User talk:Majora

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

Thanks for being a helpful fellow Wikipedian and friend both on-wiki and on IRC. You'll need the coffee to keep you awake! JustBerry (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This photo does NOT have any copyright infringements. It was provided by the owner of the photo. The photo is readily available for everyone on the web and the photo has no copyright and does NOT require a license for usage. Please remove the tag for speedy deletion since this photo does not infringe on any copyright rules.Dove.Leesa (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dove.Leesa: As stated on the file talk page, just because a photo is online does not mean it isn't copyrighted. This is a common misconception. Every photo is copyrighted upon creation. That copyright is not voided by the author publishing it somewhere. That would be like saying, just because a book is published to the public that anyone can go and make as many copies of it as they want. Doesn't work like that. If you want to request that the photo be formally, legally, released under a license we can use please see WP:COPYREQ. At the current moment, that photo is a copyright violation. And it will be deleted. Sorry. --Majora (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Majora, although I understand your procedural decline over here, that begs the question of what the recommended alternative is. Mainspace currently has a photo which fails NPOV, and makes wikipedia not just look un-aesthetic, but well into intentionally-biased territory. We have a single libre-licensed alternative photo, which esWiki and simpleWiki currently make use of, but it is almost as bad in terms of failing to achieve any semblance of NPOV -- not merely un-aesthetic, but makes the biographical subject look bad, which the readership naturally interprets as bias on wikipedia's part. Is there really no option, besides either 1) waiting patiently additional months whilst 'accepting' the POV photo at the top of the BLP article, 2) physically travelling to the home or workplace of the multimillionaire in hopes of getting a libre-licensed photo taken, or 3) removing all photos from the article entirely and page-protecting the biography to prevent re-insertion? Because I don't really like any of those options. Which is not your fault of course, but perhaps you can advise on whether those really ARE the only three options that NFCCP effectively permits. Thanks, 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

	Merry Christmas Majora!!
	Hi Majora, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The 12 Days of Wikipedia On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me 12 BLPs 11 RFAs 10 New Users 9 Barn Stars 8 Admins Blocking 7 Socks Socking 6 Clerks Clerking 5. Check Users Checking 4 Over Sighters Hiding 3 GAs 2. Did You Knows and an ARB in a pear tree. -May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health. --Cameron11598

Hi Majora. I see that you have closed Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 7#File:Vodafone logo.png. While I am not disagreeing with your close, it think it would've been best to leave the close to an uninvolved editor/admin since you were a participant in the discussion. FFD discussions do not typically attract the same response from the community that you might find at some of the other XfD discussions. So, if three people comment and then one of them decides to close the discussion as a WP:SNOW, the close could end up being challenged per WP:BADNAC. Also, since you are not an admin, you should make that clear in your close as explained in WP:NACD. Personally, I think it would be best for you to re-open the discussion and leave it for someone else to close, but that's your call, not mine. It's a really bad habit to start closing discussions you have been involved in and you need to be extra special careful when doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: No, to all of that.

Long answer: My previous comment on that FFD was simply stating my intended actions which I followed through on. I was going to watch the DR at Commons and depending on the outcome of that I would close the FFD here accordingly. I did not "SNOW" close anything. I neither said I did that and actually invoking SNOW at FFD would be laughable at best. I closed it based on the DR outcome, my understanding of copyright law (which is pretty good if I do say so myself), and my understanding of our fair use policy (which is based on precedent at FFD). Undoing the close just to force another person to follow the breadcrumbs to Commons and back to reach the same conclusion is the definition of an unneeded bureaucracy and I won't do that. I won't force someone else to have to do that when the close was perfectly justified and in no way a "badnac". I would have taken the same actions if I stayed silent. Again, all my previous comment was was a statement of intended actions, and a courtesy that I didn't have to do, that you (or anyone else) could have objected to. If you believe it was in error or that the close was actually improper, you know where to take me. I also don't participate in any other XfD area so you don't have to worry about me screwing up a close somewhere else. Files and copyright are my thing and I intend to stay at FFD and assist in the enormous backlog. So I won't be voluntarily reopening anything. Sorry. As for marking myself with the {{nac}} template I won't be doing that either for two reasons. One, I find it absolutely pointless. An admin close and a non-admin close are no different from one another. Admins do not hold any special close power nor are their closes any more "correct". If someone wants to find out if the closer of a discussion is an admin there are numerous avenues to do so. Besides, everyone who visits FFD normally, and I can count them on one hand, would know who's who or be easily able to find out (again that is the only XfD I participate in). Secondly, the script that I use to cleanly and easily close FFD threads doesn't do that and I'm not going to go back and make a whole additional edit just to slap on a nac template that I find pointless to begin with. If you want to ask Evad37, the designer of the script, to make that change you are more than welcome to do so. --Majora (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reference to WP:SNOW was misleading so I apologize for that. It wasn't my intent to imply you that was your reason for closing the discussion, only that all the comments (including yours) were in favor of removing the files from all the child entry articles (which I'm not disagreeing with) which make it seem like a "snow" close. Moreover, whether you consider your comment a !vote or an opinion, you said you were going to remove the file for the other articles if the Commons file was deleted and then went and closed the discussion as such. In other words, you participated in trying to establish a consensus regarding the file's non-free use and then proceeded to interpret that consensus and close the discussion in support of your position.

As for the difference between admin and non-admin close, there must be more differences than you seem to think because if there weren't there would be really no need to differentiate between the two. It's great that you are helping to reduce the backlog at FFD by closing discussions, but there are plenty of discussion in which you have not commented where you can do that. In addition, the fact that script you're using does not automatically add the "NAC" template to the close does not in and of itself seem to be a good reason not the go back and add one yourself as suggested by WP:NACD. The discussion is not just for editors who regularly visit FFD, but for any editor who may want to use the file within an article and who may not be familiar with who is and who isn't an administrator. Just for reference, I asked Explicit for an opinion on this because he is an administrator who regularly closes FFD files and he also participated in the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of beating around the bush and bugging an admin who can't really do anything anyways just take me to AN if you really feel the close was improper. I'm not undoing it and I'm not going to start going back and adding a pointless template. --Majora (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I wouldn't have closed the discussion in Majora's position, I also don't see the point in reopening the discussion at this point. Majora, your view on the copyright status of the image does constitute as an opining on the discussion, so you should have refrained from closing it. There are very few administrators who work in the venue, but pinging them or leaving a message on their talk page would have sufficed. And per WP:NACD, you should be using the {{nac}} template in your closing rationales. — ξ^xplicit 06:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you hold the bureaucracy above transparency you become a failure as a wikipedian and you definitely become a failure as an administrator. When you harangue another person, not because the decision was against copyright law or the fair use policy (which would have actually been a large problem) but because they wanted to be transparent with their intended actions you become an embarrassment. And lets be honest here, it is about transparency. If I had said nothing, and did exactly the same thing without saying a single word we wouldn't be here. The bureaucratic bullshit that has shown its ugly head here is an excellent example of why people refuse to apply for advanced permissions. It simply isn't worth it. You got your wish. Close undone. Let someone else deal with it. Hopefully before July. --Majora (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that I have re-closed it. I'd also like to note that I don't see the point of raising an issue with a close when nobody disputes it. Disputing an action based on the letter of the rules, without disputing the action itself, seems to be what WP:BURO tries to prevent. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the temper tantrum is all about. I clearly said there is no point in reopening the discussion. It was more a suggestion of how to approach situations like this in the future. If I've failed as an administrator, I implore you to highlight my questionable judgement to a relevant discussion venue and persuade the community to have my rights stripped from me. I'll wait. — ξ^xplicit 00:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Failure is not the same as abuser. Your questionable judgement is the violation of NOTBURO. As you haven't abused your tools your bluff will not (and cannot) be called. Great job though. Just had to continue poking didn't you? Don't you have better things to do? --Majora (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

That's a very good idea, and simple to implement. After this BRFA, I'll look into ways to reduce false positives. Thanks! Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{(Talk to me)} 09:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes. Whoever thought to create those categories had a good idea. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Majora,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. -- Dane ^talk 02:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Happy New Year!

Majora,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

	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)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Please, review these Wiki links with an open mind and understand what we volunteers (I have been told by Wikipedia, that I have done over 10,000 edits, since starting in 2010). [1] [2] Chitt66 (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]