User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2020/February

Hope you like kittens.
A thank-you kitten for you. (apologies if you are not a fan, and feel free to delete this)

not necessarily not from Earth (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 

Calabasas
Regarding your edit at Bryant's article, LA County adds context for a reader not familiar with the LA area so that they don't necessarily have to click on the city just to get a rough idea of its location, similar to the concept of "not unnecessarily make a reader chase links" at MOS:LINKSTYLE. It just said "near Los Angeles" when his death was on the Main Page, but some people argued that LA County might be more relevant.—Bagumba (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not really necessary to discuss this here, but Calabasas is in LA County and LA County is in California, but California is not in LA County. If more clarification is needed as to the location of Calabasas, then maybe pipe the link to "Calabasas" and then add "in LA County, California". — Marchjuly (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Spacestronaute thanks you.
Hi, Thanks for your notes on my first entry in the tea-house. Your explanation of the difference between an article getting rejection and being declined was _very_ useful. (it was also kindly worded, and in my opinion, meant well) I must admit, besides being an utter newby/newbie (which you know already, I expect), that I was under the impression that the Wikipedia was a repository for all manner of human knowledge. (the range of things I've found in the Wikipedia is quite expansive) I did expect that articles were to be presented as neutrally as possible (just the facts), but did not realise that 'Notability' plays such a significant aspect to the curation of the body of knowledge. (I use the word curation as I consider the term to be quite subjective, if you get my meaning) The term 'Notability' is quite an interesting one, given that it means different things to different people; what is notable for a historian is not the same as what is notable for a theologian; what is notable to a journalist may not be the same as what is notable to a sociologist or an anthropologist. Notability for those in the realm of science or mathematics is yet another matter. I may not, in the end, re-submit my article (the one yet to be deleted) more than a few times, as in the grand scheme of things, it is not really that notable in Wikipedia terms. (although people from across North America and even in Europe know of the group that is the subject of the article) It does occur to me that I can endlessly maintain some version of the article in the sandbox -- as an un-notable article-let or mini not-article.

Again, thanks for your help -- I appreciate it. (apologies for this long missive, and if I have wasted your time ... I'd pay it back if I could ... and apologies for lack of respect for any conventions that should be applied when communicating and commenting in the Wikipedia realm.)

I am quite curious as to any thoughts you have on my meanderings above. I am not a writer of any calibre (more of a reader), and am certainly not an encyclopeadist. (prob. not a word) All this said, the Wikipedia is a wonderful mechanism for exploring the sum of knowledge developed by our species ... be it history, cosmology or astronomy (among my favourites) or the extensive IT knowledge it houses (useful for work) and I have spent/wasted many hours wandering around among the articles.

not necessarily not from Earth (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The idea of "notability" is probably one of those "things" that people are probably never going to see eye to eye because as you say it means different things to different people; "Wikipedia:Notability", on the other hand, is something which is defined a certain way and whose definition has been hashed out over the years through various discussions. It might not be a perfect concept, but it does seem to be one that the WP:COMMUNITY has somewhat agreed upon. There are very few Wikipedia policies/guidelines, however, which are so firmly set in stone that they can never be revisted and discussed, and usually the ones that are have those which have to do with potential legal issues like WP:COPY, WP:NFCC and WP:BLP, either directly implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation itself or strongly recommended to be implementated; most of the other stuff was implemented by community through consensus over the years as an attempt to try to keep a control on things and prevent Wikipedia from being a free-for-all where anything and everything goes. Wikipedia Notability is sort of like a gate keeper in that it offers a way to try and keep the encyclopedia from becoming some of the things listed in WP:NOT. Many find it too restrictive and limiting, but many also find it not restrictive or limiting enough. As time passes and newer and newer people start becoming members of the community, the concept will probably change to perhaps more reflect the current times, but there seem to be many more WP:ALTERNATIVEs to Wikipedia in comparison to the perhaps when Wikipedia was first starting out that perhaps being written about in Wikipedia will no longer be considered such a feather to have in ones hat. Anyway, if you're interested in discussing this kind of thing, then you might find Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention or Wikipedia:Help Project interesting since those WikiProjects are always looking for ways to try and improve the Wikipedia experience. You can also try Wikipedia:Village pump for more formal discussion. If you want to discuss the general philosopy of Wikipedia, etc., you might want to ask the man you started it all at User talk:Jimmy Wales; his page has lots of talk page watchers, though, so you may get responses from others as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the additional explanations. (Also, thanks for the page clean-up in my draft article: e.g. heading case, heading formats, and anything I did not notice)  Also rather useful is the WP:NOT section, which is also somewhat amusing.   --  not necessarily not from Earth (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacestronaute (talk • contribs) 18:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

IMDb
Hello! I spent about two hours trying to craft the perfect filmography for a page I saw that was in need. IMDb is the premier source for people in the entertainment industry and, with notable figures like Jeff Greenstein, it's generally highly reliable. Do you know what other sources I could use in order to verify one's filmography? I have never noticed this issue with other prominent entertainment industry individuals. -PickleG13 (talk) 6:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For Wikipedia's purposes, IMDb is not considered to be a reliable source as explained in WP:UGC, WP:BLPSPS, WP:ELP, WP:RS/IMDB and WP:RS/P; moreover, the fact that it may be cited as such in other articles doesn't mean it should be. If you want to argue that IMDb should be considered to be a reliable source, at least for this particular case, you can do so at WP:RSN. Perhaps you'll be able to present an argument that will convince others that at least in is in case. If you want some ideas as to what types of sources are generally considered OK for sourcing filmographies found in articles, you can try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, but generally reliable sources tend to be the things described in WP:SOURCES, i.e. published and accessible sources which are considered to be subject to some type of reasonable editorial control.Just for reference, there's really nothing that is perfect when it comes to Wikipedia; I'm not saying this to belittle your attempts at improving the article or make light the amount of time and energy you spent trying to do so. Every edit we make can be built upon or even undone altogether by another editor at anytime regardless of how much time and effort we put into it. We agree to allow this every time we click the "Publish changes" button. When we are reverted, we're expected to to try and follow WP:DR and WP:BRD and try and resolve things through discussion, except in some very limited cases. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help here. I understand that it can be stressful trying to work on a page that is disputed like that, and I appreciate your candor. I have now added many entertainment industry sources that cross-reference the facts in the page. Since the page is currently disputed for relevance, it is essential that all relevant factors are included in it.
 * I appreciate your help, and that you are here to benefit the Wikipedia community. -- PickleG13 (talk) 7:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest that you be WP:CAUTIOUS with respect to this and further discuss things at Talk:Jeff Greenstein. Any further reverts, no matter, how right you think you may be are not going help resolve the situation and may actually lead to your account being blocked. The article talk page is the best place to discuss content disputes such as this because it makes it easier for others to participate and it keeps things in one place for archiving purposes for future reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Help!
Hi March Boy! Hoping you can help me because you seem like one of the smartest guys on here. Long story short, I’m associated with a film called “I’m Charlie Walker”. This film has NEVER been released. We are now setting it up for release this year. It was originally called “America Is Still The Place”, but the title was changed. BovineBoy seems like a nice guy, but for some reason he created a new wiki page under the old title and it is affecting our ability to market the film. Do you know how to delete that page? We also want the “I’m Charlie Walker” page to stand on its own but for some reason it is being redirected to the actors pages. This doesn’t help us because no one can see information about the film and there are legalities involved doing that. If you could advise me or help out that would be great. Here’s the IMDB link that shows the title is indeed “I’m Charlie Walker”. Thanks so much and keep on keeping on. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt3417110/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0 5patrickgilles5 (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please try to avoid calling people "Boy"; perhaps you mean no offense and I get you're enthusiastic, but some people might be offended it by being referred to in such a way. It's probably best to just refer to someone by their username since that's mostly likely how they want to be referred to.Please also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, particularly Wikipedia:Conflict of interest since it does, just from what you've posted above, appear that you do have a conflict of interest with respect to anything written about this film on Wikipedia.Please read Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Even though a Wikipedia article may be written about a subject, it isn't "owned" by its subject; moreover, articles aren't written to promote their subjects or help them market themselves. Whatever deadlines, etc. you're facing with respect to getting this film released have nothing to at all to do any Wikipedia article has been written about the film.If the name of the film has been changed and there already exists a Wikipedia written about the film under it's old name, then the best place to discuss this would be on the corresponding talk page of that article and propose that the name of the article be changed; however, you're going to have to provide some information about the name change being reported in reliable sources to allow verification. The titles of articles can be changed (this is called a moving a page), but the titles of articles are supposed to reflect how reliable sources commonly refer to the subject; so, if everything written about the film in newspapers, magazines, etc. refers to it by its former name, a name change will probably have to wait until those things start referring to it by its new name before the name of the article about the film can be changed. For reference, Wikipedia doesn't generally considered IMDb a reliable source for Wikipedia articles because the content tends to be user-generated without much vigorous editorial control, but major newspapers, national magazines, books by reputable publishers, etc. are generally considered OK.If no such article yet exist, then please read Wikipedia:Notability (film) and Wikipedia:Too soon; yet-to-be-released films can have articles written about them, but they need to be meet relevant Wikipedia notability guidelines. If it's not possible to write an article about the film at this particular time, then perhaps after it's been released and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, e.g. critical reviews, it will be possible to write such an article then. You can always ask for more specifics on how to do this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Regardless of who ends up writing the article, only content about the film which is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines will be deemed to be OK; anything else will likely be removed. So, if you're hoping/planning/trying to use Wikipedia to help market the film, then you probably should try and do that somewhere else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So sorry about that. I mixed up BovineBoy and MarchJuly as I was also sending messages to BovineBoy as you can see.  Did not Mean to call you that at all.  Big Apologies.    Strong Island 4 (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't not post the "boy" comment above. It was posted by an editor named 5patrickgilles5 as you can see here. Why are you apologizing for doing something you didn't do? Your account has made only three edits: the one above you made here on my talk page and two made to an article called I'm Charlie Walker (one in February 2019 and one January 2020). All your edits can be seen in your contributions' history and there's also no record of you having any discussion with as well. Are your stating that you might possibly be using more than one Wikipedia account? If that's the case, please be very careful and read Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello Marchjuly,
 * I'm responding to your message of Feb 8, 2020 and my deep concerns of your charges against me. Specifically your assersion (accusation) of my having a "conflict of interest" and your personal campaign to disqualify and ban me from participating on the wiki movie page "I'm Charlie Walker". More concerning, is your self appointed authority and quick judgement of facts without utilitzing your own suggested "group proof read, or editorial test" and judgement of your own assersion against me. First, I contest your "conflict of interest" charge and judgement against me. This is an opinion and not fact, truth, or evidence. That is a serious charge that you have made on record. I suggest your reconsider this serious and false claim. I merely wish to maintain accuracy of the information on the page on which you have suddenly taken great interest and ownership of. As a first party participant in the events outlined on the page and creator of the page, I feel confident of the accuracy regarding the simple premise of the story, the actors involved, the creators and producers involved. I see no conflict in a cast list and summary of events. I am not soliciting funds, promoting events, or offering services. Finally, your plea for civil discussion and "no personal attacks" on this platform smacks of insincerity as I personally have endured your attacks by assertion that I am not qualified to join in the accurate information gathering for this page and that I should somehow be banned, or removed. That is personal. This is punative and bound with negative consequence to me. That is an attack. That is not civil. I sincerely hope you reconsider your role in this matter and immediately cease your unprovoked campaign against me. I hope this matter does not escalate.
 * Sincerely,
 * 5Patrickgilles5 5patrickgilles5 (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , what precisely are you trying to say with your last sentence? John from Idegon (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello John from Idegon. To answer your question about my "last sentence". There is no hidden meaning, or broad interpretation. Quite literally an "escalation" would be an increase in effort. More back and forth, more discussion, more exersion of time and effort. I wish to minimize disagreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5patrickgilles5 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I added Template:welcome-coi to your user talk page with this edit because you're stating that you're the writer/director/producer of the film I'm Charlie Walker and you're trying to get an article about the film added to Wikipedia. That would be considered a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest by the Wikipedia:Community, and most likely consider you to have a financial conflict of interest as well. I added the template to your user talk page to make you aware of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding this type of thing so that you could possibly avoid problems. If you disagree that you have such a COI, then you can just ignore the template and even remove it from your talk page if you like; however, I think if you were to ask for some other opinions on this at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN), then you'd most likely find that the Wikipedia Community at large would agree with my assessment. You're welcome to post a query there and see what others think.If you feel my response to your original post or any of my other edits related to this was uncivil in anyway and was a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, then you can bring my behavior up for discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you're not sure how to do that, please read Wikipedia:ANI advice for some advice on how to pursue such a thing. I would also suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Harassment because once you post something on Wikipedia it will be there for all to see and judge.I'm not sure what you mean by escalate, but if you want to get others members of the Wikipedia community involved in this discussion, then the best place to do so would not here on my user talk page; it would be best to further discuss things at one of the venues listed here. I've already mentioned two such venues above that are available to you to pursue further discussion, but there are others as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Doug Mehus T · C  23:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Censoring Kobe Bryant's Age at Death
Greetings @Marchjuly,

I hope you are having a good day in your part of the world. Some quick feedback:

Look up any other person who died, and the age is there. You don't want the reader to have to do the math to find out how old he was when he died.
 * Twice I tried to add Kobe Bryant's age at death. Twice you removed it saying, "I think" it is not necessary. Wikipedia is about Facts and the age that someone died is VERY important, ESPECIALLY when the person dies so young as Kobe Bryant did.

Even the Bible lists the ages people die in many cases.


 * Unnecessary censorship makes Wikipedia feel like a battleground instead of an open source encyclopedia where each person does their part to improve it. Quality is key. I was tempted to let this incident discourage me from further contribution. Why? Because I honestly felt targeted by your edits since you did not "think" other sentences with ages in the SAME article needed to be removed or edited, even the sentence prior to the one I edited.


 * Today I am relieved & pleased to see Kobe's age of death was added back.

Apparently someone else added it and it stuck, as it ought to stick.

So I remain encouraged to stay positive because each person counts, no matter how small their contributions are.

Respectfully submitted, -JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CC:100:6560:7956:16C:E530:7F0D (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't not try to WP:CENSOR anyone's age. I removed content from the MOS:LEAD because it seemed redundant as being already mentioned in both the infobox and later in the article, and seemed out of place as it was being used. So, please try and assume good-faith and avoid immediately assuming the worst about another editor the next time some changes you make to an article may happened to be undone by another editor. Instead, try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and asking for clarification since they may be a reason why the content was removed. Wikipedia isn't The Bible, a newspaper or any other publication, and articles about deceased persons do not need to be written like an obituary; moreover, just because something is a fact doesn't automatically make it worth mentioning and just because someone adds a certain type of content to a similar article doesn't mean similar content should be added to all such articles. Content is added to articles all the time, but even being in an article for a long time doesn't mean it should've been added to begin with. Disagreements over this sort of thing are usually better to try and resolve through article talk page discussion, than claiming someone is targeting you. For one, I've got no idea who you are since the account you posted here as made only one edit, the one you made to this talk page. Perhaps, you used another account at the time, and I could dig through the page history to find the actual edits if you like. Implying I'm targeting you, however, is implying that I'm WP:NOTHERE and trying to pervert Wikipedia for my own benefit in some way. If you really believe that the be the case, please bring it to the intention of others at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so that my behavior can be reviewed. My intention in removing that content was never to discourage you or anyone else from editing, but at the same time I will continue to make edits which I believe are WP:HERE if I think they are ones that should be made. When others disagree with me, I am more than happy to discuss/clarify my reasoning; if the consensus falls my way, then that's good for Wikipedia; if it doesn't, then that's also good for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comment Look up any other person who died, and the age is there. You don't want the reader to have to do the math to find out how old he was when he died., please look at Babe Ruth, Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jackson and John Lennon for some examples of individuals who are at least as if not more well-known then Bryant in which the age at time of death is not mentioned in the lead of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings @Marchjuly,


 * Thank you for the note on my Talk page about my IP address. How can I delete this entry to remove the IP address, or can I somehow associate it to my login after the fact? I did not realize I wasn't logged in.


 * I also appreciate your detailed response to my posting on your Talk page. I've had edits reverted in the past, and it did bother me because the "reason" given by the Editor sounded fair & reasonable. At the time, yours did not sound fair, as it seemed to be merely your opinion, perhaps because you cited, "I think" in your responses.


 * I'm glad to know you were not targeting me. For the record, I was not accusing you, simply expressing how your actions made me feel. I felt targeted & explained why I felt that way. Never said you were indeed targeting me or on a mission to discourage me. I'm still learning a lot, and I am grateful for the IP information especially!


 * Thank you again.


 * -JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphiladelphia (talk • contribs) 16:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the additional clarification. You can find out about more about having content hidden from public view at very top of WP:OVERSIGHT; I believe you will need to have your WP:EMAIL enabled to file an oversight request though.Just for reference, you seem to be marking (perhaps unintentionally) pretty much all of your edits as WP:MINOR edits, even when they shouldn't probably be marked as such; so, you might want to be careful about this, particularly if you're re-adding content which has been previously removed by another editor. You also might want to leave an edit summary whenever possible, even a single word, particularly when you're re-adding content removed by another editor.I apologize if my use of "think" was confusing, but even when an edit is undone because someone "thinks" it might not be appropriate, doesn't mean the edit shouldn't be undone or should simply be written off as some random opinion; the word "think" may actually be being used by an editor to soften the tone of their edit summary and make it easier for further discussion to take place than if they simply posted "This is completely wrong; don't do it again". Regardless, when an editor reverts you and then suggests that you bring things up for further discussion on the article's talk page, then that might be a good thing to do unless the reversion is clearly a violation of some major policy and guideline. The more you edit, the greater the chance of being reverted; there's nothing wrong with asking for clarification when it happens, but it's best to try and assume good-faith, at least until they give you a reason not to.Finally, please try to remember to WP:SIGN your talk page posts because it makes it easier to see who posted what and when they posted it. It might not matter as much on a user talk page when it's fairly obvious who posted, but it can make a difference and really minimize confusion on an article talk page or noticeboard where lots of people are posting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Testing signing my username. Jdphiladelphia (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello again @Marchjuly,


 * I decided not to worry about my IP address, as it appears all my other edits appear under my username. Going forward I'm definitely making sure that I'm logged prior to editing or "talking."


 * I also learned how to sign my name (with the four tildas). Thank you for linking to the directions and sharing that tip.


 * I will use "minor edit" sparingly going forward too. And yes, I learned to make itty bitty edits for greater success; thanks for that confirmation. It has been trial & error with learning what works and doesn't work and how to "navigate" the Wikipedia waters best if-you-will.


 * I now understand what editors mean when they suggest a discussion on the Talk page, including where and how to do so. Which leads me to a question: should the conversation we're having be on the Koybe Bryant Talk page instead of your username Talk page?


 * I will utilize Article Talk Pages more going forward, now that I am aware of them. As you see, I did take the time to reach out to you, and I'm glad I did, so I'm certainly not opposed to pinging an Editor for clarity. If I don't, it could simply be because I agree with the editor or don't have the time to Talk. Or maybe I submit a more acceptable edit based on the feedback given.


 * Learning is a slow process, especially since I stay so busy, but I find it rewarding & am a huge component of opensource works. Maybe in a couple years after I've mastered all the ropes as a Contributor, I can explore the possibility of becoming an Editor. I actually used to be editor in chief of a college newspaper, which notably is very different from an encyclopedia, yet both involve factual writing/editing. English was also my favorite course in school, grammar and writing.


 * Lastly, thank you for all the points you took the time to make. I was also pleasantly surprised to receive fast responses. That is not always the case!


 * Truly,
 * JD
 * Jdphiladelphia (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs so not everyone has the same schedule or edits with the same frequency; thus, the response time to your posts make may vary greatly among editors. Some editors may even chose not to respond for whatever reason and there's really no obligation on their part to do so. Some people simply just like editing and feel anything else just has the potential to lead to unnecessary drama; many people just edit for fun and find everything else to be a downer. The only editors who are really sort of obligated to respond are administrators, but they know that sort of goes with the "job" and most became administrators because they want to contribute in more ways than just editing.Glad to hear you're getting the hang of things. It's a constant learning process and there are always things for even experienced editors to learn；moreover, it's not always how long you've been editing that matters, but how varied your editing is that often gives you more exposure to and makes you more aware of how things sort of work. A person can have a editing history going back years and years; if, however, they've basically been focused on the same article or same subset of articles the whole time, they actually may be "less" experienced than some others who haven't been editing for nearly as long.If you feel there's more to be discussed about the date of death in the Bryant article or have any other concerns about that article, you can be WP:BOLD or WP:CAUTIOUS depending upon the specifics. Personally, the date of death in the lead seems, at least not at this particular time, not a major issue to that needs to be discussed (otherwise. I would've started a discussion about it myself after it was re-added the last time). It may be something brought up again in the future by someone else, but right not WP:SILENCE seems to be OK to assume at the moment. Once the dust settles a bit and the article stabilizes, there may be some fine tuning matters that end up being discussed which lead to a revising of the lead as a whole. Now, if, by chance, that information is removed again, then just try and understand why and be careful with automatically re-adding it (unless it's clearly a case of WP:VANDAL). Perhaps if that happens, then it might be a good idea to initiate discussion about it. Just for reference, although WP:BRD generally is cited as good practice, it doesn't always mean you have to revert another person's BOLD edit and then encourage them to discuss things; you can also start a discussion about another's BOLD edit to see what the consensus on it might be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

For MarchJuly - Info & Input for Booth Lusteg
Dear MarchJuly, I hope I'm answering you in the right place, but I'm new at all this & it was difficult for me to navigate around on Wiki & to land on this page. Thank you Sir for your response & input. I will try to follow the guidelines as best as I can & post my edit requests on a page for all to see (if I can find where that is) I also still am not sure of how I am supposed to sign my name. Is it with any 4 symbols (tildes)? It's sad the media sensationalized the story about my dad after the Bills game. He was never assaulted or beat up. We were there after. The Press exaggerated the story. My dad was always very open with us & told us all the details. Yes he & the fans were disappointed but they never hurt him. I know how it is because I played pro tennis & one reporter one time completely misconstrued my words & published them which gave it an opposite meaning than what was intended. As far as with the Portland Storm of the WFL, we were with him in Oregon for the games. There was a news clip that read, "Lusteg's FG Saves Storm" It was in the Sports section of the "Oregonian"shown on my tribute website, boothlustegtribute.com There is also a photo on this site of him kicking in front of a crowd in a blue/green uniform with the Portland Storm. Pete Beathard was Quarterback and holder. It was Sept 28, 1974. Portland won over Birmingham 26 to 21. Head Coach was Dick Coury & he was called to come out to Portland right away. There Booth beat out 2 other kickers. Booth recounts the details on pgs 182-185 in his autobiography, "Kick Rejection and Win." I will try & find more references for Wiki. All for now, tttt Lisa Lusteg-Bennett tttt Feb 13, 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtlisa (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . It's probably better for you to discuss such changes, etc. at Talk:Booth Lusteg simply because it makes it easier for others to participate in such discussion and also makes recording keeping of discussion related to the article a bit easier as well. So, I've moved your post from User talk:Marchjuly to Talk:Booth Lusteg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Carryover conversation
I'm continuing our conversation from JJMC89's talk page. Thanks for your (long) response. All I was looking for basically was something like your reference to WP:FUR, so thanks. I have to say what you outlined is certainly a torturous but effective way for Wikipedia to avoid lawsuits and thereby avoiding even more tortuous and costly litigation; boy, it sure isn't easy to make decisions by consensus! I think my hypo would be more apt if it's about a second Mars probe of the same exact configuration and the need to use said non-free image again (of course it'd be much better if someone in China releases a free image of the probe.) Also, I had not realized that my hypo was so similar to the Wikipedia references to the Kobe Bryant chopper crash, not being a big NBA fan at this time. Cheers. Spotty&#39;s Friend (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Many things on Wikipedia are accomplished by being WP:BOLD and WP:SILENCE. So, you add a rationale for a particular use to a file's page, and then wait and see what happens. If nobody says anything, then probably it's OK; if someone challenges it (even after a lot of time has passed), then that's where WP:DR and WP:CONSENSUS come into play. It's the same way for most text content as well. Only when there are serious issues at play like WP:COPYVIO, WP:BLP, WP:ATTACK, WP:LIBEL, WP:VANDAL, etc. does discussion/consensus tend to take a bit of a back seat to immediate action. Using the same non-free image multiple times is most likely not going to lead to anyone getting sued because most of the non-free content uploaded to Wikipedia likely falls under fair use/fair dealing; not getting sued, however, was not really the main point behind Wikipedia's non-free content use policy because if it was then the WMF wouldn't allow any non-free content to be uploaded and used on any of its projects per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. As it is, they leave it up to the community of each local Wikipedia project to decide if and how to do so; some like English Wikipedia do, while others don't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all your feedback and guidance
Thanks for all your thorough feedback and guidance. I appreciate that this is what keeps Wikipedia open and fair. I have added a COI template on my page, and I've taken note about your comments about minor edits and edit summaries. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickolsson (talk • contribs) 02:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The best thing you can do is to follow the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for the articles about you and your dad. Most experienced editors will be quite willing to try and help you sort out any issues you may have as long as you ask for assistance; you'll only start having problems if it appears you're only editing for your own benefit, etc. One other thing you might want to look at is WP:REALNAME. Wikipedia has no way of knowing whether you're really Dick Olsson; many will assume good faith and give you the benefit of the doubt until "problems" start happening. If you want to make it clear to anyone and everyone that you are really "Dick Olsson", then you can email Wikimedia OTRS and verify your identity; however, be aware of WP:REALWORLD and WP:PROUD if you do this because all Wikipedia pages (not just Wikipedia articles) are publicly viewable and people might try to use the things you post on Wikipedia against you in some way. You choice of username is yours to make (except in some cases), but you still will be considered to have a COI regardless of what username you choose.{{pb}]Finally, if you're going to start regularly posting on article talk pages or user talk pages, you should try and always remember to WP:SIGN your posts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Help with Flickr as a source for free photos
I think I have found a freely licensed photo of Kirovs Lipmans. Please see on Flickr (photo, third from left). What would I do now? I am very technically challenged, btw. Flibirigit (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Flickr license looks like it's OK for Wikipedia and Commons per c:COM:FLICKR; the only possible problem might be if the Flickr account holder took the photo from some other place, uploaded to their Flickr account, and then re-licensed it. I can't read Latvian but the photo appears to be attributed to "Aivis Freidenfelds, Valsts kancelejabut", while the Flickr account belongs to "Valsts kanceleja/ State Chancellery". I'm not sure what that might mean. For example, in the United States, photos appearing on the official websites, etc. of the US (federal) government are generally considered to be within the public domain (PD) per WP:PD, and this would include any photos taken by US government employees as part of their official duties. There are, however, some cases where photos taken by others (i.e. persons who are not US government employees) do show up on official US government websites; these photos are not really the property of the US government so to speak which means that they aren't automatically going to be considered to be PD.I'm not sure about the specifics of Latvian copyright law, but c:COM:Latvia might provide some insight. If Latvian copyright law is similar to the US's with respect to the copyrighting of government works, and Aivis Freidenfelds was a government employee when the photo was taken, then perhaps the photo would be considered to be within the public domain regardless of the Flickr license. Even if the photo's not PD but the Flickr account actually belongs to Aivis Freidenfelds, then it would be like any other personal photo uploaded by someone to their Flickr account and the licensing should be OK as Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0 or some other equivalent license. This might be a good thing to ask about at WP:MCQ or maybe even at c:COM:VPC since Commons is where the file should really be uploaded if it's either PD or it's FLICKR license is acceptable. My personal feeling is that unless there are serious concerns about Flickr washing being done by the State Chancellery of Latvia (anything is possible I guess), then the file is probably OK to upload to Commons under that same license used on Flickr. If you do so in good faith but the file ends up deleted for some reason, then you would be OK unless you intentionally set out to try and deceive others from the start.One thing about this photo though is that it's a group photo so to speak. So, once you upload it to Commons, you can ask that it be cropped to just show Lipmans by making a request at c:COM:GL/P. You could crop the image yourself and then upload the photo; however, the photo may have some encyclopedic value as is and may be able to be used by others in some different way. So, uploading the full photo and then having it cropped seems a little better. Another reason for uploading the photo to Commons and not just Wikipedia is that Commons files are global files that can be used by all Wikimedia Foundation project like other language Wikipedias, whereas Wikipedia files are local files which can only be used on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I find copyright very frustrating to understand. I'm not sure what I will do next. Flibirigit (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have thought about it for a few hours, and this seems like too much hassle for what it's worth. Thanks anyhow. Flibirigit (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's up to you, but you should be OK uploading the file to Commons. You can use c:COM:UPLOAD to do so and just select the same license that is used on Flickr. Make sure you give the link you gave above as the source for the image and then provide as much information as you can about the file. Can you read Latvian? If you cannot, then perhaps ask someone at [[:WT:LATVIA for help. My first response was a bit wordy because I tried to cover all possible options; however, I wasn't trying to discourage you from uploading the file. As long as you do so in good faith, you should be OK. The worst that happens is that someone nominates it for deletion, but that seems a bit unlikely. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)