User talk:Majora: Difference between revisions

This is Majora's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Hi Majora - Thank you for bringing the license attribution to my attention. I had Sarah Barlow (photographer) confirm her giving me permission to use the photo of the listed Wikipedia page and sent it to the Wikipedia email. Waiting on their confirmation receipt.

Thank you for the helpful info! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsnippoets (talk • contribs) 22:52, October 12, 2017 (UTC)

Hi Majora. I recently put together a recurring weekly report identifying files which may be missing a license tag. When you have some time, would you help me chip away at the list? Thanks, FASTILY 03:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: I'd be happy to. I can start going through them tomorrow. I was just about to log off for the night when you posted. Out of curiosity, is there a way to mark images as "has a proper license" so it gets removed from that list? Take the first example, File:Inno Setup screenshot.png. I just glanced at it but it seems to tick all the boxes for an acceptable license (reuse even commercially, modification, etc.). Obviously I would need to investigate further but the info says it is a modified {{BSD}} license. If that is accurate it seems to be ok for use here but the actual BSD template would be incorrect. How would I remove that from the listing? --Majora (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Files categorized with All free media, All non-free media, or any category in the blacklist are omitted. The report is still a work in progress, so there may be the occasional false positive. Regards, FASTILY 07:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is on the source I listed, just click the one that looks nearly the same but at an angle and slightly blurred, then click on the small arrow to your right on the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KawaiiChurchill (talk • contribs) 15:54, October 27, 2017 (UTC)

@KawaiiChurchill: And where on that page does it say that that image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License? Or did you just pick a license without verifying that it is correct? Cause at this point that photo still doesn't have proper permissions. Just because something is uploaded to the Internet doesn't mean you can take it and do whatever you want with it. It still maintains the same copyright status, of All Rights Reserved, unless stated otherwise. --Majora (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hyde has given me permission for the picture to be returned

https://www.facebook.com/ssam.hyde/posts/1740921239282698?comment_id=1744975122210643&notif_id=1509329087183187&notif_t=feed_comment

Carlos Supremo is my account. KawaiiChurchill (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few things here, KawaiiChurchill, I am helping you purely because I want to see as many images as possible be used properly here. However, if you act like this again I will not only not help you, I will report you for egregious personal attacks. Something that is forbidden here.

Now, down to business. I understand that our copyright policies are confusing and we ask a lot and for that I am sorry. For legal reasons we have to follow strict policies. "For use on Wikipedia" type releases are not acceptable. That statement on Facebook means nothing, legally speaking, so we can't use it. You must follow the instructions that I put on your talk page and have the copyright holder fill out the legal release form and send it into our OTRS team. If you need assistance doing that please let me know. But beyond that, you must follow the instructions or the image will be deleted. --Majora (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not mean anything? KawaiiChurchill (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KawaiiChurchill: Because in order to be able to be used here the image must be licensed under a copyright license that allows anyone to use or modify the image at any time and for any purpose (including commercial use). Legally, the only way to change a copyright license is for the copyright holder to explicitly state that they are changing the license to a different one. Simply saying "yes you can use it on Wikipedia" is nowhere near what is legally required. It is also highly useful if they acknowledge that they understand the consequences of relicensing that photo under a different copyright license. That is why I asked you to follow the instructions that I posted on your talk page. It gives you the consent form that ticks all those boxes. This is the normal process that we ask everyone to go through for licensing images and confirming copyright permission. --Majora (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to work this out together.

You and others have reverted several times relevant, accurate and sourced information that I've added to the Vox (website) page. The only reason given for the reversion that was provided was by another user which cited "unreliable sources", of which I have since addressed in the most recent attempts of reversion.

Why are the edits I've made just? Three reasons: relevance, precedent and primary-sourced. First, relevance: at a time of unprecedented scrutiny on all media from across the political spectrum, Wikipedia regularly updates its pages and elevates information relevant to modern times. Several polls (and I can send you links) indicate historic levels of distrust among the public of the press. Second, precedent: the Wikipedia pages of several digital publications known to have liberal and conservative leanings and biases have that pre-existing context on their pages for transparency (Slate, Breitbart, The Weekly Standard, The Huffington Post, The National Review, Mother Jones, Salon, etc.), Vox who approaches their editorial decision-making from a skewed perspective no less apparent than the Huffington Post or The National Review ought to be held to the same standards. Third, primary-sourced. Ezra Klein, the editor of Vox, is a registered Democrat who prominently commentated on Democratic politics, garnered a reputation as a liberal wonk at The Washington Post, and directly stated in the source I provided that the audience for Vox skews to the left.

I'm looking forward to reading recommendations you have to include this important and relevant additional context to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs24 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rs24: You can't use articles from Vox as sources about Vox. That is pure original research on your part and is not allowed by policy. Your take on Vox's articles is completely meaningless to us here. Independence in sourcing is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia and needs to be followed. Now, lets take the only other source that you put in that edit that was not by Vox [1]. Where in that article does it explicitly state that Vox is a liberal leaning website? It doesn't. That is synthesis and is also a violation of the "no original research" policy. You can't say something that a source doesn't explicitly state and saying that it is "regarded by some" is a cop out and a WP:WEASEL phrase at that. This is what people were trying to tell you. You can't use primary sources and you can't engage in original research. Both of those formed your entire edit. That is why you were reverted. If you have any questions about the "no original research" policy please let me know. If you still want to attempt to make this edit please discuss your changes on the article's talk page. Since this involves numerous editors it is best to keep discussions on article content on the article's talk page. --Majora (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the rule on original research. The intent of these edits isn't to inject a "take" on the articles Vox publishes. The other source I published [2] does include an admission by Klein directly that the site leans to the left. Search for "And overall our audience leans a bit left, but it doesn’t lean overwhelmingly so." I'd like to take this to the article's talk page, but I wanted to begin and hopefully end by addressing this with you because you are one of the people who are reverted the edits I made. I accept your sourcing feedback and have explained how and why the source I provided is valid, but you did not address the additional sources, not in the edits but in my original message here, to which I referred that include information about Klein and his political identity and perspective. If not the original edits I made, then revised edits that take into account your feedback along with the sourcing I provided ought to be included in the Vox article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs24 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rs24: I know that this is going to seem like semantics, and that is because it is. But that source did not say that the site leans to the left. It says that their readers do. That is a completely different thing. If you want to say that their readership leans to the left, that would be what is supported by the source. Although that source is rather weak as all interviews are since they are primary sources and therefore not independent. Semantics matters a great deal on Wikipedia. How you say something is almost as important as what you mean. "Site" is not the same as "readers". Again, I recommend bringing this up on the talk page. --Majora (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Combined DNA Index System you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here for 7 knows, I know that pales in comparison to the time a lot of admins have been on, but I've made over 100 edits. So can I at least go through the nominating where I'm asked questions and such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Majora,

All photos used on this page are from the same Flickr photostream here. The "About" section of this photostream says the following:

"After requests by followers and media outlets, this selection of images have been released for use under the attribution/non-commercial creative commons license."

I'm new to Wikipedia so please let me know if I'm missing something obvious, but I don't understand why you have labelled these photos copyright violations when the artist himself has said they can be used under a CC license.

Could you explain your reasoning here? Thanks.

Throwbackthursdays (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Throwbackthursdays: Not all Creative Commons licenses are created equal. There are many of them that we do not accept because they are not "free enough". In order for a license to be acceptable it would have to allow anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). The non-commercial restriction on those images is the issue. There was one that was labelled as "All Rights Reserved" as well. That is the one I labelled as a copyright violation. The others I labelled for deletion under the WP:F3 criterion. Our sister project, Commons, has a nice list of Creative Commons licenses that we do accept. If you have any other questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: OK, that makes sense. Thank you so much for the clear explanation. I'm going to read about the different types of CC licenses then I'll try contacting the artist to see whether I can get permission to use these on the correct license. Thanks again. Throwbackthursdays (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information is dated and needs to be resorted and organized, especially the discography. I am not being compensated by Johnson, but I have written dozens of articles on him and have reached out to him regarding inspiration and sources. Any help you can provide me I would appreciate.

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupzip (talk • contribs) 02:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupzip: Quite a few things are wrong with what you are trying to do. Your conflict of interest aside what you are trying to put on that page is pure, unambiguous, advertising. Wikipedia is not for promotional or advertising purposes. We don't care one bit what the artist or the label wants on their page. That isn't how Wikipedia works. We have specific policies on what is and what isn't appropriate. All material on all pages should be sourced to a published reliable source that has editorial oversight and a history of fact checking. You removed sourced content and inserted material without sources. That isn't acceptable.

In addition to your removal of sourced content, the content that you did add was incredibly promotional. It looks like it came straight out the PR rep's mouth. That isn't acceptable. If you want to learn how to properly use Wikipedia please take a look at the Tutorial. --Majora (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do PR for a living for USPS, so I guess that's how I write! I'll try to be a little less polished ! And the removed sourced material actually went some of my articles. However, I understand and will be more compliant in my edits. Can I at least reorder the Discography and link to their source? Rupzip (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)rupzip[reply]

@Rupzip: Provided there is a published reliable source that can be used to verify the content you want to add/reorder, please do. --Majora (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept this, Because a *❄️* can not prevent policy change--Persian-iran (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]