User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2019/September

RE: Non-free content use

I wonder why those '...seal.svg' kept disappearing from my infobox...I had no idea they are not allowed to be used in that manner. Thank for the info. RekonDog (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

When something like an image is repeatedly being removed from a user page, there's usually a pretty good reason for it and most times this reason will be given in an edit summary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Proposed deletion of File:PorkysRevenge soundtrack.jpg"

Hi, I just received the above message on my talk page and I was wondering... why? Isn't this cover usable under Fair Use or something? If not, why are there any album covers on Wikipedia at all? Shouldn't we be talking about Taylor Swift's Lover for instance, or many thousands of others? If there's some protocol I didn't follow, let me know and I'd be happy to oblige!

Cheers,

Wikkitywack (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wikkitywack. I left an explanation in the proposed deletion template, but basically non-free movie soundtrack album covers are not allowed to be used in "Soundtrack" sections of movie articles except when the cover art is itself the subject of sourced critical commentary per WP:FILMSCORE and WP:NFCC#8. Non-free album cover art can be uploaded and are generally OK when used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about albums per item 1 of WP:NFCI, but their non-free use in other articles or other ways is much harder to justify per WP:NFC#cite_note-3. If you feel that the soundtrack album satisfies WP:NALBUM and want to create a stand-alone article about it, then it would be OK to use the album cover there; however, the way the file is currently being used in the article about the film doesn't comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy unless there's some kind of sourced content which discusses the album cover art which can be found and added to the "Soundtrack" section. If you disagree with this assessment, you can WP:DEPROD the file if you like; the file can then be discussed at WP:FFD to see what others think.

I'm not sure what "Talyor Swift's Lover" is, but I'm assuming it's one of her albums. As posted above, album cover art is generally allowed for primary identification purposes in stand-alone article about albums; however, if you feel that's not the case or that there are other non-free content use policy issues, you can WP:PROD the file for deletion or nominate it for discussion at FFD.

Finally, just to clarify, fair use and non-free content are quite similar, but they're not exactly the same. The latter is Wikipedia's way of treating fair use content, but Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been set up to be much more restrictive than the concept of fair use followed by US copyright law as explained in WP:NFC#Background. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Adminship

Marchjuly, have you ever considered running for adminship? I was pointed in your directin by Nick Moyes, and after reviewing your contributions, I think you'd make a strong candidate if you were to express interest in doing admin work at the teahouse and at FFD. Unless you have any major skeletons in your closet I am yet to find, I would be very willing to nominate you; I suspect a few others would be, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd certainly endorse that strongly. You are one of the most unflappable editors I know. Seriously your "calmness score" is up there with Cullen328, and he had the mostmini blowout RfA I think we've ever had. I'd offer to co-nominate you, but frankly, that would likely be a liability. John from Idegon (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

If you are interested in becoming an administrator, I encourage you to look into it, Marchjuly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate all the kind words and perhaps someday it might be something I would be interested in, but right now I don't think I'm ready to take such a step. There are still lots of areas of the project I'm learning about. In addition, I already think I spend a little too much time editing, etc. and I'm not sure I'd be willing to invest even more time at trying to be a "good" admin. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to push you too much, but let me make one point that addresses a possible misconception. Some folks assume that taking up adminship necessitates a vast expansion of duties. This isn't the case; certainly, some people expand their sphere of activity, but many others, including some of our most effective admins, simply beaver away in the areas in which they already work, and are a greater asset to Wikipedia as a result. Conversely, you certainly don't need to be knowledgeable in all areas of Wikipedia before you run; nobody is. What's important is that you know the difference between what you know and what you don't know. Even if you did admin work nowhere except the Teahouse, AfD, and FfD, you'd be a great help; you wouldn't have to change your pattern of activity at all. If this doesn't persuade you; would you at the very least be willing to post a poll at WP:ORCP? Comments from others may reassure you that you are, in fact, ready; or if not, tell you what areas you need to work on. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I realize that admins are not required to be experts in everything Wikipedia, but I do know me and I do think I would want to devote even more time to Wikipedia than I currently do. I've also thought about ORCP before, but I would rather wait until I've actually decided to take the plunge. I'm not too concerned about people posting "bad" things about me (if you dig through my user talk page history or other page histories, you find plenty of examples of that), but I think the poll only really makes sense when you've truly 100% decided to go for RFA. I understand exploratory committees are quite common in politics, but there's much more at stake in those situations. I don't really need to read good or bad comments posted by others to help me decide on whether I want to be an admin; I just need to figure out for myself whether it's something I want to do, and I'm not quite there yet. I apologize if my response sounds a bit curt and once again I'm grateful for the consideration (others have suggested the same in the past), but I'm just not ready to take such a step right now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, I won't press you. If you change your mind at any point, or if you have questions about any part of becoming an admin, please feel free to ping me. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you are considering it Marchjuly. But I don't think an RFA is something to enter lightly, so I'm glad you are thinking this through. It can be an arduous experience. I'm not trying to scare you off and I'm glad I didn't withdraw when I wanted to during my own RfA but it can be unpleasant. Best to grin and lean on those cherished folk who support you. I've found that I don't work MORE time than when I was an editor, I just do different types of activities than I did as an editor.

But at least now, you have some really solid admin nominators who support you and whether or not you choose to move on with this proposal is up to you. Don't hesitate to contact any of us with questions. 03:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Should probably just add this suggestion to WP:PERENNIAL Hydromania (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019: Teahouse

Hi Marchjuly. It seems that an impression was created that I undid your Teahouse answer about a company Wikipedia article. What actually took place was that I got an edit conflict message, and selected my own answer to be published. I don't know how the system managed to ignore your answer. Apologies for the confusion.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I assumed it was either a glitch or mistake, which I further compounded by making a mistake of my own. No blood no foul, but thank you for clarifying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ball Road Anaheim, California

Marchjuly Ballroad has a sandbox article on Ball Road Anaheim,California where i was trying to get Ball Road namesake Hezekiah Wright Ball. I wasn't trying to post because of Hezekiah, i was merely try to let people know who the road in Anaheim was named after. If I'm not establishing that point I'm sorry. I see other street such as Katella Ave Anaheim,California on the internet and who it is named after. I'm curious how they went about it? As for citations i had a article about Hezekiah from the Desert Magazine along with the namesake fron Orange County Kid an author and Historian in Anaheim?

Where am i going so wrong and why aren't the Historical Society in Anaheim not authorities on there own town? Am i going about this in the wrong way. I always thought Wikipedia would be a lot easier to understand. However im completely lost on the concept of Wikimedia?I'm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballroad (talk • contribs) 01:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ballroad. I'm not sure whether I can give you an answer that is any better than the one's you've already received at WP:THQ#Query. For something to have a Wikipedia article written about it, it basically needs to meet the conditions listed in Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. You might want to try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets for more specific advice because that's where you likely going to find editors who have experience with this type of subject matter. Basically, it's going to come down to whether enough significant coverage can be found to show that this road is Wikipedia notable for a stand-alone article to be written about it.

It might be possible to add a brief mention about this to another article per WP:NOTEWORTHY, but a stand-alone article is going to require more than a single reference. However, even a citation to something like Desert Magazine would only work if the publication is considered to be a reliable source and not some type of user-generated content. Moreover, someone referring to themselves as "Orange County Kid" may see themselves as being an author and even a historian, but there's little chance of Wikipedia treating them as such unless it can be demonstrated that they are considered to be those things by other independent reliable sources. See WP:SPS for an example of what I mean.

Finally, one last thing that I'm not sure was brought up before, but probably needs to be mentioned is that you probably should consider changing your username per WP:PROMONAME if you're trying to create an article about a road called "Ball Road". This is not the reason why your draft was declined, but your choice of username might be of a concern to others as to your motivation for creating such an article. They might mistakenly assume that you're only trying to do so for the wrong reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Umbrella Entertainment

Hello Marchjuly,

I am having issues editing the UMBRELLA ENTERTAINMENT Wikipedia page. I am wanting to update the information. Who can I talk with and submit a draft to make sure all of my copy is correct and okay to upload?

I have had some issues over the past month uploading new content.

Thank you DanielleBertozzo1920 (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi DanielleBertozzo1920 if you're connected to the company in any way (and I strongly suspect that you are), then please read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and follow what's written on those two pages. You can propose changes on the article's talk page as explained in Wikipedia:Request edit, but pretty much any change you want to make is going to be need to be supported by a citation to a reliable source which is independent from the company or anyone connected to it. In other words, you're going to need to find sources other than the company's official website for verification purposes.

You should be looking for sources such as the things described in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies#Sources which discuss the company in some detail. If you can find these to support the changes you'd like to make to the article, then your edit request will have a better chance of being accepted. Wikipedia is not really concerned with what the company has to say about itself, and article content (good or bad) should only reflect what reliable sources (ideally secondary sources) are saying about the company.

What the company needs to understand is that the article is not really written for its benefit but rather about it for Wikipedia's benefit, and neither the company nor anyone connected to it has any claim of ownership over its content; moreover, the article is neither intended to be used for promoting the company nor intended to be written as content normally would be written on the company's website or social media accounts. So, anything not deemed to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines is almost certainly going to removed or edited so that it is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Ball Road Anaheim, California

Marchjuly Thank you for your professional knowledge of Wikimedia! Very helpful... Ballroad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballroad (talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly On the subject Orange County Kid are you aware this it Phil Brigardi who has several pages on Wikipedia. Just curious why he wouldn't be a citation? Ballroad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballroad (talk • contribs) 17:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Ballroad. I have no idea who "Orange Country Kid" or "Phi Brigardi" are, whether they are the same person or different people. There's no Wikipedia article written about anyone named Phil Brigardi, least not one that I could find; so, maybe you've spelled his name incorrectly. If Brigardi is recognized as reputable authority (in other words, reliable sources, as defined as Wikipedia, define him as such) on things road-related or Anaheim-related then perhaps something he has published on either subject would be acceptable to cite in a Wikipedia article depending on WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:UNDUE. For example, Roger Ebert (even though he's dead) is generally regarded among the film industry and media industry as a film reviewer who has had a lasting impacting on both, in other words lots of people recognize him to be an authority on certain topics; so, it's OK for him or his work to be cited in some cases in support of certain types of content. However, he mostly wouldn't be seen in the same light for other subjects which lie outside his field of "expertise".

Based upon previous questions you've asked at the Teahouse, you seem to have been trying to create an article about Ball Road at least since 2014, but perhaps maybe even longer than that. Persistence can be a good thing in most cases, but being persistent doesn't really have any affect on making a subject Wikipedia notable. Most of the answers you've been given over the years about this matter have pretty much been the same even though the people giving them have been different. You're going to need to establish how the road meets WP:ROADOUTCOMES if you want to create a Wikipedia article about it which is not going to end up deleted. So, you're either going to have to find existing WP:SIGCOV about the road or convince reliable sources to start writing about it. Writing a Wikipedia article doesn't make something Wikipedia notable; so, find reliable sources about the road or get reliable sources to start writing about it and then try and create the article. Otherwise, you're always going to be running into things like WP:TOOSOON. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Plain and simple?

I note with irony that WP:PSCOI is 45kb in length while WP:COI is 43k in length. I think my eyes are permanently crossed. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it started out as PSCOI, but grew in size over the years. It might also have to do with way the content contained therein is being presented. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• By the time the original editor was done making it, it was already over 30k [1]. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• I see there was an effort to merge it along with a number of other guides/essays. The effort died soon after it was suggested though. It's a mess. I mean seriously? Formatting?. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It might've started out with the best of intentions, but steadily morphed into something else along the way. I always provide links to it since it does seem (at least to me) perhaps a bit easier to digest than WP:COI, particularly WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement, but maybe it's time for a review/overhaul to either determine whether it's no longer needed or to move it more in the direction of perhaps something like WP:IMGDD for COI stuff. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Requesting page protection

Greetings. Thanks for letting me know that only admins can provide protection. Would you mind helping me figure out how to request help via Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection? Rodianreader (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see my response to your Teahouse question. Just for reference though, pages aren't protected to favor one side in a content dispute; they are only protected when there is some serious disruption going on that needs to be stopped as determined by the administrator who reviews the request. Moreover, requests are often declined out of principle when none of the involved parties appear to be making an effort to resolve things through a WP:CONSENSUS established through discussion on the relevant article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

ZoomInfo

I found a user attempting some WP:CITESPAM, adding links to zoominfo.com. per their page, ZoomInfo uses some sort of bot to collate information on companies on people. COI and spam issues aside, I don't think it's an RS. It's linked from thousands of pages, many without even linking a specific page (eg Justin Kutcher). It's not listed at WP:RSP, any idea if this was ever brought up? what to do next?. Hydromania (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually I'd argue that the site is most helpful, as it gives an indicator of below par articles. Most (mainspace) articles I've checked which links to them has other issues, usually lack of notability, poorly formatted refs, and promo tones.Hydromania (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Zoominfo.com appears to have been discussed a couple of times at WP:RSN (if you search it in the archives you find the threads). It's possible that under some contexts in might be considered a RS, but under others it might not be, for any original content that it generates. On the other hand, if all that it's doing is basically serving as a news aggregator or link farm, by representing content found on other websites (including perhaps even Wikipedia), then it's not really as much of a source as it is a kind of a mirror site and most likely wouldn't be considered a RS per WP:MIRROR. You can of course always as about it a RSN if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

International Accreditation Council for Business Education

Hi, would you be able to take a look at the article and see if it pass GNG in anyway? My head is swimming from all the abbreviations and acronyms, so I thought I'd ask a more experienced editor. I chanced upon it while searching for ZoomInfo links, see below. Hydromania (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about that one. It doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG based upon WP:ORGDEPTH just based upon what's cited as sources, but there's always WP:NEXIST. There might be also be another guideline applied to organizations which accredit higher learning institutions. Maybe try asking on the talk pages of one of the WikiProject listed at the top of the article's talk page. For what it's worth, the page was recently moved by an administrator, which could've been just some general cleanup but which might also indicate that at least that editor feels NORG is being met. Maybe all that is needed is a bit of cleanup to remove/revise any content or sources not complying with relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC) `

Car images

Is posting car images on userpage is free? 114.4.214.149 (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 114.4.214.149. It depends on the licensing of the file you want to post. See Wikipedia:User pages#Non-free files for more specific details. That's the best answer I can give you at the moment without knowing more about the specific image (or images) you want to post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Your Teahouse response

Sorry I'm so slow at getting through the archives. An editor asked for advice here, to make sure he or she was behaving now. Your response was "if other editors are filling up you user talk page with warnings or other notifications, then you’re probably doing fine." I'm sure that's not what you meant to say.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out Vchimpanzee. I did forget to add the word "not"; I'm not sure, however, if it's OK for me to do so now since the thread has been archived. Perhaps one of the administrators who frequently help out at the Teahouse like Cullen328 or 331dot can clarify? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I fix things on archives all the time. If there is a link, it needs to go to the right place.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

If this weren't archived, I would follow WP:REDACT and add the "not"; it's an archived page though so I'm not sure how that works. If it turns out to not matter that it's an archive, then I will add the "not". Again, thanks for pointing it out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

As a general practice, it is best not to edit archived discussions. In this particular case, I would make an exception to correct a typographical error that potentially could lead to a misunderstanding, under WP:IAR. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

What I do if there is a link to an archived discussion (which was not archived when the link was put there) on an archived Help Desk or Teahouse page is fix the link and sign my name after the fix. I'm way behind on the Teahouse archives but I'm usually up to date with the Help Desk.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: thanks for your input. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: I typically follow WP:REDACT when editing something I previously posted, unless it's an obvious correction which doesn't change the meaning; so, that's what'll do here. Thanks again for catching this mistake. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ivan Lindsay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royal Military Academy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Boeing/SpaceX flight test logos

Hi there. I belatedly saw the archived question regarding whether File:Boeing Crewed Flight Test.png, File:Boeing Orbital Flight Test.png, and File:Crew Dragon Demo-1.png could be converted to PD-NASA. The answer is no. Each patch is owned by their respective companies, and while the missions are in collaboration with NASA, they are still private ventures. It would be different if the projects were NASA-commissioned missions, like a spacecraft ordered by NASA but built by a company or university, but that is not the case here. These are private initiatives whose functionalities or payload capabilities have been purchased by NASA. Let me know if you have any questions! — Huntster (t @ c) 20:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I figured that was likely the case, but just was curious as to whether others felt the same. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)