User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2016/March

News opening
Hello. Do you want to add this file to your to do list? 🍀 Corkythe hornetfan  🍀 23:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, problem. I'm sure you would've seen it sooner or later! 🍀 Corkythe hornetfan  🍀 01:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk page edit explanation
Hi, just a quick line to explain why I refactored a part of the above conversation. The invalid use of the helpme template had notified us on IRC. I've also added a header to the user's query - hope that's all okay --  samtar talk or stalk 22:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries . Thanks for the cleanup. I saw the post, but was unable to respond at the time. Perhaps you or another editor currently on IRC can help answer their questions. I tried posting on their user talk, but they seem to want additional assistance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Unheadered query from
Hello,

Thank you for your message

You wrote these sentences "Hello, JDOLBERT, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I notice that one of the first articles you created appears to be an article about yourself. This is a common mistake made by new Wikipedians—as this is an encyclopedia, we wouldn't expect to have an article about every contributor. Your user page, however, is a great place to write about yourself, making sure to stay within user page guidelines. Just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit it normally. The page you created about yourself may well be deleted from the encyclopedia. If it is deleted and you wish to retrieve its contents, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page."

This article "Jérôme Dolbert is a French Filmmaker, Producer and Writer best known for his film documentary "The Rainforests Are Under Threat" for which he received different Awards at California Film Awards San Diego - Best Documentary 2015 [1], Nevada International Film Festival - Award Platinum Environmental Film Documentary 2015 [2], Canada International Film Festival - Rising Star Award Winners Environmental Film Documentary 2016 [3], and for his short film "The Others" - Short Film (2013) - Los Angeles Cinema Festival of Hollywood – Fall 2013 – Winner Award of Merit [4]"

Correct?

I don't understand -- because a lot of people wrote these articles about themselves. I am director and producer and I talk about my movies

Let me know,

Thank you for your help,

Best

Jerome

Hello,

You sent me a message. I don't understand :(

An editor made these wikipedia pages for me

My name is Jerome Dolbert, and I am a Director and Producer. I made these movies

So I don't understand with all your explanations. SO difficult to understand

I don't understand why so many directors, producers have their wikipedia pages with their movies.

Thank you for you help!!

Have a great day,

Best

Jerome Dolbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDOLBERT (talk • contribs) 22:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. It seems while you were posting this on my user talk, I was leaving you a message on your user talk. No big deal, but I think the information you're looking for can be found in the links that provided for you in User talk:JDOLBERT. Please try and take a little time to read through those Wikipedia pages. If you then still have any questions, then feel free to ask them at Wikipedia:Teahouse and someone there will try and help.


 * I also see you left your email address above. That's your choice, but please try to understand it's generally preferred that discussions about Wikipedia take place somewhere public on Wikipedia. Private email discussions may make it easier in some ways to communicate, but it also does not give other concerned editors the chance to participate or at least see what is being discussed. If you wish to discuss something specific about an article, such as how to improve it, then you should use the article's talk page. If you wish to discuss something about a particular editor or perhaps ask them a question, then you can do that at their user talk page or at an appropriate noticeboard. Using Wikipedia talk pages can be confusing for new editors because the way things are done on Wikipedia often differs from how they are done on other Internet forums, etc. I suggest you scan through Help:Using talk pages so you a familiar with Wikipedia's particular style because it will make it easier for you to communicate with other editors.
 * Finally, please try to remember to sign all of your talk page posts. There are a couple of ways to do this, but the easiest is to add 4 tilde ( ~ ) to the end of your post. If you do this, the system will automatically replace the 4 tilde with your username and a time stamp. This is very helpful because it makes it easy to see who posted what and when they posted it, thus allowing others to more accurately follow discussions. It's no great crime to occasionally forget to sign a post (many people do), and usually when that happens another editor (like did above) or a bot will eventually do it for you. Signing your posts, however, is a good thing to try and remember especially after you've been editing for awhile. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you!!
 * So difficult Wikipedia!! Not easy at all!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDOLBERT (talk • contribs) 10:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC+9)
 * You're welcome. It's certainly hard to get used to Wikipedia at first, but hang in there and you'll eventually figure it out. You might also want to take a look at the tutorial The Wikipedia Adventure; some new editors find it very helpful. Also, there's the French language version of Wikipedia which might be good for reference. Different language Wikipedia's often slightly differ with respect to some policies and guidelines, but the fundamental principles and basic operations are pretty much the same for all versions of Wikipedia (I think). -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

reply
hello, it's Roger Delacroix, (that's my name now), I just wanted to tell you, thank you for having replied to me, and the fact is that is not very much fair the fact that I can't even use some images on my sandboxes, I know on the articles, but not to use them on userpages, i think that's not fair, but anyway if that image that you removed is not permitted then please, send to me any symbol of the Channel Four Television Corporation that I can use to put on that template, on my sandbox, through all of the templates that I have made i've also put their logos, so I kindly ask you to find me a logo for the Channel Four Television Corporation template please. SignedRoger Delacroix (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message . Unfortunately, there are lots of things about Wikipedia that might seem unfair, especially to new editors, but policies and guidelines are determined through the consensus of the Wikipedia community and copyright-related matters are one of the things the community takes quite seriously.
 * Regarding a possible freely licensed image, try searching at Wikimedia Commons to see if there's something you can use. Commons only accepts freely licensed images, and such images are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content rules. 99% of the time, a Commons image should be OK to use in a template or on your user page, but try and remember that there's no guarantee that even an image from Commons will never be deleted (images are inappropriately uploaded to Commons all the time). You can ask specific questions about a particular Commons' image at c:COM:VP/C. If, unfortunately, you're unable to find something suitable on Commons, then there's not much more that can be done unless you are able to convince Channel Four Television Corporation to agree to freely license their logo per WP:CONSENT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi again Roger Delacroix. I noticed that an IP editor re-added the file to your sandbox with, but I have removed it once again. If that was you and you just forgot to login, then no big deal. Please try to always remember to login whenever you edit so that another editor doesn't mistake you for inappropriately using multiple accounts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * hi, It's me again, I have uploaded a new image, see if this one is rightRoger Delacroix (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a freely licensed image from Commons so it should be fine. No guarantees though that another editor may someday remove it for a context reason. Try to remember that we don't own the articles and templates we create or edit. Any content we add may be removed by another editor at anytime.
 * Now that the non-free image stuff has been resolved, I think you should message and let them help you sort out your username change issues. You can't really change your username like you did, so you unintentionally created a little mess that needs to be taken care of asap. There are certain procedures which must be followed and NSH002 seems to really want to help you out, so I suggest you follow their advice. One more thing you should read is WP:REALNAME because your new name sounds like the name of a real person and there are special rules regarding such names. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Question...
Hello. Would you say this secondary logo (File:Illinois Victory Badge.png) violates WP:NFCC or another one in both Illinois Fighting Illini and University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign articles? I removed it because solely because I don't believe it will enhance a reader... basically #8. I just want to make sure before I explain it to someone. I just need you to reply here and I can take care it with the user. Thanks, 🍀 Corkythe hornetfan  🍀 20:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The file only has a non-free use rationale for the "Fighting Illini" article so it can be removed from the university article per WP:NFCCE (WP:NFCC). I also personally think its usage in that particular article does fail NFCC#8 since it's not needed for identification and the logo itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary within that particular section. It may also also possibly WP:NFCC since the freely licensed PD-logo is being used next to it essentially provides basically the same information. If you do not feel you can write a valid rationale for this usage, I would go ahead an remove the image again, but this time cite NFCCE (NFCC#10c) in the edit sum. You can also mention something about No. 17 of WP:NFC if you want. If another editor adds the rationale and then re-adds the image to the article, I would assume good faith and nominate the file for discussion at FFD. As you've probably seen/experienced, NFCC#8 removals can sometimes be contentious so it's probably better to avoid any appearance of edit warring and try to discuss things when the image has a disputed non-free use rationale.


 * Another possibility is to try and use Template:di-disputed fair use rationale, Template:di-fails NFCC or Template:di-missing article links, but these are speedy deletion templates. Since you've already been reverted once after removing the file, it's likely these would be contested so you'll end up at FFD anyways. If another editor re-adds the image and doesn't add the appropriate rationale, then they are clearly in the wrong, but just might not know it. If that's the case you can leave them a friendly message on their user talk, explaining why the image needs a rationale and why you feel a valid one cannot be written. You might even reference a few similar NFCR/FFD discussions in support if you like. If they add the rationale, then you can go to FFD. If they ignore you, you can keep reverting them by claiming a bright-line exemption (WP:NOT3RR), but that's likely to end up with somebody taking the other to WP:AN3, where somebody's sure to tell you technically did nothing wrong, but probably should've taken it to FFD after the first series of reverts. So, you might has well just bring it to FFD to begin with.


 * The usage in "Fighting Illini" is a bit trickier to deal with because the file does have a rationale and is being used in the main infobox. I'm not sure on this particular usage, so it's probably best to discuss it at FFD.


 * One final thing to consider is whether the image is either too simple or too old to be eligible for copyright protection. It looks simple enough to me to be close to PD-logo, but others may feel differently. If you think it qualifies as PD, then you can be bold and change the licensing yourself. If you're not sure, then you can also discuss this at FFD. I tend to not be very bold with these kinds of things and discuss them by dafault to see if there's a consensus for such a change, but others are more proactive. You've uploaded lots of team logos both here and at Commons and seen both non-free and free, so I think you're capable of making such a judgement call if you choose to be bold. At the very worst, you're reverted and you end up at WP:PUF or FFD. Anyway, those are my suggestions. Best of luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I forgot about #10... It is used at the bottom of the athletics website, but I definitely do not believe it is as recognizable as the "I". I'll definitely explain to them about the usage in the university article; athletics article maybe... depends on my mood! I appreciate the help! 🍀 Corkythe  hornetfan  🍀 22:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Question 2...
Would you say this file is in the PD? I believe it is, but I want to double check with someone else before converting it. Thanks, 🍀 Corkythe hornetfan  🍀 23:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like just a fancy font/script to me and something that would too simple to be copyrighted at least in the US based upon c:Category:Text logos. If it was, for example, a logo from the UK, then it might only be OK as PD-USonly since the UK seems to have a lower threshold of originality than the US. Since it's for a US university, however, I think it's probably OK as PD-logo. You could always ask for more opinions at WP:FFD, WP:MCQ or even c:COM:VP/C. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll go ahead and change to PD (worst case since is that someone may disagree in which I'll then take it to FFD.) thanks! 🍀 Corkythe hornetfan  🍀 17:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Templates and emeralds
I used the non-optimal template because it was the one I remembered offhand, is all. There's far too many procedural details on Wikipedia for any one person to remember all of them. Thanks for pointing out my error; I've corrected it. DS (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't try to point out that you made an error; in fact, I wasn't sure either way. I was mainly just asking out of curiosity since watching what others do is one of the ways I learn how things work on Wikipedia. Anyway, no offense was intended and sorry if my post came of as such. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice
Hello its 82.19.95.171 here. Im very angry with you for removing the bbc three logo. You have no right to remove logos. If you carry on doing it. I will report you. Do i make my self clear. template please. SignedUser:82.19.95.171 (talk) 13:03,28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Like textual content, any editor may remove any image added to an article if they feel the image's usage does not comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There are two types of image files on Wikipedia: Those that are freely licensed and those that are considered to be non-free content. There is no automatic entitlement to use any non-free image anywhere on Wikipedia; each usage must satisfy all 10 of the non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. File:BBC Three logo.svg has a non-free use rationale, but only for BBC Three (Internet television). Since the file does not have a rationale for BBC Three (former), I removed it from the article per WP:NFCCE (WP:NFCC) as explained in my edit sum. When you re-added the image without adding the relevant non-free use rationale, I removed it a second time on the belief that it's usage still did not comply with WP:NFCC (once again as explained in my edit sum. I did not notice, however, that the file has been licensed as PD-USonly (a free license) until after I removed the image again, but self-reverted once I did. The uw-nonfree I added to your user talk page was also done before I noticed my error. I would've self reverted that as well, but you removed it first. Anyway, I apologize for the warning. Even though my mistake was made in good faith, it was still a mistake nonetheless.


 * There is a conflict between the non-free use rationale template which says the file is not freely license and the "PD-USonly" template that says it is freely licensed. This is a bit confusing and contradictory, and probably something that needs to be resolved. I will ask for calrification/verification at WP:PUF.


 * I moved your post to the bottom of my user talk page where it belongs and to fix the accidental damage you did to another editor's post. For future reference, new posts are supposed to be added to the bottom of talk pages ( the only exception I know of is the Wikipedia:Teahouse). This slightly differs from other online fourms/website, but it is Wikipedia's way of doing things. You can always just click the "New section" tab at the top of the page whenever you want to add a new post and the software will make sure your post is added properly.


 * Finally, Wikipedia is intended to be more of a collaborative project than an adversarial one. Mistakes are made all the time by editors, and the majority are just good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Edit sums are one of the ways editors use to communicate with each other, so it helps to specify the specific reasons why an edit is being made (either by citing a policy/guideline or providing a link), especially when reverting another editor. This makes it easier for the reverted editor to understand why the revert was made and avoids future confusion. Accusatory and threatening, etc. edit sums are almost always counter-productive and can always be re-written in a more neutral tone which makes them easier to understand and reduces the potential for problems arising between editors or people misconstruing things. Just some friendly words of advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Random question, but...
Would you be okay/respond if I send you an email? I know that it's a bit of for me to ask, especially since you obviously have email enabled, but I ask since some editors may not access their Wikipedia-tied email often. Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Steel1943. You can email me if you like. I can't promise I'll respond right away, but I will get a notification when it arrives. If it's something time sensitive or strictly Wikipedia related, then I would prefer it be posted here, but I'll leave that up to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

A little help for you.
To coachs of the Bhutan women's national football team.
 * I spoke with members of the Football Federation Bhutan.


 * The first was a Japanese coach from Japan to Hiroshima it at that 4 games.
 * The Japanese coach no way to have the name.
 * The second is "Kota Namgay" coach during the 2012 SAFF Women's Championship.
 * The third is "Dorji Khandu" coach during the 2014 SAFF Women's Championship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EE0E:ABD0:B854:9C74:3C1F:E26D (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information, but I'm not sure why you posted it here. Would you like that information added to the article? If that's the case, then you can bold and add it directly to the article yourself or you can ask for feedback from other editors by proposing it first on the article's talk page. If you add to the article yourself, then you should also provide an reliable source so that the information can be verified by those reading the article. Please be advised that the source must be published, so your conversation with the federation is not considered acceptable. If you're not sure how to cite a source, please look at Help:Referencing for beginners or ask for help at Wikipedia:Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I would like the information I got for you, be added to the article.
 * Unfortunately my sources are my conversations with people I had on the official Facebook page "Women Football in Bhutan".
 * I don't know if google for articles on the information I have.
 * I suppose a member of Wikipedia could apply to their federation and have more chance of a better proof source http://www.bhutanfootball.org/.


 * My conversation (I can always take a photo of my conversation, but I know how to post on Wikipedia.=


 * Conversation started Wednesday
 * Jinmu Tenno
 * 30/03/2016 01:01
 * Jinmu Tenno
 * Hello, I'd like you ask a question.
 * I wished to know who was the coach of the Bhutan women's national football team during the SAFF Women's Championship 2010, 2012 and 2014?
 * Cordially.
 * Women Football in Bhutan
 * 30/03/2016 03:16
 * Women Football in Bhutan
 * 2010 was a Japanese Coach  Hiroshima, 2012 is Kota Namgay n 2014 is Dorji Khandu.
 * Women Football in Bhutan
 * 30/03/2016 05:01
 * Women Football in Bhutan
 * Thank you for showing interest and keep supporting !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:e34:ee0e:abd0:b854:9c74:3c1f:e26d (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC+9)
 * If you want the information added to the article, then as You said above you can be bold and do it yourself or you can propose that it be added on the article's talk page. If you've already tried to add the information and it was removed by another editor, then you should follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and discuss the changes on the article's talk page. As I said above, you need to have a published reliable source. A photo of an email between you and someone at the Bhutan soccer federation is not considered a reliable source. In addition, Wkipedia editors are all volunteers and I'm pretty sure that nobody is going to call the Bhutan federation to verify this information and even if they did it still would not be acceptable as a reliable source. I know nothing about Bhutan women's soccer and very little about soccer in general, but perhaps somebody at WT:FOOTY can answer your questions or tell you where to look to find the sources you need. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Me, i do not mind adding to the article this information coming straight from their federation.
 * I have not posted the information on the wikipedia article, I expected an opinion from you.
 * Me, it's been several years that I am their evolution from the famous other final, the match had pitted two teams of fifa ranking.
 * I know their championship, btw than women for the first time will take place in 2016.
 * The federation for the information, it may go to the pellet is requested, their federation is the most reliable source.
 * Otherwise how you want Wikipedia to become a complete encyclopedia.
 * Google may be the information somewhere in a painting of the net after the found, it'll be a miracle.
 * A large majority of Wikipedia sources come from national or continental or fifa federations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:e34:ee0e:abd0:b854:9c74:3c1f:e26d (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC+9)
 * Wikipedia is not intended to be perfect/complete and Wikipedia articles are not intended to include every bit of information about a subject. Wikiepdia is only intended to include subjects which have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Article content is only intended to reflect what can be verified in independent published relibale sources. An email between you and the Bhutan federation is not a reliable source. The federation's official website is a primary source and it can be considered reliable for certan types of information, but not acceptable in other cases. So, my opinion is that you should discuss this on the article's talk page, explain the changes you want to make, explain the sources which support these changes, and see if there is a consensus for making the changes.
 * Finally, you are welcome to post on my user talk page, but please do not remove or change any content, especially posts by other editors, like you did with . You seem quite new to Wikipedia, but there are certain guidelines you should follow when posting on talk pages. I suggest you familiarize your self with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines because properly using talk pages is an important part of editing on Wikipedia and improperly using them may lead to problems with other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Steel1943 (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)