This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

2023; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Wanted to mention if you go to Researchgate you will find my references. Thank you for your help,sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingseason ( talk • contribs) 10:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kingseason. I've posted a response at Talk:Robert Ira Lewy#Proposed expansion. - Marchjuly ( talk) 13:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I know you've been here a while, but I haven't encountered you before in non-free content work. If I have, forgive my failing memory :)

I wanted to pass on some advice regarding this area of expertise in the project. I used to do a considerable amount of work in this arena. I did so for years. I still occasionally dabble, but very little. What I found in my years of experience in working this area is:

• It doesn't help. I know that seems defeatist, but it's reality. Despite all the efforts myself and others put in, the onslaught of non-free content in inappropriate or flat out policy violating areas is no better than it ever was.
• There are areas of the project where attempting to reduce the burden of non-free content articles is simply not permitted. Case example is currency articles. 1/3rd of the top 25 articles with the heaviest use of non-free content are currency articles. Multiple efforts have been mounted to get these heavy uses down. They have all been fruitless. You might as well try to use a blow dryer to melt a glacier.
• Despite being supported by policy, RFCs, unending conversations, and long standing practice, your actions will be controversial. They will generate anger, hatred and bucket loads of vitriol. When you are attacked, in gross violation of WP:NPA, you will have no recourse but to accept it as normal. WP:AN/I will be of no help to you.

Understand that many people have gone before you and have tried mightily to uphold the ideals of Wikipedia and free content. The pathways before you have been trod many times before, and you will find the bodies of your forerunners scattered in the weeds on either side of the path, discarded carcasses of a once noble cause.

I say all of this to you not to discourage you. Rather, to let you know you had better bring an enormously thick skin, an abstract viewpoint, and an ability to never raise the knife hand even when all other options are void. I wish you the best of luck. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 13:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and the encouragement. I am sort of a gnome and just like doing clean up and other things. Sometimes it's trying to find links for orphans, sometimes it's cleaning up bare urls or repairing dead links, and sometimes it's trying to clean up non-free images. I usually spend a day or two doing something before moving on to something new. If I make any mistakes along the way (and I almost always do), I know they will be in good faith and I'm perfectly OK with being corrected when I do. I am not really worried about any sort of blow back and won't let ruin my day if it happens. - Marchjuly ( talk) 13:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to my talk page.

For future reference, I'm quite interested in non-free content issues, but I prefer conversation to the mindless placement of template blather, so I removed your automated stuff.

Please post there again if you actually wish to discuss an issue. I look forward to it... Begoon  ^talk 18:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Begoon. I meant no disrespect when I posted Template:Di-no source-notice on your talk page, so I'm sorry it it seemed as such. In Template:di-no source, it says "Notify the uploader with: {{subst:di-no source-notice|1=Di-no source}}" which is what I did. I thought that the template needed to be used to make the process commplete. If I added it in error, then my mistake. - Marchjuly ( talk) 22:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I am quite shock to heard that the image of the mascot I adopted earlier does not suit to be in the article. I have added description to it and its source. What else It lack of?-- Hongqilim ( talk) 06:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Hongqilim. The extra information and source you added to the article makes a difference. Originally, there was only an image and a subsection titled "Mascot" with the text "The mascot is an astronaut." Unfortunately, that was not really sufficient to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 and the image was pretty much purely "decorative" and not really needed for the readers understanding. Therefore, the image could be removed without any loss in understanding.

The new information and source you added, however, now provides context and discusses the meaning of the image within the article, so actually being able to see what the mascot looks like is now quite helpful to the reader (at least it is in my opinion). Removing the image now would be detrimental to the reader's understanding which means that NFCC#8 is now satisfied in my opinion. The only remaining thing to be done is for the image's non-free rationale to be updated accordingly. More specific details need to be added for "Description" and "Purpose of use" because "Official Mascot" and "Official Use" are both too vague. In addition, a correct "Source" link needs to be added since the one currently being used is for File:2008 ASEAN University Games Logo.jpeg which is not the same image at all. If you're not sure how to update these parameters, please check Template:Non-free use rationale#Usage for more information. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

With regards to this edit. What do you think you improved making that change? -- PBS ( talk) 14:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the mesaage. I am under the impression that {{ reflist-talk}} is the preferred form of the template for talk pages, etc. My understanding is the the {{ reflist-talk}} places the references in a bordered box which can sometimes make it easier to see that a particular reference is associated with a particular post, but in hindsight that was probably not really needed in this particular case. If my understanding of how the template works and is to be supposed used is incorrect and I actually screwed things up instead, then please accept my apologies for any extra clean-up work I created and undo the edit as needed. I really wasn't trying to make things worse. - Marchjuly ( talk) 21:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

In the past there was a significant difference. It used to be that the {{ reflist}} had to have an extra flag set before another use of {{ reflist}} ignore the reftags that had already been displayed; while by default {{ reflist-talk}} had the flag set. Since sometime in the last year or so, {{ reflist}} now has the equivalent of that flag set by default, so as AFAICT there is really little difference between them. -- PBS ( talk) 06:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I mistakenly assumed the "reflist" would pick up all the refs up until that point while "reflist-talk" would only pick up the refs in a particular section. Once again, sorry if I mucked things up. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)