User talk:Octoberwoodland/Archive 2

Orphaned non-free image File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png
Thanks for uploading File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Utah Monolith 2020, Photo by Utah DPS.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Utah Monolith 2020, Photo by Utah DPS.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wikiacc (¶) 01:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Monolith scene from motion picture 2001, A Space Odyssey, &#34;The Dawn of Man&#34;.png
Thanks for uploading File:Monolith scene from motion picture 2001, A Space Odyssey, &. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 Monoliths
It appears that you have made multiple edits to the 2020 monolith page within the last 24 hours. I am one of a group of for working on tracking the 2020 monoliths and we would like to offer our dataset of monoliths, locations, and news sources to wikipedia. Were a volunteer group from Reddit,and our project and data can be found at monolithtracker.com. If have any questions, reach me on my talk page. Quinwound (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

File:FBI Photo of Anthony Quinn Warner.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FBI Photo of Anthony Quinn Warner.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 06:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Wikiacc (¶) 06:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Multiple repetitions of the same info in the Capitol storming article lead
Please weigh in here. Thanks. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 05:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I respect the fact that you're dissatisfied with the broader process surrounding the naming discussion
– but I can offer you a fun change of perspective: If you go to my talk page you will see a few people expressing interest and appreciation! Maybe that will amend, a little bit, your negativist stance on that RM. Different people have different preferences, but if the process is broadly regular and predictable, we know that the result will be good in the end, because that's how things go on Wikipedia. I don't want to seem flippant about your concern but I haven't decided yet if I should answer. I raised the "issue" (not really an issue, just don't know how else to put it), in the teahouse (section). I will wait for several replies from experienced people there, and come back to you, when that's done. Cheers — Alalch Emis 00:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth, I respect the right of any editor to initiate an RM request. It's part of how Wikipedia works.  But Wikipedia also doesn't allow sockpuppetry for such discussions, as doing so erodes community trust and faith in the process and skews the outcomes and it's absolutely forbidden.  If you are not using multiple accounts, they you simply say so and that's the end of the matter.  Pretty simple.  If you are using multiple accounts then you should disclose it, as you are required to.  Then we all go on with life.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * When it comes to allegations levied against me, i stick to this advice Don't Talk to the Police. I don't want to get into the merits of your concern without good backing in "due process". What if you don't like my answer ("I'm here to practice English") and it somehow gets turned against me? A third, neutral, entity will have to weigh in. — Alalch Emis 01:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no "allegations against you", I asked you if you have other accounts on Wikipedia which are not allowed in an RM discussion. There are many reasons someone may have more than one account and it's not entirely disallowed.  Some users run BOTs and have multiple accounts.  Others use multiple accounts for privacy reasons.  It's what you do with multiple accounts that is an issue.  Using an alternate account in RM discussions where voting occurs are not allowed.  So in that context and given the fact you have demonstrated extensive knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and policies it seem clear to me you have been editing for a while.  So in the context of an RM discussion, the question is proper. It's a request for information, not an allegation. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Did you steal the apple?" - No comment. I reserve my right to remain silent for the time being. "Hey, it's not an allegation, it's just a request for information." | Such questions have an implicit assertion of wrongdoing and are always an allegation. — Alalch Emis 01:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If I was truly a bad actor I'd have said WP:NOTAVOTE in reply to your "this is how you do it", which I almost did. :) — Alalch Emis 03:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said you were a bad actor, I just asked if you had another account. From my observations you are a bold and passionate editor.  Your reaction to my question led my to believe you are sincere.  It's hard to get a clear picture of someone over the internet which is why we need to always assume good faith for everything to work.  If anything my asking you that question helped wikipedia.  Forgive and forget. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Naturally. Kind words, thank you. — Alalch Emis 03:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing others' posts
Presumably this was due to an edit conflict; please use a little more caution. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It was apparently. Not intentional on my part. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, that edit was OK. I was updating the table.  It's not a vote but an informal tally.  Straw polls and tallys are permitted on talk pages. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is stale now, but the part I took issue with was the removal of the section I started. VQuakr (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit you refer to was the result of an edit conflict. The subsequent edit was not, so we are both right. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted a couple of refactors you did on this talk page. There has been altogether too much meddling with the discussion, including manipulation of archive and collapse boxes. VQuakr (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No disagreement here. I applaud your efforts. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that the follow on discussions were not part of the RM closure. Thanks for catching that.  My mistake. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:AP2 and WP:1RR query
Hi. In answer to your query: 1RR is added to DS/GS pages (in general) by need only. Regards, El_C 00:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression all post 1912 US political articles were 1RR, thanks for clearing that up. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Facebook Photo Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa.png
Thank you for uploading File:Facebook Photo Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nsk92 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Instead of tagging the image and seeking its removal, which is NOT an improvement to Wikipedia, how about adding whatever rationale you feel is missing. I am no a mind reader, so please specify exactly what is missing and should be added.  I am unable to locate a  free image, and I have not been able to locate a mug shot of this individual.  Thanks. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NFC, non-free images of living individuals are not eligible for fair use claims. There is no rationale that could be added here that would make this image accaeptable. Nsk92 (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, and the policy you quote does favor exclusion of non-free content, but it does not prohibit it either. The question is does your interpretation of this policy improve Wikipedia?  No.  It is not an improvement to nit pick over images and relegate Wikipedia to use inferior images or none at all when google and other internet sites cache the entire images and distribute them from their search engines.  Wikipedia is time and time again relegated to use inferior image content, and whether an image is retained under Non-free conditions seems based more on popularity and consensus then any actual legal objections.  If google can cache entire websites and image content and link to it then so can anyone else.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Nobody really *likes* the policy, but it is in line with the law. There is no sense in arguing against the law especially on a CSD notice on your talk page. Wikimedia has chosen to protect itself from litigation by enacting these copyright policies, as they are also standard across similar sites. Thanks, Andrew nyr  (talk, contribs) 05:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand and I will as always comply with the current policy. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

PubMed
This question shows you have a misunderstanding about PubMed, which is simply a search engine and literature aggregator by the US National Library of Medicine of NIH, explained by NLM here.. It is not a "publisher", as you said. If you read the article you're proposing, here, one can see the authors used Petri dish experiments (all the results shown in figures and tables), and provided no information about ear infections in humans or dogs. Your reverted edit in the ACV article is an example of WP:SYNTH where you combined the lab Petri dish research with two quackery sources about using ACV to treat ear infections to write encyclopedic content – which is why I reverted that edit. Editing medical content does require understanding of how to choose reliable sources; see WP:MEDASSESS, left pyramid, where Petri dish and other lab studies are at the bottom (lowest evidence quality not used to support Wikipedia medical content). Zefr (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that explains it, however, the article in question is not a medical article, but an article on apple cider vinegar. That being said, subjecting folk remedies to such an incredibly high standard for content inclusion is excessive in a non-medical article.  This article is not discussing heart transplants, kidney disease, or any other medical issue or procedure.  Given this, a small section discussing folk remedies for treating ear infections in canines should not require such a high standard to meet inclusion.  There are numerous articles on wikipedia which include folk remedy content. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with folk medicine sources is that there is insufficient scientific evidence to believe the treatment is safe and effective, so it may be just fiction passed on by word-of-mouth. We need WP:RS sources to satisfy WP:V, and to discuss treating an ear infection in humans or dogs without causing harm, even a higher source standard. Zefr (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will look around for some better sources if they exist. I can tell you it works and is safe.  Using alcohol does not work against yeast ear infections in canines because yeast just loves to swim around in alcohol.  You either need to use ACV or see the vet for some very expensive medications (around 200 dollars on average) to treat yeast based ear infections in canines.  My personal experiences are not allowed in the article as per WP:OR, but they can serve the basis for my belief the treatment is effective and safe.  I will do some research and attempt to locate some sources you don't object to.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I located over 1,070,000 articles on google regarding the use of ACV to treat canine yeast ear infections, but I am not able to locate any medical journals or articles on the subject that will meet the ridiculously high bar you require. At any rate, it's clear that for canine owners there are plenty of useful articles off wikipedia to explain how to use ACV to treat canine ear infections. I guess wikipedia will just have to do without this useful information until as such time as there are more medical journals on the subject. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind WP:NOTHOWTO - an encyclopedia is not intended to provide advice. Zefr (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will. Thanks. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2021 Boulder shooting
I have removed your posts about the motivations of the shooter from this page per WP:BLP and WP:NOTFORUM. Article talk pages are for the improvement of the article, not your borderline Islamphobic speculation about what may have motivated them. Please do not restore them, and please also note this page is now subject to discretionary sanctions. Black Kite (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. I will comply.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The link should be WP:AC/DS - my mistake - fixed now. I have applied DS not only because of your postings, by the way - the talkpge was getting somewhat fraught. Black Kite (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will read it and comply. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Facebook Photo Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa.png
Thanks for uploading File:Facebook Photo Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 United States Capitol attack
I added the comment because it's been added at least 5 times today in contravention of BLPNAME, all by different editors, suggesting that there is a need for a warning not to add - I'm okay if it is moved to an editnotice/other format, but some warning needs to be present so editors stop violating BLPNAME. If you re-undo me I will not continue to undo your removal of the comment, but please review the history and see how much of a problem this has been today. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't ever edit war so no problem here. The previous removed content does not violate BLPNAME and is properly cited, so I fail to see why you object to it.  Also, he is still mentioned by name in the article lead.  Did you miss that one? Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I must have - will look again. I think a comment is necessary but at this point is likely better as an editnotice - I'm not sure how to set one of those up so... I'll just keep removing it for now as I see it until a discussion forms - I will stop removing once there is any chance the discussion passes BLPNAME and allow someone uninvolved to judge - but that hasn't happened yet. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Security camera
""

That last part I don't think so, however, there is a decent chance it's ineligible for copyright protection: Threshold of originality. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Inviting your review of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami has just been expanded and updated with new reliable sources, images, and media. As one of its most involved editors, your contribution would be very much appreciated. Many thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)