User talk:Marchjuly

This is Marchjuly's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Bunasawa

Hi, The Bunasawa draft [1] was significantly expanded upon today. The intention is clearly to reintroduce it to mainspace at some point. It seems to me that it could be speedy deleted now under WP:G4 (recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD). Axad12 (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was already tagged for speedy deletion per G4 by another user, but that was declined as not being applicable. So, I think the only options at the moment are WP:MFD or WP:G5. It might be hard to gain a consensus at MfD for deleting it given that it's a userspace draft even if it's a recreation because it previously wasn't deleted for WP:COPYVIO, WP:ATTACK or some other really serious reason like that. Furthermore, neither Star Mississippi, who page-blocked DN27ND, nor any of the other admins involved in the prior ANI discussion have yet to tag the userapace draft with G5; so, maybe that's not really much of an option.

Maybe at this point there isn't much that can be done other than waiting until someone moves or tries to move it to the mainspace. I don't know whether it's technically possible for DN27ND to move the draft to the mainspace themselves because of the page block; moreover, any attempt they make to move the page to the mainspace under different name is probably going to be seen as trying to circumvent that block. In addition, there are still the COI concerns to sort out. So, that probably means they will need to submit it to AfC for review. If an established AfC reviewer approves the draft, then perhaps the article can be brought to AfD again or perhaps even possibly G4'd if it's really basically the same as before. If a new account shows up out of the blue to move the page like DN27ND did the first time around, then there's G4 plus ANI or SPI per WP:BRV. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That surprises me on G4, because drafts are deleted under G4 (see for example the 2018 deletion [2] of an oft recreated page), but apparently this isn't done consistently by all users. However, it did occur to me, shortly after sending my note above, that it may be best just to allow this user the WP:ROPE of seeing what he intends to do.

If he introduces the article directly into mainspace (as he did with another, valid, article recently) then (a) he shows himself to be a bad faith user playing fast and loose with his article ban, (b) the article will become a very serious candidate for G4/G5, and (c) the user makes himself look as though he has a very serious COI.

If he instead refers the article to AfC then it will be possible to simply post a record of past events on the talkpage of the draft, thus allowing the reviewer to know the extended history and seriously reducing the chances of the article being accepted.

My concern at the moment however (and I think it is a very real concern) is that the G4 deletion was suggested on the 23rd and declined on the 24th, but before it was declined the Bunasawa user recreated the draft from 'sandbox' to 'sandbox 3', thus leaving no trace on 'sandbox 3' that the G4 nomination had occurred. I'm not sure that I can see a good faith reason why a user would have done that. (The alternative is that he wanted to keep a version of the draft, even if it was deleted, which also demonstrates very bad faith.)

It would actually be perfectly possible to post a talkpage comment on 'sandbox 3' right now, detailing the history of this article, thus making success at AfC highly unlikely, but that would presumably just result in the article being recreated in 'sandbox 4', etc, etc.

Ultimately, of course, this sort of activity is only serving to expose bad faith, because my understanding is that the fact that the article was previously deleted will always be visible to an AfC reviewer anyway (although I'm not sure if it's abundantly clear unless the reviewer goes looking for the info).

Star Mississippi is going to be mostly off-Wiki until early September, I believe, so I guess we just wait until then and see how things develop... If the article goes into mainspace before that then one of us can G4/G5 it, and if it goes to AfC one of us can leave a note on the talkpage.

Either way, this article will probably need to be salted (WP:SALT) to prevent further re-creation. Axad12 (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marchjuly @Axad12. Brief reply as, as Axad12 noted, I'm mostly offline for another week and I'm not able to dig into this (and think I still owe you an email, March). G4 in draft space is a gray area as Liz and I have discussed on a few places, although I can't find it right now. I think it boils down to admin discretion. I didn't look into the decline here and if you think a G5 is merited, please feel free to explore it despite my lack of action. If DN27 is editing disruptively, a block might be a better solution? But yes, ping me next week if this isn't resolved please Star Mississippi 13:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to be a bit careful here and avoid automatically declaring everything DN27ND is doing as being done in bad faith. The inappropriate comments and other disruption that happened during the AfD seems to have stopped, which could be an indication that they realize they were in the wrong and don't intend to repeat that behavior. The SPI wasn't able to come up with anything conclusive other than some likely MEAT. Anyway, if they try to inappropriately recreate the Nori Bunasawa article, some admin will likely take care of it. If they revert back to their behavior at the AfD, they will likely end up back at ANI. The draft about Bunasawa only will become a problem in my opinion if they or some other SPA tries to move it back to the mainspace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was introduced directly into mainspace a few hours ago so I've nominated for speedy deletion under G4. I also noted on the edit summary that G5 might also be applicable as the user is banned from editing the subject. Axad12 (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Axad12: It's unfortunate they decided to do that, but not really surprising. FWIW, you should add a speedy deletion notification template to their user page just to be thorough. You could also (it you really want to) post a civil statement explaining how WP:UNBLOCK, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and WP:DELETIONREVIEW need to be followed in cases such as this. I wouldn't engage with them beyond that except when absolutely necessary. Things quickly took a turn for the worst in that prior AfD and there's no need to have to deal with that again. From this point on, Administrators will take care of whatever needs to be taken care of. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately there was no need, as he swiftly became aware of the speedy deletion tag. He seems intent on arguing that he has found new RS and SIGCOV, and that the subject should be judged against the creative professional criteria rather than the martial arts criteria. Obviously the likelihood of him getting away with those arguments is low, but he's acting contrary to previously imposed sanctions anyway.

I don't intend to engage, given the bludgeoning, self-serving incorrect reading of policy, and racism that occurred at the AfD. Axad12 (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have chosen wisely Indy. The Grail Knight would be proud. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert French.jpg

You marked a photo I uploaded, File:Roger French.jpg, for deletion citing no permission. The permission for the photo was on this page: https://mds3-coe.com/people/ If you scroll down the page, there's an asterisk giving permission to use the photo.HRShami (talk)

@HRShami: "This photo can be used freely without permission" seems insufficient and too general for Wikipedia's purposes, and generally a much clearer statement such as the one given in WP:CONSENT that makes mention of a specific copyright license tends to be what is needed. However, I'm not an adminstrator and couldn't restore File:Roger French.jpg even if I felt otherwise.

The administrator who deleted the file is named Explicit and you can ask Explicit to restore the file if you want by posting a message at User talk:Explicit; you can also ask for the file to be restored at WP:REFUND. Perhaps Explicit or another administrator will feel that "permission" is sufficient and restore the file, but I think you'll probably be asked to have the photo's copyright holder to send a WP:CONSENT email to Wikimedia VRT for verification purposes.

Finally, there's no such statement on this April 13, 2024 archived version of the page, this May 28, 2024 archived version of the page or this August 6, 2024 archived version of the page, that last of which is around the same time I tagged the file for review for lacking a verifiable license. The file was deleted by Explicit was deleted on August 21, 2024. If that statement was subsequently added after August 6, then that's OK; however, you should make that clear in your request to have the file restored. Furthermore, it would probably be better to put the statement next to the image in question and make mention of a specific license instead of at the very bottom of the page with no mention of a license at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello, thank you for your message. I would like to ask, please, how can I upload a picture of Sabino Barinaga in the article 'List of Real Madrid players'? Is there a way? Mishary94 (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mishary94: If you're able to find an image that is considered to be within the public domain for some reason or one that has been released under an acceptable free license by its copyright holder, then such an image could most likely be used in that article; such images aren't subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and there's less restrictions placed on how they may be used. A non-free one, however, is going to be impossible (at least in my opinion) to justify (particularly the way it was being used) in such an article. If you'd like other opinions on this, you can informally ask at WP:MCQ and WT:NFCC, or you can seek a formal consensus to use the image in that article by starting a discussion about it at WP:FFD. If you check the licensing of all of the files used in that article, you should find that they most likely all images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons that are either licensed as public domain or using an acceptable free license. Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any type per c:COM:FAIR, so no Commons files can be licensed as non-free content. This doesn't mean that every file used on that page is licensed correctly, but such files appear (at least first glance) OK to be used on that page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azhagarsamy.jpg

Do you find this to be in a situation similar to Rathna (film)? Since the title card there was moved to Commons, I guess this too can. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In recent years, Indian copyright has seemed to have been moving away a sweat of the brow interpretation predominately followed by the UK per c:COM:TOO India, but things could depend upon what laws were in effect when that film was released. For this reason, you might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC because Commons policy requires the content it hosts be PD in both the US and both the country of first publication, whereas Wikipedia only requires it to be PD in US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]