User talk:Marchjuly

Re:User:WWE Y ECW

Hello, Marchjuly. You have new messages at Sjb72's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cindy-sherman-untitled-153.jpg

Hello, Marchjuly. You have new messages at Pmussler's talk page.
Message added 17:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dennis Nilsen

Hi, Marchjuly. Regarding the proposal for deletion of the image on the above article. It was uploaded four whole years ago, and at a time when I and others were populating and improving the article. It seems the rationale in the article's text for NFCC8 has been lost. I left the below info. on the image's talk page:

Regarding the proposed deletion of this image. The image in question was uploaded four whole years ago, and in the intervening time, I (an avid contributor to this article) and other users such as Keith D, Diannaa, Keri, and Signedzzz etc. have extensively populated, adjusted, and tweaked the article to the (to my mind) eminent and superlative level it is currently at. It seems the valid rationale for usage (expiration of time available to charge Nilsen with a specific crime but they managed to identify his last victim on the eve of that expiration and it became screaming national headlines for weeks) has been trimmed out in the intervening four years, although I'll be happy to retrieve it if I can. At the time of uploading, I was in the middle of populating the article extensively, and I or someone else may have added it at a slightly later date. It didn't fail NFCC8 at the time of uploading or slightly later. I can make it satisfy the requirements for NFCC8 again within half an hour maximum if you want. Personally, I won't lose no sleep if it is either kept or lost.

As stated in the final sentence, I won't lose no sleep if it is either kept or lost, although I would like to make at least one attempt to try and get the article's text to satisfy the NFCC8 and as per your questioning the statement of "was literally the 1st time many people saw the face behind the crimes" may be true, but without any supporting citations to reliable sources", I have the sources. Actually, those images were provided by the subject's mother when journalists went to her home demanding images. It is in the Brian Masters book and poss. others too. I'll make it contextually significant again. Look forward to hearing from you. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the tags from the image. I have never made such a bold move before, so please don't affix a warning of any kind to me if I am wrong in doing so, but the text in what you affixed basically invited me to do so with the text "You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the proposed deletion/dated files notice, but please explain why in your edit summary". I have done so now as there is sourced commentary of the image ("At 5:40 pm on 11 February, Nilsen was formally charged with the murder of Stephen Sinclair, and a statement revealing this fact was released to the press." and this ref. now used in the article should suffice there). I hope so at least. Normally I'd wait for the scrutiny of other users, as I say, but the text in those tags was beckoning me to make this move in my mind once I had done what I have done. At least I hope so. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

If you are able to added sourced content relevant to the file's non-free use which more clearly shows how it satisfies WP:NFCC#8, then please do. I don't think what did is sufficient because simply mentioning the Daily Mirror by name still is not something the reader needs to see the image to understand. What is not is sourced discussion specifically about the image so that seeing it actually does matter to the reader. Right now, the section can just as easily be understood without the image as it can with the image. Why does the reader need to see this file to understand "a statement was released to the press"? Statements are released to the press all of the time by public officials, even in criminal cases, but the reader does not need to see a picture to understand that. The information about the mother and the journalist is interesting and if sourced might better help justify this type of non-free use. Anyway, you can remove the prod templates because that's what prod is about, but I do think better justification is needed in order to survive a WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Just read this observation now, Marchjuly. To my mind, I have made very good inroads; however, I appreciate your remaining concerns. I'll work on your observations within 48 hours maximum. The images were the 1st the public saw of the suspect, and actually contributed (especially in conjunction with the later footage of him being led into court and giving the impression of a meek office worker) to his benign media affixed tag of being "The Kindly Killer" etc. etc. I'll use that and other info. As I say, 48 hours maximum. Cheers, Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, any sourced commentary you can add to the article would help strengthen the justification for non-free use. The nickname would be a good thing to add if it can be sourced and shown to have originated from the images post on the Daily Mirror. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It can be done. I'll do so when I get back from work tomorrow. Page 19 of the most eminent book on this, Killing for Company will be the bedrock. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Non-free rationale for File:Wolfgang priklopil.jpg

I'm a little tired of having to "maintain" this image's free use and persistence on Wikipedia. I've complied with all previous requests sent me regarding this, and now after a period of quiet - I'm being asked again to make further changes. The rationale is in the template on the image as per what was required of me last time. The image is justified. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 09:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The file has a copyright template as required by WP:F4, but it does not have a non-free use rationale. A boilerplate copyright template does not by itself constitute a non-free use rationale as explained in WP:ICT/FU and all non-free files are required to have a seperate and specific non-free use rationale for each use by WP:NFCC#10c. You can use one of the templates listed in Category:Non-free use rationale templates or write out one by hand as explained in WP:FUR#Non-template, but you will need to clearly show how this file's use satisfies all 10 non-free use criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It matches the critria for WP:NFCCP - so it doesn't need revising. Please can you be more descriptive in why you are including this image for a rationale check --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 14:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to be more specific that saying you need to provide a non-free use rationale which shows how it satisfies all of the non-free content criteria. All non-free files need the following two things: (1) a copyright tag for non-free use, and (2) a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use. The first item is just a basic desciption of why the file qualifies as fair use under US copyright law; the second item is a more detailed explanation of how the file complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. These are two completely different things and both are needed. Wikipedia's non-free use policy has been made intentionally more restrictive that US copyright law for the reasons explained in WP:NFC#Background; therefore, a file simply being WP:ITSFAIRUSE is not enough of a justification for use on Wikipedia.

This file does have a copyright tag, but it that is all it has. Template:Non-free fair use in is a copyright tag; it not a non-free use rationale. Simply writing it out as {{Non-free fair use in|image has rationale=yes|Wolfgang Priklopil}} is not the same as adding a proper non-free use rationale. Please refer to WP:NFC#Template and WP:NFC#Non-template for some examples on how to write out a rationale using a template or not using a template. Either way is acceptable as long as you non-free use rationale. Either way is acceptable as long as you include all the relevant information. Without a proper non-free use rationale, its hard to evaluate whether the particular non-free use complies with relevant policy.

Finally, one more general thing about this type of image use. A non-free image of a deceased person is typically considered acceptable when it's used as the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article about said individual as explained in item 10 of WP:NFCI. Using the file is sub-sections of other articles, however, tends to requires a much stronger justification for non-free use than just "identification". Just for reference, there have been a couple of WP:FFD discussions about the use of similar photos and the community consensus in those particular cases has been to not allow this type of non-free use. I'm not saying those same arguments are applicable to this particular file and this particular use, but you might want to review Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 21#File:Rodger small.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg to familiarize yourself with the main reasons this type of use is typically challenged. Simply adding a rationale does not automatically mean the file's non-free use is Wikipedia policy compliant; it just means the file cannot be speedily deleted per WP:F6. Non-free files with non-free use rationales are being constantly discussed at WP:FFD where the community discusses whether the particular non-free use is acceptable per Wikipedia policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Re:File notices

Please stop posting notices on my talk page unless I've actually uploaded the file in question. This is the second time I've gotten one saying "Thanks for uploading...." The file is about 7 years old and I worked last with it about 6 years ago. The notice is misleading unless the person has uploaded the image, which I did not. We hope (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@We hope: I only added those user talk pages as a courtesy because according to the page histories of those two files it was you who added the non-free use rationales which are/were being disputed. For example, I am assuming that since you added the non-free use rational for File:Lok Satta Movement.jpg for the article Jayaprakash Narayan (Lok Satta) with this edit that you had a specific policy based reason for doing so. The same goes for File:Dick Biondi Day Proclamation.jpg. You added the file to Dick Biondi with this edit and also added the corresponding non-free use rationale for that particular use, so I assumed you felt the file's non-free use was justified. Anyway, no offense was intended and sorry for any confusion caused; I was just trying to let not only the uploader(s), but also the editor(s) who added the files to the article that their respective non-free use was being challenged. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

RE: Kurt Riley

Hello, Marchjuly! Thanks for clarifying about the Kurt Riley page and the notability guidelines. The sources used on that page include The Cornell Daily Sun (a leading college newspaper, ranked #1 in the nation by The Princeton Review in 2013), WVBR (one of the most reputable radio stations in Central New York) and The Ithaca Journal (a notable newspaper in publication since the 19th Century, now part of the USA Today Network). Do these sources not qualify as independent of the source?

Thanks for your guidance. I'm a long-time Wiki user (since the early 2000s), but I've just joined the community!