PROFILPELAJAR.COM

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Marchjuly. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

WKAQ-TV

I do not understand why WKAQ-TV's logo was blanked out. That *is* WKAQ's logo and the station is not a "child entity" of Telemundo Puerto Rico (TV channel). That was the branding of a superstation feed of the station that folded years ago. It no longer exists. Whoever has been editing that page has been adding erroneous information. For these reasons, I'm restoring the logo. Kimmykun (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

ETA: The Telemundo Puerto Rico (TV channel) article shouldn't even be using the logo since by the time WKAQ debuted the logo, the superstation feed was long gone. I am therefore removing it from that article. Kimmykun (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. The article states that WKAQ "is a Telemundo owned-and-operated television station located in San Juan, Puerto Rico" so I mistakenly assumed that the it was a part of the Telemundo group of stations. Typically, the logo of a television station includes some specific reference to the station's call letters, but there's no indication in File:Telemundo Puerto Rico.png of any connection to WKAQ and there is no source provided for the image that can be used to verify whether such a connection exists. Non-free images need to be provided with a source so that the image and its copyright status can be verified. If you know where the image comes from, then please add that as the source. Otherwise, the image can be deleted. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I added the website where the image comes from (the station's site). Is that good enough? Kimmykun (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that should be sufficient. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

In response of the IP

Okay, while I heavily disagree with the edits you are making and hope that they do not stick, you are doing them in good faith and the reasons you bring are concrete. Also you say you are not the IP then I shall believe you. Sorry if what I said was off. Although I do find it odd you started with the articles you did for removing the logos while the IP did the top nations. Overall, I feel this is a move that needs to be agreed in WT:Football before being done... as in leave the logos for now until a consensus is made. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. For the record, while I think the IP's edits were correct and their subsequent reversion inappropriate, I was completely unaware of them until I saw your talk page post. In hindsight, my response to your post was perhaps more strongly worded than was needed. For the record, I do not wish to engage in edit warring even though I feel WP:NFC takes precedence here just as WP:BLP would take precedence if the discussion was about statements made about a living person. I also don't agree, however, that this is something for one particular Wikiproject to decide simply because WP:NFC is a community-wide content guideline. With that in mind, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Clarification requested regarding UUI#17 to see what the community as a whole has to say. Perhaps such a discussion will finally resolve this once and for all. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Marchjuly/Archives/2015. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

. Paul Austin (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If your question is Wikipedia related, please ask it here and I'll try and answer it as best as I can. If it concerns something else, please give me a general idea as to what it is about, OK? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I was going to ask you to take a look at my supernatural/fantasy story. I'm hoping to get it professionally published. It's based on Jennifer Adams' Medallion of Zulo universe - tgcom.wikia.com/wiki/Altered_Fates - with tweaks. Paul Austin (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, but to be honest I have no idea why you would consider me for something like that. I've never heard of Jennifer Adam's or her book and am not really a dedicated reader of that particular genre (I'm not much of a reader of any book these days). What or who lead you to me? Not offended in any way, just a little curious. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anita Padilla

The article Anita Padilla has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one.

I saw this post when I was on your page. I have edited and added to the article. I think it should be good now. At least I hope so!Jrptwins (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your edits. The article wasn't one that I created, but it was one that was watching. It had been "BLP prodded for deletion" and the notification was just added to my talk page as a courtesy by the editor who "prodded it". Articles are prodded because the nominator feels that the article is not problematic enough (i.e., a blantant violation of policy) to warrent immediate or speedy deletion; They feel, however, the article is problematic enough that if it were discussed at "Articles for Deletion", the eventual result would be deletion. So, it shortens the process by a single step when the final result is believed to be obvious. In this case, the article was a biography about a living person. BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must be provided with at least one source; Otherwise, they can be prodded for deletion. This was designed to make it easier to eliminate vanity pages, etc. created about non-notable people that are constantly being added to Wikipedia.

Any editor can remove a "prodded for deletion" tag from an article. Once a "prod" tag has been removed, it should not be added unless the removal was an obvious policy violation such as vandalism, etc. If others still believe the article should be deleted, then it is up to them to nominate it fo deletion using the AfD process. For reference, the prod tag for that particular article was removed by an editor named "Patchy1" with this edit. They found a source for use in the article which they believed was enough to remove that {{BLPPROD}} tag. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Conflict of interest editing

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

I left a message for you on my page. I think that this is how I am supposed to notify you. I hope I have done it correctly. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by jrptwins (talk • contribs) 02:24, 11 July 2015 UTC(+9)

The only (minor) mistake you made was adding the template markup to the subject line. If you look at Template:Talkback#Usage, you'll see an example of how to use the template. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Anita Padilla

I have edited and hopefully saved the page from deletion. I don't know how to remove the warning. Jrptwins (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I saw that. Every little bit helps because it's all of the incremental changes that editors such as yourself are making which help improve articles over the long run. Don't worry about removing the warning. It will be eventually archived. See #Proposed deletion of Anita Padilla above for more details.

- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

India national under-17 football team

Hello, Can you undo the page India national under-17 football team please. Someone one is writing and modifing correct things. Block him. Thank you. Alexiulian25 (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the message Alexiulian25. Does your disagreement with this other editor have to do with content or behavior? If someone made an edit (e.g., added or removed information) that you disagree with and that is not in accordance with a Wikipedia policy or guideline, then you may undo the edit yourself. Just make sure to explain why in your edit sum. A good idea is to reference the actual policy/guideline being violated, so that the other editor know why they were reverted. This can help avoid editing warring, three-reverts and other problems. If the other person simply re-adds the same information, then start a thread about it on the article's talk page. Disagreements over content (i.e., what should or shouldn't included in the article) should be discussed on the article's talk page and attempt made to establish a consensus. If the other editor is clearly wrong and you can explain why according to relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines, the other editors watching the page are most likely to agree with you.

If the problem has to do with the other editor's behavior (for example, they are vandalizing the article or being disruptive), then undo the edit and politely ask them to stop doing whatever they are doing in your edit sum and also possibly on their user talk page. Maybe they are a new editor and are not familiar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines, so just explain why their edits are causing problems. Remember to assume good faith and keep the discussion civil. Blocks are meant to be the last resort when all other attempts to reason with an editor have failed. Blocking another editor is a serious thing, and only administrators can issue a block. (I am not an administrator). If you've tried in good faith to resolve the situation (see WP:DR) and the other editor simply refuses to correct their behavior, then you can report them at WP:ANI. Make sure to carefully read the instructions on the ANI page before doing so though because reporting another editor for the wrong reasons is not considered acceptable. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay

Okay.... please do me a favor and get rid of the national team federation logos on national team pages of top teams. I really do find it weird that you just did it on pages where honestly not much patrolling would happen. What about the Brazil national football team or United States men's national soccer team. I mean, there was never even a completion to this whole thing and honestly I find it stupid. National teams are not cars, and federations are not car companies so the idea that the logo from of the federation is not the logo of the national team is stupid when it is... it literally is for India! And there other teams! Hell, just look up the logo of the India national team and you will get that logo... it is so painfully obvious. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi ArsenalFan700. The logo was re-added to the article, but you removed it yourself with this edit. I said I wasn't going to edit war with you and was only reverting back to the last stable version (i.e., your version) of the article before the IP edits, and an edit by an editor whose only edit was to re-add the image. That previous version did not include the logo.

As for the articles of other national federations, you can be bold and remove them if you come across any that you feel do not satisfy No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. You can also discuss their use at WP:NFCR. I will look at the two articles you mentioned and check if the logos are public domain or freely licensed. WP:NFC applies to all non-free images being used on Wikipedia. The car analogy I made might have not been the clearest example, but the point is that non-free images by definition are not freely licensed and, therefore, how they can be used on Wikipedia is limited. Their usage needs to satisfy all 10 of the WP:NFCCP and must not be one of the unacceptable uses listed under WP:NFC#Unacceptable use. If, in the cases of UUI#17, the "child entity" has it's own branding, then that should be used. If not, then the "parent logo" should not be used. It makes no difference whether it's a national sports federation or a privately owned company (like a private sports team). I have started a discussion about the use of this particular logo at WP:NFCR#File:India FA.svg. You're welcome to comment there if you like. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I don't even remember that edit. I made an edit to fix the national team kits but nothing else. As for the rest, honestly, my beef is not the fact that it was done, it is that the page looks different without the logo, in a bad way IMO, and honestly when the discussion started it seemed to me that there was never any proper consensus with regard to football teams from the community. How many participants were there and honestly the discussion lasted how long? I would have restarted it then but I am not familiar much with WP:NFC... well, I am, but not in a way I feel I would contribute. And honestly, I have spoken to AIFF officials and they say that the logo is for the national team as well as the federation and all "entities" (actual wording was "teams" associated with them). I know that is not in any way proper proof but that is what I have and a lot of links if you search "India national football team crest"... it is clear as day that that logo is also for the national teams. And these sources associate the logo as the national team logo and they are both reliable sources: [1] [2].

Meanwhile, even Nike represents the logo as the "symbol of the India national team" here officially. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I am sure the same can be said for other national federations as well regarding their logos being the same for all their national teams. The same could probably said for many corporations/organizations as well. Burger King restaurants worldwide probably all officially use File:Burger King Logo.svg or some form of it as their logo on their websites, advertising, printed materials, etc.; However, at least as No. 17 is currently worded, this does not automatically mean the "official" logo could be used in an article about a particular restaurant or subdivision of the company (if any existed). The company's logo cannot be used Whopper but File:Burger King Former Hebrew Logo.png can be used in Burger King Israel because that logo is specific to Israel.

I agree that logos and photos do look nice in articles, but that's not really what WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion are all about. An image may look nice, but is it really essential to the reader's understanding. Moreover, trying to compare how Nike uses logos and how Wikipedia use logos is not going to get very far because the goals and purposes of each are completely different. Wikipedia's goal is to be a free provider of content for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. I am not sure whether the same can be said for Nike, which is probably paying for the rights to use the logo.

Since you've have been in contact with the AIFF, perhaps you can ask them aware to grant permission for free use of the logo per WP:DONATEIMAGE. If they were to post something on their official website that the image can be used freely, such as in WP:CC BY-SA, then the image could be moved to Commons and used without any restrictions at all. They can also send an email, like shown WP:CONSENT, saying that they agree to freely license the image. The choice is theirs to make, but my feeling is that they will probably not want to do this because of the lost commercial opportunities it could bring. (For example, Nike could simply download the image from Wikipedia Commons and pretty much use it as they please without really compensating the AIFF in anyway.) That means we're stuck working within the WP:NFC if we want to use the image on Wikipedia.

Finally, there's nothing wrong with participating in a discussion about the image's non-free use status. As long as your posts are civil, nobody should give you a hard time. You don't have to be an expert on copyright law to comment. Just explain why you think the image should be OK to use and how Wikipedia policies or guidelines do or do not apply. The result might not be the one you hope for, but you can never be sure. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

35 Engineer Regiment Insignia

Could you please restore File:35 Engineer Regiment Insignia.jpg? I have just seen your talkpage message of 6 Jul 15 which gave me a few days to intervene in your deletion of this image. Unfortunately, I check Wikipedia infrequently; although I have not received an email with any similar warning on the account which I have registered. The image is owned, completely, by 35 Engineer Regiment. The image was registered as an official regimental insignia by the HQ of The Corps of the Royal Engineers in early 2012. I was the Regimental Second-in-Command from Jun 2012 until Jul 2014 and can vouch that it is a work of art used throughout the Unit and the Corps. Your help in correcting this deletion is greatly appreciated. --Christian Fortey (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the message Christian Fortey. I am not an administrator, so I cannot un-delete images. The image in question was deleted by an administrator named Diannaa because no source had been provided for the image (See WP:F4). If the image was uploaded as non-free, which I'm pretty sure it was, then information showing that the image has been previously published needs to be provided per WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion in order to help verify its copyright status. Since the image had no source, there was no way to verify its origin and in turn verify its copyright status. Administrators are usually pretty good at trying to save an image whenever they can and often will try and find sources for such images themselves before deleting them in order to try and avoid any mistakes. My guess is that in this particular case no such source could be found. If, however, you are able to provide the necessary information regarding any previous publication of the image (per WP:NFC#Sourcing) or provide a specific source, then its possible that the image might be undeleted. You should discuss this with Diannaa at User talk:Diannaa and explain why you feel the image should be deleted. If after this discussion you are still unsatisfied with the result, then you may request a deletion review, but it's important for you to discuss this with Diannaa first. I hope that helps. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

That's clear. Thank you very much. --Christian Fortey (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem Christian. I did tag the image with {{di-no source}}, but only after I tried to find the source for the image myself. the message I left on your talk page was just per the instructions written on the template. I don't believe the image is gone forever, so it is possible that it can be undeleted if you are able to clarify the image's copyright status. Good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)