User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2024/November

Pitiless Bronze

That's basically a toss-up. The editor obviously has a conflict of interest (they didn't even try to hide it), so they would have to use the WP:AFC process if they were really determined to get an article into mainspace and would not have a right to bypass that at all — but since the only "reference" in it was the book's own publication details (not a notability-building source), which got wiped out when I removed the superfluous duplicate page headers from the top of the text, and the article is written entirely as a description of the book itself without any third-party analysis, it would also be a perfectly legitimate deletion candidate as well.

So either draftifying or AFD would be fine. Do whichever you feel comfortable with. Bearcat (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll draftify it to give them a chance to continue working on it if they want. I'll also add a COI template to their user page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Being friendly and helpful

	Resolver
	Advocating users like me to be more open-minded and to promote neutrality when dealing with article "talk" pages and editing. 9mm.trilla (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from PACIFIQUE IRASUBIZA (19:28, 4 November 2024)

hi --PACIFIQUE IRASUBIZA (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello PACIFIQUE IRASUBIZA. Do you have a question about Wikipedia? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup up pic sizes

Cleanup does not mean remove. If a pic is too big, and "px" is used to make it smaller, then cleanup means to use "upright" to make it a simlar size. We don't just remove attributes and leave nothing in their place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): The problem isn't necessarily that an image is too big or too small; it's that the fixed pixel size can create access problems for users using different devices from you or me because it forces them to see the images at the same size as you and me. The upright parameter allows scaling so that image can be seen at a size which is most appropriate for whatever type of device the reader is using. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree and disagree. Most of the time the image is too large. On the tennis pages you changed, on my browser and phone the image was way too large after your removal. If you use "upright" it certainly shouldn't look too big in a normal monitor. So if you remove pixel size you have to compensate in some way so the pic is a normal size per the text and article. You can't just remove and expect everything will be ok. You have to do the work and not leave it to others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Made some edits....

...here. Please forgive me. Polygnotus (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: That's OK, but I suggest it's better to ask first before doing something like this again. Some users get really a bit offended when you edit their posts (even for simple corrections), and asking for forgiveness after the fact doesn't make it OK to do so in their eyes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Others get real offended when you repeatedly misspell their name... Polygnotus (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: Yes, but that would be between me and Cordless Larry and most likely I would've noticed and gone back and fixed it myself. The other correction you made wasn't someone's name. Please don't edit my posts again with a really good reason that meets WP:TPO; otherwise, we'll have to find out which side of the fence the community falls on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I challenge you to a duel to settle this matter. We shall meet at dawn, armed with fish, at Teddington Lock. Good day sir. Polygnotus (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Please don't post potentially WP:COPYLINK violating content on my user talk page again. You should also be careful doing it on other pages as well because that is considered by the community to be one of the reasons in which editing another's post is typically OK . -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Erfffr

eeetrryref 41.236.167.53 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Savagexx

Hi - I'm posting here since I saw your copyvio notices on User talk:Savagexx. Please note that this user has been continually uploading copyvios, and has been blocked on Commons for doing so. Funcrunch (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but I'm not an administrator. If I come across a file uploaded by this user or any other user that I feel is a copyvio or has some other issue that I'm unable to fix myself, I can tag the file for speedy deletion, propose it for deletion or nominate it for discussion to see what the community thinks. I can also add a notification template on the uploader's user talk page, or even perhaps post a more personal "warning" type of message; that, however, is about all any non-administrator can do. For someone repeatedly uploading copyvios, you can ask an individual administrator to take a look or post about things at one of the administrator noticeboards. If an administrator feels that some sort of sanction is warranted, then they can do so. FWIW, Commons and Wikipedia are separate projects; so, being blocked on one doesn't automatically mean one is blocked on the other. You will need to go through the process established here on Wikipedia if that's the outcome you're seeking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have checked before assuming you were an admin. Funcrunch (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Re Fastily

I didn't think it was that hard to read between the lines and find out that what I wanted. Maybe I'm wrong, but I felt like the comment I wrote at the recall petition clearly indicated that there were things that could happen in the meantime that could change my mind. As for not emailing Fastily, that's for the same reason I'm refraining from commenting there again. I see that as worse than simply leaving a talk page message. Emails, by their very nature, are more personal. I really didn't expect one to be received well when I'm kind of the start of this whole thing, even if I'd hoped certain aspects played out differently. Obviously I can't stop you from believing that my comments are disingenuous, but I really do mean this sincerely. I'm someone who wears my heart on my sleeve. I think it helps foster open communication in a healthier way, but it also means I get burned sometimes. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you felt the need to post the above here on my user talk page. If you're looking for a sympathetic ear, then you're looking in the wrong place. I do give you credit though as not playing dumb and pretending there was no connection between Fastily's retirement and the petition like the person who started that discussion thread did; that was, IMO, pretty close to if not actual trolling; polite trolling perhaps but still trolling. What you posted wasn't nearly as inappropriate as that by a mile. Anyway, it is what it is and discussing it any further isn't going to change things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting a sympathetic ear. I just prefer to not leave things unsaid and have some sense of closure. I posted here because I wanted to keep my promise of not commenting further on that page. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

OK fine, but I'm not seeking closure. If that's what you're looking for, please look for it somewhere else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't need to look for it elsewhere because I found it. You now know what I was thinking in response to your comment instead of not knowing. You can do whatever you wish with that information now that that's done. Seems like this conversation is pretty much over, but while I'm here I did want to say that I've seen you around on-wiki before and I really do appreciate your work. I don't think I've ever said that before so I might as well say it now. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Quick Message

hey thanks for using my portrait for Gil Hill :) MalborkHistorian (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@MalborkHistorian: It's not your portrait per se. Since the image's intended use did seem to be in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, it's documentation was cleaned up and kept. Please understand, though, that's not always be the case, and some images just can't be sorted out. It also doesn't mean this particular image's non-free use will always be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policy; if a free equivalent image of Hill is found or created by someone that's capable of serving essentially the same encyclopedic purpose as this non-free one, then it will be used instead. I also recommend you carefully read through the messages posted on your user talk page about some of your recent file uploads. Wikipedia has some fairly restrictive policies about what kind of images and media content can be uploaded and used, and it's easy to make mistakes if you're not familiar with them. Making a mistake once or twice is generally OK, but repeatedly uploading files which have copyright licensing or other issues is likely going to lead to an administrator stepping in. So, if you don't understand why any of the files you uploaded were flagged as problems, including the one that actually ended up needing to be deleted, it's better to ask now so that you don't make the same mistake later. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Page Inquiry?

Hello, Marchjuly/Archives/2024. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sent a message to get your wisdom on a page, would love any thoughts you have to offer :) thank you! Maperturas 99 (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any wisdom to provide on this other than to say that if you think there was an error made in the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent Moon, you should follow the guidance given in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and first discuss things with the administrator who closed the AfD on their user talk page. If after doing that you still feel a mistake was made, you can start a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I'm not a Wikipedia administrator and can't see the deleted page; so, I can't see whether the assessment of the article given by others in the AfD discussion was accurate. I also suggest that you'd be as transparent as possible, including about the things you mentioned in your first email to me, because doing so will go far in demonstrating to others that your interest in the getting the article restored is more a case of you being WP:HERE than being WP:NOTHERE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)