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. |
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 |
Arsenal Ladies rebranded to Arsenal Women last year, and no longer use any badge distinct from the normal Arsenal badge, hence why I fixed the page. Let me know if you need any further information. Eightball ( talk) 13:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The file was removed by an administrator ( Explicit) per an FFD discussion, that means it is as unquestionable of violation of the NFCC as it gets. The non-free use rationale was removed from the same file's page by Explicit for the same reason. The rationale was then recently removed by another administrator named Fastily for the same reason. If someone disagrees with an FFD close, they can at a later date discuss it with the closing admin per CLOSECHALLENGE; the close, however, still remains in effect until a new one is established and this can be done via a new FFD or via DRV. Based upon previous discussions, you disagree all of this is necessary, but others (including some administrators) seem to feel differently. The file you removed in this particular case was actually restored and re-added to the article by Explicit here. It was subsequently removed by another editor and I just re-added it per Explicit. If you disagree with the file being restored and re-added, then discuss it with him. If you feel I've been editing warring over this, then start a discussion at AN3. If you feel I'm ignoring established consensus or otherwise being disruptive then start a discussion at ANI. The only thing I ask is that you provide diffs (something you've haven't done much of in the past) so that I have something to respond to. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
hello , thank you for your unbiased look into my matter. I would like to further a discussion on relable sources to include Dujuan Thomas into the Mel B Wikipedia page. I have sources from Yahoo [1] [2] and television [3] that discuss the issue. I was informed that The Sun [4] was not a legit source? is this true? but other than that I believe it is worth adding to her Bio due to its significance in her life and Dujuans Life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbycarroll ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Marchjuly Thank you. you have actually been helpful. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Abbycarroll (
talk •
contribs) 18:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Latroit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madonna ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
There is absolutely NO reason for you to be changing the size of the 1903 photo on the Authors Cricket Club page. This is a vindictive edit. You got to control what you wanted - an admin deleted the other photo despite the fact that it did NOT reach anything close to a consensus (ONE person voting "delete" is not a consensus, according to another admin who wrote that just recently). I am well aware that you have control issues, as evidenced by the constant editing of other people's comments (including mine, even after I repeatedly asked you to stop) and the endless, longwinded arguing across multiple pages for hours and hours because someone else said a photo was allowed when you thought differently, and the need for the last word.
But this was purely vindictive - even after you got the photo deleted without a consensus, to then rush over within MINUTES and comb through the page searching for something else to mess with just to prove that you are in control and can do what you want, is not okay. Changing the only photo left on the page, despite it being in violation of no rules at all, is absolutely unnecessary. Please leave it alone. Lilipo25 ( talk) 03:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
So, at 550px wide the file doesn't really comply with Wikipedia:Image use policy (IUP). All I did was tweak the syntax by addingExcept with very good reason, do not use
px
(e.g.|thumb|300px
), which forces a fixed image width. In most casesupright=scaling factor
should be used, thereby respecting the user's base preference (which may have been selected for that user's particular devices). Whenpx
is used, the resulting image should usually be no more than 500 pixels tall and no more than 400 pixels wide, for comfortable display on the smallest devices "in common use" (though this may still cause viewing difficulties on some unusual displays). To convert apx
value toscaling factor
, divide it by 220 and round the result as desired. For example,|150px
is roughly equivalent to|upright=0.7
(150 / 220 ≃ 0.6818).
|upright scaling=
as recommended by the policy and then tweaked the scaling factor again to try and increase the size a bit more. As for the FFD discussion, if you disagree with the close, you can discuss your concerns with the closing admin
JJMC89. One other editor (
Whpq) clearly felt different about the file's non-free use than you did, and even
Cullen328 clarified his original response to you at the Teahouse to state In other articles, the article should include properly referenced critical commentary about the cover art in order for an image of the cover to be eligible for the WP:NFCI #1 exception.I didn't get JJMC89 or any admin to do anything; he closed the discussion based upon the comments made and also in accordance with the relevant policy. So, if you disagree with the close, you can follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, discuss things with the closing admin JJMC89 and see what he says; maybe you can persuade him to WP:RELIST the discussion. For reference, Cullen328 is also an admin, so you can ask him for clarification as well if you like about (1) the size of the remaining image and (2) the FFD discussion. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly,
First of all, thank you so much for your input. I have a sign hanging in my university office that simply states, "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." As you read this text from me. I'm embarrassed to say that in my case, this is only too painfully true!
Four years ago someone suggested that I should have a Wikipedia article, given my numerous activities as a performing artist, educator, and author of both poetry and non-fiction. As a result someone whom I didn't really know gathered verifiable information about me and in 2015, an article was published in Wikipedia. When I said "my article," I didn't mean to give the impression that I wrote it.
While I hadn't revisited the article in quite some time, I did have a look about a month ago and saw that it needed to be updated, in order to reflect my activities since the article's original publication. I expressed my frustration with how exactly to implement such an update, when a colleague informed me that if the information to be added was verifiable -- i.e., each entry could be found in a respected source (in my case, a recently published book and a number of recordings) -- I could add the updated entries myself; which is exactly what I've done. I had no idea that this would be seen as a possible conflict of interest.
I have always taught my university writing students that Wikipedia has many useful purposes, not the least of which is its wealth of hyper-links and its well-cited entries, thanks in no small part to a rigorous coterie of editors who separate fact from fiction. So it has always been my belief that the entries in one's article should be well documented and at the end of the day, indisputably factual.
In my case, the addition of my most recent book ("Experiencing Ornettte Colmeman: A Listener's Companion") was published on October 6, 2017 by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; and all added recordings were released by well known jazz record labels. All of these entries are completely verifiable. The only addition on the "Biography and Career" section comes at the end of the fourth paragraph, where the Coleman book has been added. Please know that anything that is in need of amending or correcting can be done easily.
I have NEVER perceived of Wikipedia as a repository for self-promotion or advertising! To me personally, it has always provided a valuable service as an encyclopedic repository which focuses upon events, theories, places, and people.
Frankly, I'm not sure how to proceed at this point. I have no one to turn to should my edits of the last few days be deleted. I really could use some personal guidance other that the rather formidable links that make be feel like a complete know-nothing! I always urge my students to seek guidance from a knowledgeable person or at least an accessibly readable source. That's exactly what I've done here. Please help me resolve whatever issues may exist for me at present. I would be most appreciative. Bluejazz9999 ( talk) 03:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Respectfully,
Dr. Michael Stephans Bluejazz9999 ( talk) 03:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
{{Connected contributor|User1=Bluejazz9999|U1-EH=yes|U1-declared=yes|U1-otherlinks=COI declared at [[:User:Bluejazz9999]]}}
The last bit can be rephrased differently if you like with link to your userpage added. You should add the template below the last
WikiProject banner but above the first discussion thread. The easiest way to do this is by clicking the "Edit" tab (not the "New section" tab) at the top of the page and scolling down a bit until you find the right spot. I've left a "note" in the editing window's syntax where the template should be added; just replace my note with the template.The last thing I would do is to stop directly editing the article, except as explained in
WP:COIADVICE. A
WP:MINOR edit like a spelling correction, or a formatting/syntax correction, etc. would almost certainly be OK; anything else. however, like the removing or adding of content probably should be left to other editors. You can find out more about how to do this in
WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement, but basically you will be making a
edit request on the article's talk page. The template you use to make this request will alert others to come by and take a look; they will then assess the request to see whether it's in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, and then make the edit if it is. It's best to keep your request as specific and simply as possible (e.g. "Add this sentence supported by this source to the first paragraph of the "XYZ" subsection", "Add this entry to the bibliography"); vague or complex requests where it's not entirely clear what's supposed to be changed and why it's supposed to be changed are often skipped over or declined altogether. All Wikipedia editors are volunteers and those who helpoout by answering edit requests might not want to spend lots of time working on a single request and searching online to find sources to verify the proposed change. There always tends to be more requests than volunteers and they usually are answered in order so it can take some time; so, the easier the request is to understand, the faster it's likely to be answered.If you've got any more questions about this, you can ask them here or you can also ask others for help at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 04:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Could you please look at Template:Did you know nominations/National Peasants' Party and comment as you see fit on the image's license? Thanks. Flibirigit ( talk) 21:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
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. |
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 |
Arsenal Ladies rebranded to Arsenal Women last year, and no longer use any badge distinct from the normal Arsenal badge, hence why I fixed the page. Let me know if you need any further information. Eightball ( talk) 13:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The file was removed by an administrator ( Explicit) per an FFD discussion, that means it is as unquestionable of violation of the NFCC as it gets. The non-free use rationale was removed from the same file's page by Explicit for the same reason. The rationale was then recently removed by another administrator named Fastily for the same reason. If someone disagrees with an FFD close, they can at a later date discuss it with the closing admin per CLOSECHALLENGE; the close, however, still remains in effect until a new one is established and this can be done via a new FFD or via DRV. Based upon previous discussions, you disagree all of this is necessary, but others (including some administrators) seem to feel differently. The file you removed in this particular case was actually restored and re-added to the article by Explicit here. It was subsequently removed by another editor and I just re-added it per Explicit. If you disagree with the file being restored and re-added, then discuss it with him. If you feel I've been editing warring over this, then start a discussion at AN3. If you feel I'm ignoring established consensus or otherwise being disruptive then start a discussion at ANI. The only thing I ask is that you provide diffs (something you've haven't done much of in the past) so that I have something to respond to. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
hello , thank you for your unbiased look into my matter. I would like to further a discussion on relable sources to include Dujuan Thomas into the Mel B Wikipedia page. I have sources from Yahoo [1] [2] and television [3] that discuss the issue. I was informed that The Sun [4] was not a legit source? is this true? but other than that I believe it is worth adding to her Bio due to its significance in her life and Dujuans Life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbycarroll ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Marchjuly Thank you. you have actually been helpful. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Abbycarroll (
talk •
contribs) 18:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Latroit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madonna ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
There is absolutely NO reason for you to be changing the size of the 1903 photo on the Authors Cricket Club page. This is a vindictive edit. You got to control what you wanted - an admin deleted the other photo despite the fact that it did NOT reach anything close to a consensus (ONE person voting "delete" is not a consensus, according to another admin who wrote that just recently). I am well aware that you have control issues, as evidenced by the constant editing of other people's comments (including mine, even after I repeatedly asked you to stop) and the endless, longwinded arguing across multiple pages for hours and hours because someone else said a photo was allowed when you thought differently, and the need for the last word.
But this was purely vindictive - even after you got the photo deleted without a consensus, to then rush over within MINUTES and comb through the page searching for something else to mess with just to prove that you are in control and can do what you want, is not okay. Changing the only photo left on the page, despite it being in violation of no rules at all, is absolutely unnecessary. Please leave it alone. Lilipo25 ( talk) 03:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
So, at 550px wide the file doesn't really comply with Wikipedia:Image use policy (IUP). All I did was tweak the syntax by addingExcept with very good reason, do not use
px
(e.g.|thumb|300px
), which forces a fixed image width. In most casesupright=scaling factor
should be used, thereby respecting the user's base preference (which may have been selected for that user's particular devices). Whenpx
is used, the resulting image should usually be no more than 500 pixels tall and no more than 400 pixels wide, for comfortable display on the smallest devices "in common use" (though this may still cause viewing difficulties on some unusual displays). To convert apx
value toscaling factor
, divide it by 220 and round the result as desired. For example,|150px
is roughly equivalent to|upright=0.7
(150 / 220 ≃ 0.6818).
|upright scaling=
as recommended by the policy and then tweaked the scaling factor again to try and increase the size a bit more. As for the FFD discussion, if you disagree with the close, you can discuss your concerns with the closing admin
JJMC89. One other editor (
Whpq) clearly felt different about the file's non-free use than you did, and even
Cullen328 clarified his original response to you at the Teahouse to state In other articles, the article should include properly referenced critical commentary about the cover art in order for an image of the cover to be eligible for the WP:NFCI #1 exception.I didn't get JJMC89 or any admin to do anything; he closed the discussion based upon the comments made and also in accordance with the relevant policy. So, if you disagree with the close, you can follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, discuss things with the closing admin JJMC89 and see what he says; maybe you can persuade him to WP:RELIST the discussion. For reference, Cullen328 is also an admin, so you can ask him for clarification as well if you like about (1) the size of the remaining image and (2) the FFD discussion. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly,
First of all, thank you so much for your input. I have a sign hanging in my university office that simply states, "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." As you read this text from me. I'm embarrassed to say that in my case, this is only too painfully true!
Four years ago someone suggested that I should have a Wikipedia article, given my numerous activities as a performing artist, educator, and author of both poetry and non-fiction. As a result someone whom I didn't really know gathered verifiable information about me and in 2015, an article was published in Wikipedia. When I said "my article," I didn't mean to give the impression that I wrote it.
While I hadn't revisited the article in quite some time, I did have a look about a month ago and saw that it needed to be updated, in order to reflect my activities since the article's original publication. I expressed my frustration with how exactly to implement such an update, when a colleague informed me that if the information to be added was verifiable -- i.e., each entry could be found in a respected source (in my case, a recently published book and a number of recordings) -- I could add the updated entries myself; which is exactly what I've done. I had no idea that this would be seen as a possible conflict of interest.
I have always taught my university writing students that Wikipedia has many useful purposes, not the least of which is its wealth of hyper-links and its well-cited entries, thanks in no small part to a rigorous coterie of editors who separate fact from fiction. So it has always been my belief that the entries in one's article should be well documented and at the end of the day, indisputably factual.
In my case, the addition of my most recent book ("Experiencing Ornettte Colmeman: A Listener's Companion") was published on October 6, 2017 by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; and all added recordings were released by well known jazz record labels. All of these entries are completely verifiable. The only addition on the "Biography and Career" section comes at the end of the fourth paragraph, where the Coleman book has been added. Please know that anything that is in need of amending or correcting can be done easily.
I have NEVER perceived of Wikipedia as a repository for self-promotion or advertising! To me personally, it has always provided a valuable service as an encyclopedic repository which focuses upon events, theories, places, and people.
Frankly, I'm not sure how to proceed at this point. I have no one to turn to should my edits of the last few days be deleted. I really could use some personal guidance other that the rather formidable links that make be feel like a complete know-nothing! I always urge my students to seek guidance from a knowledgeable person or at least an accessibly readable source. That's exactly what I've done here. Please help me resolve whatever issues may exist for me at present. I would be most appreciative. Bluejazz9999 ( talk) 03:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Respectfully,
Dr. Michael Stephans Bluejazz9999 ( talk) 03:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
{{Connected contributor|User1=Bluejazz9999|U1-EH=yes|U1-declared=yes|U1-otherlinks=COI declared at [[:User:Bluejazz9999]]}}
The last bit can be rephrased differently if you like with link to your userpage added. You should add the template below the last
WikiProject banner but above the first discussion thread. The easiest way to do this is by clicking the "Edit" tab (not the "New section" tab) at the top of the page and scolling down a bit until you find the right spot. I've left a "note" in the editing window's syntax where the template should be added; just replace my note with the template.The last thing I would do is to stop directly editing the article, except as explained in
WP:COIADVICE. A
WP:MINOR edit like a spelling correction, or a formatting/syntax correction, etc. would almost certainly be OK; anything else. however, like the removing or adding of content probably should be left to other editors. You can find out more about how to do this in
WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement, but basically you will be making a
edit request on the article's talk page. The template you use to make this request will alert others to come by and take a look; they will then assess the request to see whether it's in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, and then make the edit if it is. It's best to keep your request as specific and simply as possible (e.g. "Add this sentence supported by this source to the first paragraph of the "XYZ" subsection", "Add this entry to the bibliography"); vague or complex requests where it's not entirely clear what's supposed to be changed and why it's supposed to be changed are often skipped over or declined altogether. All Wikipedia editors are volunteers and those who helpoout by answering edit requests might not want to spend lots of time working on a single request and searching online to find sources to verify the proposed change. There always tends to be more requests than volunteers and they usually are answered in order so it can take some time; so, the easier the request is to understand, the faster it's likely to be answered.If you've got any more questions about this, you can ask them here or you can also ask others for help at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 04:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Could you please look at Template:Did you know nominations/National Peasants' Party and comment as you see fit on the image's license? Thanks. Flibirigit ( talk) 21:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)