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, thank you for your message. Just to assure with you , I do not have any close relationship with the said company. 60.54.36.64 ( talk) 02:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Wcsneel ( talk) 02:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Instead of pointing out the errors in the Inactive Drum Corps article, why not help the person with the correction, instead of being critical? Show the person how to cite the webpage in sources and citations. Sometimes you people with drum corps are just mean.

2605:A601:AF43:BA00:EDB9:71DE:2D0E:9E7F ( talk) 22:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m not with any drum corps and I wasn’t being mean. The link that was added seemed to have little if any value as a citation to a reliable source in my opinion; so, there was really no reason to re-add the link as such. Now, if either you or the editor who originally added the link (assuming that you’re not the same person) feel differently, then you can start a discussion about this on the article’s talk page and see what others think. If you feel Emmet Porter meets WP:BIO, then you can try and create an article about him and possibly add the link as an WP:EL to that article. For future reference, you’re likely going to better off if you avoid accusing other editors of being mean if you don’t understand the reasons why they made a particular edit; it could be that they just have a better understanding of relevant policies and guidelines than you. — Marchjuly ( talk) 23:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Happy Holidays to you too. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I am posting an exchange I had with Jeff G..

As you well know, the matter was related to a dispute over an image that had long been posted on Victor Fleming (this format won't let me use double brackets to link you to the article), director of the 1939 film Wizard of Oz, and apply it to the article concerning the producer of the film, Mervyn LeRoy. Obviously, this dichotomy in application was confusing to a contributor not learned in Commons "legal" jargon. File:Wizard of Oz 01.jpg

In an effort make the image serviceable for use on LeRoy, I altered the tag. The Wiki Commons experts, including Marchjuly, rather than assisting me to adapt the image, demanded, prosecutor-like, an accounting for the edit. My request for assistance for ignored. Marchjuly, if forthright, will acknowledge this.

Subsequent to this exchange, there was a massive demand for the accounting of dozens of images I had uploaded during the last 2 years or so, which at the time had met with little or no objection from Wiki Commons. I could not help but conclude that the tag I was using was adequate for use a a number of major overhauls of articles by film directors of the Hollywood Golden Ageː King Vidor, John Cromwell, Tod Browning, Sam Brown and Lewis Milestone.

Rather then examining the images and making adjustments to the tags, which your experts on copyright considerations are surely in a position to advise on, they engaged in a retaliatory rampage.

The message is clearː if you revert a Wiki Commons editor's removal, they will demand a full accounting for your Wizard Uploads. When "proof" is not forthcoming, a wholesale removal of images follows, even they have applied to Wiki articles that clearly improve those articles, and have posted for years..

If your opinion is that the bench warrant has been issued, and that the end of the matter, then further discussion is superfluous. If you are acting as an lawyer representing your "clients", then the same applied.

If you wish to proceed in good faith with a contributor who has demonstrated a sustained commitment to improving Wikipedia, please revert the removals of my uploaded images, and provide me with the methods bring them into compliance. Thousands of images at Commons exist under these simple tags which you can surely supply.

What say you, Jeff?

--Lord Such&Such (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

As I anticipated, "Jeff" did not respond.

I have learned two precepts about Wiki Commons from my interaction with your and "Jeff":

1) The Wiki Commons "Establishment" brooks no opposition to their deletions of content. My attempted reverts were meet with hostility, and a cross-examination of my edits. A justification for my edits was demanded, and when these were not forthcoming, by collection of uploads, long established on Commons, came under attack.

2) Wiki Commons adopts a proprietorial approach require content provides, like myself, to perform as copyright experts. The vast contradictions and spectrum of opinions applied to these images are beyond the "legal" grasp of the bulk of contributors.

The take-away? If you can't "legally" establish the status of a widely shared image, don't even attempt to upload it to Wiki Commons, or the entire scope of your work on Wikipedia will come under attack by the Wikipedia Establishment, in defense of their "clients."

What have to say about your role in the travesty? -- Lord Such&Such ( talk) 17:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what can be said that wasn't already said before. You uploaded lots of images to Commons with questionable licensing and then somehow seemed to expect others clean them up when queried about them. Deletion discussions were started about the bulk of these images, and you were notified of these discussions on your Commons user talk page; for some reason, though, you never commented at any of them. Commons doesn't expect those uploading files to be "experts on copyright matters", but it does expect them to be responsible for the files they upload and make sure (as much as possible) that they are in accordance with c:Commons:Licensing. Files aren't pre-approved before they're uploaded and they're not automatically reviewed after they're uploaded; so, if a mistake is made and a file is uploaded with incorrect or questionable licensing, it can go unnoticed for quite some time before someone tries to sort things out. Some of your uploads were actually sorted out by others and relicensed so that they could be kept, but the same thing couldn't be done for the rest. Now, if you feel any of the files that did end up deleted also should've been kept for some reason, then you can start a discussion about them at c:Commons:Undeletion requests and seek a review of their deletion. You will, however, have a better chance of success in getting files restored if you can show show that the files were deleted in error by actually providing some way to verify their licensing status per c:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Internet images, c:Commons:Project scope/Evidence and c:Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle than you're likely to have by automatically assuming bad faith on the part of others. Finally, I'm not sure why Jeff G. has yet to respond to your post. Perhaps he's just WP:BUSY at the moment and didn't notice your post. Lots of people get busy around this time of year and all Commons editors, like all Wikipedia editors, are volunteers who probably do other things as well. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@ Lord Such&Such: That was not an exchange. Implying that I would not respond was a violation of WP:AGF. Please see my long reply/response.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity ( talk) 19:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Interstellarity. I hope 2022 is a good one for you as well. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly and Interstellarity: I wish the same for both of you.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Jeff G. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 12:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly

First of all thank you for taking the time to reach out to me about my edit request. Deeply appreciated. If you celebrate the holidays - Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!

I was not aware that there was something on Wiki w/ me as the subject - when I read it I was chagrined - not because it wasn't what I wanted (although that is true) but because it is riddled w/ inaccuracies, omissions, awkward language & personal data -I wish the author had approached me about (ie: my mother's passing)- my choosing to be a conscientious objector (referred to as "draft dodging") during Vietnam & more. The mention of London never really references the profound musical experiences there & the artists studied first-hand. I am stunned that one author's opinion (however biased, informed or articulated) could be published in such a respected forum, seemingly w/out question. Please forgive - I find the Wiki processes a bit daunting.

Yes I am Peter Parcek. I am 72 w/ lymphoma & would like a fair & impartial assessment as an artist -

What i am requesting is an artistic & informed bio (Please see the All Music biography, Premier Guitar interview, American Blues Scene interview, Glide Magazine review, Rock and Blues Muse review etc) For example I toured & recorded with Pinetop Perkins . I appear on Pine's "On Top" LP originally released on Deluge Records (later reissued). I appeared on radio & in concert w/ Hubert Sumlin. I experienced Skip James in concert at Wesleyan University etc The author of the current bio glosses over or omits most if not all of these (except for being Pine's bandleader which is a misnomer I have attempted to correct) Instead he/she includes work I did for hire as a session musician w/ Miki Singh's pop rock ensemble - which while true, is not at all remotely indicative artistically. I notice in Kirk Fletcher's bio on Wiki that his "for hire" work is not included, just his artistic statements. I am requesting the same consideration.

The author cites the number of original compositions on Mississippi Suitcase incorrectly (it is three). Moreover there is an editorializing about the cover choices on Suitcase ex. "tries his hand" In reading the guidelines you kindly pointed me to I came upon this - "editors with a conflict of interest who unilaterally add material tend to violate Wikipedia's content and behavioral policies and guidelines. The content they add is typically unsourced or poorly sourced and often violates the neutral point of view." I am not perceiving the neutral point of view w/ this author's bio either - he/she includes old sources & avoids any of the more recent interviews & assessments from All Music, Glide Magazine, Premier Guitar, American Blues Scene, Rock and Blues Muse etc ( I can get these sources together) I am not requesting a puff piece, just a fair, well-sourced & informed one.

In any event thank you so much for reaching out to me it is sincerely & greatly appreciated.

Where do you recommend I go from here w/ my edit request?

Best, Peter Ppguitar ( talk) 01:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I will respond on your user talk page. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)