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

"Removed personal comment from article. This kind of comment is a good example of perhaps why you should stick to editing per WP:COIADVICE despite your claim of being able to edit according to relevant policies and guidelines." The comment was accurate and factual, not personal. What rule was broken this time? Not to worry, I've made my last edit to the article. Michael from Kilgore ( talk) 11:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

By "personal comment" I meant adding your own opinions to the article about something not really relevant at all the subject of the article. Basically, you were " talking in the article" which is not appropriate at all. Moreover, your claim that what you posted is accurate and factual is not accurate at all, but rather your own personal slant on the matter.

Your comment "Due to Wikipedia rules, none of the magazine covers may be displayed here because they do not add anything extra to the article." seems to be indirectly referencing Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 January 18#File:Texas Monthly September 2004 Cover Photo.jpg, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy or both, which are things the reader of the article will have no idea about and which are not connected to Kilgore College Rangerettes. Nowhere was it stated that no magazines covers can ever be added to the article; all that was said was that any magazine covers licensed as non-free content need to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy if you want to use them in the article. You personally may feel (as you posted on here on your user talk) that biggest problem with the system in general is Wikipedia editors and others who are much more interested in the internal rules of the system rather than accurate, verifiable content that is both interesting, easy to read, and enlightening, and you probably wouldn't be alone. The place to discuss concerns such as those, however, is on the talk pages of relevant policy/guideline pages or on article talk pages and not in articles themselves. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Not sure where you are from, but if you ever make it to East Texas, give me a shout and we'll have a quick discussion regarding editing on Wikipedia. Michael from Kilgore ( talk) 14:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Surely there is some better use of your time then replacing :: with ** on deletion discussions. Lots of people use :'s. [1]This is not an error but it is modifying talkpage comments. Legacypac ( talk) 06:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Just thought it was a formating error per WP:LISTGAP and WP:AFDFORMAT. No content was changed and it was done per WP:TPG#Fixing format errors. Didn't mean anything personal by it. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly,

Thank you for the detailed information. The draft page for Out of Bounds (2019 film) has been removed citing unambiguous copyright infringement. An email regarding declaration of consent was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, yesterday [Ticket#: 2019030710010908], as I have the authorization to use the image. I contested the violation through the proper and suggested channels; however, the draft page was deleted in the time it took to send the consent email. Please restore the draft page as it doesn’t violate or infringe upon any copyrights. Also, please find following the link to the deleted draft: /info/en/?search=Draft:Out_of_Bounds_(2019_film). Lastly, if you would be so kind as to approve the draft upon restoration as there was no actual copyright violation. Thank you in advance and your assistance is sincerely appreciated. Staciwilliams126 ( talk) 16:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@ Staciwilliams126: I am not an administrator so I cannot restore the draft or any other deleted pages. The administrator who deleted the draft is RHaworth; you can post a message asking him to restore it at User talk:RHaworth.

As for improving the draft, I suggest that you also ask RHarworth about that. There might not be any copyright violation, but that doesn’t automatically mean there should be a Wikipedia article about the film. You’re going to need to establish that the film meets Wikipedia:Notability (films) for the draft to be approved as an article. If the draft is restored, you can submit it to WIkipedia:Article for creation for review.

Finally, if you’re connected to the film or anyone associated with the film in some professional or personal way, it’s possible that you might have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you do have any such conflict, please carefully read through Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. This is especially important if you are being compensated in any way for creating an article about the film. — Marchjuly ( talk) 17:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Staciwilliams126, what's with the urgency? See WP:NODEADLINE. Marchjuly cannot restore deleted content. He is not an administrator. RHaworth is the administrator that deleted your draft. Perhaps he could help you, but I'm sure he'll want an explanation from you as to how you were able to cause the copyright release to be generated. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be composed by neutral editors from material available to anyone in reliable published secondary sources. The ability to reach someone who can release a copyright on the subject indicates that some sort of relationship exists between the editor and the subject of the article. If that's the case, your activities on Wikipedia may well be in violation of the legally binding terms of use for this privately owned website. That's not going to be acceptable. John from Idegon ( talk) 17:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly,

Thank you for the information. I genuinely appreciation your constructive assistance and prompt responses. 2604:2000:C807:E800:3177:6C72:818F:BE7A ( talk) 17:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 2604:2000:C807:E800:3177:6C72:818F:BE7A|2604:2000:C807:E800:3177:6C72:818F:BE7A. I’m not sure, but I think your posts is probably related to #Re: URGENT Copyright Consent Submitted above. If that’s the case, then you’re welcome. If not, then you’re still welcome, but you’re going to have to clarify what you’re referring to if you want additional help.

Finally, if you’re by chance Staciwilliams126 or some whose already registered for an account, please try to remember to login when you post because it makes it easier for other to know who they’re interacting with. It also will keep all your edits together under one account; thus helping to avoid any confusion trying to figure who made which edit when. — Marchjuly ( talk) 20:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly,

My apologies about not being logged in. I think I'm okay and not in need of any further assistance. Thank you again and enjoy your weekend. Staciwilliams126 ( talk) 20:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It took a bit of digging, but I finally figured out where this all started. Things can get confusing when you’re posting from multiple accounts; so, it’s best to stick with one from here on out. Moreover, the advice other editors have been giving you about Wikipedia and conflict of interest editing is really only intended to be helpful. Some editors do try and use Wikipedia to promote themselves or their projects and it’s not always easy to explain to them why such things are not allowed. So, when an editor uses an obviously promotional username, refers to themselves as “we” or otherwise gives the impression of having some connection to what they’re writing about, conflict of interest is often brought up to try and clarify things before someone ends up getting their account blocked. Sometimes the attempts to explain COI might seem curt, but that’s usually to avoid any misunderstandings about the problems COI editing can and often does create. Moreover, there are other ways of being compensated to write about something that don’t involve a monetary payment; so, even being an “unpaid intern” can be viewed suspiciously.

Anyway, as long as you follow relevant policies and guidelines when you edit, you should have no problems; however, I still think it would be better to wait for someone else to write an article about the film if you’re connected to it in some way. If a boss or someone is asking you to write the article, you should try and explain to them that it might be better to simply let the article happen on its own than to try and get it created. Lots of people go to see movies, and some of these people are Wikipedia editors. So, it wouldn’t be totally unusual for someone totally unconnected to the film to go see the film, and then decide to write an Wikipedia article about it. In general, writing a proper Wikipedia can be hard, but writing about something you’re connected to is even harder because you might unintentionally move away from WP:NPOV. Most content found in external sources written by people connected to a subject matter tends to be written in a promotional tone not suitable for Wikipedia; so, problems occur when they try to recreate that content in a Wikipedia article. — Marchjuly ( talk) 21:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly,

Thank you for taking the time to offer suggestions about my uploaded image File: Old_Cabin_Camp_1930.jpg. I could, indeed, use some help with these copyright guidelines.

Initially, I wrote the publisher of the book in which the image appears, asking for permission. Perhaps I did not phrase the request properly, but the publisher responded in the affirmative. Here is a copy of my exchange:

My request:

“I would like to use the photograph entitled “J. Monroe Thorington and Conrad Kain (centre) with companions. At ‘Old Cabin,' Dutch Creek, Southern Purcells, July 24, 1930” that was published as part of

Conrad Kain. Where the Clouds Can Go. ISBN: 978-1-897522-45-5

in a Wikipedia article about Peter Kaufmann-Bohren, a Swiss mountain guide.  

The use of the image would be entirely for educational, nonprofit purposes.”

Editor’s response:

You can use the photo for the Wikipedia article. We allow usage of photos for any non-commercial purposes provided there is accurate credit of where the photo is from and a credit of the book. Here is the information:

Photo: From the family of Enid Hurst Hansen, published in Where the Clouds Can Go (Rocky Mountain Books, 2009).”

Apparently Wikipedia does not accept such an approval. Or am I wrong on this point? If licenses are involved here, I will need some major help.

So I attempted to provide another rationale for posting the image. The non-free use category seemed to me the most logical choice, since the image is historically significant (deceased persons and historical event)and not depicted in any other extant photo (as far as I know), and significantly complements the understanding of the text (specific explorers and wilderness setting). The author (i.e., the photographer) is unknown and died more than 70 years ago, so I added the {{ PD-old-70}} category to further support my rationale for the posting.

My deletion of some warnings was not meant maliciously: I thought I had remedied the problem, so I followed the instructions on the warnings to delete them if additional information was added to correct the rationale. I reduced the size of the photo myself, to retain the maximum qualify of the image, apparently not small enough. To me the image loses its usefulness if the faces of the individuals are not recognizable in the wilderness (thus cropping the image would not make sense). By the way, the image was sent to me by the publisher, who indicated no size restriction in the correspondence (above).

Drafting my article before officially placing it online in my sandbox works well for me. I also wanted to include the images in this “working draft” so that I can see how the final version will look. Using the free-use category apparently prevents me from doing this, since a link message appears in the image file. A warning prompted me to do this: “Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days;” you have assured me not to worry about deletion.

I’m still unclear which is the best/acceptable justification for posting the image.

• What is the best rationale for posting this image?

• Should I use only the {{ PD-old-70}} and drop the free-use rationale?

• Do I need more justification for the free-use rationale, if I cite that rationale? (If I write out the rationale, should I put it in the Description Box? The Permission Box seems the more logical place, although I can’t seem to place sentences there.)

• Can some rationale be found to leave the image larger than the present reduced version?

• Can I put images in my sandbox version?

Sorry that this has become so complicated. But I am thankful for your help. P.dreher ( talk) 15:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC) P.dreher

@ P.dreher: Thank you for clarifying things. I'm assuming this has to do with my post at User talk:P.dreher#Non-free rationale for File:Old Cabin Camp 1930.jpg. For future reference, it's OK to respond to posts left on your user talk page by an another editor in the same discussion thread; in fact, it's probably better that you do this because it helps keep all parts of the discussion in one place and makes it easier for others to follow. It also helps things such as archiving, etc. since all parts of a discussion will be kept together.

Thanks for asking for permission from a copyright holder to use things their content on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you're correct about Wikipedia not accepting any type of "free" license which places restrictions on commercial or derivative use. There are various types of licenses which Wikipedia accepts, but pretty much all of them require that the original copyright holder agree to WP:CONSENT. Moreover, there has to be some way for Wikipedia (specifically a Wikimedia OTRS volunteer) to verify this consent, and usually this is done as explained at c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Please note that when a copyright holder agrees to release an image under a free license that Wikipedia accepts; they are not donating the image to Wikipedia or transferring copyright ownership to Wikipedia; they are only agreeing to release a particular version of the image under a license which makes it easier for others to freely use. They still retain their rights of copyright ownership over the image; the version they agree to release, however, is done so under a non-revocable license. This is why the actual copyright holder of the content can only do this, and why Wikipedia requires some formal verification of copyright ownership or copyright owner consent. A person writing a book about something may under some cases of fair use/ fair dealing be able to use a copyrighted image in their book, or they may have received permission to use the image in their book from the copyright holder. This, however, doesn't make them or their publishing company the copyright holder of the image; so, they can't release it under a free license suitable for Wikipedia's purposes even if they wanted to.

In some cases, Wikipedia might allow copyrighted to be uploaded as non-free content and used in articles, but each use of such content must comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is similar to the concept of fair use, but it's been purposely made to be much more restrictive. One of these restrictions has to do with size and resolution, while another has to do with location. Basically, non-free content can only be used in articles (i.e. in the article namespace); so, if the name of the Wikipedia page where you want to use the content begins with a prefix (e.g. "User:", "Talk:", "Draft:") as explained in WP:NS#In use, then the content can't be used per WP:NFCC#9 pretty much without exception; so, you can't write a valid non-free use rationale for such a non-free use regardless. Once you figure out an existing article to use the file, then you can work on writing a non-free use rationale, but in general the criterion you're going to most likely have the most trouble satisfying is WP:NFCC#8 (see WP:NFC#CS for more on that).

Image size and resolution is a bit more subjective as explained in WP:IMAGERES, but the basic idea is to ensure the image as at a sufficient resolution for the encyclopedic purpose its intended to serve. The bots that tagged the photo for reduction where doing so primarily based upon the size of the image, and the bots that actually reduced the image mainly reduce it to a size deemed appropriate per WP:NFCC#3. The bots aren't making a subjective judgement on how much detail the image requires. In my opinion, a photo like File:Old Cabin Camp 1930.jpg doesn't really need to be high resolution for the reader to for the way it's intended to be used, but you might feel differently. If that's the case, you can start a discussion at WP:FFD, or ask for feedback at WT:NFCC or WP:MCQ. Older unused versions of a non-free image usually end up deleted per WP:F5, but they aren't typically gone forever. They are only hidden from public view and can be restored at a later date if it turns out they are OK to be used.

The {{ PD-old-70}} might be an acceptable license, but that will depend on a number of different things. For a photo to be truly public domain for Wikipedia's purposes, it needs to be within the public domain in both the United States (where the Wikimedia Foundation servers are found) and in the country of origin. It also depends upon when the photo was taken, who took it, when they died (if applicable) and when the photo was first published, etc. The file describes the photo as from the 1930s which most likely means it's not going to be old enough to be public domain just upon its age alone; the book it comes from was published in 2009 which is certainly not going to be old enough for public domain. The author is also unknown; so, there's no way to determine when they died and whether 70 years have passed since their death (i.e. 70 p.m.a) which makes it difficult to claim public domain for that reason. My feeling is that this is probably not going to be clearly PD one way or another ({{ PD-US-expired}}) until probably 2025 assuming the photo was taken in 1930. It might be possible for this to be {{ PD-US-no notice}} or {{ PD-US-not renewed}}, but it's going to have to be clearly established that the photo was previously published prior to 1977 for the former and before 1963 for the latter. If you think this is the case, then you might want to ask about it at WP:MCQ.

Hopefully, I've been able to answer your questions and didn't confuse you even more. There are many experienced editors helping out at MCQ if you want some other opinions. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly,

Thanks so much for your prompt, detailed reply. I will certainly study your suggestions and see which rationale works best for the image. Best wishes, P.dreher— Preceding unsigned comment added by P.dreher ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly,

It appears my attempts to update the Oregon Mandolin Orchestra's Wikipedia page have been badly misguided. For that I apologize.

But I was simply trying to post new information a page that hadn't been updated for three years and is terribly outdated -- and flat wrong.

If my participation is viewed as an inherent conflict of interest, if my language/tone is too promotional and if my scholarship doesn't meet the organization's standards, then how do we get someone to update the page? Is there a way to contact the earlier contributors to see if they are still interested in our orchestra?

Right now, our page is outdated as the encyclopedias I used when I was a kid. A couple of years ago, I donated both sets to charity. If no one updates our page so it expresses the truth, it also should be donated to charity.

Thank you,

Oremandos ( talk) 16:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Oremandos 3/23/2019

Hello, Oremandos. From your contributions, it seems almost certain that you have a professional relationship with this orchestra. If so, then you must comply with the mandatory paid contributor disclosure. You should not be editing the article directly. Instead, explain at Talk:Oregon Mandolin Orchestra why the article is "flat wrong", and make specific suggestions for improvement there. Use Template:Request edit to get the attention of uninvolved volunteer editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Oremandos. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oremandos. The best place to discuss any changes you feel should be made to the article is, as pointed out by Cullen328, on its corresponding talk page. You can request a change be made and see whether other editors unconnected to the orchestra feel that the change is in accordance to with relevant policies and guidelines. As for "the truth", please take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth; although this page is only an essay, it does provide a fairly good summary of Wikipedia:Verifiability and how Wikipedia article content is really only supposed to reflect what is written in reliable sources (preferably independent and secondary ones) about the subject of an article.

Finally, there are many articles added to the encyclopedia over the years which have ended up being deleted for one reason or another. Some of the more typical reasons this takes place are explained in Wikipedia:Deletion, but articles aren't generally deleted because someone associated with the subject matter doesn't like what's written or feels it's out-of date, etc. Factual errors can be fixed as long as the changes can be verified through the examination of reliable sources, but articles aren't really intended to serve a promotional platform for the subject where it can provide the latest up-to-date information about itself. In other words, a Wikipedia article is not intended to a sort of "official website" where the subject has control over what's posted. Those encyclopedias you donated to charity were yours to donate; you don't, however, have any claim of ownership over Wikipedia or any of its articles. If you truly feel the article should be "donated", you can nominate it for deletion per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but it will be ultimately the Wikipedia community which will decide if that's necessary. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Marchjuly! English is not my language, and I have some trouble with understanding this sentence from your reply at Teahouse#Is there anything we can do (...)?:

It make take a little time, but their are editors who move from article to article looking at these requests; so, someone will get to yours as soon as you can.

I'm under the impression you rather meant:

It may take a little time, but there are editors who move from article to article looking at these requests; so, someone will get to yours as soon as they can.

Could you, please, verify? -- CiaPan ( talk) 16:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Your version is what I intended to write. I occasionally leave a typo or two when I post; I do preview my posts, but sometimes I miss 'em. Thanks for finding these. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly,

Welcome to the Wikipedia community!

Did you know that Artificial Intelligences (AIs) support Wikipedia? I saw your post on Teahouse, and I’m personally contacting a small handful of new Wikipedia editors to make sure your voice is heard as we build and refine these AIs.

Will you please provide an interview to share your thoughts about AI on Wikipedia? It would only take about 30 minutes over phone or video chat. We will send you a $15 Amazon gift card as a way to thank you for your time.

I am working in collaboration with Wikimedia Foundation staff to do this research, so if you decide to participate, your opinion could help build the future of Wikipedia. Hope to talk to you soon!

PS. You can learn more about our study here.

Best, Bowen, aka Bobo.03 ( talk) 19:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not interested in participating in such a project. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for letting me know! Bobo.03 ( talk) 13:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

hi.

so, i guess you've noticed that there are now pages for all active shogi players. I was going to make some pages for some red links of nonactive players. But, before i do all the retired/dead folks, i was going then start on active women players. Only after that will i go to do the rest of the old players. Here & there, i'll write some more stuff on theory as my mood dictates. Anyway, just dropping note about the status of the shogi 'project'. peace – ishwar   (speak) 17:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for creating those articles. I've been trying to improve them bit by bit, but sometimes I start doing other things. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Why did you remove the Six Flags stub template photo?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99721829Max ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@ 99721829Max: File:Six Flags logo.svg is licensed as non-free content. Non-free content can only be used in the article namespace per Wikipedia's non-free content use criterion #9; this means it cannot be used in templates, draft, user pages, talk pages, etc. Non-free content use needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and how it can be used is highly restricted. It's OK if you weren't aware of this (though I did leave this edit summary explaining why the file was removed) and simply added/re-added the file to the template's page by mistake; however, please don't re-add the file to the template again. If you have any questions about this, you can ask them below, at WP:MCQ or at WT:NFCC. Now, if you want to add an image to that particular template, try checking c:Category:Six Flags amusement parks on Wikimedia Commons for a freely licensed image like File:Six Flags wordmark bw.svg which you can use instead of the non-free one.

You seem like a fairly new editor so you may not be very familiar with how Wikipedia works. Leaving edit summaries like you How dare you remove the photo!!!!! did here are not really a good idea per Help:Edit summary#What to avoid in edit summaries. Not only were you 100% incorrect in re-adding the image based upon Wikipedia policy, edit summaries of that nature indicate a sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing which is often not very helpful. It's much better to simply ask for clarification like you did here in a WP:CIVIL manner than leave an angry-sounding edit sum.

Finally, when you post comments on talk pages, please try to remember that (1) new discussion threads always go at the bottom of the page and (2) you should always sign your posts per WP:SIGN. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly thanks for your response I have written a Hindi article where the title was wrong, I tried to reach them in the tea house but there was no response. Anyway thanks for your help. नेहा गुप्ता ( talk) 19:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)नेहा गुप्ता

@ नेहा गुप्ता: Another editor named Primefac PrimeHunter also answered your Teahouse question. Maybe the information he provided will help you figure this out. On English Wikipedia, the problem you're having can pretty much almost always be fixed by a page move, which is something that any autoconfirmed user can usually do; however, things appears to be a little more complicated on Hindi Wikipedia because only autopatrolled users can move pages. So, you're probably going to need request that particular user right on Hindi Wikipedia if you want to move the page yourself.

Finally, one thing about your user name; I can't read it and most likely many others cannot read it as well. Please take a look at WP:NONLATIN because in general Wikipedia prefers that usernames be written in English or at least use the Latin alphabet. It's not required that you do this, but it will certainly make it easier for others to interact with you if you do plan on regularly editing on English Wikipedia. Just for reference, there are ways to customize a signature that allows you to add both latin and non-latin script to your signature if you want. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to correct username. -- 13:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)]

Hello Marchjuly, I want to inform you that an autopatrolled user in Hindi wikipedia has moved the page on my request. Thank you so much for helping me. I have an another account where the name is in English but after creating the hindi article and couldnt been able to move the page with that account then I made this account. I was no idea about the user rights in hindi wikipedia that's why I had to create another account.

नेहा गुप्ता ( talk) 13:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)नेहा गुप्ता

@ नेहा गुप्ता: PrimefacPrimeHunter really is the person who you should thank; he figured out what the problem was. As for your username/accounts, you need to be careful about WP:MULTIPLE. I can understand how you might want to have one account for English Wikipedia and one account for Hindi Wikipedia, and such a thing might be allowed per WP:VALIDALT; however, you need to be careful in keeping sure that the accounts remain separate from each other and don't start (particularly on English Wikipedia) using them to make overlapping edits to the same pages. You might also want to consider disclosing your accounts on your user pages to try and help avoid anyone from mistakenly accusing you of WP:SOCK or something. I think all accounts are global accounts these days; so, it's possible to use the same account to edit any Wikimedia Foundation project page. You can even set up an account so that it receives mw:Help:Notifications/Cross-wiki notifications. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to correct username. -- 13:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)]

I think you mean PrimeHunter? Primefac ( talk) 13:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it was PrimeHunter; my apologies to the three of you for the mix up. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I hope I am not bothering you, but could you help me understand how I could be dealing with this situation on the E. J. Levy page better? I feel like I have been consistently trying to focus on the content and have tried to ignore the other user and keep my comments to them brief and non-accusatory, but they seem to be clearly harassing me. For example, in the diffs in their most recent post on the page, most are reverting the same incorrect information that resulted in Hedgielamar's bans (and from almost a week ago). Do you feel that my edits are not constructive to the article and/or have been inappropriate on the talk page? I would really appreciate if you could let me know what I have done wrong. Thank you. Wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 08:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if any advice I can give would resolve things because ultimately it really depends upon the two of you. You both think you're right, and you both are probably right to some degree; so, the trick is going to be to find some place in the middle that's good for the both of you. Hedgielamar was really blocked for disruption and edit warring by C.Fred; the problem wasn't necessarily that the edits he was making were wrong per se, it was that he refused to seek consensus for thems despite being warned numerous times (including by C.Fred). 3RR is one of the few bright-line rules on Wikipedia; if you cross it, you run the risk of being blocked no matter how right you may be. There are exemptions to 3RR, but these are pretty well-defined and you need to really really sure when invoking them; moreover, even if you're 100% sure, there's no guarantee that others will agree that they apply, which is why you should avoid going over 3RR as much as possible.

When I've been stuck on what to do in particular situation like this, I've also asked other editors for advice. Usually, the people I ask always say that while trying to resolve things editor to editor is a good start, sometimes you have to go to the community to seek assistance. I personally think WP:ANI and WP:AN3 are things of last resort, but they are one way to resolve a dispute that has moved beyond a simple talk page disagreement over article content; you just have to be aware of WP:BOOMERANG and not mistakenly think your edits will not be scrutinized as well. Maybe the best thing to do here is to follow WP:AVOIDEDITWAR; you might also try some of the things suggested in WP:COOL#Top tips for keeping your cool, WP:NAM#Be considerate of the opposing view, WP:NOWIN and WP:NOTSTUCK as a way to diffuse the situation a bit. Sorry, for the rather WP:OMG type of reply but take a look at some of those pages since they also contain links to other pages where you might find something that works. If nothing you try works, then a bit of WP:DOGGY might be a good idea. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply, and the links you provide. I have actually read those policies, and that's why I am not sure what else I could have done in this situation. The other user has used the talk page largely to attack me, and has started following me in other areas of Wikipedia. If I went to ANI over the other users conduct, I have no worries about a boomerang charge. I'm not sure what harassment I could even be alleged to have done to the other user. Do you think statements I have made to them were inappropriate? Looking at the links you provided, I'm really not sure what I could have done differently with my conduct (outside the reverts of Hedgielamar, and I will be clearer with my edit summaries when removing unsourced contentious information from a BLP in the future). I was hoping to actually know what part of my behavior was wrong, but if you don't have the time to respond, I understand that as well. Wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 19:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The only thing that stands out (in my opinion) is the number of times you've reverted this other editor. You may have been very well justified in doing so, but at the same time it might be argued that you should've sought out administrator assistance at an early point instead of trying to go it alone. I don't see an WP:CIVIL issues, etc. which often cause editors to end up at ANI, but I also don't think what you posted on the article's talk page about reverting the same three links more than three time being only three reverts is a correct understanding of 3RR; it's the number of reverts overall, not the number of times the same content is reverted which matters. Perhaps you felt the reverts fell under 3RRNO, but as I posted above that's sometimes debatable and you need to be really clear about explaining that you're reverting because you're claiming 3RRNO. Even when claiming 3RRNO, if you start going to far over 3RR, then you can be seen as only making things worse and fostering more edit warring (even unintentionally); so, seeking administrator assistance at one of the administration noticeboards or even at WP:RPP might have been more prudent at an earlier stage. Basically, it sort of comes down to WP:AAGF; if you feel that you can still engage this editor constructively and together with others reach some kind of consensus about the disputed content than that's what you should try; if the other editor chooses not to engage, then you don't need them to agree to establish a consensus. There are others working on the article which might be willing to further discuss things. Just make sure you don't actively turn it into a "us vs. them" type of discussion, and stick to commenting on content not contributors as much as possible which foster on discussion. If the other editor decides to try and muck things up, it's quite possible that the others involved will post something about this instead. At the same time, if it starts to seem that the a consensus is developing that the other editor might just be right or partially right, then try to build on that to find the best possible outcome for the article. If you find that's too hard of a thing to do, it's probably better to WP:MOVEON unless you really feel there's something seriously wrong policy- or guideline-wise wrong with the result. In that case, you may have to seek assistance from others not directly involved in the talk page discussions. Even then, you might find yourself reaching a WP:DTS point where it's best to move on to other things.

As for the WP:HARASS and WP:NPA stuff, you might be best dealing with that at ANI. There's very little tolerance of that type of behavior by the community. Even though sometimes things might not be murky, you just need to try and avoid WP:AOHA stuff. Nobody can tell you not to feel the way you feel, but WP:FOLLOWING is a serious claim to make which means a serious pattern of such behavior is probably going to need to be shown to exist. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you immensely for your detailed response. It is very helpful for me to try to improve my editing and behavior. As for the 3RR, I had posted that it was only 3 reverts based on the diffs they had posted (if you look at their "Revert number 5 in 24 hours", it is not a fifth revert, but is actually the third revert overall even in the list they provided. I was basing my comment off of their evidence at the time). I understand how I went over 3RR now. Your response is very much appreciated. Wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 23:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)