put a Creative Commons license on the work, but what if they want it to remain in the non-free category but are giving Wikipedia sole permission to reproduce it. How do I provide evidence of this to the Wikipedia editors? I don't understand how I prove fair use. Every time I have tried to upload the photos, they get rejected. Extremely confused. Many thanks TWB1934 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC) @Twb1934: Sole permission is not really how we do things here. They can either be under fair use if they meet all of the criteria at WP:NFCCP or they have to be free use (public domain, creative commons, ect.). In this instance fair use would not apply since you want to use them on the article about the artist. It would apply on an article about the painting. There is a slight difference there but it is a difference that matters. So if you want to use the paintings on the article about the artist they must be under free use. What that means is that the image is open to used or modified by anyone for any purpose. To get permission for this please have the artist fill out the form here: WP:CONSENT and email it into the permissions email detailed on the CONSENT page. If you have further questions about this please let me know. --Majora (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 ( talk • contribs)
Hi Majora,
I just wanted to add a question on using paintings for pages about the artist. From what I understand, you said that the image of the painting must be free use if it is to be used in the article about the artist. (not an article specifically about the painting)
Is there a reason why the articles for the artists below have paintings under fair use? I am confused because this seems to contradict what you said.
/info/en/?search=Richard_Diebenkorn
/info/en/?search=Francesco_Clemente
Thanks again for being so helpful!!!
Twb1934 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help again Majora. Another question, if I uploaded a photo portrait of the artist by a photographer, could I put it up under fair use since the article is about the artist. I have permission from the photographer but I don't think they created a CC license for that photo yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Wow! So complicated. Thanks for all your help, Majora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering why you reverted the article about the campaign back into a redirect? Are you referring to the article Battle of Ia Drang? I think the reasoning of the IP editor who forked the Pleiku Campaign page was that it makes more sense to have a main article about a campaign and then link to the battle that was part of the campaign rather than talk about the entirety of the wider campaign within the article about the battle. That seems to make sense to me, unless there's something I missed? Intelligent sium 21:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I am Tnguyen4321 ( talk · contribs · logs), I comment as following to ( talk): "I am an expert on this, since I have written 50+ articles about the subject (see http://www.generalhieu.com/pleime-2.htm) and since I am mainly responsible for expanding the page Battle of Ia Drang - as instructed when I submitted the article Pleime Campaign and had it struck down and redirected to Battle of Ia Drang. It is about to almost becoming the Pleime Campaign which comprises three battles Pleime-Chupong-Iadrang. The Battle of Iadrang is actually the Battle of Chupong (LZ X-Ray is located at the eastern foot of the Chu Pong Massif, not in the Ia Drang Valley as generally thought). My suggestion is to rename Battle of Ia Drang,Pleime Campaign and have Battle of Ia Drang redirected to Pleime Campaign. I also suggest to redirect Pleiku Campaign to Pleime Campaign, since the same campaign is named Pleime Campaign by Vĩnh Lộc and Pleiku Campaign by Kinnard.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)". Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 22:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora, I have made changes to the ProWorkflow article as discussed in chat. please review again and let me know if there are any further changes required? Thank you, Rattan Rattan1912 ( talk) 04:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
If Furious Slaughter 1972 is published with the same amount of info I do not agree with the reviewer's reason for declining the submission of Ma Su Chen which is a sequel to the aforementioned movie. If I am a fan of Jimmy Wang Yu and saw his film Furious Slaughter, I would definitely want to watch Ma Su Chen and find movie information for it. Presently, there is none. Therefore, I took the initiative and trouble to do it. This should be reason enough for it to be published without any prejudice or bias of individual(s).
Hi Majora - I just wanted to say thanks for reviewing the first draft of page Robert Curtis (actor), it was much appreciated. I didn't expect it to get approved without references and have been busy sourcing these and trying to make sure they meet the criteria. I mainly submitted to see if there were any formatting errors/flags as it's my first full wiki page and I've been getting to grip with the code. I'm hoping to resubmit again this week with all references in place but thank you again for reviewing so quickly when I know there is a large backlog of pages awaiting review.
MsTumnus ( talk) 12:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
MsTumnus (
talk)
12:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Majora for reviewing the article I submitted. I apologize for any errors/inconsistencies as i am new to Wikipedia.
Kind regards,
Victoria Mabry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.114.125 ( talk) 03:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora, Thank you for reviewing the Melissa Del Pinto artist page. I put in the inline citations and footnotes as you requested. I also added 3 pictures and sent in the required templates covering the copyright release. Thank you, Best Regards, Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Cianciullo ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello Majora, This is my first time trying to add to Wikipedia. Wikipedia had a list of Kentucky Newspapers but it did not have the Gallatin County News. Apparently I was successful adding that to the list. My next attempt was to provide info when users clicked on the Gallatin Co. News link in the newspapers list. That was not successful. The article was basically a compressed version of the "history" page on the Gallatin County News' own webpages.
Here is my question: how do I go about the submission if I want to create a link from the list of newspapers to the Gallatin County News website? thanks, Joyce 207 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbhowell207 ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
As for meeting our criteria for inclusion, all Wikipedia articles must show that the topic has been the source of in depth commentary in independent, third-party, reliable sources. This may be difficult for a local newspaper to accomplish. Has the paper been discussed in other news sources? Mentioned anywhere else? Talked about by something other than the paper itself? That is what we are looking for. If you have any questions on this please feel free to let me know and I will try to assist you in any way I can. -- Majora ( talk) 00:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Majora. I understand completely your repsonse on both the notability and copyright issues. I will write a short descriptor with basic information, similar to what I find when I click the links to the other newpapers in the KY newspapers list, and do some searching for references to the Gallatin Co. News among press associations and the like. Jbhowell207 ( talk) 16:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Jbhowell207
Dear Majora, Thank you for reviewing my submission for Italian Artist Walter Noetico, which is greatly appreciated. Sadly, Assistant Ringbang had declined it again, after I have actually made numerous corrections and additions to the citation materials and external links. I am sorry, but I think that you have made a mistake in declining the page for this Artist.
I have cross-checked the Rules of “Verifiability” of sources, and considering the requirements of the Wikipedia for the content to qualify as an “encyclopaedic” one, I think that there is a big error, not to consider Walter Noetico as “encyclopaedic” Artist. This is because with the quantity of sources (citations) which Walter Noetico already has, his profile already greatly exceeds the minimum requirements asked by Wikipedia rule.
For example: in the “Context Matters” section, it says that the sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. And I have prepared the “External links” where every single paragraph finds its supporting source (i.e. exhibition catalogues, TV broadcasting of RAI2 and France 3 Tèlèvisions).
The Section “Definition of a source” has also been adhered to largely widely satisfied, for example including in the case of the book which he wrote, the Publishing House also is cited as source and external links provided in support.
Furthermore, for an Artist is determinant (very important) for his encyclopaedic importance, a support of Art Critic, and Walter Noetico has had the support of the three greatest Art Critics on a international level, such as: Alexandre Cirici (the President of the International Art Critics Association 1978-1981), Gillo Dorfles (the friend of Cirici and important International Art Critic), Raffaele de Grada who has also been a Commissioner of the Venice Biennial, and also it was Raffaele de Grade who invited Walter Noetico to the Venice Biennial, and also it was the same Art Critic who had presented the Neoilluminist Movement of Noetico in 1989 Exhibition Catalogue).
The sources are abundant and of enviable quality, considering that the summit of Noetico’s artistic career was hit about 30 years ago, when there was no internet support for information, and the sources in my possession are enviably of good quality, and are on paper material also (exhibition art catalogues, articles etc). In addition, if I may also add please, Walter Noetico who is a rare Artist, as he is an Innovator of Art, whose art innovations had been backed by the best Art Critics of that time, and who merits to be open to the World. If Walter Noetico is not "encyclopaedic" - then none of the Artists are.
I noticed a very beautiful citation on Ringbang's page, dear Majora, by Ian Maclaren, saying: “Be pitiful, for every man is fighting a hard battle.” – and perhaps you will find in your heart to kindly review my submission again please, and assist positively and justly.
If you do require the original hard paper material documentation in support, I am at your complete disposal to provide it.
Thank you very much in anticipation for your time and attention. With very best regards and wishes, Richard Morris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard F Morris ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Majora. I truly appreciate your valuable advice and shall look at what I can do to make it better and in accordance with the rules. All the best, Richard Morris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard F Morris ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Dear Majora Sir
I am quite thankful to you reviewing my submissions and guiding me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargkk ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC) I am Dr Kewal Krishan (forensic anthropologist) based at Panjab University, India. This discussion is about the about Notable forensic anthropologists in the "Forensic anthropology article". I have seen the talk page and read your comments "two things written by the person (not independent) and a website where anyone can write anything (not reliable) are still not good enough". I understand Sir, kindly guide me which website/paper can I cite here?
1. I have contributed 131 articles to the literature and more than 100 articles belong to major contributions to the field of forensic anthropology in India. Through these articles, I have contributed to the forensic anthropological knowledge of the Indian populations. I have contributed five chapters to the Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences 2013 and Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine second edition, 2016. Kindly guide me, how can I cite here. As you pointed out that an independent source is to cited, Can I mention my Researchgate profile, Google scholar profile, Scopus profile, OR Pubmed search link to my articles...Can I give the link of FRAI directory of Royal anthropological Institute.. I understand, I cannot cite my CV or my profile at Panjab University website etc.. If you want I can send you my latest CV..
Thanks and regards Kewal krishan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargkk ( talk • contribs) 04:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
OK Thanks for the guidance.. I will try — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargkk ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Majora: Dear Sir, Please see these two news items from The Hindustan Times and The Tribune http://www.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/pu-prof-student-s-study-accepted-by-us-forensic-sciences-academy/story-iaOcWRYUMPRBMoMZVFDXjL.html http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/chandigarh/education/university-anthropologist-gets-fellowship/106047.html
Where the Hindustan Times clearly points out that "Dr Krishan is a renowned forensic anthropologist who has published more than 100 papers in reputed journals of forensic sciences and anthropology. He is on the editorial panel of 40 journals of repute and on the reviewer panel of 50 journals. He has recently contributed invited chapters to the most coveted Encyclopaedia of Forensic Sciences published by Elsevier, USA." and The Tribune says"Dr Krishan got this award in recognition of his contribution to the advancement of scientific methods in forensic anthropology. This scientific advancement is reflected in his 113 publications in reputed journals and encyclopedia."
Dear Sir, Can I cite these two independent references?? Kindly guide — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargkk ( talk • contribs) 17:25, June 18, 2016 (UTC)
~~~~
. --
Majora (
talk)
17:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)@
Majora: Dear Sir, Thank you very much for the great help and guidance, I really appreciate your kind gesture. >
Gargkk (
talk) ~~~~
. (
talk)
07:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)</
Can you explain why articles on these four movies - "Intimate Confessions of a Chinese Courtesan (1972)", "Furious Slaughter (1972)", "Fist of Fury (1991)", "The Behaeded 1000", and "Insomnia Lover (2016)" - can be accepted to be published in Wikipedia? These articles have more or less the same source references as "Ma Su Chen (1972)". "Furious Slaughter (1972)" originally has fewer information and no source reference. Links:- 1. /info/en/?search=Intimate_Confessions_of_a_Chinese_Courtesan 2. /info/en/?search=Furious_Slaughter 3. /info/en/?search=Fist_of_Fury_1991 4. /info/en/?search=The_Beheaded_1000 5. /info/en/?search=Insomnia_Lover I doubt you can explain because I believe you have some kind of discriminatory hang-up. A very unprofessional attitude to have for a reviewer. The "templates" that you idiots see now in "Intimate Confessions of a Chinese Courtesan", "Fist of Fury 1991", and "Insomnia Lover" are not there originally until I query your idiot colleague on why these movies' articles were published when they also fall short of the notability and verifiable condition. That idiot shit instead of answering the query just post those templates.
more evidence reviewers double standard
Check out these movie articles /info/en/?search=Movie..._In_Your_Face , /info/en/?search=Chow_Ken . The way these articles are presented and you all still accept them??!! What happen to notable and verifiable? This is plain double standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.9.100.170 ( talk) 07:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Dear Administrators Majora and Ringbang,
Thank you very much for all your precious guidance and assistance, without which I could not have managed to complete this task. In accordance with your instructions, I have now included (inasmuch as I could) all the necessary sources/inline citations in the Walter Noetico page, so that the page appears suitable for encyclopaedic publication. I hope to have done my work in a way that you find to your appreciation.
It is necessary to also kindly bear in mind, however, that Maestro Noetico had his greatest artistic activity when the internet did not exist, and thus, did not exist the computerized archives of all the newspapers, magazines, galleries, museums and all forms of information that today can be found on the Internet.
Fortunately, the Maestro Noetico had in his archives - spanning over 30 years - a very rich bibliographic and photographic material, to make him considered as one of the most important contemporary artists.
In addition, Maestro Noetico has had the support of the most important international art critics, when the art critics was the main tool that delivered to history the Artists, and this renders him, undoubtedly, encyclopaedically “with merit”, i.e. that he deserves to be in an Encyclopaedia, Wikipedia as a reference to a Post-Modern Artist, coherent with the Utopia of the New Enlightenment.
Also, we must consider that the art of Walter Noetico is inspired by the aesthetic essays of the great French philosopher Denis Diderot, who was the paramount creator of the modern encyclopedia, and perhaps without Diderot, even the Wikipedia may not have existed today.
I am most obliged to both of you, for your kind attention and time, and remain with infinite thanks for your indispensable support.
If the page meets your joint approval, could kindly advise me as to the best way to proceed with the publication of this page, I would be most grateful. I remain at your complete disposal for any other clarification if needed. Richard Morris -- Richard F Morris ( talk) 21:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora. I am Mselmast, and last night in Live Chat, you solved an editing problem for me, and I want to thank you. A person at Live Chat directed me to your Talk Page.
Sincerely, Mselmast Mselmast ( talk) 17:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I recently created the Right is Right in America Wikipedia page as part of an assignment for my class. There was a reference to Amnesty International that was flagged. If you can lift that flag, I would appreciate it. I have deleted the reference to Amnesty International.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurtDCollins2017 ( talk • contribs) 03:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Added two more objective sources and expanded on his contribution to the expansion of Portland Airport (went from 7 million to 14 million passengers during his tenure there). I have not found web-based citations for his award from the Emperor. -Paul Collins -- collinsfamily@yahoo.com
Please help us on the Lupton family page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.182.141.11 ( talk) 02:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Requesting temporary page lock. See boards 4chan org/pol/thread/80523004/hidden-fbi-message-thread-5#p80528501 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.225.6 ( talk) 21:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your information. I am really quite new to this, and do not yet have a command of the "rules". I suppose I am in an edit war, which I really did not mean to start or have. I will use the article's talk page -- thank you so much for pointing that out to me. HerdMusic209 ( talk) 19:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that you might take an interest in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside-drug-test-sends-innocent-people-to-jail.html -- Pine ✉ 20:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm inviting frequent Wikipedia helpers to meet with me this Friday to discuss the script outline for my video project. Would you like to join the meeting? It will be at 4 PM Eastern time on IRC. -- Pine ✉ 20:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the note; you're correct that I forgot to levy the block. Problem resolved. Nyttend ( talk) 03:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Majora. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
WTF? 75.172.225.170 ( talk) 00:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
You just left a message on my talk page, can you explain with more detail? TexasMan34 ( talk) 01:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Not surprised that there was a rule against it that I had overlooked, but I disagree with your public comment that it is 'really unnecessary'. Zootsuit7 ( talk) 04:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey Majora,
For what it's worth I think your vote there makes a lot of sense. Apologies for any abrasiveness on IRC; I got some time for wikistuff for the first time in a while and it was... underwhelming, to say the least.
Have a good one -- Ajraddatz ( talk) 07:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I saw you are pursuing the RFC regarding deleting images and OTRS permissions. I have what is probably an unrelated question, but I hope you can help.
I came across
File:Vishal Vashishtha for See N Pic.jpg, which as far as I can tell was uploaded from twitter in May and an email has been sent to OTRS. Am I correct in understanding this happened more than three months ago but hasn't been resolved yet? Does that mean it is now eligible for deletion tagging? Apologies for what might be a basic question. I have little experience dealing with images so far.
AtHomeIn神戸 (
talk)
02:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I'm curious about your views re WP:LDR, particularly relative to the use of Harv. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of each? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I thank you for your thoughtful comments. In my mind the merits of "Harv" seem so obvious that I am amazed others think, well, otherwise. So I would be very appreciative if you would explore this a bit with me.
I find it curious that the points you state in favor of LDR are pretty much the same points by which I favor Harv. That is, getting the full citations out of article text and into their own area. However, strictly speaking this is not really a characteristic or requirement of either, it is only something which is possible with either approach.
At the point our views seem to diverge I detect a misunderstanding. When I asked for your views on "Harv" I should have marked it as {{ Harv}} to indicate I was referring to the use of the template. " Parenthetical referencing" (a.ka. "Harvard referencing", what WP:HARVARD links to) is something else. The latter is one form of parenthetical referencing, which puts various forms of shortened citation in parentheses in the text (instead of in footnotes). In its extreme form one might see things like "(JONES 84)", which I grant is pretty ugly.
What you may not have realized is that, first, parentheses are optional in the {{
Harv}} templates (e.g., see {{
Harvnb}}). Second, they can go into notes such as are created with <ref>...</ref>
tags. Thus one can still have something like "Text.
[1]", where hovering over the link would show the short cite to the full citation (except on Talk pages, where the hovering feature doesn't work).
With the understanding that the {{ Harv}} family of templates (and particularly {{ Harvnb}}) are not necessarily "parenthetical", would you feel more favorable to the use of {{ Harv}} templates? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
My apologies for the delay. And the length, but it is a big, deep topic.
Much of the confusion with the practice of citation at Wikipedia arises from confusion of terms and concepts. So right from the start we need to define some terms. A full citation contains the bibliographic details (such author, title, date, etc.) of a source that describe it, and aid in identifying and locating it in the scope of the whole world. A short citation, or short cite, contains just enough information to identify the source (or the full citation of the source) in the scope of a given article. (It may have additional details such as the location within the source where the material is to be found.) Most commonly a short cite uses only the last name of the author (or authors) and the date of the source; "author-date" refers to certain methods of citation that use this kind of short cite.
To start answering your questions: Citation Style 1 (cs1) and Citation Style 2 (cs2) refer to certain styles of how the full citation is formatted. They have nothing to do with where the full citations are located.
Cs1 and cs2 are also associated with the two main kinds of templates used to generate full citations: the {{ cite xxx}} family of templates (including {{ cite book}}, {{ cite web}}, etc.), and the general purpose {{ citation}} template. And again, these do not imply any location.
Something very important to note: the {{ harv}} family of templates do not generate full citations. They generate short cites that link to the proper full citation. And here there is an implication of location. Short cites generally cite specific material, and so must be "in-line" with the material. If short cites (whether implemented with {Harv} templates or not) are used in the text itself, and inside parentheses, we have "parenthetical referencing". However, short cites do not require parentheses. And they can be put into notes, substituting for the full citations commonly found there. Short cites also imply that the full citation is somewhere else. It is usually most optimal that the full citations be collected together in their own section, but that is not actually required.
Here we must note that the <ref>...</ref>
tags that often contain citation templates are not part of the citation. They generate a note (footnote), which may contain a full citation. Or a short citation, or other material.
You have seen named refs (the "<ref name=..." form), that provide multiple links to a single note. These were created to solve the problem of how to "reuse" a citation when a source is cited more than once (actual duplication of the full citation being deemed undesirable). However, they don't "reuse" the citation, they reuse the note. And they don't admit of page numbers or comments specific to individual cites, and citation of multiple sources at a given point generally results in a string of bracketed links.
Short cites (as implemented with {Harv} templates) have these advantages: only one note is needed at any point, which can contain multiple short cites, each with page numbers and comments specific to that cite. Also, when editing a section you don't get big red error messages when the master named-ref is not found. And there is less hassle trying to track the various "ref names".
Hopefully all that isn't too overwhelming. Ask if you have questions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
References
Glad you liked it. But I think we need to work on this some more: your comments are at variance with what I thought I was communicationg.
By the way, let's dispoase of {rp}. In the first place, it in no way "negates" any advantage of any other form. It is merely an attempt to deal with a major disadvantage in using named refs (and implicitly LDR). It's ugly, it puts a specific detail in the text whereas the citation it applies to is in the note, it doesn't indicate that these are supposed to be page numbers, and indeed, it is an odd and generally unknown usage. On the otherhand, an advantage of short cites that there is no need for {rp}.
And please note that in advocating the use of {{ Harv}} templates I am NOT advocating use Harvard style referencing (a form of parenthetical referencing). How is it that I haven't been clear on this? What I have been suggesting is some form of short cites, such as described at WP:CITESHORT. But my main goal is to clear away a lot of conceptual and terminological wreckage that leads to these kinds of misunderstandings.
A major disappointment for me is your statement: "As opposed to CS1 which are all in the body of the text ....
" There are several problems here. First, "CS1" refers to certain templates (particularly, a subset of the "cite xxx" templates; see
Help:Citation style 1#Style for details) which implement a certain style of formatting a full citation, exclusive of other citation templates, and I very much doubt that is what you meant. Second, and more importantly, your assertion that they "are all in the body of the text
" is not just wrong, it inverts the key point I am trying to make: that a source's full citation does NOT have to be imprisoned between <ref>...</ref>
tags (whether "named" or not).
Consider this: at
forensic chemistry (nicely done, btw) you already generate full citations with templates in the "References" section. If you wanted to convert this article to using {Harv}-style short cites, all that you would need to do in "References" is strip off all of the "<ref name=...>" and "</ref>" baggage, prefix each citation template with "*", add the |ref=harv
parameter to each citation (because you used {cite xxx} templates instead of {{
citation}}), and remove |refs=
from the {reflist}. The full citations are in the exact same place as before, retaining all of the benefits you ascribe to LDR. As an example take a look at
Puget Sound faults.
Does that make things clearer? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I was directed here from JJ's talk page, might as well keep it together. I need clarification as to what this debate is about, and as to what we hope to accomplish. As JJ has said above, there is no choice between LDR and any citation style, as LDR is not a citation style. That being the case, do we seek to sell LDR or something else to the community as the preferred method? If so, I seriously doubt that is going to happen, as much as I appreciate the benefits of simplification. If not, what are we discussing?
As I said in the other discussion, (1) LDR has a downside, and, after extensive experience with it in at least two articles, I'm not convinced it's a net positive, and (2) my attempt to reduce that downside received very little interest. Why should we spend the effort to improve something that is rarely used?
LDR presents a chicken-and-egg problem. Not many editors are going to use it if they are not familiar with it, and they can't become familiar with it unless they use it. At the two articles I mentioned, LDR existed only because I was willing to devote almost full time to maintaining it. Editors did cites the "normal" way, and I followed along behind and converted them to LDR. Not once did an editor notice what I was doing and go, "hey, why not help out and go ahead and code this cite as LDR to begin with." They just couldn't be bothered. Despite the couple of barnstars resulting from that work, I don't think I'll feel inclined to do that again. ―
Mandruss
☎
23:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
harvnb}}
at
Shooting of Michael Brown. That limited use is a compromise between, primarily, me and one other editor, about a year ago. Those cites could have been done with CS1 instead, consistent with the rest of the article. As for CS1, it's my impression that the term is adequately defined at
Help:Citation Style 1, including a list of the templates that support it. Among those templates, given the kinds of articles I edit, I do virtually all of my cites using {{
Cite news}}
and {{
Cite web}}
(as do other editors in those kinds of articles). I occasionally also use other CS1 templates such as {{
Cite journal}}
or {{
Cite magazine}}
. ―
Mandruss
☎
23:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)a collection of reference citation templates that can be modified to create different styles for different referenced materials." [Emphasis added.] But at Help:Citation Style 1#Style CS1 is constrained to a subset of styles that format the citations in certain ways (whether periods or semicolons are used to separate fields, and whether titles are italicsed or quoted). It also says that not all of the "cite xxx" templates are compliant with CS1. Note that none of these characteristics are affected by whether one uses {Harv} templates (or not), implements parenthetical referencing (or not), or where the full citations are located (in
<ref>...</ref>
tags, or elsewhere). That most editors put their full citations in a note (because they don't know they can do it any other way?) is not specified, let alone required, by "CS1". "Harv" (however one defines it) is not an alternative to CS1, as they work at different levels, and in no way constrain each other. Which is to say that "CS1" (like many of the other terms here) is not adequately defined, certainly not in how people tend to use the term. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
01:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Hi Majora,
Thank you for alerting me to a copyright issue with the file Adam_Bornstein.jpg. If I understand correctly, the file is released under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0, which makes it appropriate for use on Wikipedia. This license is displayed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143606564@N06/27910103226/in/dateposted-public/ . You said in your message that this image has a free equivalent. Could you elaborate on where to find this equivalent please? Thank you! Dbarvinok ( talk) 17:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey so I am trying to figure what content on the page is ok to stay and what are the specifics I need to change that will make the page look like less of an advertisement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.180.111 ( talk) 19:09, August 3, 2016 (UTC)
Hey majora, did we reach consensus yet on the Clinton photo talk page? Greetings TexasMan34 ( talk) 00:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora, sorry about that rogue edit, complete mistake on my part. It's a huge embarrassment that I edited that in in such a rush, I can't believe I didn't even bother to verify my claims with any sources or anything!
I am sincerely sorry for doing so, and this making your life a pain in the process. 1500lego ( talk) 03:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey Majora previously i made edits about akshay kumar's nationality but someone changes it on the basis of old source of information but i made changes on the basis of new source of information but someone changes it.So tell me who is changes it i want to talk him/her.So i can convince him/her that my source of info is latest one.plz reply Kumajay12 ( talk) 14:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)kumajay12 20:08, 19aug2016
Are words such as insanity appropriate for use on a serious RfC? I think not. I further consider it to be a direct ad hominem at the drafters of the proposal. Your opinions in debates are welcome but not if you disregard the need for objectivity and civility. As such, your suitability for OTRS gives me pause. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the copyvio on the new Marion Rodgers article. This article clearly needs a lot of work, but I have removed the Speedy Deletion tag from it because the creator has made a lot of improvements on it since yesterday, is clearly still working on it, and I really don't want to discourage a newbie. I think the refs provided prove notability but that could be discussed in an AFD. I'll jump in and help with rewrite if that becomes necessary. ABF99 ( talk) 04:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello Majora You have left me a message regarding the File permission problem. Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia. Perhaps you can help me here. The file owner is unknown. The photo was taken for the person depicted there before a fight in Sochi, Russia by am unknown person. I have not seen such photo in the internet anywhere. I have asked and received it directly from Valentin Slavikovski by WhatsApp. Can I still not use it? Stepka o ( talk) 22:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Finally have a moment to look again to your note. It seems that deletion nomination of File:Alvi Fokou Fopa training at Central Connecticut State University stadium, 2012.jpg your objection was to the image of Alvi Fokou Fopa, correct? In the second paragraph of your note, you talk about deleting the entire page. This was a typo on your part?-- A21sauce ( talk) 19:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I think that I fixed the necessary information, but please let me know if I have not.
EDIT 09.06.2016 16:29
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries Once I get another email in this format, as opposed to one from her staff saying that this is the photo that Stacie wants to use for her wiki page, I'll post that. Thanks again.
EDIT 09.08.2016 16:42
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Waldolc (
talk •
contribs)
18:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora. I saw the message you left at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 26#File:Hughie Gallacher.jpg. Since the thread has been closed, I just post a sort reply here. I am aware that the NFCC requires a fair use rationale for each use of an image; sometimes, however, some editors see a keep close as meaning that non-free use in other articles is automatically NFCC compliant. That is why the old {{ Non-free reviewed}} template included the text "This file's use on other pages or in different contexts may require additional review at Wikipedia:Files for discussion". No such text has been added to {{ Oldffdfull}} since NFCR was merged into FFD last year, so closers of FFD often add something such as the above to their closes just to avoid any possible misunderstandings. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora,
Thank you very much for your note. I will forward an email to permissions at Wikimedia that outlines permission to use the photos from the person who created the file. How do I note that I am not being paid to make the edits, nor do I have a conflict of interest? I do not work for or represent the subject of the article. I see all the edits I made have been removed - can you please provide me with the content that was removed? I'd be happy for any tips on how to make my submissions stronger. The information I added to the Melville Sask page is more current, accurate, and relevant than what is currently noted.
Thanks, Kari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kstreel ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora,
Thank you for your note and for your helpful comments. Do your comments apply to all of the content I uploaded? I ask because some of the information e.g. under history, infrastructure, and sports, to name a few, where simply updates to outdated information or new information that readers would find as interesting facts about the city. Information in these sections where not directly copied from another website. I can adjust my language to have a neutral tone and I now understand the importance of this. I look forward to your thoughts.
Thanks, Kari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kstreel ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nathaniel Eaton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Harvard. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora,
I did send a permission email from Marc Secara to the Wiki email address provided for the picture of Marc, as he owns it.
File:Marc pic V.jpeg
Shelyric ( talk) 20:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Done. Sorry, I mixed up what information was going where. It will not happen again. Shelyric ( talk) 21:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora, Just wanted to say no worries inregards to the image, We all make mistakes so it's all cool :),
Admittingly having seen the closure on my watchlist I was originally going to come here moaning and ranting however seeing your replies here and at Commons and the fact you sincerely apologized I just couldn't rant & moan, I also extremely appreciate you apologizing and admitting the mistake instead of just closing without saying anything so thanks for that :),
I suppose I could drag you to
the dismal swamp and create tons of dramah which is the norm over there these days :P,
Anyway thanks again & happy editing :), –
Davey2010
Talk
13:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I feel a challenge to my motives is both improper and unwarranted. Not gonna make a stink about it there, but not gonna just let it pass either. Oppose the proposal if you like, that's what proposals are for, but hands off my ethics without clear evidence please. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Cheers for adding the Tallinn logo :)
Schpider (
talk)
15:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora,
I was asked to provide another link after I submitted the Promo Azteca logo to WP:IFU. The link I added was the wrong one. This is the correct link. 72.74.201.39 ( talk) 17:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. 72.74.201.39 ( talk) 21:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora. Please note that I have declined a number of CSD G5 nominations you made for files uploaded by Reema Kumari 01. In order to be eligible for G5 deletion, the edits/uploads must have been made contrary to a block or ban. As the master account was blocked concurrently with the sock accounts, this is not the case with these edits.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi there Majora. Thanks for fixing up my tagging of this image. As you might realize, I know next to nothing about which exact templates to use for which image problems, so your help was appreciated. If I come across a similar issue in the future, with an image that has been OTRS tagged as an insufficient release for a long period, is F11 the right tag to use? The documentation in different places seems to imply different things, so it would be helpful to know. 64.105.98.115 ( talk) 14:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. First off, I am sorry to have offended you by my double request. That was not my intention. I just wanted to upload this painting of the artist to the page. How can he release the painting under creative commons? Please go ahead and reject the request. Thyymepeek ( talk) 10:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I was wondering what the blp violation was with regard to the education and career history entries? I read the guidelines and I couldnt find any. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall tor ( talk • contribs) 11:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
L Faraone 17:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
An RfC was started at Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#A_call_for_consensus_on_McMullin_and_Castle get comments on whether or not Castle and other write-ins should be added to the infobox. Your participation is appreciated. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 10:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello Majora, I saw your note about declining the mentioned image but I could not find the reason in FFU or the archives, anyway please note that I am a new user to Wikipedia and the image I was uploading is copyrighted for Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University ( http://www.pmu.edu.sa/Default.aspx), which is authorized by the prince himself to create a wikipedia profile for him and I am working in this university, so what I am asking is to help me to upload his photo on his article name /info/en/?search=Muhammad_bin_Fahd.
Thank you
Steefash ( talk) 07:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Majora, actually this is what I mean; the copyright holder is the university itself and I am representing the university. Anyway I uploaded the same image to flickr on this URL https://www.flickr.com/photos/79667681@N06/30111124196/in/photolist-MSPoaJ and I hope this will solve the issue and the image will be uploaded to the mentioned article. Thanks Steefash ( talk) 06:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Maura! I'm new to Wikipedia and I can't quite figure out how to reply to your message on the original thread. However, I sent an email to the address you provided about the Ansel Elgort image change. Hopefully this will be an adequate amount of information to change the picture. Thank you!! Julie Oneto 10/2/16 Joneto13 ( talk) 14:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you removed a photo from the page called "Dodona Manor". Why? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by General George Marshall ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The photo I added was a historic photo. What should I post it under then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by General George Marshall ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there a good script available? Sure is a lot easier. Cotton2 ( talk) 02:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
May I ask you why is it that on the Wikipedia pages of musical bands there's a profile picture of the band itself instead of the logo of the band? In my opinion, the logo should go there. What do you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutaito0321 ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
You were answering a question for Mutaito0321 on User talk:Mlpearc but that got archived. Is there a convenient place for the entire discussion? It took me a while to figure out where to find it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I want to say thank you for interest in my work. I want to learn upload Book covers, Film posters and other images and if you can, teach me please. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luka Padiurashvili ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Why did you delete the pages (Alien and Best Case Scenario) that I made? Jacknot ( talk) 18:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you sure a CSD tag cannot be removed if a source is added and an objection raised on the Talk page? In ictu oculi ( talk) 08:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Could you please explain what is too complex about this logo to meet PD-logo? It is basically stars, circles and text. Bcharles ( talk) 19:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I just wanted to apologize to you again for not knowing c:COM:ART#Original work. I wanted to make certain the photo would not be removed later, and believed, after having been told by one photographer that I could not use his photo of the mosaic, that it was essential this different photo be connected to the 'proper' permissions. Now I know better! Thank you again for bearing with me. I'm sure you grow tired of dealing with neophytes again and again and again. Piledhighandeep ( talk) 06:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
This "account", whom you correctly reverted yesterday, is now a CU confirmed sock. [2] Thought you might be interested. Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 16:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up right after that... whatever it was.
MgWd (
talk)
01:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Serena Williams. Doing so violates Wikipedia's factual statistics policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Wikipedia articles should be based on FACTS. Not your own personal agenda. I follow tennis very well, and Serena Williams "HAS BEEN HAILED" by commentators, players and sports writers as the greatest female tennis player of all time. Until you can dispute that FACT, don't write me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aries009 ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
Just wondering what's to happen with the non-free images over at Non-free images 8 November?
As I said, I'm unfamiliar with process here, so am hoping to learn a bit at the same time. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 12:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Majora. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi. With regards to your ES comment, invitations to discussions are Wikipedia's way of ensuring all interested users have their fair say. These are not mass sent bot messages; they are sent manually one by-one according to the canvassing policy for RfC. There is therefore no master list and no log. Perhaps one way to avoid being messaged on subsequent RfC of a same topic, is not to participate in discussions on topics that do not interest you, particularly on discussions where it is stated that according to the outcome there may be further discussions.
If you have not participated in a discussion and were messaged in error, please accept my apologies. I hope this helps. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a conversation on WP:FFU#Tony Murnahan on Piano.jpg regarding dual licensing. I understand the concept of dual licenses. What I don't see is anywhere that a CC license is asserted. License: should be the license found in the Link To License Information:. In my view this is not a release of the file to WP but a link to the license where the file is located. Whatever is entered here should be what's at the license info on the original location. So in that request the requester has mistakenly entered a CC license where none exists because the original location is ARR. No dual licenses situation exists, with links provided. Cotton2 ( talk) 13:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License.. We only require a written statement to that effect to indicate that a photo is acceptable for upload here. The problem is that the license statement is incomplete as it doesn't say which version of the Creative Commons Attribution License they wish to use. -- Majora ( talk) 23:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Here is the info for this season: [1] Would you like last year, too? Billywhack ( talk) 22:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Would you prefer the edit to say something to the effect of "Flowers is widely considered a bust." Or something to that effect? Billywhack ( talk) 22:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
References
— Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryOtter ( talk • contribs) 19:30, November 6, 2016 (UTC)
I thought you might be amused to discover the existence of Scientific Detective Monthly, perhaps the only magazine ever devoted to forensic science fiction! I took it to FA recently and just realized while I was thinking about your current FAC that it was, in a very oblique way, relevant. I wouldn't recommend trying to read any of the stories, though. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora, I need your help please. I have uploaded the photo file again and I've sent the photographer email confirmation to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. File:Muna Al Gurg.jpg /info/en/?search=File:Muna_Al_Gurg.jpg
Can you please assist to make sure it won't be deleted this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimaGIT ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
For you involvement in File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg, I invite you to discuss this image. -- George Ho ( talk) 10:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey. I noticed you removed an image uploaded for Billy Nungesser, and I was wondering if you could check out an image for John Bel Edwards, as it was uploaded by the same user and I'm pretty sure it too is a copyright violation: /info/en/?search=File:John_Bel_Edwards_-_56th_Governor_of_Louisiana.jpg Many thanks. 80.68.32.198 ( talk) 11:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Forensic firearm examination you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Felsic2 -- Felsic2 ( talk) 17:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I can't say I entirely get it. The photo was given to me by the copyright holders, as a news style photo, the subject at a public event, licensed for use by anyone. There's certainly no question of a copyright violation here. If I have somehow transgressed the Wikipedia rules, then maybe I have just uploaded it under the wrong tick box., that's all. I was already acting on advice from another Wikipedia editor. It seems to be pot luck. One editor will give the ok, another won't. But it's no way to run a railway! Picknick99 ( talk) 09:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Owned by Frightfest, freely given for unrestricted useis ambiguous and unfortunately ambiguous is not a good thing when it comes to copyright. In order for the image to be free use it has to be licensed in such as way that allows anyone to use or modify the image at any time and for any purpose (including commercial use). The confirm that the image is released in such a way the copyright holder needs to read and fill out the form at WP:CONSENT and send it into permissions-enwikimedia.org. Please note that the copyright holder is the photographer unless the copyright has been legally transferred by contract or other legal action. If you have further questions on this matter please let me know and I'll be happy to assist you. -- Majora ( talk) 21:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
As for the newspaper, it depends on whether or not you can prove when it was published. If it was published in the US prior to 1923 it is public domain by now. The license would be {{ PD-US-1923}}. It doesn't matter the media it was published in. Copyright works the same for everything. The chart for US copyrights can be seen here: File:PD-US_table.svg. -- Majora ( talk) 22:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
If a reference is 'pay to view' then how can it possibly be checked, by me or you or anyone? And what's the protocol on unwanted references? Someone has put two of these pay-to-view refs on what was a carefully crafted page The Flower of Gloster ad quite spoiled the ambience. If I'm not allowed to remove them then - is that vandalism? - then I would request a responsible admin person to move the. The page is about a lovely old book and this person has quite spoiled the introductory paragraph solely about the book, by plonking in two reference to the 1967 TV programme - so if I'm not allowed to dump them then they should definitely be moved to a more appropriate place where they can stay, entirely useless to anyone! Thanks for all your time and advice today. Picknick99 ( talk) 22:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
As for the sourcing question. In these cases we must assume good faith on the part of the editor that included it. You can ask them to provide proof of some sort to their claims if you wish. Or you can try the Wikipedia Library and see if anyone over there has access and can confirm the claim. It would not be alright to summarily remove it. As for referencing in the lead. Generally, we don't do that anyways. The lead should be a summary of what is in the article, just as what is in the article should be a summary of the sources. To reference in the lead indicates that it isn't in the article, which is not what the lead is for. But that is more Wikistyle than actual policy and removing references just for that is not a good idea. The same principle applies for that references as for any offline source. They are acceptable. -- Majora ( talk) 01:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for being a helpful fellow Wikipedian and friend both on-wiki and on IRC. You'll need the coffee to keep you awake! JustBerry ( talk) 06:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
This photo does NOT have any copyright infringements. It was provided by the owner of the photo. The photo is readily available for everyone on the web and the photo has no copyright and does NOT require a license for usage. Please remove the tag for speedy deletion since this photo does not infringe on any copyright rules. Dove.Leesa ( talk) 23:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Majora, although I understand your procedural decline over here, that begs the question of what the recommended alternative is. Mainspace currently has a photo which fails NPOV, and makes wikipedia not just look un-aesthetic, but well into intentionally-biased territory. We have a single libre-licensed alternative photo, which esWiki and simpleWiki currently make use of, but it is almost as bad in terms of failing to achieve any semblance of NPOV -- not merely un-aesthetic, but makes the biographical subject look bad, which the readership naturally interprets as bias on wikipedia's part. Is there really no option, besides either 1) waiting patiently additional months whilst 'accepting' the POV photo at the top of the BLP article, 2) physically travelling to the home or workplace of the multimillionaire in hopes of getting a libre-licensed photo taken, or 3) removing all photos from the article entirely and page-protecting the biography to prevent re-insertion? Because I don't really like any of those options. Which is not your fault of course, but perhaps you can advise on whether those really ARE the only three options that NFCCP effectively permits. Thanks, 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 11:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13 Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))
Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!
|
The 12 Days of Wikipedia |
Hi Majora. I see that you have closed Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 7#File:Vodafone logo.png. While I am not disagreeing with your close, it think it would've been best to leave the close to an uninvolved editor/admin since you were a participant in the discussion. FFD discussions do not typically attract the same response from the community that you might find at some of the other XfD discussions. So, if three people comment and then one of them decides to close the discussion as a WP:SNOW, the close could end up being challenged per WP:BADNAC. Also, since you are not an admin, you should make that clear in your close as explained in WP:NACD. Personally, I think it would be best for you to re-open the discussion and leave it for someone else to close, but that's your call, not mine. It's a really bad habit to start closing discussions you have been involved in and you need to be extra special careful when doing so. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Long answer: My previous comment on that FFD was simply stating my intended actions which I followed through on. I was going to watch the DR at Commons and depending on the outcome of that I would close the FFD here accordingly. I did not "SNOW" close anything. I neither said I did that and actually invoking SNOW at FFD would be laughable at best. I closed it based on the DR outcome, my understanding of copyright law (which is pretty good if I do say so myself), and my understanding of our fair use policy (which is based on precedent at FFD). Undoing the close just to force another person to follow the breadcrumbs to Commons and back to reach the same conclusion is the definition of an unneeded bureaucracy and I won't do that. I won't force someone else to have to do that when the close was perfectly justified and in no way a "badnac". I would have taken the same actions if I stayed silent. Again, all my previous comment was was a statement of intended actions, and a courtesy that I didn't have to do, that you (or anyone else) could have objected to. If you believe it was in error or that the close was actually improper, you know where to take me. I also don't participate in any other XfD area so you don't have to worry about me screwing up a close somewhere else. Files and copyright are my thing and I intend to stay at FFD and assist in the enormous backlog. So I won't be voluntarily reopening anything. Sorry. As for marking myself with the {{ nac}} template I won't be doing that either for two reasons. One, I find it absolutely pointless. An admin close and a non-admin close are no different from one another. Admins do not hold any special close power nor are their closes any more "correct". If someone wants to find out if the closer of a discussion is an admin there are numerous avenues to do so. Besides, everyone who visits FFD normally, and I can count them on one hand, would know who's who or be easily able to find out (again that is the only XfD I participate in). Secondly, the script that I use to cleanly and easily close FFD threads doesn't do that and I'm not going to go back and make a whole additional edit just to slap on a nac template that I find pointless to begin with. If you want to ask Evad37, the designer of the script, to make that change you are more than welcome to do so. -- Majora ( talk) 21:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Majora,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --
Dane
talk
02:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your input! What other tasks did you have in mind? After this BRFA is done, I can certainly see if I can add additional tasks. Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 23:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Majora,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year
13:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Thanks for uploading File:Madman Anime Festival logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Forensic firearm examination is a good article indeed! Thank you for working on it so diligently. Felsic2 ( talk) 16:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The article Forensic firearm examination you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Forensic firearm examination for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Felsic2 -- Felsic2 ( talk) 16:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Admin, I hope you are doing fine. Recently you deleted few of my images at Wikimedia commons, I also received a last warning from User:Srittau. Those deleted images were released by the photographer at Flickr under public domain license. Later when I communicated with Srittau (You may check our conversation here), they instructed copyright holder of the image to contact OTRS team. After contacting we received this OTRS ID 2017010910002555. Now I have uploaded the image as instructed for OTRS related uploads. I may have not formatted it correctly as I am not an expert on this, neither the copyright holder is an expert at Wikimedia commons. So, if there are some errors then help me rectify it. If I shouldn't have left a message here then I am sorry. I can copy this message to your Wikimedia commons userpage. Thanks in advance. Everypruner5 ( talk) 12:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Thanks for the taking care to ensure that the CNN article is up to snuff. TAG ( talk) 03:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC) |
I appreciate your concern about possible copyright violations, in my uploaded images, which I have always have done in good faith, with the best of intentions. Please, do not report me! These images and many others like it, are generally accepted and used by many other websites, as acceptable for educational purposes. Could you all please, help me to fix this problem, by going in and fixing it for me. I would greatly appreciate it, as it seems like my edit contributions are little appreciated. This frankly, threatening attitude and lack of understanding, by Wikipedia, will discourage me, from making any future contributions, on non-free rationale images. I hope, you understand from frustration, as I have done over 10,00 edits, since 2010. I give my best and timeless, hours in this endeavor. Do you want me to quit, what I have been doing for so long? Chitt66 ( talk) 20:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Please see this note I added to your intervention request and this discussion I had with him. WP:SELFCITE is allowed and I believe this author could contribute to this project. In the recent set of edits here, he put the citation in the wrong place, but didn't unduly promote his book. It would be nice if we could get him to cite other sources besides his own book. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 09:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The foreign copyright discussion should not have been closed by you and you should reverse the closure and request a formal closure (you can request a closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure). Even though you didn't vote, you still advocated for a position in the general discussion section and we had a discussion on the policy at File talk:Isfahan Metro.jpg (now deleted), so you're not an uninvolved editor. Also, I was being bold by closing, since the initial closer was one that voted in the discussion, which clearly violated policy (see Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure procedure & WP:RFCEND).
Second, the consensus is not strictly determined by the number of votes. Per
WP:RFCEND: The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome.
Per
Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
" When closing, a summary of the arguments should be given (see
Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus) and "arguments that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" should be discarded (
Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus).
First, most of the oppose votes raised the issue of the images possibly being subject to copyright in the future if the country of origin joins the Berne Convention, but did not respond to comments that templates could be made for those individual countries therefore allowing easy deletion of such images when a country joins the Berne Convention. Second, many raised the issue of the reusability of the content outside the US; however, as mentioned in the general discussion section, this is logically fallacious because 1) the images are free of copyright in most Berne Convention member states (currently 174 of the roughly 200 sovereign states) since copyright is based on reciprocity and countries like Iran and Somalia aren't party to significant other copyright treaties, 2) copyright exceptions (fair use & fair dealing) vary considerably from country to country, and 3) such a policy is inconsistent with other policies on WP, like allowing images of architecture that is not copyrighted in the US because of a freedom of panorama exception (which vary few countries' copyright laws have) or allowing works that are copyrighted in the country of origin but not the US (eg. some countries' copyright length is life+100 years).
It is important to note that even though the outcome was given as "no consensus", it relates to a Wikipedia policy and so the status quo should be kept, which is to consider such images on a case-by-case basis. However, the explanation given is that "There is no consensus to host content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S.", which implies that the policy has been changed, when in fact a lack of consensus about a departure from current policy should require keeping the status quo. AHeneen ( talk) 05:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
For other procedures, whether formal RFCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. ... After discussing the matter with the closing editor, you may request review at the Administrators' noticeboard.That's why I've raised these issues here. AHeneen ( talk) 08:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hello Majora, hope you are doing good. I remember you were one of the users who submitted customized Wikipedia logo(s) denoting Wikipedia's 5 millionth article, so I thought you could help. As you are aware, extendedconfirmed user rights are in place. And I thought it might be a good idea to have topicons and userboxes for the rights. Since you can design logos, if you can, can you please design a logo for extendedconfirmed similar to the
autoconfirmed one, but with a blue (or whatever the color of the lock of
Arbitration 30/500 protection is) tick, so that it can be used in {{
Extendedconfirmed topicon}}
and {{
User wikipedia/Extendedconfirmed}}
? You can also do what feels more right/good to you! Feel absolutely free to decline the offer, rest assured I won't be offended
Thanks anyways. Regards—
UY Scuti
Talk
10:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ UY Scuti and Peter SamFan: Just letting you both know that I have seen this. I would be happy to throw something together, both a top icon and a userbox, using the blue padlock/colored check. I can do it both ways to see which one you like better although I am thinking the topicon should be the check and not have the padlock in there since it can be confused as the page being under 30/500 instead of being able to edit 30/500 pages. The userbox is a different story. -- Majora ( talk) 22:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
It looks nice! Peter Sam Fan 14:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@ UY Scuti and Peter SamFan: Unfortunatley, the end result did not turn out extactly as I had hoped. The top icon is too small to really show the padlock very well and for whatever reason the icon has a white background in the userbox (see below). That was probably caused by an issue during the SVG creation since I converted it from the original PNG format since I don't have the program to directly work with SVGs. Going to try something else and see if I can make it better. -- Majora ( talk) 20:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
This user has extended confirmed rights on the English Wikipedia. ( verify) |
Alright, that works then. I guess everything is all set. Topicon and userbox done. -- Majora ( talk) 20:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I made new adjustments to the Fifth Harmony images that were notified for seeming to fail Wikipedia's first non-free content criterion. Is everything in the description correct or should I make further adjustments?
Thank you, Raul1798 — Preceding unsigned comment added by raul1798 ( talk • contribs) 00:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.What this means is that fair-use, copyrighted, images can only be used if it is unreasonable that a free use, creative commons or public domain, image cannot be made or is not already available. Since we already have free use images on that page, no fair-use image can be used. Even if a free use image was not already available, since the band is still together and still touring it is reasonable that a free use image could be created and therefore fair-use would not apply. I understand that you want to show a specific event but unfortunately that is not how copyright law, and the policies of Wikipedia, works. Sometimes we just have to work with what we have available to us. If you have any further questions please feel free to ask me and I will be happy to try to sort them out. -- Majora ( talk) 17:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Majora, thank you for the heads up.
RE: Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license.
The manager of the band The Hot Sardines informs me that the band owns the photo uploaded to File:The Hot Sardines Jazz Band close up.jpg. They twice sent emails to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to permit reuse under the CC-BY-SA license. They got no response. They emailed me asking what to do. I then forwarded their original email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 6:15 PM with the heading Wikipedia photos for submission. I also got no response. I do not know what else I should do.-- Toploftical ( talk)
Then, did you email the permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? That matters as the two sites are not actually the same thing and the different email queues go to different people. If you emailed it to commons please let me know and once all the licensing issues are ironed out I can move it over there. As for the long wait, I do apologize for that. We are trying to work our way though our email backlog and the volunteers that process those things are working as fast as they can. Did you receive a ticket number yet from your original email?
Once everything is all set I can tag the image with a "permission pending" label so that administrators don't delete the file. -- Majora ( talk) 17:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
What form did you fill out and send in? Was it the one listed here: c:Commons:Email templates#Declaration of consent for all inquiries? I actually don't have the proper rights to view the email queue as that system is limited to a specific subset of volunteers. Would you mind forwarding the email to me and I can ensure that it is valid? If it is I can forward it again to the proper queue and place all the necessary notices on the image until the people who have the proper rights gets to the email. I can be reached at majorawpoutlook.com. Please note that if you don't want to do this that is fine. However, I would recommend sending the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org with the above form if that is not the one that was already filled out. Please make sure you include links to the uploads that are already hosted here ( /info/en/?search=File:The_Hot_Sardines_Jazz_Band_close_up.jpg). Let me know what you decide to do. -- Majora ( talk) 19:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Toploftical: I have received your email and everything looks to be in order. The OTRS agent that gets assigned to it may need to contact the business manager just to double check but I have went ahead and tagged the images with the proper notices. You should be good to go and I can act as an intermediary if anything comes up. And to answer you other question, yes, I do enjoy Forensic Files as it is one of the only shows that actually shows real forensics instead of the fake, made-for-tv stuff you see on a lot of police dramas. -- Majora ( talk) 21:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora,
Thanks for your message as I was a little unclear how to complete this permissions process. Also I trust this reaches you..I'm finding my way with Wiki communications! I have now contacted Lillian Delevoryas and asked her to formalise her permission by sending an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating her ownership of the photograph and her wish to publish it under a free license. Once I receive her confirmation I will add a {{
OTRS pending}}
. If there is anything further I need to do please let me know. Best wishes
Awenparadigm (
talk)
13:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora, Many thanks for this. Lillian has now sent the permissions letter you referenced to Wiki and she received a confirmation of receipt of email [Ticket#: 2016041110016103]. As a result I have now posted ORTS pending notice. Will the process complete automatically or shall get back in touch with you when Lillian lets me know she has received a reply? Thanks for your time. Awenparadigm ( talk) 10:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora
I would like to make a new page for a film I am working on but would like to download the template to fit my information in. Not having much luck with that! Please help. Thanks so much, Peggy April 13, 2016 Mickey501959 ( talk) 22:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I think i put in the correct usage term if you could please check if everything good now I'd appreciate it! --> HipHopRijeka ( talk) 19:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The Citation Barnstar | |
Thank you very much for correcting the error. You contribute to the task of making better the lemma and perfect the Wikipedia effort. ( Aris de Methymna) 23:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
Hi Majora,
Thanks so much for getting back to me so soon with your helpful information. Let me ask you another question. What about a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivative Works license where the artist allows the photo to be shared? (either a photo of their paintings or a photo portrait of the artist by a professional photographer)
Here is the original exchange between us
Hi Folks, I have an artist who gives her permission to upload photos of her paintings to an article about her. (Sol Kjok) What does this entail? I know you either have to have them put a Creative Commons license on the work, but what if they want it to remain in the non-free category but are giving Wikipedia sole permission to reproduce it. How do I provide evidence of this to the Wikipedia editors? I don't understand how I prove fair use. Every time I have tried to upload the photos, they get rejected. Extremely confused. Many thanks TWB1934 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC) @Twb1934: Sole permission is not really how we do things here. They can either be under fair use if they meet all of the criteria at WP:NFCCP or they have to be free use (public domain, creative commons, ect.). In this instance fair use would not apply since you want to use them on the article about the artist. It would apply on an article about the painting. There is a slight difference there but it is a difference that matters. So if you want to use the paintings on the article about the artist they must be under free use. What that means is that the image is open to used or modified by anyone for any purpose. To get permission for this please have the artist fill out the form here: WP:CONSENT and email it into the permissions email detailed on the CONSENT page. If you have further questions about this please let me know. --Majora (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 ( talk • contribs)
Hi Majora,
I just wanted to add a question on using paintings for pages about the artist. From what I understand, you said that the image of the painting must be free use if it is to be used in the article about the artist. (not an article specifically about the painting)
Is there a reason why the articles for the artists below have paintings under fair use? I am confused because this seems to contradict what you said.
/info/en/?search=Richard_Diebenkorn
/info/en/?search=Francesco_Clemente
Thanks again for being so helpful!!!
Twb1934 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help again Majora. Another question, if I uploaded a photo portrait of the artist by a photographer, could I put it up under fair use since the article is about the artist. I have permission from the photographer but I don't think they created a CC license for that photo yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Wow! So complicated. Thanks for all your help, Majora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering why you reverted the article about the campaign back into a redirect? Are you referring to the article Battle of Ia Drang? I think the reasoning of the IP editor who forked the Pleiku Campaign page was that it makes more sense to have a main article about a campaign and then link to the battle that was part of the campaign rather than talk about the entirety of the wider campaign within the article about the battle. That seems to make sense to me, unless there's something I missed? Intelligent sium 21:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I am Tnguyen4321 ( talk · contribs · logs), I comment as following to ( talk): "I am an expert on this, since I have written 50+ articles about the subject (see http://www.generalhieu.com/pleime-2.htm) and since I am mainly responsible for expanding the page Battle of Ia Drang - as instructed when I submitted the article Pleime Campaign and had it struck down and redirected to Battle of Ia Drang. It is about to almost becoming the Pleime Campaign which comprises three battles Pleime-Chupong-Iadrang. The Battle of Iadrang is actually the Battle of Chupong (LZ X-Ray is located at the eastern foot of the Chu Pong Massif, not in the Ia Drang Valley as generally thought). My suggestion is to rename Battle of Ia Drang,Pleime Campaign and have Battle of Ia Drang redirected to Pleime Campaign. I also suggest to redirect Pleiku Campaign to Pleime Campaign, since the same campaign is named Pleime Campaign by Vĩnh Lộc and Pleiku Campaign by Kinnard.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)". Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 22:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora, I have made changes to the ProWorkflow article as discussed in chat. please review again and let me know if there are any further changes required? Thank you, Rattan Rattan1912 ( talk) 04:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
If Furious Slaughter 1972 is published with the same amount of info I do not agree with the reviewer's reason for declining the submission of Ma Su Chen which is a sequel to the aforementioned movie. If I am a fan of Jimmy Wang Yu and saw his film Furious Slaughter, I would definitely want to watch Ma Su Chen and find movie information for it. Presently, there is none. Therefore, I took the initiative and trouble to do it. This should be reason enough for it to be published without any prejudice or bias of individual(s).
Hi Majora - I just wanted to say thanks for reviewing the first draft of page Robert Curtis (actor), it was much appreciated. I didn't expect it to get approved without references and have been busy sourcing these and trying to make sure they meet the criteria. I mainly submitted to see if there were any formatting errors/flags as it's my first full wiki page and I've been getting to grip with the code. I'm hoping to resubmit again this week with all references in place but thank you again for reviewing so quickly when I know there is a large backlog of pages awaiting review.
MsTumnus ( talk) 12:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
MsTumnus (
talk)
12:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Majora for reviewing the article I submitted. I apologize for any errors/inconsistencies as i am new to Wikipedia.
Kind regards,
Victoria Mabry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.114.125 ( talk) 03:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora, Thank you for reviewing the Melissa Del Pinto artist page. I put in the inline citations and footnotes as you requested. I also added 3 pictures and sent in the required templates covering the copyright release. Thank you, Best Regards, Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Cianciullo ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello Majora, This is my first time trying to add to Wikipedia. Wikipedia had a list of Kentucky Newspapers but it did not have the Gallatin County News. Apparently I was successful adding that to the list. My next attempt was to provide info when users clicked on the Gallatin Co. News link in the newspapers list. That was not successful. The article was basically a compressed version of the "history" page on the Gallatin County News' own webpages.
Here is my question: how do I go about the submission if I want to create a link from the list of newspapers to the Gallatin County News website? thanks, Joyce 207 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbhowell207 ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
As for meeting our criteria for inclusion, all Wikipedia articles must show that the topic has been the source of in depth commentary in independent, third-party, reliable sources. This may be difficult for a local newspaper to accomplish. Has the paper been discussed in other news sources? Mentioned anywhere else? Talked about by something other than the paper itself? That is what we are looking for. If you have any questions on this please feel free to let me know and I will try to assist you in any way I can. -- Majora ( talk) 00:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Majora. I understand completely your repsonse on both the notability and copyright issues. I will write a short descriptor with basic information, similar to what I find when I click the links to the other newpapers in the KY newspapers list, and do some searching for references to the Gallatin Co. News among press associations and the like. Jbhowell207 ( talk) 16:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Jbhowell207
Dear Majora, Thank you for reviewing my submission for Italian Artist Walter Noetico, which is greatly appreciated. Sadly, Assistant Ringbang had declined it again, after I have actually made numerous corrections and additions to the citation materials and external links. I am sorry, but I think that you have made a mistake in declining the page for this Artist.
I have cross-checked the Rules of “Verifiability” of sources, and considering the requirements of the Wikipedia for the content to qualify as an “encyclopaedic” one, I think that there is a big error, not to consider Walter Noetico as “encyclopaedic” Artist. This is because with the quantity of sources (citations) which Walter Noetico already has, his profile already greatly exceeds the minimum requirements asked by Wikipedia rule.
For example: in the “Context Matters” section, it says that the sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. And I have prepared the “External links” where every single paragraph finds its supporting source (i.e. exhibition catalogues, TV broadcasting of RAI2 and France 3 Tèlèvisions).
The Section “Definition of a source” has also been adhered to largely widely satisfied, for example including in the case of the book which he wrote, the Publishing House also is cited as source and external links provided in support.
Furthermore, for an Artist is determinant (very important) for his encyclopaedic importance, a support of Art Critic, and Walter Noetico has had the support of the three greatest Art Critics on a international level, such as: Alexandre Cirici (the President of the International Art Critics Association 1978-1981), Gillo Dorfles (the friend of Cirici and important International Art Critic), Raffaele de Grada who has also been a Commissioner of the Venice Biennial, and also it was Raffaele de Grade who invited Walter Noetico to the Venice Biennial, and also it was the same Art Critic who had presented the Neoilluminist Movement of Noetico in 1989 Exhibition Catalogue).
The sources are abundant and of enviable quality, considering that the summit of Noetico’s artistic career was hit about 30 years ago, when there was no internet support for information, and the sources in my possession are enviably of good quality, and are on paper material also (exhibition art catalogues, articles etc). In addition, if I may also add please, Walter Noetico who is a rare Artist, as he is an Innovator of Art, whose art innovations had been backed by the best Art Critics of that time, and who merits to be open to the World. If Walter Noetico is not "encyclopaedic" - then none of the Artists are.
I noticed a very beautiful citation on Ringbang's page, dear Majora, by Ian Maclaren, saying: “Be pitiful, for every man is fighting a hard battle.” – and perhaps you will find in your heart to kindly review my submission again please, and assist positively and justly.
If you do require the original hard paper material documentation in support, I am at your complete disposal to provide it.
Thank you very much in anticipation for your time and attention. With very best regards and wishes, Richard Morris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard F Morris ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Majora. I truly appreciate your valuable advice and shall look at what I can do to make it better and in accordance with the rules. All the best, Richard Morris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard F Morris ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Dear Majora Sir
I am quite thankful to you reviewing my submissions and guiding me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargkk ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC) I am Dr Kewal Krishan (forensic anthropologist) based at Panjab University, India. This discussion is about the about Notable forensic anthropologists in the "Forensic anthropology article". I have seen the talk page and read your comments "two things written by the person (not independent) and a website where anyone can write anything (not reliable) are still not good enough". I understand Sir, kindly guide me which website/paper can I cite here?
1. I have contributed 131 articles to the literature and more than 100 articles belong to major contributions to the field of forensic anthropology in India. Through these articles, I have contributed to the forensic anthropological knowledge of the Indian populations. I have contributed five chapters to the Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences 2013 and Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine second edition, 2016. Kindly guide me, how can I cite here. As you pointed out that an independent source is to cited, Can I mention my Researchgate profile, Google scholar profile, Scopus profile, OR Pubmed search link to my articles...Can I give the link of FRAI directory of Royal anthropological Institute.. I understand, I cannot cite my CV or my profile at Panjab University website etc.. If you want I can send you my latest CV..
Thanks and regards Kewal krishan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargkk ( talk • contribs) 04:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
OK Thanks for the guidance.. I will try — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargkk ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Majora: Dear Sir, Please see these two news items from The Hindustan Times and The Tribune http://www.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/pu-prof-student-s-study-accepted-by-us-forensic-sciences-academy/story-iaOcWRYUMPRBMoMZVFDXjL.html http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/chandigarh/education/university-anthropologist-gets-fellowship/106047.html
Where the Hindustan Times clearly points out that "Dr Krishan is a renowned forensic anthropologist who has published more than 100 papers in reputed journals of forensic sciences and anthropology. He is on the editorial panel of 40 journals of repute and on the reviewer panel of 50 journals. He has recently contributed invited chapters to the most coveted Encyclopaedia of Forensic Sciences published by Elsevier, USA." and The Tribune says"Dr Krishan got this award in recognition of his contribution to the advancement of scientific methods in forensic anthropology. This scientific advancement is reflected in his 113 publications in reputed journals and encyclopedia."
Dear Sir, Can I cite these two independent references?? Kindly guide — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargkk ( talk • contribs) 17:25, June 18, 2016 (UTC)
~~~~
. --
Majora (
talk)
17:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)@
Majora: Dear Sir, Thank you very much for the great help and guidance, I really appreciate your kind gesture. >
Gargkk (
talk) ~~~~
. (
talk)
07:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)</
Can you explain why articles on these four movies - "Intimate Confessions of a Chinese Courtesan (1972)", "Furious Slaughter (1972)", "Fist of Fury (1991)", "The Behaeded 1000", and "Insomnia Lover (2016)" - can be accepted to be published in Wikipedia? These articles have more or less the same source references as "Ma Su Chen (1972)". "Furious Slaughter (1972)" originally has fewer information and no source reference. Links:- 1. /info/en/?search=Intimate_Confessions_of_a_Chinese_Courtesan 2. /info/en/?search=Furious_Slaughter 3. /info/en/?search=Fist_of_Fury_1991 4. /info/en/?search=The_Beheaded_1000 5. /info/en/?search=Insomnia_Lover I doubt you can explain because I believe you have some kind of discriminatory hang-up. A very unprofessional attitude to have for a reviewer. The "templates" that you idiots see now in "Intimate Confessions of a Chinese Courtesan", "Fist of Fury 1991", and "Insomnia Lover" are not there originally until I query your idiot colleague on why these movies' articles were published when they also fall short of the notability and verifiable condition. That idiot shit instead of answering the query just post those templates.
more evidence reviewers double standard
Check out these movie articles /info/en/?search=Movie..._In_Your_Face , /info/en/?search=Chow_Ken . The way these articles are presented and you all still accept them??!! What happen to notable and verifiable? This is plain double standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.9.100.170 ( talk) 07:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Dear Administrators Majora and Ringbang,
Thank you very much for all your precious guidance and assistance, without which I could not have managed to complete this task. In accordance with your instructions, I have now included (inasmuch as I could) all the necessary sources/inline citations in the Walter Noetico page, so that the page appears suitable for encyclopaedic publication. I hope to have done my work in a way that you find to your appreciation.
It is necessary to also kindly bear in mind, however, that Maestro Noetico had his greatest artistic activity when the internet did not exist, and thus, did not exist the computerized archives of all the newspapers, magazines, galleries, museums and all forms of information that today can be found on the Internet.
Fortunately, the Maestro Noetico had in his archives - spanning over 30 years - a very rich bibliographic and photographic material, to make him considered as one of the most important contemporary artists.
In addition, Maestro Noetico has had the support of the most important international art critics, when the art critics was the main tool that delivered to history the Artists, and this renders him, undoubtedly, encyclopaedically “with merit”, i.e. that he deserves to be in an Encyclopaedia, Wikipedia as a reference to a Post-Modern Artist, coherent with the Utopia of the New Enlightenment.
Also, we must consider that the art of Walter Noetico is inspired by the aesthetic essays of the great French philosopher Denis Diderot, who was the paramount creator of the modern encyclopedia, and perhaps without Diderot, even the Wikipedia may not have existed today.
I am most obliged to both of you, for your kind attention and time, and remain with infinite thanks for your indispensable support.
If the page meets your joint approval, could kindly advise me as to the best way to proceed with the publication of this page, I would be most grateful. I remain at your complete disposal for any other clarification if needed. Richard Morris -- Richard F Morris ( talk) 21:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora. I am Mselmast, and last night in Live Chat, you solved an editing problem for me, and I want to thank you. A person at Live Chat directed me to your Talk Page.
Sincerely, Mselmast Mselmast ( talk) 17:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I recently created the Right is Right in America Wikipedia page as part of an assignment for my class. There was a reference to Amnesty International that was flagged. If you can lift that flag, I would appreciate it. I have deleted the reference to Amnesty International.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurtDCollins2017 ( talk • contribs) 03:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Added two more objective sources and expanded on his contribution to the expansion of Portland Airport (went from 7 million to 14 million passengers during his tenure there). I have not found web-based citations for his award from the Emperor. -Paul Collins -- collinsfamily@yahoo.com
Please help us on the Lupton family page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.182.141.11 ( talk) 02:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Requesting temporary page lock. See boards 4chan org/pol/thread/80523004/hidden-fbi-message-thread-5#p80528501 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.225.6 ( talk) 21:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your information. I am really quite new to this, and do not yet have a command of the "rules". I suppose I am in an edit war, which I really did not mean to start or have. I will use the article's talk page -- thank you so much for pointing that out to me. HerdMusic209 ( talk) 19:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that you might take an interest in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside-drug-test-sends-innocent-people-to-jail.html -- Pine ✉ 20:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm inviting frequent Wikipedia helpers to meet with me this Friday to discuss the script outline for my video project. Would you like to join the meeting? It will be at 4 PM Eastern time on IRC. -- Pine ✉ 20:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the note; you're correct that I forgot to levy the block. Problem resolved. Nyttend ( talk) 03:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Majora. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
WTF? 75.172.225.170 ( talk) 00:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
You just left a message on my talk page, can you explain with more detail? TexasMan34 ( talk) 01:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Not surprised that there was a rule against it that I had overlooked, but I disagree with your public comment that it is 'really unnecessary'. Zootsuit7 ( talk) 04:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey Majora,
For what it's worth I think your vote there makes a lot of sense. Apologies for any abrasiveness on IRC; I got some time for wikistuff for the first time in a while and it was... underwhelming, to say the least.
Have a good one -- Ajraddatz ( talk) 07:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I saw you are pursuing the RFC regarding deleting images and OTRS permissions. I have what is probably an unrelated question, but I hope you can help.
I came across
File:Vishal Vashishtha for See N Pic.jpg, which as far as I can tell was uploaded from twitter in May and an email has been sent to OTRS. Am I correct in understanding this happened more than three months ago but hasn't been resolved yet? Does that mean it is now eligible for deletion tagging? Apologies for what might be a basic question. I have little experience dealing with images so far.
AtHomeIn神戸 (
talk)
02:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I'm curious about your views re WP:LDR, particularly relative to the use of Harv. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of each? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I thank you for your thoughtful comments. In my mind the merits of "Harv" seem so obvious that I am amazed others think, well, otherwise. So I would be very appreciative if you would explore this a bit with me.
I find it curious that the points you state in favor of LDR are pretty much the same points by which I favor Harv. That is, getting the full citations out of article text and into their own area. However, strictly speaking this is not really a characteristic or requirement of either, it is only something which is possible with either approach.
At the point our views seem to diverge I detect a misunderstanding. When I asked for your views on "Harv" I should have marked it as {{ Harv}} to indicate I was referring to the use of the template. " Parenthetical referencing" (a.ka. "Harvard referencing", what WP:HARVARD links to) is something else. The latter is one form of parenthetical referencing, which puts various forms of shortened citation in parentheses in the text (instead of in footnotes). In its extreme form one might see things like "(JONES 84)", which I grant is pretty ugly.
What you may not have realized is that, first, parentheses are optional in the {{
Harv}} templates (e.g., see {{
Harvnb}}). Second, they can go into notes such as are created with <ref>...</ref>
tags. Thus one can still have something like "Text.
[1]", where hovering over the link would show the short cite to the full citation (except on Talk pages, where the hovering feature doesn't work).
With the understanding that the {{ Harv}} family of templates (and particularly {{ Harvnb}}) are not necessarily "parenthetical", would you feel more favorable to the use of {{ Harv}} templates? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
My apologies for the delay. And the length, but it is a big, deep topic.
Much of the confusion with the practice of citation at Wikipedia arises from confusion of terms and concepts. So right from the start we need to define some terms. A full citation contains the bibliographic details (such author, title, date, etc.) of a source that describe it, and aid in identifying and locating it in the scope of the whole world. A short citation, or short cite, contains just enough information to identify the source (or the full citation of the source) in the scope of a given article. (It may have additional details such as the location within the source where the material is to be found.) Most commonly a short cite uses only the last name of the author (or authors) and the date of the source; "author-date" refers to certain methods of citation that use this kind of short cite.
To start answering your questions: Citation Style 1 (cs1) and Citation Style 2 (cs2) refer to certain styles of how the full citation is formatted. They have nothing to do with where the full citations are located.
Cs1 and cs2 are also associated with the two main kinds of templates used to generate full citations: the {{ cite xxx}} family of templates (including {{ cite book}}, {{ cite web}}, etc.), and the general purpose {{ citation}} template. And again, these do not imply any location.
Something very important to note: the {{ harv}} family of templates do not generate full citations. They generate short cites that link to the proper full citation. And here there is an implication of location. Short cites generally cite specific material, and so must be "in-line" with the material. If short cites (whether implemented with {Harv} templates or not) are used in the text itself, and inside parentheses, we have "parenthetical referencing". However, short cites do not require parentheses. And they can be put into notes, substituting for the full citations commonly found there. Short cites also imply that the full citation is somewhere else. It is usually most optimal that the full citations be collected together in their own section, but that is not actually required.
Here we must note that the <ref>...</ref>
tags that often contain citation templates are not part of the citation. They generate a note (footnote), which may contain a full citation. Or a short citation, or other material.
You have seen named refs (the "<ref name=..." form), that provide multiple links to a single note. These were created to solve the problem of how to "reuse" a citation when a source is cited more than once (actual duplication of the full citation being deemed undesirable). However, they don't "reuse" the citation, they reuse the note. And they don't admit of page numbers or comments specific to individual cites, and citation of multiple sources at a given point generally results in a string of bracketed links.
Short cites (as implemented with {Harv} templates) have these advantages: only one note is needed at any point, which can contain multiple short cites, each with page numbers and comments specific to that cite. Also, when editing a section you don't get big red error messages when the master named-ref is not found. And there is less hassle trying to track the various "ref names".
Hopefully all that isn't too overwhelming. Ask if you have questions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
References
Glad you liked it. But I think we need to work on this some more: your comments are at variance with what I thought I was communicationg.
By the way, let's dispoase of {rp}. In the first place, it in no way "negates" any advantage of any other form. It is merely an attempt to deal with a major disadvantage in using named refs (and implicitly LDR). It's ugly, it puts a specific detail in the text whereas the citation it applies to is in the note, it doesn't indicate that these are supposed to be page numbers, and indeed, it is an odd and generally unknown usage. On the otherhand, an advantage of short cites that there is no need for {rp}.
And please note that in advocating the use of {{ Harv}} templates I am NOT advocating use Harvard style referencing (a form of parenthetical referencing). How is it that I haven't been clear on this? What I have been suggesting is some form of short cites, such as described at WP:CITESHORT. But my main goal is to clear away a lot of conceptual and terminological wreckage that leads to these kinds of misunderstandings.
A major disappointment for me is your statement: "As opposed to CS1 which are all in the body of the text ....
" There are several problems here. First, "CS1" refers to certain templates (particularly, a subset of the "cite xxx" templates; see
Help:Citation style 1#Style for details) which implement a certain style of formatting a full citation, exclusive of other citation templates, and I very much doubt that is what you meant. Second, and more importantly, your assertion that they "are all in the body of the text
" is not just wrong, it inverts the key point I am trying to make: that a source's full citation does NOT have to be imprisoned between <ref>...</ref>
tags (whether "named" or not).
Consider this: at
forensic chemistry (nicely done, btw) you already generate full citations with templates in the "References" section. If you wanted to convert this article to using {Harv}-style short cites, all that you would need to do in "References" is strip off all of the "<ref name=...>" and "</ref>" baggage, prefix each citation template with "*", add the |ref=harv
parameter to each citation (because you used {cite xxx} templates instead of {{
citation}}), and remove |refs=
from the {reflist}. The full citations are in the exact same place as before, retaining all of the benefits you ascribe to LDR. As an example take a look at
Puget Sound faults.
Does that make things clearer? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I was directed here from JJ's talk page, might as well keep it together. I need clarification as to what this debate is about, and as to what we hope to accomplish. As JJ has said above, there is no choice between LDR and any citation style, as LDR is not a citation style. That being the case, do we seek to sell LDR or something else to the community as the preferred method? If so, I seriously doubt that is going to happen, as much as I appreciate the benefits of simplification. If not, what are we discussing?
As I said in the other discussion, (1) LDR has a downside, and, after extensive experience with it in at least two articles, I'm not convinced it's a net positive, and (2) my attempt to reduce that downside received very little interest. Why should we spend the effort to improve something that is rarely used?
LDR presents a chicken-and-egg problem. Not many editors are going to use it if they are not familiar with it, and they can't become familiar with it unless they use it. At the two articles I mentioned, LDR existed only because I was willing to devote almost full time to maintaining it. Editors did cites the "normal" way, and I followed along behind and converted them to LDR. Not once did an editor notice what I was doing and go, "hey, why not help out and go ahead and code this cite as LDR to begin with." They just couldn't be bothered. Despite the couple of barnstars resulting from that work, I don't think I'll feel inclined to do that again. ―
Mandruss
☎
23:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
harvnb}}
at
Shooting of Michael Brown. That limited use is a compromise between, primarily, me and one other editor, about a year ago. Those cites could have been done with CS1 instead, consistent with the rest of the article. As for CS1, it's my impression that the term is adequately defined at
Help:Citation Style 1, including a list of the templates that support it. Among those templates, given the kinds of articles I edit, I do virtually all of my cites using {{
Cite news}}
and {{
Cite web}}
(as do other editors in those kinds of articles). I occasionally also use other CS1 templates such as {{
Cite journal}}
or {{
Cite magazine}}
. ―
Mandruss
☎
23:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)a collection of reference citation templates that can be modified to create different styles for different referenced materials." [Emphasis added.] But at Help:Citation Style 1#Style CS1 is constrained to a subset of styles that format the citations in certain ways (whether periods or semicolons are used to separate fields, and whether titles are italicsed or quoted). It also says that not all of the "cite xxx" templates are compliant with CS1. Note that none of these characteristics are affected by whether one uses {Harv} templates (or not), implements parenthetical referencing (or not), or where the full citations are located (in
<ref>...</ref>
tags, or elsewhere). That most editors put their full citations in a note (because they don't know they can do it any other way?) is not specified, let alone required, by "CS1". "Harv" (however one defines it) is not an alternative to CS1, as they work at different levels, and in no way constrain each other. Which is to say that "CS1" (like many of the other terms here) is not adequately defined, certainly not in how people tend to use the term. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
01:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Hi Majora,
Thank you for alerting me to a copyright issue with the file Adam_Bornstein.jpg. If I understand correctly, the file is released under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0, which makes it appropriate for use on Wikipedia. This license is displayed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143606564@N06/27910103226/in/dateposted-public/ . You said in your message that this image has a free equivalent. Could you elaborate on where to find this equivalent please? Thank you! Dbarvinok ( talk) 17:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey so I am trying to figure what content on the page is ok to stay and what are the specifics I need to change that will make the page look like less of an advertisement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.180.111 ( talk) 19:09, August 3, 2016 (UTC)
Hey majora, did we reach consensus yet on the Clinton photo talk page? Greetings TexasMan34 ( talk) 00:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora, sorry about that rogue edit, complete mistake on my part. It's a huge embarrassment that I edited that in in such a rush, I can't believe I didn't even bother to verify my claims with any sources or anything!
I am sincerely sorry for doing so, and this making your life a pain in the process. 1500lego ( talk) 03:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey Majora previously i made edits about akshay kumar's nationality but someone changes it on the basis of old source of information but i made changes on the basis of new source of information but someone changes it.So tell me who is changes it i want to talk him/her.So i can convince him/her that my source of info is latest one.plz reply Kumajay12 ( talk) 14:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)kumajay12 20:08, 19aug2016
Are words such as insanity appropriate for use on a serious RfC? I think not. I further consider it to be a direct ad hominem at the drafters of the proposal. Your opinions in debates are welcome but not if you disregard the need for objectivity and civility. As such, your suitability for OTRS gives me pause. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the copyvio on the new Marion Rodgers article. This article clearly needs a lot of work, but I have removed the Speedy Deletion tag from it because the creator has made a lot of improvements on it since yesterday, is clearly still working on it, and I really don't want to discourage a newbie. I think the refs provided prove notability but that could be discussed in an AFD. I'll jump in and help with rewrite if that becomes necessary. ABF99 ( talk) 04:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello Majora You have left me a message regarding the File permission problem. Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia. Perhaps you can help me here. The file owner is unknown. The photo was taken for the person depicted there before a fight in Sochi, Russia by am unknown person. I have not seen such photo in the internet anywhere. I have asked and received it directly from Valentin Slavikovski by WhatsApp. Can I still not use it? Stepka o ( talk) 22:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Finally have a moment to look again to your note. It seems that deletion nomination of File:Alvi Fokou Fopa training at Central Connecticut State University stadium, 2012.jpg your objection was to the image of Alvi Fokou Fopa, correct? In the second paragraph of your note, you talk about deleting the entire page. This was a typo on your part?-- A21sauce ( talk) 19:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I think that I fixed the necessary information, but please let me know if I have not.
EDIT 09.06.2016 16:29
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries Once I get another email in this format, as opposed to one from her staff saying that this is the photo that Stacie wants to use for her wiki page, I'll post that. Thanks again.
EDIT 09.08.2016 16:42
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Waldolc (
talk •
contribs)
18:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora. I saw the message you left at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 26#File:Hughie Gallacher.jpg. Since the thread has been closed, I just post a sort reply here. I am aware that the NFCC requires a fair use rationale for each use of an image; sometimes, however, some editors see a keep close as meaning that non-free use in other articles is automatically NFCC compliant. That is why the old {{ Non-free reviewed}} template included the text "This file's use on other pages or in different contexts may require additional review at Wikipedia:Files for discussion". No such text has been added to {{ Oldffdfull}} since NFCR was merged into FFD last year, so closers of FFD often add something such as the above to their closes just to avoid any possible misunderstandings. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora,
Thank you very much for your note. I will forward an email to permissions at Wikimedia that outlines permission to use the photos from the person who created the file. How do I note that I am not being paid to make the edits, nor do I have a conflict of interest? I do not work for or represent the subject of the article. I see all the edits I made have been removed - can you please provide me with the content that was removed? I'd be happy for any tips on how to make my submissions stronger. The information I added to the Melville Sask page is more current, accurate, and relevant than what is currently noted.
Thanks, Kari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kstreel ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora,
Thank you for your note and for your helpful comments. Do your comments apply to all of the content I uploaded? I ask because some of the information e.g. under history, infrastructure, and sports, to name a few, where simply updates to outdated information or new information that readers would find as interesting facts about the city. Information in these sections where not directly copied from another website. I can adjust my language to have a neutral tone and I now understand the importance of this. I look forward to your thoughts.
Thanks, Kari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kstreel ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nathaniel Eaton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Harvard. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora,
I did send a permission email from Marc Secara to the Wiki email address provided for the picture of Marc, as he owns it.
File:Marc pic V.jpeg
Shelyric ( talk) 20:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Done. Sorry, I mixed up what information was going where. It will not happen again. Shelyric ( talk) 21:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora, Just wanted to say no worries inregards to the image, We all make mistakes so it's all cool :),
Admittingly having seen the closure on my watchlist I was originally going to come here moaning and ranting however seeing your replies here and at Commons and the fact you sincerely apologized I just couldn't rant & moan, I also extremely appreciate you apologizing and admitting the mistake instead of just closing without saying anything so thanks for that :),
I suppose I could drag you to
the dismal swamp and create tons of dramah which is the norm over there these days :P,
Anyway thanks again & happy editing :), –
Davey2010
Talk
13:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I feel a challenge to my motives is both improper and unwarranted. Not gonna make a stink about it there, but not gonna just let it pass either. Oppose the proposal if you like, that's what proposals are for, but hands off my ethics without clear evidence please. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Cheers for adding the Tallinn logo :)
Schpider (
talk)
15:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora,
I was asked to provide another link after I submitted the Promo Azteca logo to WP:IFU. The link I added was the wrong one. This is the correct link. 72.74.201.39 ( talk) 17:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. 72.74.201.39 ( talk) 21:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora. Please note that I have declined a number of CSD G5 nominations you made for files uploaded by Reema Kumari 01. In order to be eligible for G5 deletion, the edits/uploads must have been made contrary to a block or ban. As the master account was blocked concurrently with the sock accounts, this is not the case with these edits.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi there Majora. Thanks for fixing up my tagging of this image. As you might realize, I know next to nothing about which exact templates to use for which image problems, so your help was appreciated. If I come across a similar issue in the future, with an image that has been OTRS tagged as an insufficient release for a long period, is F11 the right tag to use? The documentation in different places seems to imply different things, so it would be helpful to know. 64.105.98.115 ( talk) 14:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. First off, I am sorry to have offended you by my double request. That was not my intention. I just wanted to upload this painting of the artist to the page. How can he release the painting under creative commons? Please go ahead and reject the request. Thyymepeek ( talk) 10:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I was wondering what the blp violation was with regard to the education and career history entries? I read the guidelines and I couldnt find any. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall tor ( talk • contribs) 11:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
L Faraone 17:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
An RfC was started at Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#A_call_for_consensus_on_McMullin_and_Castle get comments on whether or not Castle and other write-ins should be added to the infobox. Your participation is appreciated. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 10:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello Majora, I saw your note about declining the mentioned image but I could not find the reason in FFU or the archives, anyway please note that I am a new user to Wikipedia and the image I was uploading is copyrighted for Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University ( http://www.pmu.edu.sa/Default.aspx), which is authorized by the prince himself to create a wikipedia profile for him and I am working in this university, so what I am asking is to help me to upload his photo on his article name /info/en/?search=Muhammad_bin_Fahd.
Thank you
Steefash ( talk) 07:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Majora, actually this is what I mean; the copyright holder is the university itself and I am representing the university. Anyway I uploaded the same image to flickr on this URL https://www.flickr.com/photos/79667681@N06/30111124196/in/photolist-MSPoaJ and I hope this will solve the issue and the image will be uploaded to the mentioned article. Thanks Steefash ( talk) 06:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Maura! I'm new to Wikipedia and I can't quite figure out how to reply to your message on the original thread. However, I sent an email to the address you provided about the Ansel Elgort image change. Hopefully this will be an adequate amount of information to change the picture. Thank you!! Julie Oneto 10/2/16 Joneto13 ( talk) 14:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you removed a photo from the page called "Dodona Manor". Why? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by General George Marshall ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The photo I added was a historic photo. What should I post it under then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by General George Marshall ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there a good script available? Sure is a lot easier. Cotton2 ( talk) 02:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
May I ask you why is it that on the Wikipedia pages of musical bands there's a profile picture of the band itself instead of the logo of the band? In my opinion, the logo should go there. What do you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutaito0321 ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
You were answering a question for Mutaito0321 on User talk:Mlpearc but that got archived. Is there a convenient place for the entire discussion? It took me a while to figure out where to find it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I want to say thank you for interest in my work. I want to learn upload Book covers, Film posters and other images and if you can, teach me please. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luka Padiurashvili ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Why did you delete the pages (Alien and Best Case Scenario) that I made? Jacknot ( talk) 18:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you sure a CSD tag cannot be removed if a source is added and an objection raised on the Talk page? In ictu oculi ( talk) 08:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Could you please explain what is too complex about this logo to meet PD-logo? It is basically stars, circles and text. Bcharles ( talk) 19:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I just wanted to apologize to you again for not knowing c:COM:ART#Original work. I wanted to make certain the photo would not be removed later, and believed, after having been told by one photographer that I could not use his photo of the mosaic, that it was essential this different photo be connected to the 'proper' permissions. Now I know better! Thank you again for bearing with me. I'm sure you grow tired of dealing with neophytes again and again and again. Piledhighandeep ( talk) 06:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
This "account", whom you correctly reverted yesterday, is now a CU confirmed sock. [2] Thought you might be interested. Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 16:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up right after that... whatever it was.
MgWd (
talk)
01:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Serena Williams. Doing so violates Wikipedia's factual statistics policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Wikipedia articles should be based on FACTS. Not your own personal agenda. I follow tennis very well, and Serena Williams "HAS BEEN HAILED" by commentators, players and sports writers as the greatest female tennis player of all time. Until you can dispute that FACT, don't write me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aries009 ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
Just wondering what's to happen with the non-free images over at Non-free images 8 November?
As I said, I'm unfamiliar with process here, so am hoping to learn a bit at the same time. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 12:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Majora. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi. With regards to your ES comment, invitations to discussions are Wikipedia's way of ensuring all interested users have their fair say. These are not mass sent bot messages; they are sent manually one by-one according to the canvassing policy for RfC. There is therefore no master list and no log. Perhaps one way to avoid being messaged on subsequent RfC of a same topic, is not to participate in discussions on topics that do not interest you, particularly on discussions where it is stated that according to the outcome there may be further discussions.
If you have not participated in a discussion and were messaged in error, please accept my apologies. I hope this helps. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a conversation on WP:FFU#Tony Murnahan on Piano.jpg regarding dual licensing. I understand the concept of dual licenses. What I don't see is anywhere that a CC license is asserted. License: should be the license found in the Link To License Information:. In my view this is not a release of the file to WP but a link to the license where the file is located. Whatever is entered here should be what's at the license info on the original location. So in that request the requester has mistakenly entered a CC license where none exists because the original location is ARR. No dual licenses situation exists, with links provided. Cotton2 ( talk) 13:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License.. We only require a written statement to that effect to indicate that a photo is acceptable for upload here. The problem is that the license statement is incomplete as it doesn't say which version of the Creative Commons Attribution License they wish to use. -- Majora ( talk) 23:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Here is the info for this season: [1] Would you like last year, too? Billywhack ( talk) 22:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Would you prefer the edit to say something to the effect of "Flowers is widely considered a bust." Or something to that effect? Billywhack ( talk) 22:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
References
— Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryOtter ( talk • contribs) 19:30, November 6, 2016 (UTC)
I thought you might be amused to discover the existence of Scientific Detective Monthly, perhaps the only magazine ever devoted to forensic science fiction! I took it to FA recently and just realized while I was thinking about your current FAC that it was, in a very oblique way, relevant. I wouldn't recommend trying to read any of the stories, though. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora, I need your help please. I have uploaded the photo file again and I've sent the photographer email confirmation to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. File:Muna Al Gurg.jpg /info/en/?search=File:Muna_Al_Gurg.jpg
Can you please assist to make sure it won't be deleted this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimaGIT ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
For you involvement in File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg, I invite you to discuss this image. -- George Ho ( talk) 10:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey. I noticed you removed an image uploaded for Billy Nungesser, and I was wondering if you could check out an image for John Bel Edwards, as it was uploaded by the same user and I'm pretty sure it too is a copyright violation: /info/en/?search=File:John_Bel_Edwards_-_56th_Governor_of_Louisiana.jpg Many thanks. 80.68.32.198 ( talk) 11:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Forensic firearm examination you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Felsic2 -- Felsic2 ( talk) 17:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I can't say I entirely get it. The photo was given to me by the copyright holders, as a news style photo, the subject at a public event, licensed for use by anyone. There's certainly no question of a copyright violation here. If I have somehow transgressed the Wikipedia rules, then maybe I have just uploaded it under the wrong tick box., that's all. I was already acting on advice from another Wikipedia editor. It seems to be pot luck. One editor will give the ok, another won't. But it's no way to run a railway! Picknick99 ( talk) 09:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Owned by Frightfest, freely given for unrestricted useis ambiguous and unfortunately ambiguous is not a good thing when it comes to copyright. In order for the image to be free use it has to be licensed in such as way that allows anyone to use or modify the image at any time and for any purpose (including commercial use). The confirm that the image is released in such a way the copyright holder needs to read and fill out the form at WP:CONSENT and send it into permissions-enwikimedia.org. Please note that the copyright holder is the photographer unless the copyright has been legally transferred by contract or other legal action. If you have further questions on this matter please let me know and I'll be happy to assist you. -- Majora ( talk) 21:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
As for the newspaper, it depends on whether or not you can prove when it was published. If it was published in the US prior to 1923 it is public domain by now. The license would be {{ PD-US-1923}}. It doesn't matter the media it was published in. Copyright works the same for everything. The chart for US copyrights can be seen here: File:PD-US_table.svg. -- Majora ( talk) 22:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
If a reference is 'pay to view' then how can it possibly be checked, by me or you or anyone? And what's the protocol on unwanted references? Someone has put two of these pay-to-view refs on what was a carefully crafted page The Flower of Gloster ad quite spoiled the ambience. If I'm not allowed to remove them then - is that vandalism? - then I would request a responsible admin person to move the. The page is about a lovely old book and this person has quite spoiled the introductory paragraph solely about the book, by plonking in two reference to the 1967 TV programme - so if I'm not allowed to dump them then they should definitely be moved to a more appropriate place where they can stay, entirely useless to anyone! Thanks for all your time and advice today. Picknick99 ( talk) 22:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
As for the sourcing question. In these cases we must assume good faith on the part of the editor that included it. You can ask them to provide proof of some sort to their claims if you wish. Or you can try the Wikipedia Library and see if anyone over there has access and can confirm the claim. It would not be alright to summarily remove it. As for referencing in the lead. Generally, we don't do that anyways. The lead should be a summary of what is in the article, just as what is in the article should be a summary of the sources. To reference in the lead indicates that it isn't in the article, which is not what the lead is for. But that is more Wikistyle than actual policy and removing references just for that is not a good idea. The same principle applies for that references as for any offline source. They are acceptable. -- Majora ( talk) 01:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for being a helpful fellow Wikipedian and friend both on-wiki and on IRC. You'll need the coffee to keep you awake! JustBerry ( talk) 06:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
This photo does NOT have any copyright infringements. It was provided by the owner of the photo. The photo is readily available for everyone on the web and the photo has no copyright and does NOT require a license for usage. Please remove the tag for speedy deletion since this photo does not infringe on any copyright rules. Dove.Leesa ( talk) 23:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Majora, although I understand your procedural decline over here, that begs the question of what the recommended alternative is. Mainspace currently has a photo which fails NPOV, and makes wikipedia not just look un-aesthetic, but well into intentionally-biased territory. We have a single libre-licensed alternative photo, which esWiki and simpleWiki currently make use of, but it is almost as bad in terms of failing to achieve any semblance of NPOV -- not merely un-aesthetic, but makes the biographical subject look bad, which the readership naturally interprets as bias on wikipedia's part. Is there really no option, besides either 1) waiting patiently additional months whilst 'accepting' the POV photo at the top of the BLP article, 2) physically travelling to the home or workplace of the multimillionaire in hopes of getting a libre-licensed photo taken, or 3) removing all photos from the article entirely and page-protecting the biography to prevent re-insertion? Because I don't really like any of those options. Which is not your fault of course, but perhaps you can advise on whether those really ARE the only three options that NFCCP effectively permits. Thanks, 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 11:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13 Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))
Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!
|
The 12 Days of Wikipedia |
Hi Majora. I see that you have closed Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 7#File:Vodafone logo.png. While I am not disagreeing with your close, it think it would've been best to leave the close to an uninvolved editor/admin since you were a participant in the discussion. FFD discussions do not typically attract the same response from the community that you might find at some of the other XfD discussions. So, if three people comment and then one of them decides to close the discussion as a WP:SNOW, the close could end up being challenged per WP:BADNAC. Also, since you are not an admin, you should make that clear in your close as explained in WP:NACD. Personally, I think it would be best for you to re-open the discussion and leave it for someone else to close, but that's your call, not mine. It's a really bad habit to start closing discussions you have been involved in and you need to be extra special careful when doing so. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Long answer: My previous comment on that FFD was simply stating my intended actions which I followed through on. I was going to watch the DR at Commons and depending on the outcome of that I would close the FFD here accordingly. I did not "SNOW" close anything. I neither said I did that and actually invoking SNOW at FFD would be laughable at best. I closed it based on the DR outcome, my understanding of copyright law (which is pretty good if I do say so myself), and my understanding of our fair use policy (which is based on precedent at FFD). Undoing the close just to force another person to follow the breadcrumbs to Commons and back to reach the same conclusion is the definition of an unneeded bureaucracy and I won't do that. I won't force someone else to have to do that when the close was perfectly justified and in no way a "badnac". I would have taken the same actions if I stayed silent. Again, all my previous comment was was a statement of intended actions, and a courtesy that I didn't have to do, that you (or anyone else) could have objected to. If you believe it was in error or that the close was actually improper, you know where to take me. I also don't participate in any other XfD area so you don't have to worry about me screwing up a close somewhere else. Files and copyright are my thing and I intend to stay at FFD and assist in the enormous backlog. So I won't be voluntarily reopening anything. Sorry. As for marking myself with the {{ nac}} template I won't be doing that either for two reasons. One, I find it absolutely pointless. An admin close and a non-admin close are no different from one another. Admins do not hold any special close power nor are their closes any more "correct". If someone wants to find out if the closer of a discussion is an admin there are numerous avenues to do so. Besides, everyone who visits FFD normally, and I can count them on one hand, would know who's who or be easily able to find out (again that is the only XfD I participate in). Secondly, the script that I use to cleanly and easily close FFD threads doesn't do that and I'm not going to go back and make a whole additional edit just to slap on a nac template that I find pointless to begin with. If you want to ask Evad37, the designer of the script, to make that change you are more than welcome to do so. -- Majora ( talk) 21:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Majora,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --
Dane
talk
02:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your input! What other tasks did you have in mind? After this BRFA is done, I can certainly see if I can add additional tasks. Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 23:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Majora,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year
13:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Thanks for uploading File:Madman Anime Festival logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Forensic firearm examination is a good article indeed! Thank you for working on it so diligently. Felsic2 ( talk) 16:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The article Forensic firearm examination you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Forensic firearm examination for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Felsic2 -- Felsic2 ( talk) 16:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Admin, I hope you are doing fine. Recently you deleted few of my images at Wikimedia commons, I also received a last warning from User:Srittau. Those deleted images were released by the photographer at Flickr under public domain license. Later when I communicated with Srittau (You may check our conversation here), they instructed copyright holder of the image to contact OTRS team. After contacting we received this OTRS ID 2017010910002555. Now I have uploaded the image as instructed for OTRS related uploads. I may have not formatted it correctly as I am not an expert on this, neither the copyright holder is an expert at Wikimedia commons. So, if there are some errors then help me rectify it. If I shouldn't have left a message here then I am sorry. I can copy this message to your Wikimedia commons userpage. Thanks in advance. Everypruner5 ( talk) 12:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Thanks for the taking care to ensure that the CNN article is up to snuff. TAG ( talk) 03:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC) |
I appreciate your concern about possible copyright violations, in my uploaded images, which I have always have done in good faith, with the best of intentions. Please, do not report me! These images and many others like it, are generally accepted and used by many other websites, as acceptable for educational purposes. Could you all please, help me to fix this problem, by going in and fixing it for me. I would greatly appreciate it, as it seems like my edit contributions are little appreciated. This frankly, threatening attitude and lack of understanding, by Wikipedia, will discourage me, from making any future contributions, on non-free rationale images. I hope, you understand from frustration, as I have done over 10,00 edits, since 2010. I give my best and timeless, hours in this endeavor. Do you want me to quit, what I have been doing for so long? Chitt66 ( talk) 20:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Please see this note I added to your intervention request and this discussion I had with him. WP:SELFCITE is allowed and I believe this author could contribute to this project. In the recent set of edits here, he put the citation in the wrong place, but didn't unduly promote his book. It would be nice if we could get him to cite other sources besides his own book. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 09:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The foreign copyright discussion should not have been closed by you and you should reverse the closure and request a formal closure (you can request a closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure). Even though you didn't vote, you still advocated for a position in the general discussion section and we had a discussion on the policy at File talk:Isfahan Metro.jpg (now deleted), so you're not an uninvolved editor. Also, I was being bold by closing, since the initial closer was one that voted in the discussion, which clearly violated policy (see Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure procedure & WP:RFCEND).
Second, the consensus is not strictly determined by the number of votes. Per
WP:RFCEND: The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome.
Per
Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
" When closing, a summary of the arguments should be given (see
Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus) and "arguments that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" should be discarded (
Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus).
First, most of the oppose votes raised the issue of the images possibly being subject to copyright in the future if the country of origin joins the Berne Convention, but did not respond to comments that templates could be made for those individual countries therefore allowing easy deletion of such images when a country joins the Berne Convention. Second, many raised the issue of the reusability of the content outside the US; however, as mentioned in the general discussion section, this is logically fallacious because 1) the images are free of copyright in most Berne Convention member states (currently 174 of the roughly 200 sovereign states) since copyright is based on reciprocity and countries like Iran and Somalia aren't party to significant other copyright treaties, 2) copyright exceptions (fair use & fair dealing) vary considerably from country to country, and 3) such a policy is inconsistent with other policies on WP, like allowing images of architecture that is not copyrighted in the US because of a freedom of panorama exception (which vary few countries' copyright laws have) or allowing works that are copyrighted in the country of origin but not the US (eg. some countries' copyright length is life+100 years).
It is important to note that even though the outcome was given as "no consensus", it relates to a Wikipedia policy and so the status quo should be kept, which is to consider such images on a case-by-case basis. However, the explanation given is that "There is no consensus to host content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S.", which implies that the policy has been changed, when in fact a lack of consensus about a departure from current policy should require keeping the status quo. AHeneen ( talk) 05:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
For other procedures, whether formal RFCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. ... After discussing the matter with the closing editor, you may request review at the Administrators' noticeboard.That's why I've raised these issues here. AHeneen ( talk) 08:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |