Misplaced Pages

User talk:Majora

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 05:22, 28 January 2017 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Majora/Archive 2) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:22, 28 January 2017 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Majora/Archive 2) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is Majora's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Ramaksoud2000Bot

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 23:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ramaksoud2000: Tagging fair use images of living people as F7 ({{Di-replaceable fair use}}) would be absolutely huge. It would take an additional step or two, and I don't know if it is actually possible from a coding standpoint, but it would be immensely helpful. The bot could check to see the article it is being used on, see if it is in category:living people, and then tag accordingly, notifying the person in the process. There might be some hiccups with this that need to be worked out. There are very limited instances where a fair use photo of a living person would be acceptable. If the person is in a maximum security prison and is otherwise inaccessible, for example. The bot would have to look for {{Rk}} and skip those images when it comes across them. --Majora (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
That's a very good idea, and simple to implement. After this BRFA, I'll look into ways to reduce false positives. Thanks! Ramaksoud2000 23:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
To update, I've done some testing, and have concluded that there are way too many false positives to automate this. I have instead decided to have the bot generate a list of possible NFC violations at User:Ramaksoud2000Bot/Possible NFC violations. Bot approval is not required for edits to the userspace. I have already generated a list for all images with the {{non-free biog-pic}} template that are only used in articles of living people, and tagged the images that needed tagging. Now, the bot is generating a list of images that use the generic {{non-free fair use}} template and are only used in living people articles. The bot ignores images that also have a free license template on them, images with {{rk}}, images that have been at FFD, and images used on articles of people whose living status is disputed or who are at Gitmo prison. Although the list has false positives, going through it is much more effective than than just going through the category. If you have any more ideas, let me know! Thanks, Ramaksoud2000 09:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ramaksoud2000: That's too bad about the false positives but the list that your bot created does help immensely. Perhaps we can create a category that can be looked for that will force the bot to skip those whenever it creates that list? Since {{Rk}} is for when an image deletion was declined. I'm thinking this category could be more along the lines of "Fair-use rationale checked. Does not qualify for F7". So future updates could be more targeted. Thoughts? --Majora (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I would be hesitant to create a category and add it on a lot of files without consensus. Category:Non-free images with NFUR stated already exists, but unfortunately the files there haven't been checked properly to see if the NFUR is actually valid, instead of just stated. Ramaksoud2000 04:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I've slowly been going through the "removable once checked" image maintenance categories. There are just so many of them. Category:Files from freely licensed external sources is a big one that I've been working on lately. There were so many copyvios in there and I now watch that regularly for newly uploaded files. Most of them are F9. --Majora (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Whoever thought to create those categories had a good idea. Ramaksoud2000 03:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Majora!

Happy New Year!

Majora,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. -- Dane 02:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Majora!

Happy New Year!

Majora,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages.
–Davey2010 13:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Orphaned non-free image File:Madman Anime Festival logo.png

⚠
⚠

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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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)

 Fixed --Majora (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

GA - Forensic firearm examination

Forensic firearm examination is a good article indeed! Thank you for working on it so diligently. Felsic2 (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing it! --Majora (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Forensic firearm examination

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)

Very nice! Thank you for your work on this article. — Mudwater 02:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Admin

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)

I'm not an admin but I'll take a look at it when I have a moment. No promises on anything as I haven't looked at it yet. --Majora (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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)

Chitt66

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

@Chitt66: Of course I don't want you to quit. However, threatening to do so will not help in this manner. Copyright issues take precedent over everything and your use of these images also shows that you do not understand fair use. Even if a proper FUR was filled out the images would not be acceptable as they are not critically discussed, there are far too many of them, and you are using them on articles where they should not be used. It is clear that you do not understand images and their proper use here. That's fine. Many many people do not. That is why I am asking you to refrain from uploading more images until you can clearly explain the proper use of them. If you can't, that's fine. There is plenty of other things you can do as is clearly evident by your other contributions. If that is the case, I must insist that you do not upload any more images. --Majora (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you reading any of my messages? Will you, at least, be more objective and listen to and consider my image choices. I do have valid information for images, from existing Wiki Articles and Wiki Commons Images. If you feel what I am doing using these Wiki copyright, non-free use images. If think the Wiki provided image resources are not correct and illegal, please review and delete the Wiki Commons and Wiki Articles that are illegal to use. This would be an undertaking, by Misplaced Pages standards, that is a real can of worms and an impossible task for the few doing editing all the free images that are supposedly copyright free. Chitt66 (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Please, review these Wiki links with an open mind and understand what we volunteers (I have been told by Misplaced Pages, that I have done over 10,000 edits, since starting in 2010).
Chitt66 (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Chitt66: First of all, stop leaving me barnstars. You know that you can communicate without having to do that right? And sending me "wikilove" in this situation just seems like you are being disruptive to try to make a point. Just use the edit button like everyone else. Second, you clearly do not understand fair use policy and you persist in putting these images into articles against policy even after I pleaded with you to stop. I tried being nice. Now, it is up to the admins to decide what to do. --Majora (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Brudger

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)

@Richard-of-Earth: A six and a half year old account is not new and "biting" doesn't apply. All you are doing is being complicit in their attempts to self promote their book. It is at ANI now. --Majora (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Closure of copyright discussion

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome. Per Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages policy." When closing, a summary of the arguments should be given (see Misplaced Pages: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 (Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Take it to AN if you want to dispute the close. As that is the proper procedure. The close stands until overturned by the community there. There is no consensus to host those images here and no wall of text is going to make me reopen anything voluntarily. --Majora (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
As Majora has said here. ANI isn't intended for this sort of thing - AN is. Please move this request to AN so that it may receive the consideration that it deserves. SQL 05:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
No, the proper procedure is to discuss the matter with the closing editor first (I also raised these issues at User talk:Ramaksoud2000#Improper closure of copyright discussion. From Misplaced Pages:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures: 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)
And I told you that I'm not going to reopen anything voluntarily. So, off to AN if you wish. --Majora (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your FFD NAC idea

I didn't participate in that discussion I linked above. However, I have thought for a very long time that there needs to be a better way to reduce the WP:FFD backlog. I've been stewing up in my head an idea for a new WP:CSD for files that could apply to files that would obviously be deleted per a WP:FFD discussion, but would require a 7-day wait period before the file can be deleted. The CSD would kind of be like a WP:PROD for files and could apply to files with no encyclopedia use, etc. However, since we already have several CSD that apply to fair-use files, this idea would only apply to files that are claimed to be released through a free license. In my experiences on FFD (including starting the proposal that resulted in a successful merge of WP:NFCR into FFD), I've noticed that most of the files that are immediately deleted are those that have the aforementioned issues (free, no encyclopedic value.) Any thoughts on this? Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)