User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2019/June

Barnstar of Awesomeness

	Barnstar of Awesomeness
	I hereby award Marchjuly the Barnstar of Awesomeness for all your help answering questions and providing information to people on my talk page! Cheers! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

COI: Byron Case

Just for the record, since it is determined that I have a conflict of interest on this page (while I do not know the subject, he was convicted in the murder of my goddaughter), then the entire page is a conflict of interest, because User:Emily.ch87 is a member of the subject's own group, and has apparently not revealed her relationship with the subject.

I am entering information because the little information originally provided about Byron Case's murder conviction reflects the POV of the website (and Facebook page) set up by his family, only slightly toned down, which leaves important information out, and editorializes in several places. She writes that the conviction "remains contentious", which is an outright untruth. Having attended the full trial, having studied (and converted to HTML) all the documents involved in the trial (including the complete trial transcript), I may indeed have a COI, but I am also an expert on the subject of the trial, conviction, and appeals in State v. Case.

I went through a couple of links to find anything (the "Plain and Simple" was most definitively not so) till I got to "External roles and relationships", and eventually found "Legal and other disputes"; you could have saved me a lot of time with this just by identifying that. I have been a Wikipedia editor for more than 10 years, and I understand the risks of COI. I've had one before (when members of the Society of American Baseball Research (SABR) felt that a prominent baseball researcher should have a Wiki page, I created it and edited it. I made full disclosure then and revealed my relationship with SABR, though the article was about an individual with whom I was casually acquainted. I trod very lightly, and was careful then. I propose to be now.

So, I self-identified my COI, and it's unlikely that User:Emily.ch87 will voluntarily do so; how do I bring her COI to WP's attention? -- Couillaud (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like you know or think you know who Emily.ch87 is in real life. Since Emily.ch87 has not revealed that information publicly on Wikipedia, if you post personal details or what you believe to be their real-life identity, you would be in violation of our policy regarding Wikipedia:OUTING, which is part of our policy against harassment. Any post that reveals what you believe to be their real-life identity will be removed and will be removed from the edit history using a process called Oversight. If you out someone, you risk being blocked from editing. I see there's been a template added to the article and some explanatory remarks left on the article talk page, and I suggest you leave it at that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Having been a victim of such harassment myself here some years back, I am fully aware of that rule and its consequences, even if it hadn't already been mentioned a couple of times today.  :-) For the record, I do NOT know Emily.ch87's real name, and could not reveal it even if I were foolish enough to want to do so, so that is a moot discussion. I believe that she is part of the FBC group because she contacted me (under a similar handle) on Facebook in regard to a comment that had been made about Byron Case, long before I knew of the Wiki page's existence; her question had to do with vandalism that had occurred to the Wiki page earlier, again long before I knew of its existence.-- Couillaud (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Couillaud. You willingly disclosed your connection with respect to the article or content being discussed in the articles. Thank you for doing that. At the same time, Wikipedia cannot force other editors whom you suspect as having a similar connection to do the same. You can if you want post a neutral message on their user talk page asking for clarification, or even leave a template like Template:Welcome-COI or Template:uw-coi on their user talk pages, and see how they respond. If there are particular edits being made to the article which you find to be problematic (i.e. are contrary to some Wikipedia policy or guideline), then you can start a discussion about the relevant content on article's talk page or at a noticeboard like WP:COIN or WP:BLPN; this will give other editors a chance to look things over and see what if anything needs to be done. The key here is whether the edits in question are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, and sometimes it takes a bit of discussion to figure this out.

While you're discussing such things though, you need to be very careful of specifically identifying editors whom you suspect of having a conflict of interest or otherwise advocating on behalf of Case. Wikipedia can really only go by what's posted on Wikipedia pages and trying "expose" another editor someone by posting real-life information about them is going to most likely seen as a violation of WP:OUTING. Referring to another editor by their username and expressly suspicion about their edits is probably OK as long as you are able to support your accusations by providing WP:DIFFs; trying to connect another edit to their real world identity by linking to other external websites or saying this is who you believe they really are is not going to be OK and will likely lead to you being sanction by a Wikipedia administrator like Diannaa, no matter how right you think it is to do so. As for the website you linked to on Diannaa user talk page, I cannot see how such a cite would be considered to be a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards, but if you'd like more input on that you can ask about it at WP:RSN.

Finally, I provided you with a link to the conflict of interest guideline page because I thought the entire page might be useful to you. FWIW, I didn't give the page its title, and perhaps "simple" is a relevant term depending upon the individual. If there are things about the page that you find confusing or otherwise hard to understand, you can post suggests at Wikipedia talk:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide or even Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. Even policy/guideline pages can be improved over time and maybe some of the suggestions you make will be utimately incorporated into the actual PSCOI page itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I am much too tired to get into a full discussion, but I know of no website to which I linked on Diannas' talk page, as you mention. Clarification, please? -- Couillaud (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to the link you provided in this edit. I'm assuming the memorial site you're maintaining is the stasia.org one. As I posted on Diannaa's user talk page and once again above, I don't think that website would be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes regardless of the website's copyright status; it shouldn't be used either as a citation and none of the original content found on the website should be copied and pasted into the article. If there are links on the website to newspaper articles, etc., then these articles might be considered to be from reliable sources, and it might be possible to cite the original article as a source. You should, however, not cite a webpage like this or any subpages like this because these would be considered convenience links and there would be no way to verify their authenticity. It would be better for you to either (1) find an official online version of the actual article itself, or (2) cite it as best as you can per WP:SAYWHERE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

Corevist logo

Hi Marchjuly,

Thanks for your message about the Corevist logo. I've attempted to add the necessary rationale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Corevist-cert-logo.png

Does that look right? Thank you! Best, Ganderson345 (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ganderson345: The non-free use rationale you added seems fine for how you are intending to use the file. Non-free files, however, need to be used in at least one article per non-free content use criterion #7 and can only be used in the article namespace per non-free content use criterion #9. This is why the file was removed by a bot from the draft you're working on. Moreover, non-free files not being used in any articles are subject to speedy deletion per WP:F5; this means a bot will, most likely in the next day or so, tag the file for speedy deletion as "orphaned non-free use". When the bot does this, it should add a notification to your user talk page letting you know. You'll then have seven days to de-orphan the file before it's deleted by an administrator; so, if the draft is approved as an article before those seven days are up, just re-add the file to the page. If, on the other hand, the file is deleted before the the draft is approved, don't panic and re-upload the file. Files which are deleted are not gone for good, but rather only hidden from public view; they can be easily restored simply by posting a note on the talk page of the administrator who deleted the file or by asking for help at WP:REFUND. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Adminship?

Hey there. Your patience and clear-headedness when dealing with inexperienced users or vandals, as well as your communication skills, make me think you would make a really good admin. I think it was brought up in the past, and I get your response that you don't want to spend even more time on Wikipedia. If you ever do decide to subject yourself to an RfA, I'd love to support you. Hydromania (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 John from Idegon (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@John from Idegone and Hydromania: Thanks for the vote of confidence. Perhaps someday. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

He has just gone out of his way to force me to maintain an objectively incorrect image on a article because he insists I spend days jumping through bureaucratic hoops when all that needs to be done is to update the image. He is the last person in the world I would want to see become an admin. That idea terrifies me and would reinforce literally everything that is awful about this website. Eightball (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify my above comments because it felt like it came across too personal attack-y - I'm not trying to say he's an awful person, that would be crossing the line, what I mean is that the absurd and Byzantine rules and regulations of Wikipedia become worse and worse every day, and I would not want to add yet another admin who clearly is in support of those awful regulations when we should be streamlining them and using common sense. Eightball (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

If the aforementioned someday ever comes, you're more than welcome post the same thing(s) at WP:RFA. You can also post your suggestions on how to streamline policies and guidelines at WP:VPP or on the talk pages of relevant policy/guideline pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ArsenalLFC Twitter logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ArsenalLFC Twitter logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Incorrectly Noted Copyright Violations - Need to Be Cancelled

You marked two of my logos as being copyright violations. I am an owner of those logos and put them on the page where I wanted them to be, and as a matter of fact my daughter created the current logo. They are not copyright violations. I don't know why you thought of reporting them as such.

Please delete your requests for deletion before it happens. Thank you,

Juliannakc (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)It would be pretty irresponsible of us as an organization to just take your word for it, wouldn't it? Besides, do you really want to upload your logos (assuming you are who you say you are) here under the license we require? If your fine with that, dont complain when someone opens up a shop across the street from your location selling porn with your logo on their sign. Cause that is exactly what you agreed to by uploading your logos improperly here. John from Idegon (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Juliannakc. Thanks for clarifying things a bit. I've responded to your post on my Commons user talk page so hopefully that will help clear things up. The deletion templates have been removed, but you're still going to need to provide some more formal verification regarding copyright ownership. The files are now being discussed and you'll find links to each of those discussion on your Commons user talk page.

Two other things:

1. Commons and Wikipedia are part of the same family so to speak, but they are separate projects with their own rules and guidelines; so, it's easier and better to discuss Commons files on Commons than here; and
2. John's above post might seem like a little bit of an extreme case, but I think his point is well made. Commons only accepts files released under license which pretty much gives anyone anywhere the freedom to download the file and use it anyway they please at anytime. I've gone into more detail about this in my reply to you on Commons, but you/your daughter might not want to release the logo under such a license and instead upload the file locally to Wikipedia as non-free content. If you'd like more information about this, feel free to ask here or at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)