User talk:Marchjuly

File:Qaher-1 Missile lunch.jpg first non-free content criterion

Hey Marchjuly, I would like to thank you for removing Qaher-1 Missile image, "UAEAF F16F Block 60 image, and all images that might be as a seen as a propaganda to normal readers in this article I would like to notice that I'm the one who've added this image back in 2016 when the article had only Saudi side weapons and didn't had any Yemeni weapons, so I've added it to balance the article for all the readers with different backgrounds

Please do not delete the image , just unlink it from the post, it might be used in another article

967Bytes (Contact) 15:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Non-free images are not used to "balance articles" just for the sake of "balancing" purposes; their usage needs to meet all ten non-free content use criterion in WP:NFCCP. I'm not an administrator so I cannot delete files and I didn't "remove" those two files from the article; I only tagged them for speedy deletion per WP:F7 because I feel they violate non-free content use criterion #1. An administrator will review the speedy deletion tags I added in a few days and decide whether to delete the files. Finally, all non-free files are required to be used in at least one article per non-free content use criterion #7 and those which aren't will be deleted per WP:F5; so, "un-linking" the file will also lead only lead to its deletion (just for a different reason) if a valid non-free use for the file is not found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hi, maybe you can help me. You've posted a warning about an image I posted quite awhile ago. Saying that I was not properly using the image. I may have incorrectly identified it as fair use when its real date of production in 1923 should actually identify the image of a prominent statement by a former president is actually in public domain, not in fair use.

I do not know how to go back and correct this, I believe the image should be allowed to stay for this reason.

Energynet (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

If you believe the file should not be deleted, you can add the template {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} to the file's page. There's room for you to in the template for you to add an explanation as to why you feel the file shouldn't be deleted, but you can also post a more detailed explanation on the file's talk page. Generally, content which can be verified to have been published for the first time in the United States prior to January 1, 1924 is, in principle, considered to be with {{PD-US}}, but not always. If you can know the source (i.e. the original copyright holder) as well as the date of publication, then look at c:COM:HIRTLE to see which type of public domain license is generally applied. You can also ask for help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

However, in addition to the copyright status of the file, there also is another issue with the file. Wikipedia tries to avoid using images which are simply images of text as explained in WP:TEXTASIMAGES; if there's content in the letter worth mentioning within the article it's OK to use some short quoted texted per MOS:QUOTE as long as the quotes are properly attributed and supported by citations. There's usually not always a lot of encyclopedic value to scanning a printed work, etc. and presenting the content as an image file. Unlike a company logo or an actual photograph, etc., a visual representation of textual content usually doesn't need to be seen to be understood absent a particular visual aspect about the work itself, unless the printed work is itself the subject of a stand-alone Wikipedia article. So, if the article was about Roosevelt's "warning", then using an image of it at the top of or in the main infobox of that article for primary identification purposes would make sense; however, the article is about the Electric Bond and Share Company and Roosevelt's concerns that it was becoming a monopoly, which are things that don't necessarily require the reader seeing a photo of the "warning" to understand the content of the warning. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Adminship

Marchjuly, have you ever considered running for adminship? I was pointed in your directin by Nick Moyes, and after reviewing your contributions, I think you'd make a strong candidate if you were to express interest in doing admin work at the teahouse and at FFD. Unless you have any major skeletons in your closet I am yet to find, I would be very willing to nominate you; I suspect a few others would be, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd certainly endorse that strongly. You are one of the most unflappable editors I know. Seriously your "calmness score" is up there with Cullen328, and he had the mostmini blowout RfA I think we've ever had. I'd offer to co-nominate you, but frankly, that would likely be a liability. John from Idegon (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

If you are interested in becoming an administrator, I encourage you to look into it, Marchjuly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate all the kind words and perhaps someday it might be something I would be interested in, but right now I don't think I'm ready to take such a step. There are still lots of areas of the project I'm learning about. In addition, I already think I spend a little too much time editing, etc. and I'm not sure I'd be willing to invest even more time at trying to be a "good" admin. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to push you too much, but let me make one point that addresses a possible misconception. Some folks assume that taking up adminship necessitates a vast expansion of duties. This isn't the case; certainly, some people expand their sphere of activity, but many others, including some of our most effective admins, simply beaver away in the areas in which they already work, and are a greater asset to Wikipedia as a result. Conversely, you certainly don't need to be knowledgeable in all areas of Wikipedia before you run; nobody is. What's important is that you know the difference between what you know and what you don't know. Even if you did admin work nowhere except the Teahouse, AfD, and FfD, you'd be a great help; you wouldn't have to change your pattern of activity at all. If this doesn't persuade you; would you at the very least be willing to post a poll at WP:ORCP? Comments from others may reassure you that you are, in fact, ready; or if not, tell you what areas you need to work on. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I realize that admins are not required to be experts in everything Wikipedia, but I do know me and I do think I would want to devote even more time to Wikipedia than I currently do. I've also thought about ORCP before, but I would rather wait until I've actually decided to take the plunge. I'm not too concerned about people posting "bad" things about me (if you dig through my user talk page history or other page histories, you find plenty of examples of that), but I think the poll only really makes sense when you've truly 100% decided to go for RFA. I understand exploratory committees are quite common in politics, but there's much more at stake in those situations. I don't really need to read good or bad comments posted by others to help me decide on whether I want to be an admin; I just need to figure out for myself whether it's something I want to do, and I'm not quite there yet. I apologize if my response sounds a bit curt and once again I'm grateful for the consideration (others have suggested the same in the past), but I'm just not ready to take such a step right now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, I won't press you. If you change your mind at any point, or if you have questions about any part of becoming an admin, please feel free to ping me. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you are considering it Marchjuly. But I don't think an RFA is something to enter lightly, so I'm glad you are thinking this through. It can be an arduous experience. I'm not trying to scare you off and I'm glad I didn't withdraw when I wanted to during my own RfA but it can be unpleasant. Best to grin and lean on those cherished folk who support you. I've found that I don't work MORE time than when I was an editor, I just do different types of activities than I did as an editor.

But at least now, you have some really solid admin nominators who support you and whether or not you choose to move on with this proposal is up to you. Don't hesitate to contact any of us with questions. 03:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

RE: Non-free content use

I wonder why those '...seal.svg' kept disappearing from my infobox...I had no idea they are not allowed to be used in that manner. Thank for the info. RekonDog (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

When something like an image is repeatedly being removed from a user page, there's usually a pretty good reason for it and most times this reason will be given in an edit summary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Proposed deletion of File:PorkysRevenge soundtrack.jpg"

Hi, I just received the above message on my talk page and I was wondering... why? Isn't this cover usable under Fair Use or something? If not, why are there any album covers on Wikipedia at all? Shouldn't we be talking about Taylor Swift's Lover for instance, or many thousands of others? If there's some protocol I didn't follow, let me know and I'd be happy to oblige!

Cheers,

Wikkitywack (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)