User talk:Vajzë Blu/Archives/2024/April
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Vajzë Blu. 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. |
Non-free album covers
Non-free album cover art like File:English Teacher - This Could Be Texas.png is generally OK when it's used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of stand-alone article about the album the cover represent like This Could Be Texas, but album covers are pretty much never allowed to be used in other ways or in other articles as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. A WP:BOT would've removed (most likely today or tomorrow) per WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFCCE because you failed to provide a separate, specific non-free use rationale for the file's use in the band's article; however, there's no way to write a valid rationale for that type of free use anyway so I've removed the file instead. Please don't re-add it or any other non-free album covers to band's article. If the band wants their album covers to in the article, the band can release a version of their album covers under a free license acceptable to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and can be tricky to understand; so, mistakes are easy to make and in fact are expected. You, however, are really starting to make too many mistakes which isn't a good thing at all. I strongly suggest you seek assistance at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC before trying to upload any more non-free files or add already uploaded non-free files to Wikipedia articles because if you continue to make mistakes when it comes to relevant policv, an administrator may decide enough is enough and block your account. They are plenty of people at WP:MCQ at WT:NFCC who are happy to answer any questions you have about non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- You're simply trying to be helpful. I know that. But I am so frustrated!
- The second time I posted an image, it was removed at my request for my protection.
- If I do something here that seems to make sense and don't look up the rules, it stays. But every time I look up rules and try to follow them, I get a warning. The rules don't make sense. One of my instructors said Wikipedia rules don't make sense to him. And he writes for NBC. He said going by NBC's rules is much easier than trying to go by Wikipedia's. Vajzë Blu (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia and NBC are seperate entities with their own respective policies and guidelines. If you want to post something on an NBC website, you need to comply with NBC's policies and guidelines; similarly, if you want to post something on Wikipedia, you need to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Trying to compare to two may make for some interesting discussion between you and your instructor, but it's completely irrelevant as to why the files you've uploaded have been deleted. Plenty of other Wikipedia users have been able to upload files over the years in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies. So, the policies not making any sense to you or your instructor could possibly be more of a reflection on the two of you than on the policies themselves. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- My instructor said it's because NBC is done by professionals and Wikipedia is done by amateurs. He said professional journalists have to do things right now on deadline so things have to be done fast. Amateurs can take their time. But he also said the government is done by professionals and that can take forever. :) Vajzë Blu (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- While your instructor is correct that Wikipedia, unlike NBC, is a 100% collaborative editing project where everyone is a volunteer, he seems either misinformed or uninformed if the thinks that being a volunteer automatically makes one inferior to someone who is getting paid. There are some highly educated professional persons volunteering their time to contribute content or otherwise maintain Wikipedia; the fact that their not getting paid for their efforts doesn't mean the quality of their work is automatically poor any more than one being paid to work as a journalist automatically means the quality of their work is good. But all of that is besides the point and isn't really relevant to why the files you uploaded ended up deleted. Like pretty much everything else, Wikipedia has rules and users need to comply with those rules if they want to be considered a good-standing member of the Wikipedia community. Moreover, like pretty much everything else, Wikipedia has a learning curve, and it takes time to get use to. Nobody's obligated to contribute to Wikipedia, but nobody's guaranteed the right to contribute to Wikipedia. Mistakes are OK to make and good-faith will be assumued, especially for new users; at some point, though, everyone stops being a newbie and the Wikipedia community starts to expect more (i.e. that we edit according to relevant policies and guidelines). Those who are able to figure out how to do this usually have no or very few problems editing; those who can't or are unwilling to figure things out, usually don't last very long and find themselves having problems all of the time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- My instructor said it's because NBC is done by professionals and Wikipedia is done by amateurs. He said professional journalists have to do things right now on deadline so things have to be done fast. Amateurs can take their time. But he also said the government is done by professionals and that can take forever. :) Vajzë Blu (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia and NBC are seperate entities with their own respective policies and guidelines. If you want to post something on an NBC website, you need to comply with NBC's policies and guidelines; similarly, if you want to post something on Wikipedia, you need to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Trying to compare to two may make for some interesting discussion between you and your instructor, but it's completely irrelevant as to why the files you've uploaded have been deleted. Plenty of other Wikipedia users have been able to upload files over the years in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies. So, the policies not making any sense to you or your instructor could possibly be more of a reflection on the two of you than on the policies themselves. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Screenshots and copyright
You archived your user talk page after you last post regarding screenshots; so, I'll respond here. I suggest you take a look at c:COM;SCREENSHOT and c:COM:2D copying because creating a screenshot of someone else's copyrighted work is in almost all cases considered to be nothing more than a slavish (i.e. mechanical) reproduction that is insufficient in creative input to generate a new copyright for the screenshot creator. The only copyright that exists is for the original source material and the only copyright holder is the original content creator. This is essentially no different from going down to your local library, taking a book off one of the shelves, and photocopying a few pages from the book. You may physically possess the copies you made (especially if you paid for them), but photocopying the pages of the book is not sufficient to generate any new copyright for those particular pages, and there's no transfer of copyright from the book's author/publisher to you just for those particular pages. In some cases, you might incorporate someone else's copyright content into your own WP:Derivative work, and thus indeed establish a new copyright for that derivative work. Even then though, the copyright of the content you incorporate is still in force and needs to be considered. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Here's links that show I had the right to use my altered screenshot as fair use with permission of the band. Probably even without permission, but I got permission which Wikipedia admins saw. They said I should think about taking down the link with the image because it shows personal information about me and I want to keep privacy which is why they deleted it for me:
- I'll check with my instructor who writes for NBC and see what they say. Vajzë Blu (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The non-free screenshot you uploaded wasn't deleted because it violated US copyright law; it was deleted because it violated Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is largely based on US copyright law, but it also places other restrictions on using such content that are unique to Wikipedia. The websites you linked to above provide you with general information regarding the copyright status of screenshots, but (once again) it's Wikipedia's policy that matters. You can ask your instructor who writes for NBC about this all you want, but that probably only matters if you want to post content on one of NBC websites; otherwise, what NBC allows isn't really relevant to what Wikipedia allows. Finally, as I've posted before (this time I'll add bold for emphasis), copyright holder consent doesn't matter when it comes to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The fact that the band gave you permission to create a screenshot is great for you, but it matters not when it comes to non-free content use on Wikipedia. The only time copyright holder consent really matters is when the copyright holder wants to release their creative work under a free license that Wikipedia accepts. Is that what the band wants to do? If it is, then the band should have its representative send a WP:CONSENT email to Wikimedia VRT to verify the band's intent. If the band doesn't want to email VRT, then their options are limited: it can either (1) change the licensing of the YouTube video itself to an acceptable free license (YouTube's standard licensing is too restrictive for Wikipedia) or (2) post the screenshot on its official website or one of its social media accounts and clearly state that it is releasing the file under an acceptable free license. Ideally the band or its official representation should be the one posting the image and the statement should clearly state the license the band wants to use. Just saying something like "Fine. You have permission to do what you want." or "You have permission to use this on Wikipedia" is too vague for Wikipedia's purposes. Something like "I/We the copyright holder of this image agree to release under a XXXX license and agree to allow others to freely re-use this image as long as they comply with the terms of the XXXX license." or something like that should work fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- You are very sweet doing all this extra work to help me. If you ever apply to become a Wikipedia administration let me know and I will definitely support you! :) Vajzë Blu (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I sent a message to the band. :) Vajzë Blu (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- The non-free screenshot you uploaded wasn't deleted because it violated US copyright law; it was deleted because it violated Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is largely based on US copyright law, but it also places other restrictions on using such content that are unique to Wikipedia. The websites you linked to above provide you with general information regarding the copyright status of screenshots, but (once again) it's Wikipedia's policy that matters. You can ask your instructor who writes for NBC about this all you want, but that probably only matters if you want to post content on one of NBC websites; otherwise, what NBC allows isn't really relevant to what Wikipedia allows. Finally, as I've posted before (this time I'll add bold for emphasis), copyright holder consent doesn't matter when it comes to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The fact that the band gave you permission to create a screenshot is great for you, but it matters not when it comes to non-free content use on Wikipedia. The only time copyright holder consent really matters is when the copyright holder wants to release their creative work under a free license that Wikipedia accepts. Is that what the band wants to do? If it is, then the band should have its representative send a WP:CONSENT email to Wikimedia VRT to verify the band's intent. If the band doesn't want to email VRT, then their options are limited: it can either (1) change the licensing of the YouTube video itself to an acceptable free license (YouTube's standard licensing is too restrictive for Wikipedia) or (2) post the screenshot on its official website or one of its social media accounts and clearly state that it is releasing the file under an acceptable free license. Ideally the band or its official representation should be the one posting the image and the statement should clearly state the license the band wants to use. Just saying something like "Fine. You have permission to do what you want." or "You have permission to use this on Wikipedia" is too vague for Wikipedia's purposes. Something like "I/We the copyright holder of this image agree to release under a XXXX license and agree to allow others to freely re-use this image as long as they comply with the terms of the XXXX license." or something like that should work fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Archiving your talk page
You can archive your user talk page if you want, but the way you tried to do so was incorrect. This is why an adminmistrator named Liz deleted you're archive page. You can look at WP:TALKARCHIVE for more details, but you might want to ask Liz to restore your archived talk page back to it's original title and then make this one your archived page. You can move the new posts I made above back to your old talk page or you can delete them. Liz should know how to do that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I did look up rules for archiving a talk page. And I did what it said. But that was a different set of rules than are at Help:Archiving_a_talk_page Wikipedia has a bunch of rules spread out all over! Vajzë Blu (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry I believe you're doing a lot to help me. Thanks. :) Vajzë Blu (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The problem with the way you tried to archive your talk page was (I believe) that you did it backwards. You tried to WP:MOVE your primary talk page to a new subpage in your user talk namespace and then create a "new" talk page to replace it. Things would've probably worked better if you left your primary talk page as is, and then created a new subpage in your user talk namespace for archiving purposes. Wikipedia's general licensing requires that all content on all pages be properly attributed to those editing the page. If you look at any page's history, you will see a list of all the edits made to the page since the page was created, which accounts made them and when they were made. This page history provides the attribution that Wikipedia's licenising requires. When you moved your user talk page, it looks like created a situation where the chain of attribution was broken and no longer reflected in the page's history.I don't know which page you were using as guidance when you moved your user talk page, but the page is probably wrong if that's what it suggested you do. If the page is incorrect, you should go to its corresponding talk page and post something about it being incorrect so that others can fix the page if needed.There are many ways to archive a user talk page. The most basic is probably to simply create a new subpage in your user talk namespace (e.g.
User talk:Vajzë_Blu/(Archive page name here)) and then simply copy-and paste content from your primary talk page onto your archive page as you like; just make sure you leave appropriate edit summaries for your edit removing content from your parimary talk page and your edit for adding content to your archived talk page. For reference, some people archive monthly, some people archive yearly and some people archive after their primary talk page has reached a certain threshold of discussion threads; there are even others don't archive at all. If you still want to archive, ask for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk; just explain what type of archiving you want to do, and someone will help you out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)- On archiving a talkpage, I recommend the Help:Archiving (plain and simple) method. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you! :) Vajzë Blu (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- The problem with the way you tried to archive your talk page was (I believe) that you did it backwards. You tried to WP:MOVE your primary talk page to a new subpage in your user talk namespace and then create a "new" talk page to replace it. Things would've probably worked better if you left your primary talk page as is, and then created a new subpage in your user talk namespace for archiving purposes. Wikipedia's general licensing requires that all content on all pages be properly attributed to those editing the page. If you look at any page's history, you will see a list of all the edits made to the page since the page was created, which accounts made them and when they were made. This page history provides the attribution that Wikipedia's licenising requires. When you moved your user talk page, it looks like created a situation where the chain of attribution was broken and no longer reflected in the page's history.I don't know which page you were using as guidance when you moved your user talk page, but the page is probably wrong if that's what it suggested you do. If the page is incorrect, you should go to its corresponding talk page and post something about it being incorrect so that others can fix the page if needed.There are many ways to archive a user talk page. The most basic is probably to simply create a new subpage in your user talk namespace (e.g.