User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2016/February

Book cover
The licencing is at the image. The book is part of the article IQ125 (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The licensing for you have given above just shows that the cover art is copyrighted; it does not really have anything to do with the file's non-free usage other than it keeps the file from being speedily deleted per WP:F3 or WP:F4. All non-free content is by definition considered protected by copyright, but it's whether a particular usage complies with WP:NFCC that matters. Each usage of a non-free image is required to satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria and this file only satisfies those criteria for the stand-alone article Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess. The usage in List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer fails both WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. NFCC#10c says that a separate, specific non-free use rationale is required for each usage of a non-free image. File:Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess.jpg has a non-free use rationale, but it's for the article "Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess"; there is no non-free use rationale for the list article so it's usage fails the NFCC. NFCC#8 is related to the contextual significance of a non-free file's use. Per WP:NFC, non-free cover art such as book or album covers is generally considered acceptable for use in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the book or album itself because the cover art serves as the primary means of identification of the subject and the entire article (and sources) is about the book or album. On the other hand, non-free cover art is generally not considered acceptable in articles about the author, band, lists of books, discographies, etc. unless the cover art itself is the subject of sourced commentary in such a way that omitting the cover art would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer is a list article of books written by Fisher, and using the cover-art for an individual entry is decorative and not really allowed per WP:NFLISTS because the contextual significance required by NFCC#8 is lacking so its usage fails the NFCC. All it takes for a particular usage of a non-free image to be non-NFCC compliant is for it to fail a single criterion and the usage of this file in the list article fails two. I've opened an FFD discusison about the file's usage in the list article at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6, so please feel free to explain why you feel the image satisfies all 10 of the non-free content crtieria there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Question
Dear Marchjuly Could you please guide me back to your talk page. A very important scientific article was published last November stating safety of silicone implants not proven. I think it deserves a reference and a line as it contradicts NYT saying 1993 safety was unanimous. Thanks Robert Lewy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.216.170 (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2016‎ (UTC+9) (Note: Moved post accidentally placed on userpage to user talk -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC))
 * Hi Robert (108.54.216.170). I think you should discuss any new sources you have found at Talk:Robert Ira Lewy so that other editors watching the article can also comment. Also, I think you should try and stick to using your account if at all possible. Sometimes IP address are shared by many different people and if someone else with the same IP decides to start editing Wikipedia, things might get confusing. Since you've gone to the trouble of creating the account, you should stick to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Question about removal
Why do you keep removing the Salisbury F.C. club logo from the Wiki page? Whites2015 (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . File:Salisbury City FC.png is what Wikipedia calls non-free content because it is still considered to be protected under copyright. If you look at File:Salisbury City FC.png you'll see that this is how the image is currently licensed for use. The usage of non-free content is more restricted by Wikipedia than the usage of freely licensed content, and it must comply with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The are 10 non-free content criteria and each usage of a non-free image, such as this logo, must satisfy all 10 of these criteria in order for the usage to comply with Wikipedia policy. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC which says that "The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use." If you look at File:Salisbury City FC.png, you'll see that the file does have a non-free use rationale, but that the rationale is for the article Salisbury City F.C., not Salisbury F.C.. So, the usage of the file in "Salisbury F.C." fails one of the non-free content criteria and, therfore, is not allowed. If you feel that the use of the image satisfies the NFCC for "Salisbury F.C.", then you may add a non-free rationale to the file's summary for said usage, but before you do I suggest you read "Enforcement".


 * Based upon the Salisbury F.C.'s official website, it does seem as if they use the logo, so use Template:Non-free use rationale and fill in the template's parameters as instructed in the template's documentation. Use "Salsibury F.C." for the Article parameter, "Infobox" for the Use parameter, and "http://salisburyfc.co.uk/" for the Website parameter. Once you've added all the relevant information to the template, check to see whether there are any errors using the "Preview" button and then click "Save page" if everything is in order. You can try practicing first in your user sandbox if you want and then just copying and pasting the final version into the "Summary" section (just below the other non-free use rationale" on the file's page.


 * One final thing to consider about adding the logo to "Salisbury F.C." is that doing so may mean that it can no longer be used in "Salisbury City F.C." per numbers 14 and 17 of Unacceptable use/Images. Wikipedia requires that non-free image usage be as minimal as possible (WP:NFCC). The does not necessarily mean "one use per file", but it does make additional usages a little bit harder to justify and in some cases impossible to justify. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

New study regarding safety of silicone breast implants added?
I awaiting to have exact cites yet but the Brown Unjversity Surgical Dept in nov9' 2016, concluded twenty years of trials had not proven silicone safe and a larger study was needed. author Balk in Annals of Internal Medicine.. I should have exact cite today.Rod Rohrick of UT southwestern says essentially same in February editorial in Annals. Cite today. What I foresee is the two references added after Career and an additional line there quoting the conclusions of the two articles. These contradict the NYT but people can fill that out themselves., Shall I provide these data to you later? I wrote suggested test and references and To The Editor in the article and Fyddlstex erased it all within minutes.meant to be seen by you all. Says she moved it elsewhere but i can't find. It. Anyhow I don't feel wronged in any way and it's just 2015 science proves at least in a the absence the article written 20'years ago. Thanks Long-Term Health Outcomes in Women With Silicone Gel Breast Implants: A Systematic Review Ethan M. Balk, MD, MPH; Amy Earley, BS; Esther A. Avendano, BA; and Gowri Raman, MD, MS [+] Article, Author, and Disclosure Information See Also: Silicone Gel Breast Implants: What We Know About Safety After All These Years Working Toward a Solution: The Unanswered Questions About Silicone Gel Breast Implants Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(3):164-175. doi:10.7326/M15-1169Kingseason (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingseason (talk • contribs) 10:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . As I posted in the above thread, I think you should post whatever sources you have found on the article's talk page so that other editors watching the article can see them and assess them. You may also post suggestions on how you feel the information may be incorporated into the article. Editors who have worked on the article probably have added it to their watchilist so they should see that something new has been added either to the article or to its talk page. If you'd like to attract the attention of a particular editor, then you can try using Template:Ping or Template:U and they will receive a notification/alert that they have been mentioned in the post.
 * For example, if I add the markup   or    to a post, you should receive an alert at the very top of screen where the bell icon is located next to your account name. You may not get an immediate response from the editors you ping because people get busy, but they will at least know they've been mentioned. You need to be a little careful and make sure you get the username right when you use these templates (they are case sensitive) because they won't work if you don't or you'll ping the wrong person. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Long-Term Health Outcomes in Women With Silicone Gel Breast Implants: A Systematic Review Ethan M. Balk, MD, MPH; Amy Earley, BS; Esther A. Avendano, BA; and Gowri Raman, MD, MS [+] Article, Author, and Disclosure Information See Also: Silicone Gel Breast Implants: What We Know About Safety After All These Years Working Toward a Solution: The Unanswered Questions About Silicone Gel Breast Implants Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(3):164-175. doi:10.7326/M15-1169


 * Dr Robert Ira Lewy participated. Reference 89


 * Conclusion Failure to prove safety of silicone implants due to study design. Kingseason (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Much prefer you enter the reference and conclusion after Career since I've admitted I wrote previous versions. And it gets wiped out. Thank you Roberto Ira Lewy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingseason (talk • contribs) 16:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and made the changes in the Robert Ira Lewy site based on references but don't expect into last so please check it.


 * Best
 * Robert Lewy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingseaon (talk • contribs) 02:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC+9)


 * Hi again as I mentioned above, it would've probably been best for you to post at Talk:Robert Ira Lewy instead of directly adding the information to the article yourself because of your conflict of interest. Now that it has been added, other editors will assess it and see if it satisfies relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If another editor does decide to remove the information for any reason, they please do not simply try and re-add it. Discuss it on the article's talk page instead and try establish a consensus for adding the content. There are probably other editors besides myself watching that page; it looks like  and  have recently there, but there may be others watching the article/talk page as well. Finally, I need to stress once again that you really should use only one account when you edit. You seem to be switching back and forth between 108.54.216.170 and Kingseason, which is not really considered appropriate. So, I strongly suggest you stick to the Kingseason account and always make sure you're logged in to Wikipedia when you edit in order to avoid another editor mistakening your editing for sock puppetry. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Point taken. Some of,us not linear enough. Right now could you assist restoring these two references


 * Long-Term Health Outcomes in Women With Silicone Gel Breast Implants: A Systematic Review Ethan M. Balk, MD, MPH; Amy Earley, BS; Esther A. Avendano, BA; and Gowri Raman, MD, MS [+] Article, Author, and Disclosure Information See Also: Silicone Gel Breast Implants: What We Know About Safety After All These Years Working Toward a Solution: The Unanswered Questions About Silicone Gel Breast Implants Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(3):164-175. doi:10.7326/M15-1169


 * They were removed by LeadsongDog not sure why as they are the very most recent data.
 * Thanks
 * Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingseason (talk • contribs) 09:05, 11 February 2016‎ (UTC +9)


 * explained their reasons for removing the citation you added at Talk:Robert Ira Lewy. You should post there and ask them for further clarification and discuss things with them. For reference, their concerns seem valid to me. Specific concerns about article content should be discussed on the article's talk page because it allows more editors the chance to participate. Discussing such things on a user talk page is not bad per se, but editors who are interested in "Robert Ira Lewy" the Wikipedia article are more likely to notice such a post made to "Talk:Robert Ira Lewy" than a post made to "User talk:Marchjuly".


 * Now some general things to try and remember. I understand Wikipedia's way of formatting talk page posts, etc. is confusing and a bit hard to get used to when you don't post regularly, but remebering these things will serve you well: always sign your talk page posts; try and use proper indentation in your posts; and (most importantly) never edit another's talk page post, even accidentally, by moving it around or trying to insert new information into a previously post you made. (You did that by accident with the last edit you made to this talk page.) If you want to add new information, then just add it as a new post. Trying to add new information to a previous post is tricky, especially if the post has already been replied to, and should only be done per WP:REDACT.


 * I do think you're making good faith attempts to discuss things, but the rush you seem to be do so which is starting to become counterproductive. Maybe try slowing down a bit and using the "Show preview" button before clicking "Save page" will help? All of this may seem like nitpicking, but avoiding such things will make it much easier to communicate with other editors via talk pages and edit in genreal. You might find the information in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines helpful as a general overview. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Are you saying you recommend adding the two references as suggestions in the talk box of the whole article or just add them into references myself? I had forgotten my logon. They must be mentioned somewhere because Rohrbach and Balk articles (see below) aren't below anywhere. Your recommendation I take it is talk box. Surprised LeadDog didnt see discrepancy. When this is done a current knowledge of this issue will emerge.
 * Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingseason (talk • contribs) 02:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again (Robert). I'm sorry if I what I wrote above was a little unclear. I'll try to rephrase it so that it is easier to understand. You tried to add content to the article Robert Ira Lewy. It was removed by, who then explained why they removed it in : "Selected publications: rm publications by others". LeadSongDog then went into more detail as to why they removed the content in Talk:Robert Ira Lewy. If you disagree with LeadSongDog's removal then you should try and explain why you disagree in the same article talk page thread per Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle. Of course, another option is that you can try and re-add the content to the article again, but I do not recommend you do this because it can easily lead to a claim that you are edit warring and because of your conflict of interest. Discussing the matter with LeadSongDog on the article's talk page is the best way to try and resolve the matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Any opinion on the entry of the line at the end of Career where we discuss Balk but no footnote of:

Ethan Balk, MD MPH Associate Director, Brown Evidence-based Practice Center Center for Evidence-Based Medicine Brown University School of Public Health Box G-S121-8, Providence, RI 02912, USA

Thanks Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingseason (talk • contribs) 16:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Drexel lacrosse
I just want to warn you like I've warned others: be ready to battle with User:10stone5 in this article. Apparently, this page is so gosh-darn special that no Wikipedia guidelines are needed for this article... so go ahead and remove the other two external links per WP:EL and replace the official website with the template. That should be the only external link on the page. You can read my discussion with the user here. Several other users are watching this page as well. Thanks for updating it! 🇺🇸 Corkythe hornetfan  🇺🇸 04:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, but I was aware of the discussion. Although I think you're probably right to use that particular template, I've seen both types of markups used across Wikipedia, so to me personally it's not something worth arguing too much over. However, excessive/inappropriate external links are a different matter so if you feel any of them are questionable, try discussing on the article's talk page to see if a consensus can be reached or asking at WP:ELN for outside opinions. I've already asked about one at WP:ELN because clicking on it starts to download a file (at least it does for me). The link itself might be OK content wise, I think the downloading is not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem... That link does download on mine as well. When I need outside opinions in sports-related articles, I go to a couple of people who know more than I do... easier than going to a noticeboard, etc. Unfortunately with this user, there won't be a consensus, and I can guarantee you that all of the edits will be reverted... he's shown that he is taking ownership of this article. 🇺🇸 Corkythe  hornetfan  🇺🇸 05:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I find noticeboards helpful since you tend to get a wider variety of opinions, which might seem more neutral when dealing with tricky topics. As for WP:OWN, we both realize that's not the way to go and any editor who takes such an approach is likely going to end up at ANI. A consensus, after all, does not require unanimous agreement, so if you post on the article's talk page about a content issue and more agree with you than disagree with you, then you've got a consensus. FWIW, removing a copyvio (or suspected copyvio) does not need to be discussed beforehand, and editors who continuously re-add copyvios dspite be warned are likely to end up at WP:CCI in addition to ANI. Just try and remember to keep assuming good faith, avoid being baited into any edit warring or 3RR and let the other editor be the one to screw up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed image per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 15#File:MMPR 2010 New Logo.jpg.
This logo stuff has me confused. The Power Ranger logos for the other Power Ranger seasons were removed from the "list of episodes" articles but kept in the main article because they were considered fair use for the main article, but for the "list of episodes" articles they were removed because it was deemed the logos did not meet fair use due to WPNFCC#10c and possibly WPNFCC#8. So how come the the exact opposite is true for the MMPR 2010 logo? The MMPR 2010 logo was removed from the "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers" article, which is the main article pertaining to MMPR (both the original and the re-version) as a whole. "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (re-version)" is merely the "list of episodes" page for the re-version, nothing more. 74.83.112.14 (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi 74.83.112.14. I didn't see your post here until after I posted at User talk:74.83.112.14. I cannot give you the exact reasons why closed as they did. Administrators have some discretion when it comes to closes, so it's probably best that discuss this with them on their user talk page. I don't think, however, that Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (re-version) is like the other "list of episodes articles". It seems to me to be an article about a particular season of the series like Power Rangers Jungle Fury, etc. which does include a list of episodes, but which could possibly be expanded to include other information as well and the logo is particular to that specific season which is why it should be used there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)