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

Hi again. So I decided to look up John from Idegon on Google as well as looking at many of his edits and comments on his talk page, and the only thing that I have found is that he is a bully. ^[1] There are full chatrooms dedicated to complaining about the unfairness of his editing, and I honestly agree. I did not come here to complain, but rather ask that you try to do something to curve these frivolous edits and arguments. ^[2] It is clear to see that he is intent on forcing users to remove any edits he dislikes, regardless of Wikipedias policies.

I am honestly nearly brought to tears at this. I am dissapointed that someone like him has gone this long unrestrained without any consequences on such a great website that has so much potential to be something great. Regardless of whatever you decide to do, I thank your for listening to my complaints and I hope that you see this problem from the eyes of the hundreds of Wiki-editors he has crushed the dreams of.

Ppizzo278 ( talk) 02:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If you have a problem with John's behavior either with respect to you or others, then you should discuss your concerns at WP:ANI, not here. Before you do so, however, you should take a close look at Wikipedia:ANI advice. Like doctors, the bed-side-manner of Wikipedia editors can vary quite a bit from person to person and being popular or friendly is not necessarily a pre-requisite for being WP:HERE. Accusing another editor of being a bully based upon what you've found out by googling them is a really slippery slope that you need to be very very careful in trying to climb since accusations made against another editor on Wikipedia require serious proof and can be seen as a personal attack when unsubstantiated; moreover, you also need to be very careful about posting links to external websites which comment on other editors because it can easily lead to WP:OUTING and may even be considered to be a WP:BLP violation. My suggestion to you is to heed the advice that El C (a Wikipedia administrator) left on your user talk page about commenting on other editors and consider taking a WP:BREATHER before posting anything more about John. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I highly doubt John is one of my biggest fans, but calling him a "bully" is not acceptable. For the second time I'm cautioning you, please don't do that again. El_C 03:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

El_C, you should probably take a look at this. That would be at least 3 NPA violations and warrants a block. I'd suggest a short one because I do believe he wants to contribute in good faith but has gotten mired in his distaste for my style. So, WP:ROPE. John from Idegon ( talk) 21:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I've given the user one last chance — let's hope this time it sticks. El_C 21:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly, This is huifen Chen, I am writing a biography for Hrvoje Petek, and I registered the wiki account by his email address. I wonder is it okay for me to do a living person biography for him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrvoje Petek ( talk • contribs) 18:14, 09 May 2019 (UTC)‎

Hi Huifen Chen. I already provided you with information about this on your user talk page at User talk:Hrvoje Petek#Draft:Hrvoje Petek. If you haven't done so yet, please take the time to carefully look at that post because it contains links to Wikipedia pages where you find information that will help answer your question. The links are indicated in blue, just click on them and it will take you to the relevant page. The first an most important thing, however, is that you're going to have to change your username per WP:IMPERSONATE. You cannot use "Hrvoje Petek" as your username if you're not him. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple to request such a change. You can use you're real name if you wish, but you can use anything found in Wikipedia:Username policy#Inappropriate usernames. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, This is our first time creating an article in Wikipedia. Aaruush is our organization name. Hence, we had thought of putting the username as Aaruush2019. Could you please tell us what username should be used and how to change it. Also, please let us know the copyrights for images that are to be used. We are currently using our organization's images having our Watermark. And, we would like to change the page title too. Why is our username appearing as the Page title? Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaprcsi ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Qaprcsi. I'll try to answer your questions below.

1. You seem to have figured out how to request a username change, and your new username seems to be fine. For reference, it's mostly the types of usernames listed in WP:IU which are unacceptable.
2. The reason your user name is appearing as the page title is because you've created the draft on your user page. This is why I suggested you either move the content to a userspace draft or a regular draft instead. Your userpage has been tagged for deletion; so, if you going to do either of those things, you better do so before the content is deleted.
3. Wikipedia is pretty strict about image licensing. You can find out more about this in WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and also in c:COM:L. Basically, whenever there's any doubt regarding copyright ownership, some sort of more formal verification is required. Just follow the instructions in the templates I add to the files you uploaded to Commons.
4. Wikipedia accounts are not allowed to shared by multiple people per WP:SHAREDACCOUNT; so, if more that one person is using the Qaprcsi account, they should create their own Wikipedia accounts instead.
5. Only subjects deemed to Wikipedia notable can have articles written about them. Please refer to WP:42 and WP:ORG for how this applies to your organization.

If you have anymore questions, feel free to ask for help at the Wikipedia Teahouse or ask them below; however, when you post anything at the Teahouse or on another editor's talk page, please remember to WP:SIGN your post. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 12:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank You!We have done the necessary changes. Please go through the new draft article and let us know if any further changes are required.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaprcsi ( talk • contribs) 13:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

When you think your draft is ready, you can submit it for review by clicking the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button located near the bottom of the page. An experienced AFC reviewer will look over your draft and provide suggestions on things which need improving. The review process might take some time, but someone will eventually get to it. If the draft is declined, you can keep resubmitting it as long as you continue to make improvements and don't just keep re-submitting the same declined version(s) over and over again. If you're draft is ultimately not accepted no matter how many times you submit it, don't feel bad. It doesn't mean your organization isn't a good one and it isn't good things, it just means that it might not be something about which a Wikipedia article can be written. If you want some suggestions on how to write Wikipedia articles, try looking at Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also want to look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for reference to. Finally, please remember to sign your talk page posts. You can find out how to do this in Wikipedia:Signatures. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi.

Do you know why some players dont have numbers assigned to them?

I was trying to make a page on Michiyoshi Yamada using the JSA website for a reference like we usually do, but I essentially can't do much since he doesnt have a page on the JSA website. I dont understand why Satoshi Murayama gets a number but Yamada doesnt. – ishwar   (speak) 06:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Ish ishwar: It might have to do with ja:将棋棋士一覧#棋士番号のない棋士. He died very young probably just right before they started giving out numbers. Murayama became a pro well after the number system started. — Marchjuly ( talk) 07:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

i see. It's a peculiar reason to omit a player. I suppose i will just leave that stub alone. I might could translate the japanese article further (i've already implicitly done so for some dates), but it basically doesnt have any sources, so... – ishwar   (speak) 18:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Ish ishwar: After you brought this up and I found no sources on Japanese Wikipedia about this, I've been trying to find something but have had no luck so far. While there have certainly been lots of books written about shogi over the years, there doesn't seem to have been many books written about the JSA itself or professional shogi as a system. Perhaps there are mentions about "no badge number" players in some book, maybe in a book about an older player, but it's probably just going to take a bit of luck to come across such source. It's a bit surprising that the JSA doesn't mention anything about this or these players any longer on their website, even as a brief note. There isn't even a link provided for Yamada here and he's not listed here. I even checked some older archived version where they used have a FAQ about things related to shogi, but couldn't find anything other about the badge system, but did find his old profile.

It's kind of seems like someone at the JSA made a decision not to create new profile pages for badgeless players like Yamada, or maybe whichever company created the JSA new website just left them out and nobody at the JSA noticed. I can't imagine website space concerns or cost being such an issue, especially these days, as to leave these players out. FWIW, after checking that Japan Wikipedia page again, it doesn't look like any pro who died Yamada is mentioned on the JSA's current website and many don't seem to be mentioned in the old archived version I found. Maybe somebody with a bit over control over these things is just getting even with some of these players. I'd imagine there are some shogi-related grudges which go back years. After all, the JSA still basically treats it's women pros as second-class even though FIDE seemingly has tried to move more towards equal status over the years, and Go doesn't seem to make any such distinction based on gender. I'm really hoping that Nishiyama breaks through and becomes the first woman to become a seikishi; it would be such a huge news story and might cause some major changes in the way the JSA does business. Not sure if you use the shogi live app, but the way some of the advertisements appearing on it portray women (basically T & A photos) seem so out of place in 2019, especially since the JSA talks alot about trying to increase the number of women and girls interested in the game. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice find on that old archived page. I can use it as a reference. Thanks for checking.

The JSA is weird in this respect. I would hope they arent so petty as you suggest, but i did wonder if they were being dismissive of the ex-JSA women players that have vanished from their site. It could be seen as disrespectful.

Havent used that app much (my free game views are used up now). But, i've seen some sexist images on the cartoonish Shogi Wars app. So, seems like they are sending a message that shogi is man's game.

I'm rooting for Nishiyama too especially now that she's the only one close. But, practically speaking, it's hard for anyone of either gender to squeeze through that narrow gate. Given the tiny population of women in that tournament system, the probability of turning pro is pretty small. If it was 50% men/50% women in the 3-dan group, then i think it would be likely to happen eventually. Too bad that this is the way it is – i guess lots of women have fond memories of playing shogi as children with their grandfathers but they are culturally pushed elsewhere later in life. – ishwar   (speak) 18:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, i found there's a book written on Yamada. Well, i'm not going to buy the book, but i was able to cite the book cover to get a tiny bit sourced from the jawiki page. – ishwar   (speak) 21:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

If you've never seen ja:ふたりっ子, then you might want to track it down. It was quite popular, partly due to Habu's popularity, it was based in Osaka, but also because it was basically about a young girl discovering shogi and then growing up to be not only the first female seikishi, but also one of the strongest players. It's a bit corny because that's what NHK does with its morning serials, but still interesting. There are quite a number of professional shogi players making cameos and I believe the JSA either directly supported it and promoted it. It certainly tried and even still tries to take advantage of the show's popularity for its benefit. Unfortunately, the male-dominated structure of the JSA doesn't seem to have changed very since when the show aired in the mid-90s. There have been small steps made, like Shimizu becoming a board member, Satomi and Nakayama reaching 3-dan and better relations with the LPSA, but they're still losing some of their more popular female pros like ja:竹俣紅 who feel they have better opportunities somewhere else. Being able to make a living is important consideration for everyone, and women pros just don't make very much unless they are constantly appearing on TV or constantly winning tournaments. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I noticed you left a message on my talk page. A few things to say: 1. I used the visual editor, and the image was in the library. 2. Why are you saying that I violated the rules? That is the job of admins. 73.109.92.67 ( talk) 03:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 73.109.92.67. Thank you for the message.

1. I mistook the file you added ( File:Bharatiya Janata Party (icon).jpg) for a different one ( File:Bharatiya Janata Party logo.svg) added by another IP editor the day before. The file you added is from Commons uploaded under a free license; the one the other editor added was uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content. So, I apologize if the {{ uw-nonfree}} I mistakenly posted on your user talk page caused any confusion or ill will. Anyway, the Commons file you added has been nominated for deletion as a possible copyright violation; if it's deleted, which I think there's a fair chance of happening, then the non-free file of the BJP logo would still not be able to be used in List of largest political parties per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. I'm not sure which files can be found in the visual library, but not all files uploaded to Wikipedia and Commons are licensed the same way. How a file is licensed pretty much determines how it can be used on Wikipedia, i.e. which policy/guideline its use falls under, and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive.
2. Any editor may remove a file or flag a file as a possible policy/guideline violation; moreover, any editor may notify/warn another editor of any possible violations related to file use or file uploads by posting something on their user talk page. Only an administrator, however, can block another editor, or delete a file.

Once again, please accept my apologies for mistaking the file you added for being a violation of Wikipedia policy. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

HI there -- Wanted to reply to a message you posted on my talk page. Your original message was:

“Hi Taylorengstrom91. You've uploaded quite a number of non-free images for use in the article Vebjørn Sand. Non-free content use on Wikipedia can be quite tricky because Wikipedia's non-free content use policy tends to be quite restrictive in how such files may be used. While this policy generally allows non-free content to be used to support article content, the emphasis tends to be placed minimal and exceptional cases where there are really no other alternatives to using such files; this includes using text instead or images in cases where actually seeing the image is not really essential to the reader's understanding of the relevant article content. Anyway, there's a discussion about the images used in that article taking place at WT:NFCC#Vebjørn Sand; so, perhaps you could clarify a few things about the images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)”

To which I'd like to reply with:

This is a famous painter, it’s hard to talk about his historically charged motifs without showing his paintings - and since paintings are copyright protected from "the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." Would you recommend going the route of a free license like the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic or something else? It sounds like Fair Use won't work for us. Let me know!

-- Taylorengstrom91 ( talk) 16:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Taylorengstrom91

Hi Taylorengstrom91. The files were discussed at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 69#Vebjørn Sand. An administrator named JJMC89 tagged some of the files for deletion because their usage didn't comply with relevant Wikipedia policy on non-free content use. They were subsequently deleted by another administrator named Explicit who felt the same way. You can ask either of the two for more specific details if you like.

For visual artists, one or two non-free examples of an artist's work might be allowed as representative examples of a particular style technique in support of sourced critical commentary about such things, or when the works themselves are things which have received critical coverage (e.g. some kind of controversy about a particular aspect of the work) in support of sourced article content about such a thing; however, simply mentioning a work by name or as part of a list of works in and of itself is generally not going to be considered sufficient. Moreover, if a free-equivalent image is deemed reasonably possible to obtain or create, then a non-free image is most likely not going to be allowed. This doesn't necessarily apply to paintings by an artist, but it may apply to a picture of the artist themselves (if they are still living per WP:FREER) or to any publicly displayed works of art depending upon whether the country where they are located allows freedom of panorama for publicly displayed artistic works: some countries do and some don't.

You should only license the works under a free license like Creative Commons if the original copyright holder is willing to give their WP:CONSENT to do so. You can find out a little more about this at c:Commons:OTRS and c:Commons:Licensing. Releasing content under a free license like Creative Commons doesn't not mean the copyright holder is transfering copyright ownership to another person or organization (e.g. Wikipedia); it just means that the copyright holder is making available a free version of their work to make it easier for others to use in some way. Neither Wikimedia Commons nor Wikipedia, however, will accept any fee license which places any restrictions on commercial or derivative re-use, which is one of the reasons why many commercial artists do not agree to have their work uploaded to under such licenses. In addition, the free licenses accepted by Wikipedia and Commons are non-revocable, which means the copyright holder cannot take it back at a later date. For these reasons, verification of the artist's consent by Wikimedia OTRS is often required by email.

If I didn't really answer your question or you now have more questions, you can also try asking for help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or c:Commons:Village pump/copyright. Finally, you posted above It sounds like Fair Use won't work for us. Who's "us"? Are you connected to Sand in some personal or professional way? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I continually get these notices from you regarding the football helmet images I upload:

"The file (in question) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-free helmet image whose use fails WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#10a. There is already a non-free file (shown in topic) of the team's logo being used in the main infobox of (said files) for primary identification purposes, so there's no need for another file basically showing the same logo on a helmet to be used per NFCC#3a. In additional, the source cited for the helmet (said sources) doesn't seem to be the actual source of the file. It shows the primary logo and shows picture of players wearing helmets with the logo, but this actual file cannot be found. This is a problem per NFCC#4 and NFCC#10a since the helmet image might actually come from a different website and the file might not be an official file released by the team itself.

"While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

"You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

"Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion."

First of all, the images of the helmets ARE accurate and the sites DO indicate that they are legit. Perhaps if they are not good enough sources for you, then consider going to YouTube and look up video of what these helmets look like. The logos on the helmets ARE the same as the logos shown, yes, true. But proposing deletion without thoroughly examining them by using EVERY means necessary, and not just search engines, should indicate that these helmets ARE legit and should NOT be proposed for deletion according to the confusing (and often time "run-around") policies, rules, criteria, etc. Please look at ALL avenues before you hastefully jump to conclusions and "nominate" images for deletion. I will guarantee you, these images WILL be spared from deletion. Otherwise, you will lose editors because of having WAY too many hoops to jump through. NostalgiaBuff97501 ( talk) 08:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

As I previously posted before on your user talk page and in various discussions, the question is not whether the logo files or the helmet files are legitimate representations of a team’s branding. The question has to do with whether two non-free files which basically show the same logo are going to be allowed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, and the established consensus is that multiple non-free files providing essentially the same encyclopedic information or serving the same encyclopedic purpose are not necessary. The sourcing issues have to with where the actual file comes from, not whether a photo or video showing the helmet is can be seen on YouTube or some other websites. Previous files you've upload with similar issues have been deleted for this very reason so I'm not sure what you're guaranteeing about how this time will be any different from those other times. In addition, you seem to be re-uploading files which have been deleted by administrators for violating Wikipedia's non-free content use policy without even attempting to address the reasons why the files were deleted with the deleting administrator.

I'm not the only editor whose tagged files you've uploaded for non-free issues; your user talk page is filled with various file related notifications which have been added by others over the years, yet for some reason you keep uploading files with the same issues. Your attempt to argue that "their are way too many hoops to jump through" is not a justification to continue to upload files which have non-free issues. The non-free content use policy has been in place for years and plenty of other editors seem to be able to comply with it; if you're unable to do so then perhaps that's more of an indication of WP:CIR when it comes to you uploading files than an indication of a problem with the exisiting policy.

Nobody wants to see you or anyone else leave the project, but at some point the Wikipedia Community is not going to lose any sleep over those who choose to leave if they continue to not listen what others are telling them and the problems they create start outweigh whatever positive edits they make. Multiple administrators have deleted some of your non-free uploads because they felt they didn't comply with relevant Wikipeida policy. It's unlikely that all of these adminsitrators were wrong which means that it might perhaps be time for you to slow down with your file uploads (and definitely stop re-uploading files deleted by administrators) until you get a better feel for Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; otherwise, someday soon someone is going to start a discussion about your problem uploads at WP:ANI which might end up leading to an administrator taking more formal action to stop you for uploading any more inappropriate non-free files. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 10:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly,

I was just looking at some Teahouse questions and was really impressed at your responses to new editors. I didn't look at the whole page but I thought in the answers I looked at you were both a) compassionate and understanding to new editors and b) informing them about Wikipedia policies and customs that they might be unintentionally violating. Another example is your response to a difficult editor, Jack Melucci who posted a personal attack and was later blocked. You gave the best response I can think of for new editors who might be digging themselves into a hole and I appreciate that you spend the time to offer your advice to them. Wikipedia always has experienced editors who retire or find other things to do with their time so the project really depends on finding and developing new editors and I'm glad we have editors helping them stay out of trouble. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback Liz. Sometimes I think I give an OK answer; other times maybe not so much. Anyway, some people (like above), however, might not share your opinion of my overall contributions and might be hoping that my "retirement" comes sooner than later. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NostalgiaBuff97501 ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Marchjuly:: in this talkpage [1] you apologized for mistaking user "Mediatech492" for user "Macropedia". I don't think this was a mistake. The same thing happened to me: some edits previously made by "Macropedia" are now attributed to "Mediatech492". And "Macropedia" is now blocked as a sockpuppet.

Something is fishy. Any ideas? Wisefroggy ( talk) 14:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I added a user warning intended for Macropedia to Mediatech492's user talk page related to a non-free file being used on an article's talk page, though it turned out that the same warning also was applicable to Mediatech492 as well just not exactly for the same reason. I don't know anything about any sock puppetry or edits being attributed to the wrong account. I'm not sure that the latter is even be possible since edits are attributed to whichever account makes the edit. If you suspect another editor of being a sock puppet like Macropedia, then you can try discussing your concerns with an administrator or you can start a WP:SPI. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)