User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2015/November

Movie reviews
Re removal of source from Anastasia date page. The film features and is about Anastasia dating services although it is not mentioned by name. The reference gives people access to the source for this statement. I disagree about the necessity of its removal..However, you are the more experienced editor & know the details of all the rules. I read the link you used to justify and this time cannot see the justification for its removal.Gmdean2015 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Gmdean2015. Thank you for your post. Specific things about article content, etc. are best brought up at the article's talk page because it centralizes things and makes more editors aware that something specifically relevant to the article itself is being discussed. I am going to copy and paste your post to Talk:AnastasiaDate and will reply there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to the link for the talk page, I could not access it previously. I will certainly discuss in a more restrained manner on there:) Thank you for your patienceGmdean2015 (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No problems Gmdean2015. Hmmm...not sure why you were having problems accessing the talk page. Anyway, discussion is usually the best course of action to try regarding content disputes per WP:DR. It can be sometimes hard to always try to assume good faith, and keep your cool when things get a bit heated for sure. That's why I tend to take my dogs for a walk quite a bit. . -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your patience & understandingGmdean2015 (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Harry potter page edit image deletion
Don't apply your mind, if you don't have enough guts to apply. The image, I put was directly related to content, was a digital painting. You have to give a proper statement why have you remove d it. If you have any problem with it, state it here. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi AchaksurvisayaUdvejin. I left an explanation why your edit was not approved in my edit sum. You tried to add the image twice and it was removed each time by a different editor. Wikipedia wants you to be bold when editing. However, if you find that an edit you're trying to make is being reverted by another editor or other editors, then typically the best thing to do is discuss the edit on the article's talk page with them per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Wikipedia articles are improved through collaborative editing and achieving consensus. Editors are encouraged to work together and discuss content disputes per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Adding an image to an article is no different from adding text; If you keep getting reverted, then other editors are saying there is no consensus for the image to be added. Did you read the edit sums of the other editors who removed the image? They explained why they felt the image did not belong. So, my suggestion to you is that you discuss your reasons for wanting the image added to the article with them on Talk:Harry Potter. You should explain why you feel the image should be added according to relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines and then see what others have to say. If you continue to try and "force" the edit through, then there's a chance that doing so will considered to be disruptive.


 * Finally, you may not be familiar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines since you are a fairly new editor. It can be frustrating when edits we make are reverted by others, but all of us editors are supposed to do our best to abide by Wikipedia:Five pillars. Please note that the fourth pillar says "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility", so you should try to stick to discussing article content and not make personal comments about other editors whenever possible. Most editors are willing to assume good faith when dealing other editors, especially new editors. Wikipedia, however, has a fairly strict policy about making personal attacks against other editors, and extreme cases will often lead to an administrator intervening and blocking the editor making the inappropriate comments. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Saga757
Nicely done! I wanted to give you more kudos than just the "thank" for an edit. Excellent work! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your post. I was a bit concerned that I might have tried "too hard" to make my point. I didn't want to drive them away, but at the same time I was hoping they'd eventually figure out why their edit was a little problematic. Anyway, it appears that things are OK (at least for now) based upon their response. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Project Invite
Go Hokies (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invite, but I just tend to float around doing various clean up where I think it's needed. Good luck with your WikiProject though. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

NFCC
Hi. Just thought I'd give you my opinion on something, since we've seen each other before: Deleting harmless images from Wikipedia seems to me to be one of the least useful things to do here. This encyclopedia generally needs more illustrations and images, not fewer. If you ask your friends what they would like to see more in Wikipedia, I be a lot of them will say that they wonder why there are so few images. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message. I've added a reply to that thread which might clarify things a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * No problems. No blood, no foul. To be honest, I just followed what I've seen done in the past by other editors. FWIW, the links to those NFCR discussions are going to need to be tweaked once those threads are archived.
 * Anyway, I commend you for closing those threads and doing the relevant clean up. Don't be suprised, however, if you notice some of the images/nfurs you removed being re-added by someone else. It seems some editors feel those images need to be in such articles regardless of what relevant policy or guidelines may say. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

EKU
Can you explain to me why you removed the logo for Eastern Kentucky University? It is literally the only school in I-AA football without its logo on the page for the 2015 season. Mr. Vitale (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . I thought I left a reason in my edit sum, but I apologize if I did not. Number 17 of WP:NFC says "The logo of a entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks their own branding. Specific child entity logos remain acceptable." Generally, the "parent entity" in such cases considered to be the univeristy/university athletic department and the "child entities" are considered to be the individual teams . So, if the "parent" is Eastern Kentucky Colonels and Lady Colonels, then the logo is fine to use there, but not considered OK for the individual team articles. A logo specific to an individual team may be used if such a logo exists or a freely licensed image may be used, but the consensus at WP:NFCR and now at WP:FFD seems to have always been that No. 17 applies in such cases. There may, however, be something particular about this usage which needs to be considered, so it can be further discussed at FFP. If the consensus there is that it's OK, then I have no problems with using it. I hope that, at least, helps explain why I removed the image. I don't know about the other articles you're referring to, but it's possible that in some cases the images are freely licensed and in others the image was added despite No. 17 of NFC#UUI or the non-free usage for the article was discussed and considered to be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)