Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:32, 2 July 2014

Archives

Archive 1: Pre-2007 - April 2012 Archive 2: April 2012 - September 2013 Archive 3: September 2013 - November 2013 Archive 4: November 2013 - March 2014 Archive 5: March 2014 - March 2014 Archive 6: March 2014 - May 2014 Archive 7: May 2014 - Present

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Deletion of As Ira in Romancing the Stone (1984).jpg

Hi TLSuda. I just signed into Misplaced Pages for the first time in a while, noticed that you had deleted a photo file I had uploaded onto an article I wrote about actor Zack Norman, and saw this message: 00:43, 3 June 2014 TLSuda (talk | contribs) deleted page File:As Ira in Romancing the Stone (1984).jpg (F7: Violates non-free content criterion #1). However, I believe this deletion was made in error, as there is no free equivalent with which the photo can be replaced, and therefore the photo does in fact fall within the first non-free content criterion. I realize the image is owned by 20th Century Fox (it is in fact an official studio publicity still) and shows my subject in character as Ira in their feature Romancing the Stone, but that is precisely the point of including this particular photograph: to show Mr. Norman as he is most easily recognized by the public, which is as this particular character in this particular film. Of course I could replace the image with a photo of Mr. Norman as he looks in everyday life, but that would defeat the purpose. There, I would like to request that you please reconsider and reinstate the file as it was prior to your deletion. Thank you so much! Best regards, Matzohboy (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Matzohboy. The image does fail WP:NFCC#1 for the exact reason that you specify, it could be replaced by a free photo of the actor. It was used in the infobox purely for identification. Any photo could identify the actor. There very well may be certain photos that would identify him more specifically, but it is still replaceable. For instance, in my mind this photo (non-free) is what I first think of when I see Bill Gates, and yet we have to have a free image of him instead. It still identifies him either way.

The second thing to note is every non-free file has to meet ALL of the criteria of WP:NFCC. In this case the image failed WP:NFCC#1 (as discussed above, and WP:NFCC#8 as it was not the subject of critical commentary. The exact image/scene would have needed to be discussed in the article with attribution of third-party reliable sources. Even then the image would not be able to be used for identification.

I hope that clears things up a bit. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi TLSuda! Thank you so much for clearing that up. I fully understand now, and have replaced the image with an original photo. Thanks again for the help, it is much appreciated! Matzohboy (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Doctor Balli.jpg

You closed the non-free content review of File:Doctor Balli.jpg with the explanation "Image is being used within policy." Could you please elaborate on how you reached that conclusion? --Holdek (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the FUR was updated with more specific information, therefore meeting the requirements that Misplaced Pages sets for non-free files. So the file meets the requirements of WP:NFCC and WP:NFC and United States Copyright law under fair-use doctrines. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It fails NFCC# 2 because, per the FUR, El Sol de México Monterrey Newspaper claims the image, contradicting the FUR. --Holdek (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that you have now removed this information from the FUR. On what basis have you deduced that El Sol de México Monterrey Newspaper does not actually claim authorship or copyright? --Holdek (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The uploader says it came from "Internet" and listed that newspaper as the source. That newspaper does not have a website. They do have a Facebook page, which I reached out to, and the owners don't seem to know anything about the photo. I've reached out to the newspaper, but no response since this situation started. Since we cannot yet verify the listed source as the newspaper, but we can verify the other web sources (pre-upload dates). As soon as I get a response back, I will let you know. If the response back is that the photo originally came from the newspaper, I will delete the image immediately. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I just didn't know that was going on behind the scenes. Thanks for reaching out to them. --Holdek (talk) 06:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I should've said something sooner, but I was hoping for a response by now. I've requested a response in both English, and through Spanish (using a translator). Thanks for your patience. TLSuda (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries. --Holdek (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion of this file

Can I please ask why you deleted it, especially when it was uploaded with the consent of the owners with their contact info provided for confirmation?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

In this instance, you listed the file as non-free, meaning that there was not permission to release the image under a specific license. As a non-free file, it could be replaced by a freely created version of the device (therefore failing WP:NFCC#1). You were given instructions on your talkpage on 13 June 2014, about how to contest whether or not it was replaceable.

However, based on the text of the description page, and on your comment here, you claim to have permission to use the image. If you have permission to use the image under a free license, then it could've been kept with evidence of permission It is up to the uploader to provide evidence of permission. Listing an email address is not evidence of permission, and is frankly a little disrespectful to the privacy of the copyright holder. You were also given instructions on how to have the copyright holder provide this evidence of permission, which has failed to happen.

Basically, either the copyright holder has not released the file under a free license, in which case we cannot host it, or the copyright holder has, but no one has provided evidence of permission through the proper process. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Side note: The same process is about to happen with File:Juno 100 robot.jpg. TLSuda (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Juno 100 robot can be deleted as it's size and angle are not suitable for the article. However I must strongly disagree with you on the issue. If had plastered their email address all over wikipedia as opposed to simply adding it in the permission form, which I did, only then I'd be disrespecting their privacy, which is clearly not the case. And your suggestion to share a private email exchange without consent is clearly not a respect of their privacy. If I uploaded it under the wrong description, then I offer to correct that mistake if you undelete the file. Only thing was I was informed only about 29 minutes before the file was deleted. If I offered contact for confirmation, I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I didn't obtain their consent. I'll re-fill the form with the right info as mentioned. Problem is I spend only a certain amount of time on wiki per day. Regards--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• You are completely misunderstanding me. 1) By posting their email address online anywhere, anyone can sell that to spammers, or spam it themselves. If you did that to my email address, I would be very upset. That's why I think that is disrespectful. 2) I'm not asking you to forward a private/personal email. I'm telling you that you have to have the copyright holder send an email with permission. If they send the email to you, you can forward it for them. 3) You cannot upload a photo that you did not create without the copyright holder submitting a statement of permission (usually through the process with WP:CONSENT). If someone else owns the copyright to the image, they have to submit this statement of permission to WP:OTRS. The other alternative is unless they've can explicitly released the image under a specific free license on a website (such as their official website, or Flickr). If you re-upload the image without having permission supplied, it will be re-deleted. If you have them submit permission, I will personally restore the image, but we need permission under a free license. TLSuda (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• I can understand if I posted it all over but I wouldn't do that. I'd also hesitate to post private messages even if it's only restricted to the form because somebody has to read the form. Since my best option is correctly filling the form I'll opt for that.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• We will have to agree to disagree on posting the email address. Once again, the best and only option is for the copyright holder to follow the instructions at WP:Consent. Cheers, and good luck. TLSuda (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2014 June 16#File:Elliot Rodger Screenshot From Youtube Video.jpg

I disagree with your decision to delete this file; you weren't very specific in your reasons for doing so. I believe the image is integral to the encyclopedia; since the subject is dead, no possible replacement is available. I disagree with the nominator's opinion that it fails WP:NFCC#8 for the same reasons stated by the uploader (there is no separate article on the subject); since I can't see the description of the file, I can't dispute the WP:NFCC#10a "failure", but the uploader did comment that all available information was in the description. Further, the uploader, Tutelary, voted "Keep"; another editor, Mandruss, did not formally enter a "Keep" vote, but did contribute to the discussion with information and a reduction in image resolution in an effort to prevent the file's deletion. I'm not sure how you concluded that consensus was to delete. More information, please? Thanks.—D'Ranged 1 VT 02:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

When admins interpret consensus it is not simply a "vote," rather it is an interpretation of consensus based on policy and the validity of the arguments. In this case, we have to follow the policy of WP:NFCC which applies to all non-free media. We generally have an unofficial policy that allows for non-free files to be used for identification purposes of deceases individuals, but only when there is a separate article. For WP:NFCC to be satisfied, there absolutely has to be sourced third-party critical commentary about the image. There is no discussion about the image that warrants needing the photo. "...and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This is specifically talking about the text itself. Can you understand the article about the murder and killer, etc, without seeing the photo of the killer? Yes absolutely. There are many articles about the murder in newspapers and online that do not include a photo at all, and yet the information is understood. I hope that helps clarify. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I still feel that WP:NFCC#8 is too rigid; yes, the article is understandable without the photo, but that understanding is, in my opinion significantly increased by inclusion of the photo. Inclusion of the photo negates the necessity of reading about the description of the perpetrator's physical appearance, for example. My understanding is that the image was included in the infobox about the perpetrator; surely that increases understanding about the perpetrator? I think this might be an instance where WP:IAR-abg is quite applicable. It just makes common sense to include an image in the article; it is highly unlikely that its copyright will ever be challenged because of fair use principles. Nothing personal, but I think both you and the nominator are "picking nits". The outcome fails to meet the requirements for a deletion review, however, so your decision will stand. Thanks!—D'Ranged 1 VT 20:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The thing about WP:NFCC#8 is that it has two parts, the first part it meets "used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" but the second part it does not "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Nothing about the photo is discussed in the article. No sourced description of the killer, (which probably would not be notable), nor is there any content about why we need to see the killer. It was purely used for an identification purpose. If it had been in the article for any other reason, I might agree with you about it being necessary. But, it has been my experience that few articles with images of killers like this, survive with keeping the image. If there were an article about the killer, an image used for identification would be more appropriate. But the killer would have to independently pass WP:N, to have a separate article. With respect to WP:IAR it generally does not apply to matters of copyright or BLP situations because these have legal ramifications. Also, fair use law and Misplaced Pages policy are completely different and we are much stricter. This is due to our mission to promote free content. That brings me to, of course, one last option. If you can get the copyright holder of the image to release it under a free license, then this would not even be a situation. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

NFCR at ANRFC

Would you mind if I combined the three NFCR request on ANRFC into a single section? Cheers, Armbrust 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course I would not mind. You can always combine sections from NFCR. BTW thank you for your work in clerking ANRFC and keeping it cleaned up. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.  Done. Armbrust 14:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Bleed It Out - Linkin Park.ogg

Why did you remove the {{di-missing article links}} template without addressing the problem? There is still no separate fair use rationale for each article as the single fair use rationale mentions multiple articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Mainly because I wasn't paying attention. It is done now. TLSuda (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday

Can you please provide a link to the talk page discussion that you believe justified the (highly impactful) move of Yesterday? It is not on Talk:Yesterday, and I don't where to look for it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• @R'n'B: You can find the discussion here: Talk:Yesterday (Beatles song)#Move request (June 2014) — Jaydiem (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Jaydiem for posting the link. Also @R'n'B:, you undid my addition to Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation pages with links#To do, which I made per the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Moves_of_disambiguation_pages_to_primary_topic_titles. If I didn't post that to the correct place, could you please point me in the correct direction? And also, update that guideline to point administrators to the correct listing place? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know how that got in the guideline, but I've removed it as it was not good advice. There really is no need to list a moved page manually, since it will appear automatically on within 12-24 hours, unless all the links have been fixed in the meantime (as those to Yesterday have been). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move: Yesterday → Yesterday (Beatles song)

Greetings. I see that you closed the discussion of Talk:Yesterday (Beatles song)#Move request (June 2014) a few hours ago, with the conclusion to effect the move from Yesterday. While I don't object to the result, I would submit that the closure may have been premature, there being insufficient demonstration of consensus. I also feel that the summary of the discussion could be improved, particularly in that it frames the debate entirely in terms of whether or not the article was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term Yesterday. I presented very carefully documented evidence and reasoning that the article was indeed the primary topic, but nevertheless expressed modest support for the move for reasons unrelated to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; I also presented a compromise proposal to effect the proposed move while leaving Yesterday as a redirect to the moved article, in respect of the strong empirical evidence that it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as that editing policy is presently defined. Yet none of this is noted in the discussion summary. ~ Respectfully yours — Jaydiem (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I came here to make a similar request. While I like the song and opposed the change, my goal was primarily to make sure the discussion was clear. I used to be a big DAB page contributor and have thought through a lot of these arguments and would like the reasonable interpretation Jaydiem provides included in the history. Failing that, I hope he will append it to the page. Thanks for contributions both! --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

5 days ago at WP:ANRFC a request was made for closure of the move (now archived here). When I read through the discussion, three times as I do, I felt there was sufficient consensus to close. I also independently read the previous move discussion, and I felt that that discussion had a difference consensus than the close, so I tried to be extra careful.

• The first of the three primary guidelines that appear at the top of WP:ANRFC states: "The default length of a formal request for closure is 30 days; if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion." However, as you say, you executed the RFC a mere five days after it was posted. I have difficulty seeing how the discussion had reached a natural conclusion that was "clear"—much less "very obvious"—at the time of your closure. While I don't doubt that you acted in good faith, it appears to me that the quickness of your closure was greatly in excess of what is called for by the WP:ANRFC guideline, and did not allow sufficient time for the discussion to develop further consensus organically. — Jaydiem (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The root discussion was primarily about the interpretation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in relation to Yesterday. I felt this was an editorial based discussion as opposed to a guideline application or policy-backed discussion. As such, I weighed all of the discussion and everyone's opinions, and came to the conclusion that there was consensus to make the move.

• I agree that most of the discussion up until the time of your closure concerned whether the subject article was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term "Yesterday". If such a discussion is not about "guideline application", however, then I can't imagine what is. That you evaluated the discussion as being merely "editorial" rather than "policy-backed" indicates to me that you did not apply the standard called for at WP:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome, which states: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." — Jaydiem (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

As for your particular contributions to the discussion, I did absolutely consider those in my close. You are correct, however, that I did not include them in the closing statement. My reason for that was partially an attempt to not be overly verbose and partially parts were already covered, albeit not directly. I also felt that the closing should be an overall summary, and anyone could look at the discussion for more specific information.

When it comes to the application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of this article title, there was evidence, including yours, on both sides that the article could be considered on either side. Both sides had documented evidence, and you had a fancy table of statistics, which were frankly, and no fault of yours, biased. The only way you could accurately use pageview statistics to show what viewers prefer is to have pageview statistics for the song article being at Yesterday and a separate statistics for it being at Yesterday (song). You would have to have this data from the same period, and you would have to account for the people who are attempting to go to the final page, but go through Yesterday first (ie subtract a calculated percentage of the pageviews for people who want to end up at Yesterday (Toni Braxton song) but had to first go through Yesterday, then click the link to the disambig page Yesterday (disambiguation) then to their final destination. I felt that if I had included in my close about the statistics, that in all transparency, I would have to include that information.

• With all due respect, I must strongly disagree with the claim that there was equivalent empirical evidence presented on both sides of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC question. The pageview stats I compiled were objective and very clearly relevant to the criteria given in the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline; this is not true of the minimal evidence provided on the other side. In addition, your claim that the pageview stats were "biased" to the point of being inadmissible is demonstrably false. Referring to the data in the table: Even if we were to stipulate for the sake of argument that every one of the 3,061 views of the disambiguation page was an instance of a reader who first viewed the article about the Beatles song but was actually seeking one of the other "Yesterday"-related topics, and we therefore subtracted 3,061 non-destination views from the 61,479 total views of the Beatles song article, the remaining 58,418 bona-fide destination views of that article would still constitute 64.6% of the total—a mere 1.2 percentage points less than the figure in the table. In other words, even if the stats were "biased" to the maximum possible extent of the way you describe, the effect would be negligible and have no impact on the conclusions to be drawn from the data. — Jaydiem (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

As for your compromise, it gained no traction, and hardly was discussed. It was completely different from the underlying discussion of the application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I did not feel that it added in any way to the discussion's outcome, so I felt no need to include it in the close.

I hope that helps give you a little bit of insight into my thought process and my reasoning. If you disagree with the close/move, I'm always open to any uninvoled administrator undoing my actions (with discussion following) or you can take it through the Misplaced Pages:Move review process. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to close this difficult move discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I thank you as well - both for the going ahead and closing and for your fair approach. And I am content with your discussion above that you considered the DAB page nuances as well. It will be interesting to see how the statistics work out now. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Jaydiem: I'm having a hard time following your discussion because you've intermixed it with mine. Please, in the future, just add your discussion to the bottom so I can follow more easily. That being said. Your argument about WP:ANRFC having discussions up for thirty days applies to WP:RFCs. Remember this discussion was for a requested move, which only requires seven. It was open for 24, and only had three comments in the last 3 days. It was time to be closed.
• With your comment about what the discussion was about, it was purely a editorial discussion on what editors prefer and why. Both sides correctly used the same policy/guideline to argue their side, so we cannot say one side was more right than the other, just that there was a consensus for one way over the other.
• With your statistics, we are just going to have to disagree. I've had to take many courses on statistics, and rarely are they ever unbiased. This is why scientific and/or trade journals' articles often don't agree with other articles in the same journal. Where is your control group to show what normal counts are like? Or your group to show what counts will be like now that it is moved to a different name? Etc etc. You gathered some great information, but it is hardly enough to come to full fledged conclusions. But regardless, I digress. Your data had no baring on my interpretation of the consensus of the discussion; rather I only felt it wasn't worth mentioning in the close.
• Aside from that, I don't think there is any further discussion to be had. I've given you multiple options if you think that my close was made in error (not that you disagree with it). Please take advantage of those if you feel the need. I'm not perfect, none of us here are. I can make mistakes. This time, though, I'm confident in my closing. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

NFCR

Can you please close Misplaced Pages:NFCR#File:Disney_Junior_Logo.png? Thanks. Werieth (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

File:US Senators' Responsiveness to Income Groups (107th-111th Congresses).png

Hi, I'd like to use File:US Senators' Responsiveness to Income Groups (107th-111th Congresses).png e.g. at . While the American Political Science Association or their authors own their annual meeting paper copyrights, the idea that either would ever object to the use of a chart appearing in one of them is, well, I would just say it's very profoundly unlikely, around the one in a million level. Would you please restore the graph? EllenCT (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT: The graph would fail WP:NFCC#1 so I cannot restore it. The graph could be recreated as a free file. The source for the content comes from here. You could get someone from the WP:Graphics Lab to create you one if you can't or you could reach out to whomever did File:Senate_Income_Votes.SVG (similar file). Good luck, Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If I use it in a current version of an article, then can you restore it? EllenCT (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Fredcopeman.jpg

Hello, Would you mind restoring Fredcopeman.jpg, I'll get an appropriate fair-use statement written for it within 24 hours of it being restored (assuming it gets restored by Wednesday night). Sorry for the delay, work and a short vacation were busier than expected. But I've some free time over the next day or three. Hobit (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Hobit. If you want to drop the fair-use statement here on my talkpage, I will restore it for you. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

One problem is that I can't see the image, making it hard for me to write a FUR in good faith. Could you point me to a copy of the image (I assume there is one on-line somewhere). Is it? Hobit (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

You have been involved in this issue so I think you should see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_topic_ban_for_Andy_Dingley Werieth (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)