User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2024/September

Robert French.jpg

You marked a photo I uploaded, File:Roger French.jpg, for deletion citing no permission. The permission for the photo was on this page: https://mds3-coe.com/people/ If you scroll down the page, there's an asterisk giving permission to use the photo.HRShami (talk)

@HRShami: "This photo can be used freely without permission" seems insufficient and too general for Wikipedia's purposes, and generally a much clearer statement such as the one given in WP:CONSENT that makes mention of a specific copyright license tends to be what is needed. However, I'm not an adminstrator and couldn't restore File:Roger French.jpg even if I felt otherwise.

The administrator who deleted the file is named Explicit and you can ask Explicit to restore the file if you want by posting a message at User talk:Explicit; you can also ask for the file to be restored at WP:REFUND. Perhaps Explicit or another administrator will feel that "permission" is sufficient and restore the file, but I think you'll probably be asked to have the photo's copyright holder to send a WP:CONSENT email to Wikimedia VRT for verification purposes.

Finally, there's no such statement on this April 13, 2024 archived version of the page, this May 28, 2024 archived version of the page or this August 6, 2024 archived version of the page, that last of which is around the same time I tagged the file for review for lacking a verifiable license. The file was deleted by Explicit was deleted on August 21, 2024. If that statement was subsequently added after August 6, then that's OK; however, you should make that clear in your request to have the file restored. Furthermore, it would probably be better to put the statement next to the image in question and make mention of a specific license instead of at the very bottom of the page with no mention of a license at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Hello, thank you for your message. I would like to ask, please, how can I upload a picture of Sabino Barinaga in the article 'List of Real Madrid players'? Is there a way? Mishary94 (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mishary94: If you're able to find an image that is considered to be within the public domain for some reason or one that has been released under an acceptable free license by its copyright holder, then such an image could most likely be used in that article; such images aren't subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and there's less restrictions placed on how they may be used. A non-free one, however, is going to be impossible (at least in my opinion) to justify (particularly the way it was being used) in such an article. If you'd like other opinions on this, you can informally ask at WP:MCQ and WT:NFCC, or you can seek a formal consensus to use the image in that article by starting a discussion about it at WP:FFD. If you check the licensing of all of the files used in that article, you should find that they most likely all images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons that are either licensed as public domain or using an acceptable free license. Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any type per c:COM:FAIR, so no Commons files can be licensed as non-free content. This doesn't mean that every file used on that page is licensed correctly, but such files appear (at least first glance) OK to be used on that page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Azhagarsamy.jpg

Do you find this to be in a situation similar to Rathna (film)? Since the title card there was moved to Commons, I guess this too can. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

In recent years, Indian copyright has seemed to have been moving away a sweat of the brow interpretation predominately followed by the UK per c:COM:TOO India, but things could depend upon what laws were in effect when that film was released. For this reason, you might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC because Commons policy requires the content it hosts be PD in both the US and both the country of first publication, whereas Wikipedia only requires it to be PD in US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Bunasawa

Hi, The Bunasawa draft [1] was significantly expanded upon today. The intention is clearly to reintroduce it to mainspace at some point. It seems to me that it could be speedy deleted now under WP:G4 (recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD). Axad12 (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

​ The draft was already tagged for speedy deletion per G4 by another user, but that was declined as not being applicable. So, I think the only options at the moment are WP:MFD or WP:G5. It might be hard to gain a consensus at MfD for deleting it given that it's a userspace draft even if it's a recreation because it previously wasn't deleted for WP:COPYVIO, WP:ATTACK or some other really serious reason like that. Furthermore, neither Star Mississippi, who page-blocked DN27ND, nor any of the other admins involved in the prior ANI discussion have yet to tag the userapace draft with G5; so, maybe that's not really much of an option.

Maybe at this point there isn't much that can be done other than waiting until someone moves or tries to move it to the mainspace. I don't know whether it's technically possible for DN27ND to move the draft to the mainspace themselves because of the page block; moreover, any attempt they make to move the page to the mainspace under different name is probably going to be seen as trying to circumvent that block. In addition, there are still the COI concerns to sort out. So, that probably means they will need to submit it to AfC for review. If an established AfC reviewer approves the draft, then perhaps the article can be brought to AfD again or perhaps even possibly G4'd if it's really basically the same as before. If a new account shows up out of the blue to move the page like DN27ND did the first time around, then there's G4 plus ANI or SPI per WP:BRV. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

That surprises me on G4, because drafts are deleted under G4 (see for example the 2018 deletion [2] of an oft recreated page), but apparently this isn't done consistently by all users. However, it did occur to me, shortly after sending my note above, that it may be best just to allow this user the WP:ROPE of seeing what he intends to do.

If he introduces the article directly into mainspace (as he did with another, valid, article recently) then (a) he shows himself to be a bad faith user playing fast and loose with his article ban, (b) the article will become a very serious candidate for G4/G5, and (c) the user makes himself look as though he has a very serious COI.

If he instead refers the article to AfC then it will be possible to simply post a record of past events on the talkpage of the draft, thus allowing the reviewer to know the extended history and seriously reducing the chances of the article being accepted.

My concern at the moment however (and I think it is a very real concern) is that the G4 deletion was suggested on the 23rd and declined on the 24th, but before it was declined the Bunasawa user recreated the draft from 'sandbox' to 'sandbox 3', thus leaving no trace on 'sandbox 3' that the G4 nomination had occurred. I'm not sure that I can see a good faith reason why a user would have done that. (The alternative is that he wanted to keep a version of the draft, even if it was deleted, which also demonstrates very bad faith.)

It would actually be perfectly possible to post a talkpage comment on 'sandbox 3' right now, detailing the history of this article, thus making success at AfC highly unlikely, but that would presumably just result in the article being recreated in 'sandbox 4', etc, etc.

Ultimately, of course, this sort of activity is only serving to expose bad faith, because my understanding is that the fact that the article was previously deleted will always be visible to an AfC reviewer anyway (although I'm not sure if it's abundantly clear unless the reviewer goes looking for the info).

Star Mississippi is going to be mostly off-Wiki until early September, I believe, so I guess we just wait until then and see how things develop... If the article goes into mainspace before that then one of us can G4/G5 it, and if it goes to AfC one of us can leave a note on the talkpage.

Either way, this article will probably need to be salted (WP:SALT) to prevent further re-creation. Axad12 (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I see this escalated while I was offline. Thanks for the cleanup both of you, and @Novem Linguae. Will go look at the thread you referenced to learn how to better p-block next time, because unfortunately there will be one. Star Mississippi 13:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi. I'm happy to help. Sadly, there doesn't appear to be a better way to pblock. It appears that pblocks are by page ID, not by title. So deleting the page and recreating it will always evade the block, while still looking like the block is in place. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Marchjuly @Axad12. Brief reply as, as Axad12 noted, I'm mostly offline for another week and I'm not able to dig into this (and think I still owe you an email, March). G4 in draft space is a gray area as Liz and I have discussed on a few places, although I can't find it right now. I think it boils down to admin discretion. I didn't look into the decline here and if you think a G5 is merited, please feel free to explore it despite my lack of action. If DN27 is editing disruptively, a block might be a better solution? But yes, ping me next week if this isn't resolved please Star Mississippi 13:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to be a bit careful here and avoid automatically declaring everything DN27ND is doing as being done in bad faith. The inappropriate comments and other disruption that happened during the AfD seems to have stopped, which could be an indication that they realize they were in the wrong and don't intend to repeat that behavior. The SPI wasn't able to come up with anything conclusive other than some likely MEAT. Anyway, if they try to inappropriately recreate the Nori Bunasawa article, some admin will likely take care of it. If they revert back to their behavior at the AfD, they will likely end up back at ANI. The draft about Bunasawa only will become a problem in my opinion if they or some other SPA tries to move it back to the mainspace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The article was introduced directly into mainspace a few hours ago so I've nominated for speedy deletion under G4. I also noted on the edit summary that G5 might also be applicable as the user is banned from editing the subject. Axad12 (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12: It's unfortunate they decided to do that, but not really surprising. FWIW, you should add a speedy deletion notification template to their user page just to be thorough. You could also (it you really want to) post a civil statement explaining how WP:UNBLOCK, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and WP:DELETIONREVIEW need to be followed in cases such as this. I wouldn't engage with them beyond that except when absolutely necessary. Things quickly took a turn for the worst in that prior AfD and there's no need to have to deal with that again. From this point on, Administrators will take care of whatever needs to be taken care of. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately there was no need, as he swiftly became aware of the speedy deletion tag. He seems intent on arguing that he has found new RS and SIGCOV, and that the subject should be judged against the creative professional criteria rather than the martial arts criteria. Obviously the likelihood of him getting away with those arguments is low, but he's acting contrary to previously imposed sanctions anyway.

I don't intend to engage, given the bludgeoning, self-serving incorrect reading of policy, and racism that occurred at the AfD. Axad12 (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You have chosen wisely Indy. The Grail Knight would be proud. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2021/July#Belgium FA logo/badge: PD-ineligible-USonly?

Hello, three years later, but I just wanted to let you know that I have updated the licensing of the logo to {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Belgium}}. I agree that it's at least below c:COM:TOO US. Jonteemil (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Consensus

I think a consensus has been reached on the Dexter Morgan talk page, could you remove the template from File:Michael C. Hall as Dexter Morgan publicity photo, 2012 now? 1zdoqnrh5 (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Whether a consensus has been reached to use that particular image is still not clear; however, since the file is now being used in the main infobox, I've removed the speedy deletion template from its page. If another user restores the file you replaced, you will need to address their concerns through article talk page discussion. Finally, some other things, the The photo was taken a decade ago, any commercial opportunites would of been exausted long ago. you posted in the file's non-free use rationale isn't really correct; copyright law tends to protect images for way longer than a decade because commercial opportunities tend exist for much longer periods of time. I suggest you modify that statement to something more appropriate. You should also try to find a better source for the image than a fandom site or blog site to make sure there are no problems with WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion. Sites like forums, XXX-pedias, wikis, fandoms, blogs tend to be primary user-generated sites that don't really properly vet the images it hosts, and thus are usually unreliable when it comes to determining image provenance. It's much better to use official sites under the control of the content's copyright holder or reputable news/media sites which most likely received the images it hosts from their respective copyright holders. Given that Dexter is probably streaming on some platforms these days, there should be images on one of their official websites that are OK to use, if you're unable to find a better source for this one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Following up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Japanese Wikipedia research report

Hello, continuing discussion from linked talk thread. Numbering points to (hopefully) make them easier to respond to.

1. I want to say up front, I respect you and appreciate your work. We interacted before; I was the IP user here. I want to keep this friendly because I think we're both well intentioned. I hope nothing in this message reads rude; not my intent.
2. When I referred to repetition, I meant my own messages. I was tired of repeating that I felt that my original point still stood. What I was upset about was feeling like I was being continually misinterpreted; I felt that over and over my original message was stretched by you to include implausible conclusions that I do not support. I do not want users to be preemtively blocked based on vague suspicions (!!! how would that even work?), I do not want or expect there to be a systemic rule-based system for stopping the spread of the jawiki's toxicity or revisionism. I am not mandating that anyone participate in this effort; of course it is entirely on a volunteer basis. I don't think reading these conclusions from my original message was conceivable, and was surprised that such conclusions continued to be arrived at. My point is short and I think reasonable: the jawiki has serious issues that have before and will continue to come over to the enwiki on occasion, and others should be aware of this possibility. That's it.
3. Your bringing up the issues of the enwiki and other wikis feel a little like whataboutisms. Of course other wikis have issues; I'm already vocally critical of the Korean Wikipedia and namuwiki; example. I don't only criticize the Japanese Wikipedia. I think it is reasonable to bring it up on that WikiProject talk page is to let people in a relevant sphere know that, hey, this specific Wikipedia may impact you negatively because of its issues. Just as I've done in my linked example for WikiProject Korea. I am equal opportunity critical; nobody is safe from me (/s).
4. However, I do feel that the Japanese Wikipedia's problems are particularly severe. As I'm sure you're now aware, I've become intimately familiar with how their criminal justice system works. It is so inadequate in dealing with obvious malicious POV pushing that it has had a severe negative impact on pages about ethnic groups and World War II. These issues have gone unfixed for many years; while this sometimes happens on the English Wikipedia (I know, I've rewritten a number of such pages personally), I'd argue the Japanese Wikipedia's problems are far more severe and obvious. This conclusion I'm drawing is supported by research. That report I linked, this study, and these.
5. That one example I linked that was reverted? I'm happy it was. But that's an outlier. Look at that user's dozens of other toxic edits that never were. Look at the abuse they've hurled at others (and only have received a 1 week talk page ban lol literally a nothing sanction for the severity of their abuse). They have been doing this for months and have still not been banned. They were reported at ANI and the admin just sat on the report and quietly archived it. No verdict, no mediating conversation, not even any reminders to any party to keep conduct within acceptable bounds despite obvious violations. Just quiet archiving and ignoring the issue. The enwiki has problems (we're both pretty experienced in how this website works; I've made >80,000 edits total), but I feel it's safe to say it handles these kinds of issues leagues better than the do-nothingness of the Japanese Wikipedia. They have one of the lowest admin-to-user ratios of any major Wikipedia. To my understanding, this opinion is shared by a significant proportion of Japanese Wikipedians as well.
6. I have not reported that user on the enwiki yet because they have not violated enwiki's rules to an obvious degree yet. I know how the system works. Once they do I'll report it, but not preemptively.
7. I'm not trying to organize a big, systemic community effort to quarantine the Japanese Wikipedia. I do not have any specific proposals for WP:VPP. I am making a persuasive argument to the group of editors most likely to be impacted by the Japanese Wikipedia. Whether or not people choose to accept my argument is up to the listener.
8. As I said, to my understanding (which is largely based on the research report), the issues of the Japanese Wikipedia are deepset, and actually contrary to your messaging, fairly unique (which is why the Wikimedia Foundation has funded a series of studies on them specifically in recent years). A lot of their current issues stem from their close relationship with 5ch and its toxic culture, and having one of the highest ratios of anonymous editors of any language Wikipedia. None of that is easy to fix.

seefooddiet (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Asking for understanding and patience

Hello @Marchjuly I have tried my best and thought I was doing OK with my image uploads. Early attempts were corrected / deleted, so by not hearing anything I assumed I was doing OK. I am absolutely not trying to get anything under the radar. I am always trying my best. Please assume I was doing everything in good faith and just needed a kind steer in the right direction. This has all been too intense for me so I will try and delete everything that isn't up to par. BJCHK (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read my response to your post at COM:VPC. Not everything you uploaded is going to need to be deleted. What can be fixed or otherwise sorted out most likely can be kept, but there might be some files that will end up needing to be deleted simply because copyright holder consent might not be able to be obtained. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)