User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2021/June

FFD delsort tags
The discussions were listed automatically at WikiProject Football (of which I appear to be the only person to read!), and I then manually added to WP:FOOTYDEL which is the WikiProject's centralised & organised discussion log. GiantSnowman 10:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the post. Just for reference, I wasn't criticizing the addition of the template; it's just one that I've never seen added to an FFD thread before. I think it probably would be a good idea if delsort was a formal part of the FFD process which is why I started a discussion about doing so at WT:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I know you weren't being critical! GiantSnowman 14:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Note you left on my talk page
Thank you, Marchjuly, I very much appreciate your note. Sometimes Wiki just wears a body thin ... probably best to move on when that happens. Once again, I appreciate your comments. Best, Christian Gregory (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Everybody gets frustrated and when that happens it's OK to take a break. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your wisdom
Thanks for explaining more about how COIN posts get closed. I thought it was 14 days after the start, not 14 days after the last edit. I don't want to further delay that COIN discussion from getting closed, so I'm replying here instead of there :) I'm a bit confused how it works because it doesn't seem to be the same as AfD. How is consensus reached? Who makes the final call about whether or not there's a COI? Who is the one that adds the templates to the talk pages? When the template is added, is it permanent? Meaning that even 5 years from now if the article is completely re-written, if someone removes a COI template from the talk page, that edit will get reverted?

This is my first time at COIN and I am feeling extremely overwhelmed with the whole procedure. Dr. Universe (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A concensus is reached pretty much the same it's reached for any other page as described in WP:CONSENSUS. If a formal close is made (like is done at WP:AFD), then the editor who closes the discussion is expected to follow the instructions given in WP:CLOSE. Many discussions, however, don't necessarily require a formal close and simply fade away through archiving. In some cases, this might be because no consensus seems possible to be reached no matter how much longer the discussion continues (sort of like a mistrial) or because the consensus is pretty much obvious and the result is not going to change regardless of how much longer the discussion continues. If you want to request a formal close of a discussion, you can do so as explained here, but you should not do so simply because you don't like the tenor of the discussion (particularly if it's about something you supposed to have done) or because you're convinced that everyone else just has to be wrong because you know you're right. I'm not sure what you mean by add templates to the talk pages since there are lots of different types of templates and there are lots of different types of talk pages; so, perhaps you could clarify a bit. If you're talking about a template added to a user talk page, then anyone can add one of them. Moreover, the template can be removed by the user in question per WP:BLANKING, but it will be assumed that they've seen the template and understand it if they do. If you're talking about adding a template to an article talk page, then anybody can pretty much do that as well. The template remains in place as long as it's still applicable I guess and whether that takes five years, ten years, or a hundred years is anybody's guess. Again there are lots of different types of templates; so, it's hard to give a more specific answer without know which template and which page you're referring to. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much Marchjuly! I didn't see the reply right away because there was no @Ping to me. The templates I'm wondering about are the ones that go on the article talk pages after COIN consensus is reached, for example it would say "There is reason to believe that the following users have a conflict-of-interest with this articles: MarchJuly, Dr. Universe, etc." When a COIN consensus ends, if it's determined that someone has a COI, who adds those templates to the article's talk pages? Dr. Universe (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey I noticed that you reverted my edit where I removed my question about how the 14 days works. Actually the user named "possibly" said that this question was mistakenly put at the top of COIN, but that's not actually true: I was asking about that specific COIN posting which had started on 14 May and was still open even though I thought that it would be closed 14 days later (28 May). The one where user "possibly" moved the conversation was to, was started on 31 May or something like that. Dr. Universe (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't ping you because I assumed you would be watching for an answer. So, if you really want to be pinged by someone, you probably should let them know.Before I try and answer your question, please be careful making edits like this on any talk page or noticeboard because it can quickly lead to problems no matter how good your intentions may be. You should never remove or refactor another editor's post except without a very good policy based reason for doing so as explained here. If you post something and nobody has responded to it and not too much time has passed, then you can probably remove it without creating problems; however, if quite a bit of time has passed or someone has responded to your post, then you should follow the guidance given here. Your post was moved to the other section by because they probably mistakenly thought that you had misplaced it in the first place and were just trying to be helpful. If moving your post changes the context in which your question was asked, then you can simply move it back or ask Possibly to do so for you. ust make sure you leave a clearly worded edit summary explaining why if you do move it yourself.As for your question about COI templates, it's not clear if you're talkiing about the Template:COI, Template:Connected contributor (or one of its variations) or some other template. The first template is for use on articles and shouldn't be used on article talk pages. The second template is added to article talk pages and it can be added pretty much by any editor who feels there might be a serious COI concerns about a particular editor. The first template usually is removed when someone uninvolved comes along and assess whether it's needed any longer as explained here. For obvious reasons, if someone feels I have a conflict of interest with respect to a certain article and their concern is not just complete nonsense (e.g. I like ice cream so that just has to mean I must have a COI with respect to ice cream), then I shouldn't be the one to remove the template. In that case, I should seek assistance first on the article's talk page, and then perhaps fromn a WikiProject or COIN as might be needed if nobody responds to my talk page query.The second template is for use on article talk pages and probably should stay as long as the article exist unless it was inappropriately added or otherwise added in bad faith. This template is not intended to be used to try and embarass another editor, but it's important for anyone reading the article or its talk page to be aware that there are persons connected to the subject of the article who might be watching and possibly editing the article. Ideally, the template should only be added when such a person has either explicity acknowledged their COI or there are serious doubts about their denials of a COI. In the latter case, it might take further discussion at a noticeboard like COIN to decide what is what. If the consensus of such discussion is that there is a COI, the template will remain in place; if not, it will likely be removed.Just for reference, even though COI editing is highly disccourage by Wikipedia, it isn't something that is expressly prohibited as long as it doesn't involve undisclosed compensated editing. So, even if someone says you've got a COI, as long as you do your best to follow WP:COIADVICE or WP:PSCOI and otherwise ensure that your edits are totally in accordance with relevant polices and guidelines, the chances of you have problems with other editors should go way down and any disagreements over your edits should be able to be resolved through normal talk page discussion. It's only when an editor starts straying too far away from relevant policies and guidelines that they start to find themselves having problems or their edits being more carefully scrutinized.Finally, there are more than six million articles and there are many ways to WP:CONTRIBUTE to Wikipedia. Editors who tend to focus on one article or one genre of article often are (unfairly perhaps) pigenholed a bit even though their intentions might be good. So, an editor expanding their reportoire a bit and doing other things besides focusing on a single article is often able to develop a more balanced contributions history and show others that they are really WP:HERE even if they might have a connection to some of the articles they're editing. An WP:APPARENTCOI can create just as much suspicion as an actual WP:COI and problems are likely to develop when the edits being made only create more suspicion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much Marchjuly! Yes I would like to be pinged because I'm still getting familiar with the watchlist. I've clicked "watch" on several articles but never got notifications or pings when people edited those articles, and only recently I discovered that there's a separate watchlist page that I'd have to click "refresh" on every time I want it to get updated. I thought maybe I'd get notifications when people edit something I "watched".
 * About the comments that Possibly moved from one COIN discussion to another, I think it was totally a mistake (or an attempt to get the archiving of the other discussion not get further delayed). There was an article created on 14 May which I thought should be archived by now since 14 days have passed, so I asked why it was still there. By asking that question there, I delayed the archiving by another 14 days (which you taught me!) so maybe he wanted to move my comment to a newer discussion. He wrote that I "mistakenly" asked the question at the top of the COIN page, but actually I was just replying inside the specific discussion I was asking about (I didn't know that this would delay archiving for another 14 days, since I thought it would be archived 14 days after the discussion starts, because on AfD the timeline starts when the AfD was opened, not when the last comment was made).
 * Thanks, I will try to contribute to some articles outside my area, but for the most part I was only contributing to articles that were in my very specific area, or fixing grammar mistakes or minor issues with whitespaces before citations on whatever articles I was reading at the time. Recently I started contributing to AfD discussions, but you have to understand that this is not what I do full-time (it seems like some people here like Possibly are working full-time on Wikipedia but I'm actually doing other things for the most part and only contribute here when I'm reading an article that happens to have grammar issues, or when in my spare time I'm adding more substantial material about very specific areas I'm interested in). Thanks again for explaining everything in so much detail !!! I'm going to read those articles you hyperlinked! Dr. Universe (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand why you posted your comment in that particular thread. I also understand why Possibly mistakenly moved it. Apparently, you have already been discussing something else with Possibly on the COIN page; so, he mistakenly assumed that your query to him had to do with that discussion. That was an honest mistake and perhaps the sub-section heading I added to that bit of the thread only confused things more. In hindsight, it probably would've been much better for you to ask that question at WT:COIN instead since it wasn't more on how the COIN thread is maintained than it was about what was being discussed in that particular thread. Anyway, I'm not sure what you want to do now. You can try explaining things to Possibly and (1) ask them to strikethrough their comment about the post being mistakenly added, (2) ask them to move the thread back to where it was originally located, (3) ask them to remove it outright (I don't mind if my post is removed, but you should ask Possibly if they mind whether their post is removed.), (4) add another post clarifying things as you explained above or (5) just let it go and not worry about it anymore.All Wikipedia editors are WP:VOLUNTEERS; some may edit much more than others, but they're still volunteers. Each editor's situation is different and their reasons for editing are also different. I know you probably meant nothing by your "full-time" comment, but you might want to be careful because people might take it the wrong way. How people chose to spend their time is pretty much up to them; if they want to spend it editing Wikipedia or by actually doing other things, then that's their business. It would be too hard for someone to take you what you posted above to be the equivalent as saying "At least I've got a real job". You'd probably be surprised how many times something like that has been posted on a Wikipedia talk page by someone who usually doesn't really understand how Wikipedia works (and usually doesn't care anyway) and is quite unhappy because "Wikipedia" is not letting them do what they want to do. I'm not saying you're such a person, but they are plenty who are who post similar statements.There's nothing wrong with editing articles about topics you're interested in or which you have specific knowledge about as long as your edits are otherwise in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In fact, Wikipedia actually wants "expert editors" because they can use their knowledge to improve many articles; however, once again, they just need to do their best to make sure their edits are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If there are types of articles that interest you or you possess some sort of specialized knowledge that you want to use to help improve Wikipedia, try looking for a Wikiproject where you can find such articles and discuss them with editors with similar interests.The AfD time starts as you say when the discussion is open, but that doesn't mean it automatically ends once seven days have passed. Some AfDs are closed rather quickly whereas others can go on for quite some time. Some discussion are required to remain opening for a minimum amount of time just to allow a consensus to better develop and also perhaps to try and discourage people who might be unhappy with the way the discussion is going from unilaterally trying to close them. If you want to participate in AfDs, then that's fine; just be aware that such discussions can get pretty contentuos and even downright nasty in some occasions. You might want to take a look at WP:AFDEQ and WP:ATA for some ideas on how to productively participate in AfD discussion and avoid some common mistakes that are often made by those you do participate in them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * Hi DanCherek. I saw that the file and it's talk page had been deleted. I was going to try and post something on your use talk just in case you didn't see my last reply. Anyway, I can do so here now. FWIW, the deleting administrator  is someone who's quite familiar with non-free file matters and he wouldn't have nuked it if he felt it should be kept. The article The Singer (film) is still around, but if you tag it for G5 reasons it will most likely end up like the file and fairly soon. I don't know whether the film meets WP:NFILM and I don't speak Persian (Farsi) and thus can't really assess the sources. You can ask about it at a WikiProject if you like, but the only real contributor was Khadempour322; so, the G5 criteria also probably apply just as it did to the other pages the account created. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The individual in question is a serial LTA (e.g. they're subject to global lock on-sight), and I'm not sure there's any other way to deal with them besides practicing a healthy dose of WP:DENY. -  F ASTILY   22:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both. Also, their articles are straight machine translations of existing fawiki articles — putting fa:مطرب_(فیلم_۱۳۹۷) through Google Translate returns the exact text of The Singer (film) — so I don't feel too bad about any future article creators starting from scratch with the fawiki version remaining as a reference. DanCherek (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks and . "So let it be written, so let it be done". -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Apology
Hey Marchjuly, I just wanna let you know I sincerely apologize for my disruptive edits in the Michael E. Rodgers article. I now know edit warring isn’t the right thing to resolve this issue, but now since you two started a discussion on the talk page, and will follow it for now on. Again, I am sorry. 2600:1000:B053:8F4A:A8EE:78BF:3F3E:5B85 (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the apology, but other editors were more involved in the dispute with you than I was. If you're faced with a similar situation in the future, I suggest you try and follow WP:BRD and engage in talk page discussion to try and resolve whatever the dispute might be. Be advised, the editing from an IP account will not be seen as a reason or an excuse for not following relevant Wikipedia policies and guideline. You should not follow WP:BRRD no matter how write you feel you may be because (except in certain specific cases) doing so will likely only make things worse and most likely will lead to administrator stepping in and possibly blocking accounts (including yours). You won't WP:WIN anything through edit warring and will only be creating problems that others will need to sort out. As for the talk page post, I think it was OK for you to remove and think it was wrong for the other editor to re-add. It was probably OK for you to remove a second time, but after that nothing was going to be resolved by continuing to remove it. At that point, it might've been better for you to leave the post as is and seek adminsitrator assistance; another option would've been for you to strikethrough you're original comment, and then post something new and civil explaining why. As for the article itself, you're welcome to continue to participate in the discussion currently taking place on the article's talk page. Trying to address your concerns through discussion will most likely led to result that works best for everyone involved, but should at least work best for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Advice
Hello. I saw your excellent advice on uploading a sports team logo. May I pick your brain as to how to do this correctly. I've found a logo for s defunct team, the Richmond Roosters that I'd like to upload with the typical wording for use of a logo as representative. There seems to be solid precedent, but I've not done this before and wish to do it right the first-time. Can I ask for your advice on how to proceed?! Thanks in advance.Gonzaga15 (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you uploaded File:Roosters Logo.jpg and then added to the main infobox of the article about the team, I assuming you figured things out. Generally, a non-free like that one is OK to upload and use when it's for primary identification about the team the article is about; other types of uses, however, can be harder to justify. One thing about the file you uploaded though is the source you provided for the image. The image you uploaded should have exact information about it's provenance per WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. While it's true you provided a link to a page about the team in the file's non-free use rationale, it shows a different logo: same mascot perhaps, but a different logo.The one you uploaded had to come from somewhere and that's the information that is needed in the non-free use rationale you provided for the file. You should try and find as official of a source as possible to show (1) this is (was) actually the branding used by team and (2) to help aid in assessing the copyright status of the logo. You should avoid websites where users are able (even if they're required to register for an account) to upload content; for example, anything ending in "-pedia" or looking like a Wikipdedia-type page as well as personal websites (social media, blogs, etc.) because there's no real way to verify the aforementioned (1) and (2). I know this might be hard when it comes to dealing with defunct teams or teams from a long time ago, particularly before the Internet age, but it's something that you should try and do. There are ten non-free content use criteria that need to be met for each use of a non-free file, and not satisfying even just one of those criteria means the file's use as a whole isn't policy compliant.In addition to the sourcing issue, you might want to try and add reliably sourced content about the team's branding to the article if possible. Using a logo like this in he main infobox is usually enough, but the case for non-free use will be furthered strengthened if you can more directly connect the logo to content about the team's branding in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I found a template for doing it and thought I did it reasonably well.  I'll add your additional thoughts to the logo aand hope that will serve as appropriate support.  I appreciate the detailed response.  Truly.Gonzaga15 (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like you also asked about this at WP:MCQ after posting here. That's OK, but generally it's not a good idea to try and discuss the same thing on multiple pages at once because it can create confusion. I wasn't aware of your MCQ post when I posted my reply above, but now it's probably better to continue any discussion about the image there because it makes it easier for others to participate. When you post a request for help, the reply might not immediately come for any number of reasons, none of which mean anything bad. So, if you do ask someone for help, it's probably a good idea to let them know that you sought assistance elsewhere as a courtesy. There are very few things on Wikipedia which require an immediate response or immediate action be taken; so, sometimes you just need to be a bit patient. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you. New to this and trying to play nice.  Appreciate the insights!Gonzaga15 (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)