User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2019/July

Arsenal Women
Arsenal Ladies rebranded to Arsenal Women last year, and no longer use any badge distinct from the normal Arsenal badge, hence why I fixed the page. Let me know if you need any further information. Eightball (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The image currently included is objectively incorrect. It is not the club's badge, it does not represent the club's current name, and it is not in use anywhere. The fact that you ignored my attempt at discussing this with you is extremely disappointing. I am going to fix the page again, THEN I am going to reach out to the admins involved, as it is not acceptable to me to main the page is an objectively incorrect state. Please do better. Eightball (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . The file was previously removed Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 8. This was recently discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 124 and the Twitter file was re-added here by the same administrator who closed that FFD discussion. If you's like Explicit to reconsider his close of feel that this new information about the rebranding is something which should be now considered, please follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and discuss your concerns with him. A new consensus most likely will need to be established to overturn or clarify the older one. Please be advised that removing content considered to be "unquestionably" a violation of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (i.e. previously removed by an administrator per a WP:FFD discussion) is not considered a violation or WP:3RR per item 5 of WP:3RRNO, but continuing to re-add such file likely will be seen as edit warring. FWIW, Explicit participated in the above-mentioned recent discussion at WT:FOOTY where the re-branding was brought up, yet he still restored the older file and re-added it to the article; so, the best thing to do here is to post a note about this on his user talk, and see what he says. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you doing this? I am FIXING the article. You are actively making it wrong. Why? Eightball (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And that Twitter file doesn't even exist any more! The account it's from doesn't exist! The name Arsenal Ladies isn't used! What are you doing??? Eightball (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read my above post. The file was removed by an administrator. The Twitter file was restored and re-added by that same administrator; so, it's best to discuss your concerns with him and see what he says. We had an edit conflict while I was posting my initial response, but the current consensus per the above-mentioned FFD discussion was to remove the file. It's possible that a new consensus can be established to re-add the file, but you should follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and discuss things with the closing admin first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The logo was not deleted by an admin, it was deleted by a bot who removes logos without proper NFC criteria. I have already fixed this by adding a second NFCC template to the image to cover Arsenal W.F.C.. This fixes the problem. If you agree not to continue to revert the page, I will go ahead and fix it one last time; if you do not agree, I will get other admins involved, as I'm not going to sit and hassle Explicit and wait for a reply to something so exceedingly obvious. Eightball (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Arsenal FC.svg was removed by Explicit when he closed the FFD discussion (see here and here; the file wasn't deleted at that time because it was still be used in another article. The Twitter logo was deleted per WP:F5 because someone removed the file from the article and it became orphaned non-free use; Explicit restored that file and re-added it to the article last month per this edit. Now, if you want to get other admins involved here, then feel free to do so; however, you are almost certainly going to be the one considered to be edit warring per item 5 of WP:3RRNO. As I posted on Explicit's user talk page, discuss things with him per CLOSECHALLENGE and he will advise what needs to be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to jump through your made-up hoops in order to be bestowed with the privilege of making an obviously necessary change. Eightball (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is one keyword though in item 5 of WP:3RRNO and that is "unquestionably". The fact is though that the content you kept removing here is clearly not unquestionably a violation of WP:NFCC as multiple users are clearly questioning that it is. So beware of being so convinced that your reverts are justified and exempt from sanction because if you would get reported for it the reviewing admin might not quite agree with your stance.Tvx1 00:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The file was removed by an administrator per an FFD discussion, that means it is as unquestionable of violation of the NFCC as it gets. The non-free use rationale was removed from the same file's page by Explicit for the same reason. The rationale was then recently removed by another administrator named for the same reason. If someone disagrees with an FFD close, they can at a later date discuss it with the closing admin per CLOSECHALLENGE; the close, however, still remains in effect until a new one is established and this can be done via a new FFD or via DRV. Based upon previous discussions, you disagree all of this is necessary, but others (including some administrators) seem to feel differently. The file you removed in this particular case was actually restored and re-added to the article by Explicit here. It was subsequently removed by another editor and I just re-added it per Explicit. If you disagree with the file being restored and re-added, then discuss it with him. If you feel I've been editing warring over this, then start a discussion at AN3. If you feel I'm ignoring established consensus or otherwise being disruptive then start a discussion at ANI. The only thing I ask is that you provide diffs (something you've haven't done much of in the past) so that I have something to respond to. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No that doesn't mean it is "as unquestionable as it gets". As explained to you many teams, the subject's own usage of the disputed non-free content has changed since that old discussion which clearly affects the fair use claims for the discussed content. There is a plenty of evidence that the "ladies" version of the logo is no longer covered by fair use. At the same time it makes the other version of the logo no longer unquestionably a NFC violation. It is only your view that this unquestionable but beware that if you were reported at WP:AN3 for such edit-warring the reviewing admin might not agree with your edits falling under that exemption. Moreover WP:CCC, a policy, clearly states that "Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing" Thus contrary to your insistence discussion is not mandatory to change a previous consensus achieved through discussion. Note that at the WP:AN thread another admin did agree that your edits (yes YOUR edits:, , blanket reverts to restore a file that was evidently no longer covered by fair use) were not appropriate either, that Explicit posted on their talk page that  (thus including you) and note that the WP:FFD discussion has so far attracted unanimous support for the usage of the general logo. Now, it would be a real shame to lose your editing privileges over such a minor issue, wouldn't it? I have no intent to report you at WP:AN3 simply because I have no desire to get you blocked whatsoever. My comments here are aimed in the hope to get you to change your behavior in these situations, especially when an editor provided strong evidence that means an old discussion is no longer applicable present-day, to a more constructive and collaborative one. Instead of just repeatedly reverting an other user you could have simply decided to raise the issue at FFD, invite the other user there and see what the other editors think of the changed situation. That would have prevented all of this AN mess. And in a case where it is simply a user disruptively ignoring copyright rules on a situation that has changed with the subject, it's better to stop reverting and request protection of the page and/or report that user to the admins. The 3RR exemptions exist to prevent overly-rigid sanctions, not to give users the right to endlessly revert in same cases hoping the other partly finally gives up.Tvx1 16:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your "concern" about me possibly losing my editing priviledges seems to be more snark than anything else, and your desire to get me to modify my behavior seems just as snarky and more of an attempt to justify or re-affirm your own. My comments/responses to you to date have pretty much been nothing but civil and always made in good faith; they might have been a bit repetitive and long, but they were always certainly civil. Some of yours directed towards me, however, have been accusatory, inaccurate, and a bit of aspersion casting. If, by chance, I do someday end up being blocked, then I'm pretty sure I will be the first person to understand why. However, I hope that I would be self-aware enough before such a thing happens to realize that things can only be pushed too far before they break and tunderstand when it's time to drop the stick and move on. I also hope that I would have enough sense to realize that when administrators are advising me to do that very thing that it's probably the right time to do a little WP:DOGGY. If I still continuing on after that and end up getting blocked, then it would be on me, nobody else, and will have to own it for what it is.I don't think any further discussion here about this on this talk page is going to really resolve anything. We'll just keep going back and forth posting the same things. So, once again, if you feel my behavior is the truly an issue, feel free to ask that the AN that Eightball started be re-opened or start a new one yourself at AN/AN3/ANI. If you think it's more of a policy/guideline interpretation or application issue than a behavioral one, start a discussion on the relevant policy/guideline page and express your concerns there. In either case, seeking additional input from uninvolved others at a more suitable venue will be likely be a faster way to achieving whatever you seem to be seeking than continuing to discuss things here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft Dujuan Thomas & Mel B page
hello, thank you for your unbiased look into my matter. I would like to further a discussion on relable sources to include Dujuan Thomas into the Mel B Wikipedia page. I have sources from Yahoo and television that discuss the issue. I was informed that The Sun was not a legit source? is this true? but other than that I believe it is worth adding to her Bio due to its significance in her life and Dujuans Life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbycarroll (talk • contribs) 09:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The best place for you to do would be to continue to discuss the above on the article's talk page. Whenever there are disagreements between editors the thing to do is try to resolve them on the article's talk page per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Disputes such as this tend to be resolved through Wikipedia:Consensus, except in cases where their may be serious concerns raised (such as a major or clear cut policy violation) that requires some kind of more immediate response. It can sometimes take time for a consensus to be reached, but if things drag on for too long then you might want to seek assistance at a community noticeboard, such as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, set up specifically to resolve certain types of issues.
 * Some other more general advice.
 * All editors are volunteers and Wikipedia is pretty much maintained by editors checking to make sure all pages are edited in accordance to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Any page can be pretty much edit by anyone at anytime; in other words there are no private pages and even user pages are not private pages. As long as you strive to be here to improve Wikipedia and your edits are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, you should be fine and avoid problems with others; however, if you start to give the appearance of editing for other reasons or your edits are problematic per relevant policies and guidelines, you're going to start to have problems. At first, most other editors will be understanding and helpful when you make a mistake, but you're going to start having problems (perhaps even serious problems) if you don't listen to the advice you're being given and start repeating these mistakes over and over again.
 * Some of the comments you've posted to John from Idegon are completely unacceptable. He was actually trying to help you, not make things more difficult for you. If you don't want his help, just say so in a polite way; making personal attacks against other editors is expressly forbidden per Wikipedia:No personal attacks and is something that can even lead to an administrator immediately blocking the person who does. You're quite likely that hasn't happened already. My suggestion to you would be to go back and strikethrough any comment you made which might be considered a personal attack (as explained in WP:REDACT) before an administrator sees it and formally warns you about this. As I posted above, Wikipedians are all volunteers and are expected to work collaboratively with each other as much as possible. When you make comments like you did, it makes not only the person you commenting on less willing to work with you, it makes others who also see the comment not want to help you out too. Other editors have as much of a right to edit a page as you do, and they will be judged by the quality of there edits in the same way as you will be. It's best to resolve disputes civilly and stick to discussing the content in question, then accusing others of all kinds of things like you did with John. That won't help resolve the content dispute at all, but it might lead to an administrator stepping in and taking action against you.
 * Finally, the Wikipedia Teahouse is a good place to ask questions about editing; so, if you get stuck and are not sure what to do, take a step back and ask for help at the Teahouse. Lots of problems happen on Wikipedia when people get frustrated and start posting when they're a bit angry. It's OK to disengage and turn your computer off, and resume editing another time. Editors who are post when they're angry often post things they might later on wish they hadn't or create problems that didn't have to be created. So, if you're discussing things with someone and things are starting to make you mad, go for a walk and let the situation cool down a bit. Not only should this help you, it most likely will benefit the other person as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly Thank you. you have actually been helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbycarroll (talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Latroit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madonna ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Latroit check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Latroit?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Please stop messing with photos
There is absolutely NO reason for you to be changing the size of the 1903 photo on the Authors Cricket Club page. This is a vindictive edit. You got to control what you wanted - an admin deleted the other photo despite the fact that it did NOT reach anything close to a consensus (ONE person voting "delete" is not a consensus, according to another admin who wrote that just recently). I am well aware that you have control issues, as evidenced by the constant editing of other people's comments (including mine, even after I repeatedly asked you to stop) and the endless, longwinded arguing across multiple pages for hours and hours because someone else said a photo was allowed when you thought differently, and the need for the last word.

But this was purely vindictive - even after you got the photo deleted without a consensus, to then rush over within MINUTES and comb through the page searching for something else to mess with just to prove that you are in control and can do what you want, is not okay. Changing the only photo left on the page, despite it being in violation of no rules at all, is absolutely unnecessary. Please leave it alone. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There was nothing vindicative at all about the edit, but I'm not sure the same could be said about your post here on my user talk or the edit sum you left here. The file, the FFD discussion and the article were on still on my watchlist when the FFD discussion was closed. So, I went back to look at the article and saw that the other file was formatted to a fixed width size which is not recommended per WP:IMAGESIZE:"Except with very good reason, do not use (e.g.  ), which forces a fixed image width. In most cases  should be used, thereby respecting the user's base preference (which may have been selected for that user's particular devices). When   is used, the resulting image should usually be no more than 500 pixels tall and no more than 400 pixels wide, for comfortable display on the smallest devices 'in common use' (though this may still cause viewing difficulties on some unusual displays). To convert a   value to, divide it by 220 and round the result as desired. For example, 150px is roughly equivalent to 0.7 (150 / 220 ≃ 0.6818)." So, at 550px wide the file doesn't really comply with Wikipedia:Image use policy (IUP). All I did was tweak the syntax by adding upright scaling as recommended by the policy and then tweaked the scaling factor again to try and increase the size a bit more. As for the FFD discussion, if you disagree with the close, you can discuss your concerns with the closing admin . One other editor  clearly felt different about the file's non-free use than you did, and even  clarified his original response to you at the Teahouse to state In other articles, the article should include properly referenced critical commentary about the cover art in order for an image of the cover to be eligible for the WP:NFCI #1 exception. I didn't get JJMC89 or any admin to do anything; he closed the discussion based upon the comments made and also in accordance with the relevant policy. So, if you disagree with the close, you can follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, discuss things with the closing admin JJMC89 and see what he says; maybe you can persuade him to WP:RELIST the discussion. For reference, Cullen328 is also an admin, so you can ask him for clarification as well if you like about (1) the size of the remaining image and (2) the FFD discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is your behavior,, that looks vindictive to me as an individual editor at this time. I am now involved in this situation, so will not issue any formal administrative warnings to you. I will limit myself to encouraging you to dial back your confrontational behavior, and to spend a few minutes studying Assume good faith. Thank you. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If I've misinterpreted anything you posted in that particular FFD thread or at the Teahouse, please feel to correct me. I also just want to add that another editor, who as far as I can remember I've never interacted with, has started a discussion about this at Talk:Authors Cricket Club bascially citing the same policy I cited in my edit summary here. So, once again I'm not sure how the edit I made was "vindictive" in any way. It also appears the Lilipo25 has asked JJMC89 to clarify the FFD close. I have no problem with this or even with JJMC89 deciding to re-open the discussion to seek further input. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank You for Your Input
Hi Marchjuly,

First of all, thank you so much for your input. I have a sign hanging in my university office that simply states, "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." As you read this text from me. I'm embarrassed to say that in my case, this is only too painfully true!

Four years ago someone suggested that I should have a Wikipedia article, given my numerous activities as a performing artist, educator, and author of both poetry and non-fiction. As a result someone whom I didn't really know gathered verifiable information about me and in 2015, an article was published in Wikipedia. When I said "my article," I didn't mean to give the impression that I wrote it.

While I hadn't revisited the article in quite some time, I did have a look about a month ago and saw that it needed to be updated, in order to reflect my activities since the article's original publication. I expressed my frustration with how exactly to implement such an update, when a colleague informed me that if the information to be added was verifiable -- i.e., each entry could be found in a respected source (in my case, a recently published book and a number of recordings) -- I could add the updated entries myself; which is exactly what I've done. I had no idea that this would be seen as a possible conflict of interest.

I have always taught my university writing students that Wikipedia has many useful purposes, not the least of which is its wealth of hyper-links and its well-cited entries, thanks in no small part to a rigorous coterie of editors who separate fact from fiction. So it has always been my belief that the entries in one's article should be well documented and at the end of the day, indisputably factual.

In my case, the addition of my most recent book ("Experiencing Ornettte Colmeman: A Listener's Companion") was published on October 6, 2017 by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; and all added recordings were released by well known jazz record labels. All of these entries are completely verifiable. The only addition on the "Biography and Career" section comes at the end of the fourth paragraph, where the Coleman book has been added. Please know that anything that is in need of amending or correcting can be done easily.

I have NEVER perceived of Wikipedia as a repository for self-promotion or advertising! To me personally, it has always provided a valuable service as an encyclopedic repository which focuses upon events, theories, places, and people.

Frankly, I'm not sure how to proceed at this point. I have no one to turn to should my edits of the last few days be deleted. I really could use some personal guidance other that the rather formidable links that make be feel like a complete know-nothing! I always urge my students to seek guidance from a knowledgeable person or at least an accessibly readable source. That's exactly what I've done here. Please help me resolve whatever issues may exist for me at present. I would be most appreciative. Bluejazz9999 (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully,

Dr. Michael Stephans Bluejazz9999 (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . i'll try to answer some of your questions. For future reference though, it's OK to respond to posts others add to your user talk on your user talk page. Just and your response to the same discussion thread right below there's. You don't need to post a response on the other editors user talk page. In fact, doing so sometimes can fragment discussions and make them hard to follow. I realize the "Welcome" template I added to your user talk page does say please ask questions here, but it's not absolutely necessary.The first thing you should probably do is consider WP:DECLARECOI. There are a number of ways you can declare a COI, but the most common is simply to post something on your user page clarifying whatever connection you have to the article. If you want to take things a step further, you can send an email to Wikimedia OTRS for a more formal type of verification of identity. An OTRS volunteer will check your email and will add Template:Verified account to your userpage if everything seems in order. This last bit will make it clear (or at least as clear as possible) that you are Michael Stephans.The next thing I would do would be to add Template:Connected Contributor to the top of Talk:Michael Stephans. The template can be a bit tricky, but bascially you can just add  The last bit can be rephrased differently if you like with link to your userpage added. You should add the template below the last WikiProject banner but above the first discussion thread. The easiest way to do this is by clicking the "Edit" tab (not the "New section" tab) at the top of the page and scolling down a bit until you find the right spot. I've left a "note" in the editing window's syntax where the template should be added; just replace my note with the template.The last thing I would do is to stop directly editing the article, except as explained in WP:COIADVICE. A WP:MINOR edit like a spelling correction, or a formatting/syntax correction, etc. would almost certainly be OK; anything else. however, like the removing or adding of content probably should be left to other editors. You can find out more about how to do this in WP:PSCOI, but basically you will be making a edit request on the article's talk page. The template you use to make this request will alert others to come by and take a look; they will then assess the request to see whether it's in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, and then make the edit if it is. It's best to keep your request as specific and simply as possible (e.g. "Add this sentence supported by this source to the first paragraph of the "XYZ" subsection", "Add this entry to the bibliography"); vague or complex requests where it's not entirely clear what's supposed to be changed and why it's supposed to be changed are often skipped over or declined altogether. All Wikipedia editors are volunteers and those who helpoout by answering edit requests might not want to spend lots of time working on a single request and searching online to find sources to verify the proposed change. There always tends to be more requests than volunteers and they usually are answered in order so it can take some time; so, the easier the request is to understand, the faster it's likely to be answered.If you've got any more questions about this, you can ask them here or you can also ask others for help at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Political image and/or logo advice
Could you please look at Template:Did you know nominations/National Peasants' Party and comment as you see fit on the image's license? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Since the file has been uploaded to Commons, it might be best to ask about its licensing at c:COM:VPC since that's where any concerns about the accuracy of the license would need to be raised. In my opinion, I'm not sure if I agree 100% with the claim of "old work" since it either is (or was) an official logo of the National Peasants' Party or it wasn't. If it is/was, then the user recreation might be considered a derivative work; if it isn't/wasn't, then the logo might be considered a sort of image original research and probably should not be used from a contextual standpoint, even if freely licensed. "Own work" in my opinion implies the logo was the original creation of the uploader; not something based upon a thing originally created by someone else. -Looking at some of the other files uploaded by this editor to Commons, it appears that many other logos are uploaded as "own work"; these might only need to be relicensed in order to be kept if they are public domain for some reason, but I don't think they would be considered "own work". -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked about this at c:COM:VPC. If there's a consensus that the licensing is fine as is or just needs to be tweaked, then (at least from a copyright standpoint) it should be OK for the DYK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! Flibirigit (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My personal interpretation of "own work" might be more restrictive than some other editors, but basically if Commons keeps the file then it should be OK to use in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)