User talk:Marchjuly

You’ve been awarded ‘The Fundamental Wikipedian’!

79.21.5.205 has gifted you The Fundamental Wikipedian! Copies of The Fundamental Wikipedian promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Gifting of TFW indicates the gifter would like to express apology regarding a recent dispute with you in which they were ultimately incorrect. Explanation: What is WikiLove?

Want to extend the kind gesture of The Fundamental Wikipedian? Just add {{subst:Fundamental Wikipedian}} to a user's talk page!

WP:NFC#UUI17

Hello. You seem to be the user that most frequently applied #UUI17 to remove child entities showing logos of the main organization. I've myself done the same now but it seems I have a hard time convincing other users that a non-free logo can't be used in 6 articles so I've been forced to do some wikiresearch into how UUI17 has been applied and it would seem you've been a frequent participator. I found Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#Application of WP:NFC#UUI #17 and that discussion should have set some kind of precedent but did it lead anywhere? I see that some user(s) suggested a Rfc be made but did it? #UUI17 seems to be unchanged since its implementation back in 2014. Jonteemil (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

UUI17 was added to the guideline and was applied by others before I came along, so I'm not sure who is the one to most have most frequently applied it. I guess the administrators who ended up closing discussions related to it should actually be considered to ones to have applied it because its their closes and assessments of discussions that ultimately decided whether a particular non-free use was policy compliant. Closes, however, are subject to review and consensus can change over time, which means that something decided in the past isn't necessarily written in stone. As the Wikipedia community changes over time, so can its assessments of what's acceptable with respect to non-free content use over. I haven't seen any recent discussions of UUI17 at WT:NFCC, but I don't think any of the previous ones ended up leading to a clear agreement regarding "parent entities" and "child entities" to the extent that a strong precedent was established requiring a strong community response to undo it. Same goes for any past RFCs about UUI17. You can start another one if you like, but it seems likely to end the same in that the status quo is to continue to discuss individual non-free uses on a case-by-case basis and see what the community thinks with respect to that use. Those individual discussions, in turn, can be revisited at a later time to see whether the community feels the same way.

Finally, while it's OK to provide links to previous discussions that might provide some overview for reference purposes as to why a particular file has ended up being discussed, I don't think you should be cherry-picking quotes from those discussion and adding them to these new FFDs. Doing so runs the risk of things being taken out of context, and also might be indirectly seen as a an indirect attempt at canvassing by some (some people feel pinging others into such discussions can be a form of canvassing). It's also possible the the other users you're quoting might see it as indirect attempt to try shoehorn them into a discussion that they have no desire, for whatever reason, in joining. Nobody at Wikipedia is an expert per se and no one person's opinion and interpretation of policy, in principle, should carry more weight than anyone else's. So, when you namedrop and quote others in discussions like you've done, you're kind of making it seem as if you're appealing to some higher authority that others need to defer to by making it seem as if those you quote are casting an indirect !vote in the discussion using you as their proxy. Doing such a thing might turn off some of the others participating in the current discussion because it could make them feel that their opinions matter don't really matter or perhaps don't matter as much as something someone posted years ago. When you start a Wikipedia discussion about anything, you have to be willing to abide by whatever consensus ends up being established for that discussion, even if it that consensus turns out to be completely wrong in your opinion. The best you can is explain your position in terms of how you think a relevant policy or guideline should be applied, and leave it up to consensus to determine whether that should be the case. If the consensus turns out to be something different than you hoped for, you can request a review but eventually you're just going to have to move on one way or the other. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your broad answer. I've actually never known about the concept of WP:Canvassing before so thanks for letting me know of that. you have to be willing to abide by whatever consensus ends up being established for that discussion, even if it that consensus turns out to be completely wrong in your opinion Of course you are correct however how do you convince people who don't know about #UUI17 and it's prior application without canvassing? This seems to be my problem. If I argue with 100 flatearthers that the Earth is flat, then of course the consensus by number would say that the Earth is flat, however I still wouldn't accept the consensus and would probably go mad :).

Also I wouldn't call my linking to prior UUI17 FFDs as cherrypicking since I pretty much linked all FFDs relating to UUI17, all I could find anyway. If I would've only linked the FFDs that resulted in the same result as requested per my rationale and didn't link the FFDs that didn't then I would call it cherrypicking. It would seem there hasn't been many, if any at all, FFDs related to UUI17 that hasn't gone on the nominator's rationale.

I guess the administrators who ended up closing discussions related to it should actually be considered to ones to have applied it. This one I think I have to disagree with. Since FFDs almost always ends up being closed per consensus, regardless of what the closing admin thinks, it would be incorrect to consider the admins to have applied #UUI17. Or am I wrong? Jonteemil (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

By "cherry-picking", I was referring to you taking bits of comments made in prior discussions related in UUI17 and quoting them in some of the recent FFDs you've started. You did this with respect to me and another user named Hammesoft in a comment you made in one of those FFDs, which somehow makes it seems as if both Hammersoft and myself are participants in that discussion. If you want to link to old FFDs to help explain why you feel a particular non-free use is non-compliant, then that's fine; those who are interested can read those discussion and see all the comments that were made within the context they were made. Picking out bits and pieces of those discussions and somehow implying that they should provide some sort of authoritative opinion that needs to be considered is not appropriate and isn't something you should be doing in my opinion. As for closong discussions, it is true that administrators should only considered whether a consensus has been established in terms of relevant policy and guidelines, and they shouldn't be making a WP:SUPERVOTE when closing discussions. However, the ultimate application of the policy as determined by whatever consensus is established is made by administrators. That's at least the way I look at such things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I see. I guess I was just trying to seek aid from other users who might explain it better than myself. Consensus shouldn't be affected by who participate in the discussion, rather it should be affected by the policy. For example, it would seem as you and Hammersoft have participated in a dozen UUI17 FFDs, and all have resulted pretty much with the removal of a logo from all but one or two pages. Now, you aren't participating, and the consensus rather seem to be that for example File:Czech Republic national football team logo.svg may be used on 8(!) pages. And if I ask some of you for assistance, I might be accused of canvassing?😅 It seems like bit of a lose-lose situation.

To quote myself from my last comment: how do you convince people who don't know about #UUI17 and it's prior application without canvassing? This seems to be my problem. If I argue with 100 flatearthers that the Earth is flat, then of course the consensus by number would say that the Earth is flat, however I still wouldn't accept the consensus and would probably go mad :). Jonteemil (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking for from me here. Even something which should be pretty non-contentious such as WP:FREER is open to different interpretations and often challenged by those who find it too restrictive. Disagreements of image policy and interpretation of that policy are always taking place not only on Wikipedia, but also on Commons where policies tend to be more clear cut. The best you can do is make your case as you think the policy should be applied and hope you do so well enough to convince others. It's not really about winning or losing per se, at least in my opinion. You should be careful though about personally seeking input from individual users unless you're also doing so for others who were involved in past discussion who might feel differently from you regarding UUI17. Such contact could be seen as inappropriate canvassing. A safer approach of trying to generate more interest in such discussion is probably to use {{Please see}} notifications on more general noticeboards which might somehow interested in such discussion, of the talk pages of relevant policy/guideline pages or WikiProject pages. This at least makes it seem as if you're not intentionally seeking out individual users who might support your position. This is another reason why (at least in my opinion) it's not wise to selectively ping/mention other users when discussing things like this or repost comments they might've made in other disccussions; it makes it seem as if you're trying to give their comments undue weight or that you're trying to call in reinforcements to help you win the day. Such an approach is something lots of users have a problem with and consider to be a violation of WP:INAPPNOTE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Fakorede19 (20:32, 29 August 2023)

Hello, My name is Joshua Adeleye from Nigeria. Lovely to see you as my Mentor. Looking forward to learning more from you. --Fakorede19 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Logo removal

Hi, why did you remove the logo File:Sony Channel logo.png from the page Great! TV? in That logo page it's written that this logo can be used on this page, because it is written "Non-free media rationale for Sony Channel (British and Irish TV channel)". Just read the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sony_Channel_logo.png 79.21.5.205 (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That logo is approved for use in two specific articles only, and Great! TV is not one of them. Cullen328 (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. Thanks for responding. Just to clarify, though, a non-free use rationale can be added to a file's page by anyone at anytime. There's no formal approval process that a rationale needs to go through; so, they're not really approved in per se. They may be discussed after the fact and a consensus established that the use is OK, however. In this case, there is a rationale, but it's for the way the file was being previously being used when the article was titled "Sony Channel (British and Irish TV channel)" before it was moved to Great! TV in May 2021. The prior use of the file might've been OK, but it's subsequent use in the "new" article was not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

thank you 79.21.5.205 (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP 79.21.5.205. Did you read the edit summary I left when removing the logo? It contained links to pages which explain why the logo was removed. While it may be true that the logo had a non-free use rationale for that article, just having such rationale doesn't make a non-free use compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE. A non-free use needs to satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria for it to be valid; failing even one of the criteria means the file is subject to removal. Did you read the rationale provided for that particular use on the file's page? Do you think that rationale accurately reflects the way the file was being used? I didn't remove the file because of WP:NFCC#10c. Since the article parameter for the rationale redirects to the "Great! TV", there is a rationale provided so to speak. I removed the file because it was being used in a WP:DECORATIVE manner in an image gallery which is something that's not allowed for non-free content. If you disagree with this assessment and feel further discussion is needed, you can ask for input informally at WP:MCQ or WT:NFC, or formally at WP:FFD. If there was some simple way to fix the rationale or the file's use, I would've done so. I generally only remove non-free files when it seems clear that there way they're being used isn't policy compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)