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

Hello, Marchjuly. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools.
Message added 10:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would the pepper as the apostrophe make this file a non-free image or PD? I believe non-free, but I have another editor who says otherwise... Corkythe hornetfan (ping me) 05:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the pepper would be considered a simple geometric shape which is below the TOO for the United States, but that is just my opinion. It might be helpful to ask at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VP/C; the latter because the image will likely be moved/uploaded to Commons if it is PD so it's best to make sure it won't be deleted. Just for reference, File:Chili's Logo.svg is on Commons (you've edited the file so perhaps you remember it), but that seems pretty fair use-ish to me and probably would be deleted per c:COM:FU using c:Template:Logo if tagged as such depending upon the admin who reviewed the file. If the "name" is really all that is important, then perhaps the pepper can be removed by someone at WP:GL. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! I'll go to one of those boards and ask. My concern with removing the 'pepper' from the logo is that even more people will not want that used because it isn't the correct logo. Corkythe hornetfan (ping me) 05:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI: I pinged you on Commons. Corkythe hornetfan (ping me) 06:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I made a good contribution to the Wikipedia article on Caroline Bliss and now they want to delete my account. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeneral28#Suspected_sockpuppets

I am not that person please assist thanks.

Cantab1985 ( talk) 03:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cantab1985. Thank you for the message, but I'm not sure what I can do to help you. I do think the sources you provided at Talk:Caroline Bliss#More sources were helpful, but that's only one edit. Experienced editors do not normally start SPI without truly believing that something inappropriate is being done. So, the only advice I can offer is to be honest in your replies and really try and avoid commenting on other editors (even though that may be hard to do). If by chance, you were doing what the SPI claims you were doing, just admit it and ask to take the standard offer. Otherwise, you just have to let the SPI run its course and see what happens. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. I haven't checked the situation with this discussion for a long time now. What happened to the discussion about national team logos? Did the situation finally get solved? If it still hasn't been solved then we are going to have to do something about it. Thanks, Hashim-afc ( talk) 21:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion was archived. This typically happens when a certain amount time passes without any new comments being added. It seems there was a general agreement on starting an RfC, but some disagreement on its scope (which sports, which teams, etc.) it should pertain to. To be honest, I do not have any experience in starting an RfC, so was hoping that someone who does would be willing to take up the challenge of getting it going. I am also still not entirely convinced that the way the NFCC has been applied to these logos has been incorrect; I do recognize there are opposing opinions, but am concerned that I might not be best person to start an RfC. Anyway, I'll continue to think about it and see if I can figure out how to get one up and running. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi MarchJuly, Thank you for checking my article on Charles Harris. Charles Harris (painter)

I have since amended the lead section. Is there anything else I can do to improve the article? -- Landschaftsmaler ( talk) 14:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Landschaftsmaler. Thank you for the message. Generally, editors add maintenance templates to articles because they feel certain issues exist which require some attention from the community at large. These template can pretty much be removed (as explained in WP:MTR) by any editor who fixes the problem or feels it no longer exists. In principle, it's a good idea to leave an edit sum or a message on the article's talk page explaining why you removed a template just so others can understand your reasons for doing so. Removing/Adding templates without explanation can often lead to the removal/addition being reverted by an experienced editor just out of habit, unless it is obvious that the problem has been fixed. In this case, it was quite courteous of you to post a message to me, so thank once again. I think the tag can be removed and I can remove it, but since you did the clean up you can be bold and just do it yourself if you want. For reference, take a look a MOS:LEAD and WP:LEADLENGTH if you want to asses whether more needs to be done. If by chance another editor re-adds the template, then try discussing the matter with them on the article's talk page.

Articles almost always are WP:IMPERFECT, so there's a number of ways they can be improved. Most of the time, these improvements are made through regular editing over time, one small tweak after another. You can look at featured articles about other similar individuals or ask for general tips at places like the WP:TEAHOUSE or for a more specific article assessment on the talk pages of the WikiProjects the article whose scopes the article falls under (see Talk:Charles Harris (painter)). You can even request a peer review. On the other hand, sometimes you just leave the article be and see what happens. The article is still tagged as an WP:ORPHAN so that could be fixed; for information on how to do that, see WP:DE-ORPHAN. Another thing might be, to find more accessible (online) sources to make verification easier. Sources only have to be reliable, used in proper context, and WP:PUBLISHED, but sometimes it helps others find stuff if you can flesh out as much of an offline source (see WP:CITEHOW) as possible. Many Wikipedians can access newspaper archives, etc. and knowing more about the offline source may help them find a version of it somewhere online.

One specific thing you should avoid is embedding external links into articles like you did for AERA. This is no longer considered a good thing to do for a variety of reasons. It's better to use an wikilink if possible, or an alternative method such as WP:INCITE (if the link is for a citation to a reliable source) or an regular external link (if the link is not anything found in WP:ELNO or WP:ELNEVER). You can also create a WP:REDLINK if none of the problems mentioned in WP:REDNOT are not an issue.

Finally, it's a good habit to try and not refer to Wikipedia articles as "my article", etc. just to avoid any potential issues with other editors. Articles technically are not owned by anyone in particular and even the slightest whiff of a claim of ownership can quickly cause tension. I understand you meant nothing by it in your post. Sometimes in heated discussions when both sides of an argument are picking apart their counterpart's comments, however, anything which might indicate a claim of possession/ownership (even unintentionally) tends to get jumped on fairly quickly. Just a bit of advice. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi MarchJuly, Thank you for your wonderfully detailed explanations. That will be most helpful for me to act on. I will remove maintenance templates when I feel I have solved the problem. I will leave it to other editors to remove a template when they have dealt with an issue. As regards online references I have searched the web high and low. Maybe some Wikipedian will come across newspaper archives which I just could not find.

-- Landschaftsmaler ( talk) 16:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi MarchJuly, Thank you once again for your helpful explanations on how to handle the orphan template. I should be able to solve that problem quite soon.

-- Landschaftsmaler ( talk) 06:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome x 2 -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi MarchJuly, I have added more categories in the hope that these would link to Charles Harris. Some of them now show him in alphabetical order under C for Charles instead of H for Harris. How can I correct this and where can I find a list of WIKI categories?

-- Landschaftsmaler ( talk) 09:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Existing categories can be found as explained in Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization#What categories already exist?. You can find out about how categories work at H:CAT. In this case look at H:CAT#Sort order to see how entries are listed. You might also find WP:COP helpful. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi MarchJuly,

This will be taken care of. Infact, I will ensure that necessary corrections are also done to put "References" sections before "External link" sections and after "See also" sections. Cheers, Vikram Maingi ( talk) 06:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your concern. But

1) there are 200 over footballing countries that uses their logo on the page. Are you going to remove them all too ? 2) the logo have been there on the page for ages. Why only now ?

Thank you

LionsX ( talk) 04:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@ LionsX: Thank you for your message, but the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a justification for non-free use. Each use of a non-free image is required to satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria found in WP:NFCCP. The use of this particular file was discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 18#File:Football Association of Singapore crest.svg and as a result the file was removed from the article by administrator Explicit with this edit. Explicit also removed the non-free rationale for this use here. If you want clarification regarding the removal of this image, then feel free to ask Explicit himself at User talk: Explicit. Continuing to re-add the logo to the article is likely going to be seen as not only disruptive, but also a violation of Wikipedia's non-free content policy. So, I suggest you discuss this matter with the closing admin as explained in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I think there's a misunderstanding here. I didn't upload the pic. It's been there eversince. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LionsX ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not who uploaded the file; the issue is how it is being used on Wikipedia. This file is treated as non-free content because it is still considered to be under copyright protection. Each use of a non-free file is required to satisfy all 10 of the non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. The fact that a file has been used in a certain way for a long time does not mean it's been used according to policy. The fact that other similar files are being used in similar articles is not a justification for non-free use because these file may also be being used in a way that does not comply with relevant policy, they may be freely licensed, or they just may not have been discussed yet. This particular file's non-free use was discussed at the FFD discussion linked to above, and the result was that it's non-free use is only considered acceptable for Football Association of Singapore. You can see this if you look at the top of File talk:Football Association of Singapore crest.svg added by Explicit, the administrator who closed the FFD discussion. If you disagree with Explicit's close and would like him to reconsider it, then you should discuss it with him on his user talk page and explain how the use in Singapore national football team now complies with WP:NFCC as explained in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. If you continue to re-add the logo and ignore an administrator's WP:CLOSE like this, it's likely going to lead to either Explicit or another administrator stepping in and taking action. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppet @ Neebras: is responsible for this problem. He was creating many non-notable tennis players article and edited the Kayla Day article which I created. He removed the references that I gave and inserted one reference. Editors who were following his edits noticed the page, and tagged it for deletion. She achieved notability, six days after the AFD closure. You cannot see his edits as the page was deleted. If he would have left the article, then today no one would have had any problem with it. -- Marvellous Spider -Man 06:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Marvellous Spider-Man, but the article itself was not userfied because it was created by a banned editor; it was userfied because of WP:TOOSOON. Anyway, her notability is apparently no longer an issue so I wouldn't worry about that other editor anymore. I asked Mkdw about this at User talk:Mkdw#User:Rainbow Archer/Kayla Day. Mkdw will figure out if any clean up is needed and if the edit histories need to be merged. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Tell that closing administrator to do it fast. Kindly stop that spider man's non sense soon. She is a notable actress working in bengali cinema. I will change the user name if that is the problem. But kindly stop the non sense of the user spider man. And before that you stop fooling around Kamalika Chanda she is a noted actress. Kamalikachanda ( talk) 09:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You need to let the process run it's course. I suggest you read WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG because you will need to establish how this person satisfies Wikipedia's relevant notability guidelines. I also suggest you read WP:AADD and WP:CIVIL and try to keep your comments focused on the the article being discussed and not other editors. Even if you disagree with another editor, calling them an "idiot" or "stupid fellow" like you did here and here is not really conducive to helping keep the discussion positive and could easily be seen as a violation of policy of no personal attacks. AfD discussion can sometimes get heated, but personal attacks against other editors are never tolerated. There are also specific procedures which need to be followed as explained in WP:AFDFORMAT. Wikipedia articles are not owned by their creators, and any article may be nominated for deletion, if the nominating editor believes in good faith that the subject of the article is not Wikipedia notable. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 09:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. Are you going to do an RfC concerning this issue? I know you said you haven't done one before (nor have I) but we really need to do something about it now. If you don't want to do it, then I will find out how do it myself and I'll make it. Hashim-afc ( talk) 01:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I queried Masem on the holding of an RfC at User talk:Masem#UUI#17 and his suggestion was to hold a straw poll first to test the waters and then perhaps an RfC if one was felt needed. I'm not sure exactly what a straw poll is so I was waiting for some further clarification. Non-free content matters do not, unfortunately, seem to be very high on the general community's list of priorities. Unfortunately, this seems to have lost a bit of momentum, and when I see edits like this and this (which I think are fine edits), I am not sure the support for such a change is as strong as it once was when the discussion began. There have been two RfCs regarding image use at WT:NFCC in the past 6 months or so and neither of them garnered much interest from the general community a tlarge, so maybe Masem's suggestion of a poll is worth considering. This is Wikipedia, however, and polls are technically not a consensus; so, if you feel an RfC is needed sooner rather than later and want to go ahead a do it yourself then you should. I can try and help out, but my real world is been getting busier and busier lately, so I'm not sure how much time and effort I will be able to devote to Wikipedia stuff for at least the near future. Sorry, if this is not exactly the kind of answer you were hoping for, but it's the only one I've got to give at the moment. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 11:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)