User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2021/November

Hellooo i have touched with this my adition

What if this reach family can do charity to young children who are leaving in difficult times and life 196.249.98.188 (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what your post means. Do you have a question related to Wikipedia? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I cometh with peace, and milkshakes!

	Milkshake
	Hi! This is just a token of appreciation. Hope you're doing well. Pass this on, everyone deserves it GFO (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear what this if for, but thank you anyways. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

ReubenFine.jpg

I got your message on my talk page about File:ReubenFine.jpg. At the time I uploaded it, there was no free alternative photo of him. Now there is one from 1961 on commons, and I see that the photo I uploaded for Reuben Fine and Basic Chess Endings has been replaced by it.

I'm not sure what to do. It might fall under the "published before 1978" criteria. I was trying to be extra safe at the time I uploaded it. He us definitely younger in photo I uploaded - closer to the time he wrote the book (1941), so that might be a justification for it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess it's possible that the file could now be in the public domain for some reason (perhaps {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}), but that would need to be clearly (or at least as clearly as possible) established and the file should then be either moved or re-uploaded to Commons if possible. You might want to ask about it a c:COM:VPC to see get some feedback as to whether it would be OK for Commons. However, I don't think you can justify the non-free use of this file per WP:FREER if the argument is just to show Fine as appeared as an earlier age. As far as I can tell, such an argument has never been considered a valid justification for non-free use unless the person's appearance is either the main reason why or a large reason why they are considered Wikipedia notable as explained in item #1 of WP:NFC#UUI (I know that section is about living persons per se, but the same reasoning has also been applied over the years to non-free photos of deceased persons in that a non-free is not simply accepted because it's of a better quality or from a different period than a freely licensed image of the same person). So, simply wanting to show someone as they appeared at a certain stage of their career is not really necessary for primary identification purposes and not a reason to use a non-free image over a freely licensed one unless the non-free image itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary and meets WP:NFC#CS. Moreover, even if you could successfully argue for the use of the non-free in Reuben Fine, there's pretty much no way I can see per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI and per WP:NFC#CS that the use of any non-free image of Fine could be justified in Basic Chess Endings. You can ask about the non-free use of this file at either WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC if you feel differently, but I think you're going to find it hard to establish a consensus in favor of its use in that article even if it were OK to be used in the Fine article. Anyway, you can follow the instructions in the {{rfu}} template I added to the file's page and use {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} to challenge the speedy deletion tagging. An administrator is going to review the file to see whether it meets the criteria for deletion; so, you're going to need to explain why somewhere on the file's page if you think it doesn't; otherwise, the administrator is going to assume the tagging of the file is not being objected to and delete it per WP:F7. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, the file is orphaned now, because of the file that was not available at the time. I was trying to do what I thought was the right thing to do years ago, when I put the non-free stuff in. And the new one is not sharp, but it is probably not worth the effort. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Please understand that I'm not suggesting you did anything wrong or crticizing you for uploading the other file as non-free. I apologize if it seemed as if that's what I was doing, Sometimes a file is uploaded as non-free because that's what was deemed the best thing to do at the time; however, a freely licensed equivalent image is subsequently found or created and which makes the use of a non-free one no longer necessary. Every file uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content will eventually move into the public domain at some point in time, after all; so, it's not anybody in particular's fault per se when a free equivalent image eventually appears. Anyway, the file was orphaned because another editor removed it from the two articles where it was being used; I did tag the file for speedy deletion, but I didn't remove it from either article. So, if you feel that its non-free use can be justified in either one or both of those articles, then you're free to challenge the speedy deletion template as I explained above. I explained why I think it can't, but others may disagree with my assessment and there's nothing wrong with requesting further input. For reference, non-free files tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F7 have two days before they are reviewed by an administrator; so, you still have time to explain why you feel the file should be kept if you want. Files tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5, on the other hand, have seven days before they're reviewed and all you really need to do is re-add the file to an article before then to de-orphan it. Of course, someone could still challenged whether the non-free use is not simply a case of WP:JUSTONE, but de-orphaning the file means it won't be deleted for F5 reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No, at the time there was no free one. That situation changed. OTOH, it was made about 80 years ago and may have been published without a copyright, but I don't know where it was published. And I don't know about the death of the photographer. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

By that's what was deemed the best thing to do at the time, I was implying that no free equivalent existed on Commons when you uploaded the non-free one in 2008 and when you updated the image in 2013. Since Fine was long dead when you uploaded the file, there was no immediately obvious issue with using a non-free file at that time. Moreover, there's was nothing wrong in erring on the side of caution and uploading a possibly PD file as non-free; playing it safe is pretty much always better than playing it fast and loose when it comes to image copyright. WP:FREER only became a problem when people started uploaded free equivalent files to Commons, but this started happening well after you uploaded the non-free one as is often the case. As time passess, more and more PD photos of persons who lived around the same time as Fine are likely going to start appearing because all photos eventually become PD at some point. Now, if you want to get more feedback on whether the one you uploaded might actually be PD, try asking at c:COM:VPC because that's where you're going to find editors who are really good in figuring such things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I might do that. I have no way of finding out myself. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:Files for upload

Hello Marchjuly, Greetings! Could you plz give a suggestion on this. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 06:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe try adding a {{Please see}} template to WP:MCQ and WT:NFCC since that where you're going to find more people familiar with non-free content use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

[1], [2] Thank you Marchjuly. By the way do you remember 3 years ago I got caught out in many copyright infringements on media files; you used to message me in my talkpages 🙂. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 16:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't remember. Image use and licensing can be tricky in general, but non-free images often are even more confusing because they also need to also meet WP:NFCC each time they're used. So, if I posted something on your user talk page, then there was probably some reason for doing so that had nothing to do with you as a person. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:24HoursLeMons logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:24HoursLeMons 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)