User talk:Hyuny Bunny

Thanks for uploading File:UKISS(2019).jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:UKISS(2019).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:UKISS(2019).jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.K., thanks for your additional advice: “Also don't forget: Two experienced editors have a different opinion from yours. Take this into advisement.”[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr.K.&action=history]

Please, I don't want to waste your time or mine. Is your statement a warning that no matter the outcome of the RfC, those two editors will continue to enforce their different opinion? I've read other editors/administrators write about a toxic culture at Wikipedia, but wanted to exercise good faith that the guidelines/policies/procedures can be enforced fairly.

If not, and you are also exercising good faith, please know that those two editors are welcome to participate in the RfC[1] and justify their different opinion (on the basis of precedent/common sense/guidelines/policies/communal consensus). They should be aware that the opinion on which they differ is not only mine but has also been expressed by three experienced editors who already participated in the RfC, as well as multiple experienced editors who documented their communal consensus in the guidelines and set precedents by editing/selecting featured/good articles.

If you are willing to abide by the outcome of the RfC, please advise on the specific timeframe and procedure that you want to use to close it.

Thanks again.

Hyuny Bunny (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hyuny Bunny. Let's start with an overview of RfC rules. An RfC has to run for 30 days. Your RfC has run for half that time. We've got a problem right there. After the RfC has run for 30 days, an uninvolved editor has to close it and determine consensus. Until that happens, the RfC result is indeterminate. As far as the two editors who disagree with you, as a general rule, if these editors are experienced, then there is more to the problem than meets the eye. I hope this helps. Dr. K. 04:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.K., please provide a source, as your overview of RfC rules doesn't match what's written on Wikipedia's information page about Closing Discussions [2], which states, "Some processes, especially deletion-oriented pages, have a specified minimum length, typically of 7 full days. Other processes, especially Requests for Comments (RFCs), have typical lengths but no mandatory minimum. It is unusual for anyone to request a formal closure by an uninvolved editor unless the discussion has been open for at least one week. ... Most conversations do not need to be closed. ... If the discussion stopped, and editors have already assessed the consensus and moved on with their work, then there may be no need to formally close the discussion". Hyuny Bunny (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:FANCAM U-KISS SCANDAL TOUR 2014 - LONDON.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]