User talk:Clay...Bill Clay

January 2021

Hello, I'm User3749. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Letters to Cleo have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. User3749 (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Letterstocleo3.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Letterstocleo3.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taproot

Hi @Clay...Bill Clay, you are now engaged in an edit war with me on the Taproot (band) page. It's time to stop and discuss instead. I disagree that the line you insist on adding to the article is useful, and I've said as much in my edit summaries. If we state that the band is "best known" for a particular song, what is the value in adding other songs? Are they also "best known" for all their charting singles? This makes no sense to me, logically. Can you please explain your reasoning on this? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording of the sentence that was on there for years to make more sense. Clay...Bill Clay (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, seriously, stop. Another editor has piped up and suggested that it is unnecessary to mention other singles. If you continue to assert your preferred version without being willing to discuss first, the issue may need to be escalated, as your edits are becoming disruptive. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took "best known" out of the sentence and mentioned their singles that charted. The sentence makes sense now. What is your problem? Clay...Bill Clay (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that more than one editor has now asked you to leave it and stop adding mention of other singles, and you have intransigently continued to insert your preferred version. This is not acceptable. You are a new user, yet you don't seem to exhibit any humility or willingness to abide by Wikipedia rules. Here's a warning for you:

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Taproot (band). for persistent edit warring and disruptiveness Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]