User talk:Marchjuly

You're a 'Featured Host'

You may have seen this announcement that all the 'Featured Hosts' - whose names and pictures randomly cycle round in the Teahouse Header - have just been updated.

As you are currently one of the 29 most active editors at WP:TH, your name and an image has now replaced that of an inactive host. But because you haven't yet added yourself to the full list of active hosts, I have chosen what I hope might be an acceptable image to you (over the default picture of a cup of green tea). It would be great if you would now do two things:

• Check or change the 'featured host' image allocated to you. Edit it at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/13, or undo my changes if you don't wish to be 'featured'.
• Create a 'host profile' for yourself, and choose a relevant picture - click the 'Experienced editor?' button in the TH Header to formally sign up to create a separate entry on the full list of all 89 current hosts which new editors can view.

Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Nick Moyes for taking the time to do all of that and for the links. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Non-free image

I noticed your recent edit to Nicknames of Atlanta. Yesterday I came across this photo at Woman's Building (Los Angeles). The image has little relation to the article, and is a poster for a conference once held at the building. Does it need to go to AfD, or can it just be removed? The image is also linked to from Eye bolt. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: It's sometimes hard to compare different types of non-free use which seem similar for the reasons given in WP:OTHERIMAGE. I removed the file from the nicknames article because (1) it didn't have the seperate specific non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c for that particular use (see WP:NFCCE) and (2) the nicknames article is being transcluded into other articles and some userpages, which means that the file was also being added to those pages as well. Issue #2 was almost certainly a good-faith error which the person who added the file to the nicknames article was unaware of. Issue #1 was most likely also the result of a good-faith edit made by someone who is not very familiar with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If someone feels that a valid non-free use rationale can be written for this file's non-free use in the nicknames article, they can add the rationale and then re-add the file to that article; they should, however, make sure to resolve the transclusion issue (Issue #2) first to stop the file from being added to other pages when it shouldn't be used. If someone adds the missing rationale, and then someone else disagrees with the rationale, they can either challenge it per WP:F7 or nominate the file for discussion at WP:FFD.

As for the Women's Building file, Issue #1 and #2 are not issues, but there might be other concerns about the file's non-free use. I think the location of the file confuses things a bit, but it seems to be tied into the sentence

Artist Sheila Levrant de Bretteville designed a necklace of an eyebolt on a chain, meant to represent "strength without a fist"; members of the FSW in 1978-79 made 500 of these necklaces to celebrate the 5th anniversary of the Woman's Building.

located a few lines above the image in Woman's Building (Los Angeles)#New building. The file's non-free use rationale could probably be tweaked to clarify this a bit better, but the non-free use does seem to be (at first glance at least) some sourced critical commentary about the image.

Now, whether that is sufficient to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 (per WP:NFC#CS) might be something worth further discussing. If you feel that it's not, you can (1) WP:PROD the file for deletion, (2) tag the file with Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale or (3) nominate the file for further discussion at WP:FFD. The first two options are used when it would be expected that there would be little objection to a file's removal or deletion, whereas the latter is preferred when there's good possibility that others may see things differently. Maybe the file's non-free use would actually be more appropriate in support of the paragraph about the poster in Sheila Levrant de Bretteville#Life, which would be something which could be suggested at FFD. Simply removing the file and being bold is sort of a fourth option, but non-free files which aren't being used in any article are subject to speedy deletion per WP:F5; so, all someone would need to do would be to simply re-add the file. At that point, continuing to remove the file would likely be considered to be edit warring unless there's a really strong and unquestionable policy-based reason for doing so, which means having the file removed per options 1, 2, and preferably 3. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your detailed response. I'll look over the options you suggested. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Help on article...the following is the information for article

When a Career Public Servant Sues the Agency He Loves: Claude Ferguson, the Forest Service, and Off‐Road Vehicles in the Hoosier National Forest

Rosemary O'Leary First published: 12 October 2009

Thank you, solowalk Solowalk (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Solowalk. I'm not familiar with that book and never read it. So, I can't really add a citation for something that I've never read. If there's a version of the book available on line, then perhaps I or another edit can check it. Otherwise, the best I can suggest is possible adding as part of a possible WP:FURTHERREADING section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC):

Hi marchjuly. Thank you so much for staying involved in my plight,,, The book "The Ethics of Dissent" by Rosemary O'Leary (2006 not 2009) has a chapter about Ferguson's firing and lawsuit and whistleblower case before there was protection, in fact, his case was given to Congress and was one they cited and used to enable protection for whistleblowers (beside the point right now). The chapter itself can be found on search engines by typing in Claude Ferguson Forest Service. link to one site below:

http://academic.udayton.edu/RichardGhere/POL%20318/O%27Leary_Rosemary.pdf

Thank you again, CarlaSolowalk (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The best place to discuss any changes you'd like to have made to the article would be on its talk page. Posting what is essentially the same request on different pages might seem like a way to increase the possibility of getting a quicker response, but it actually can have the opposite effect: it tends to fragment the discussion and make it harder to reach a consensus. More editors interested in the article are more likely to be watching it than my user talk page, which means it will be much easier for them to participate in the discussion on the article's talk page than here; it also makes it much easier to archive the discussion for the benefit of other editors who might want to discuss things about the article sometime in the future or understand why a certain change was made. The link you've provided is quite content dense, so it's not exactly clear what change you would like to be made. So, if you make an edit request on the article's talk page, then it's best to try and keep the request a simple and clear as possible. If you request something like "please rewrite this entire section based upon this source", then that's a bit vague and quite a major change which might take quite a lot of time and effort to do. All Wikipedia editors, including those you try and help out by answering edit requests, are volunteers, which means they may log on for brief spurts, trying to do as much as they can before logging out again. Long complicated requests tend to get passed along until someone comes along who wants to take the time to try and figure it out. That's why is generally best to make requests like "Change 'Word A' in the second sentence of 'Section 1' to 'Word B'" or "Add this citation in support of this sentence in the second paragraph of the 'XYZ' section", etc. These tend to be easier to sort out and assess and are likely to get a faster response.

Another thing to remember is that you have a news paper clipping in your possession that you think has value as a source, but this is pretty hard for others to verify, which means they might decline the request. Sources only need to be published and reliable; they don't need to be necessarily available online. However, it is much easier for someone to verify something online and they might not want to add a source they can't check themselves.

Finally, please try and remember WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTEVERYTHING when it comes to the article. You posted at the Wikipedia Teahouse you were proud to bring your dad's story to life on Wikipedia, and I realize that his story is quite important to you and that you have lots of knowledge about him that you want to share. That, however, is not really the purpose of Wikipedia and all of the details you know (names of doctors, etc.) might not be really encyclopedically relevant to a Wikipedia living on the other side of the world from you. That's the tricky balance that an article needs to try and maintain, which is pretty much why articles are only intended to reflect what's found in reliable sources. Even then, some of these sources may go it detail that's not really appropriate for an article. We as editors shouldn't try to interpret what these sources say or mean, and we shouldn't try and take bits and pieces from multiple sources and combine them into something that none of them really say. I think your dad is probably sufficiently Wikipedia notable enough to have a Wikipedia article written about him, but too much unsourced content and excessive detail might create problems which can cause others to feel differently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Arsenal Women

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 image currently included is objectively incorrect. It is not the club's badge, it does not represent the club's current name, and it is not in use anywhere. The fact that you ignored my attempt at discussing this with you is extremely disappointing. I am going to fix the page again, THEN I am going to reach out to the admins involved, as it is not acceptable to me to main the page is an objectively incorrect state. Please do better. Eightball (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Eightball. The file was previously removed Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 8#File:Arsenal FC.svg. This was recently discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 124#Arsenal W.F.C. and the Twitter file was re-added here by the same administrator who closed that FFD discussion. If you's like Explicit to reconsider his close of feel that this new information about the rebranding is something which should be now considered, please follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and discuss your concerns with him. A new consensus most likely will need to be established to overturn or clarify the older one. Please be advised that removing content considered to be "unquestionably" a violation of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (i.e. previously removed by an administrator per a WP:FFD discussion) is not considered a violation or WP:3RR per item 5 of WP:3RRNO, but continuing to re-add such file likely will be seen as edit warring. FWIW, Explicit participated in the above-mentioned recent discussion at WT:FOOTY where the re-branding was brought up, yet he still restored the older file and re-added it to the article; so, the best thing to do here is to post a note about this on his user talk, and see what he says. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Why are you doing this? I am FIXING the article. You are actively making it wrong. Why? Eightball (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

And that Twitter file doesn't even exist any more! The account it's from doesn't exist! The name Arsenal Ladies isn't used! What are you doing??? Eightball (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read my above post. The file was removed by an administrator. The Twitter file was restored and re-added by that same administrator; so, it's best to discuss your concerns with him and see what he says. We had an edit conflict while I was posting my initial response, but the current consensus per the above-mentioned FFD discussion was to remove the file. It's possible that a new consensus can be established to re-add the file, but you should follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and discuss things with the closing admin first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The logo was not deleted by an admin, it was deleted by a bot who removes logos without proper NFC criteria. I have already fixed this by adding a second NFCC template to the image to cover Arsenal W.F.C.. This fixes the problem. If you agree not to continue to revert the page, I will go ahead and fix it one last time; if you do not agree, I will get other admins involved, as I'm not going to sit and hassle Explicit and wait for a reply to something so exceedingly obvious. Eightball (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Arsenal FC.svg was removed by Explicit when he closed the FFD discussion (see here and here; the file wasn't deleted at that time because it was still be used in another article. The Twitter logo was deleted per WP:F5 because someone removed the file from the article and it became orphaned non-free use; Explicit restored that file and re-added it to the article last month per this edit. NOw, if you want to get other admins involved here, then feel free to do so; however, you are almost certainly going to be the one considered to be edit warring per item 5 of WP:3RRNO. As I posted on Explicit's user talk page, discuss things with him per CLOSECHALLENGE and he will advise what needs to be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to jump through your made-up hoops in order to be bestowed with the privilege of making an obviously necessary change. Eightball (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eightball (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)