Jump to content

User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2016/May

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Marchjuly from Leon Raper

Hi Marchjuly,

Thank you very much for your comments about submitting my page for possible approval. I'll get that done by tomorrow. I'll submit my page and if it is rejected I'll understand. If it is ok, I will go back prior to some revisions by your people that I didn't think were necessary. If you don't want me to do that please let me know.

Many of the negative comments are regarding my references. They keep asking me for citations. I have copies of all documents I put into references - with other people talking about me. There are also quite a few pictures in the articles. The articles going back to the early 1970's are all stored in my garage. I wish I could be more helpful.

There was also another comment: "Raper was the first web site developer on the internet related to swing dancing.[citation needed]." Maybe, I should have changed the word "first" to "smartest" otherwise how would have obtained the domain names SwingDance.com (1995), LindyHop.com (1995), DanceCorner.com (1996) and RetroSwing.com (1998). In about 1961 I lost LindyHop.com

I want to thank you very much for your help,

Leon Raper

Hubert Leon Raper 21:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Hubert Leon Raper 22:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonRaper (talk • contribs)

Hi Hubert Leon Raper. I've only just done a few small things; other editors such as Jbhunley, Theroadislong, Joseph2302, GB fan and KrakatoaKatie, etc. have done much more to try and help you through this than I have. I understand how frustrating Wikipedia can be to a new editor, but the advice and suggestions they have been giving you are good in my opinion and not really negative. Please try to understand that there is really no your people when it comes to Wikipedia. Anyone who edits Wikipedia (even a single time) is an editor, so to quote Lennon "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together" when it comes to trying to help build an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia has it's own way of defining notability which is quite different from how the term is used out in the real world. Wikipedia articles are intended to reflect what independent reliable sources say about a subject, so what we as editors know personally to be true needs to be verified through such sources. It looks to me as if some of the references you've provided are indeed from reliable sources, but there's no way for Wikipedia to verify what is written in them because they cannot be accessed via the Internet. Wikipedia does not have any way to access all of the documentation you have in your possession, so you are basically asking it to take you at your word. While it's true that sources only have to be published and are not required to be online, it is much harder to verify something packed away in a box in someone's basement than it is for something located online. It is also harder to know which source is being used to support which bit of article content and whether the source provides the significant coverage needed to establish Wikipedia notability. You can help others know what's in these sources by providing as much information about them (including some quotes if necessary) on Draft talk:Leon Raper. Just create a new section for each source and explain how it helps establish Wikipedia notability. This will at least give others some information to work with and help them better understand the source.
One question that you might want to ask yourself is whether you are simply here to get an article about you added to Wikipedia. Your editing history indicates that you are what is called a single purpose account (SPA). There's nothing wrong per se with being a SPA, but sometimes such editors become so focused on a single tree that they completely miss the rest of the forest. It seems as if you have lots of knowledge about dance and other subjects, knowledge that Wikipedia can most definitely use, so it might be a good idea for you to expand your scope a bit and trying editing some existing articles. As I posted to you somewhere, Wikipedia has over 5,000,000 articles which still can be improved. Creating a new article is pretty hard to do, even for experienced editors, so branching out a bit and editing other articles is a really good way to learn how Wikipedia does things. It's also a good way to get ideas on to how to improve your drafts. There is also a Wikiproject called WP:DANCE where editors with interests such as yours can exchange ideas and help each other out. It's OK to put your draft on the back burner for a while and try to edit some other articles.
Finally, please try to properly sign your posts. The way you are currently doing so is not really a way considered to be acceptable. The easiest way to sign is to simply add 4 tilde (~~~~) at the end of your posts. This lets the Wikipedia software know who you are and provides links to your user page. You can add these tilde yourself or click on them in the "Sign your posts on talk pages: ~~~~" located at the bottom of the editing window right above the "Edit summary" field. Signing your posts really makes is much easier for other editors to interact with you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly,
I need help because I keep getting the following message: "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability." I had much notability presented in my original submission to Wikipedia. However, the volunteers stayed on my back until I removed most of it. I don't think they had a clue about any type of dancing. They didn't seem to want to know much about me. They all seemed to want me to fail to get approved for a Wikipedia web page.
I also don't think my proposed page has been sent to anyone in the Wikipedia Dance Community. If they find a real swing dancer there they will definitely know who I am. They have also probably been to my websites from which I send free dance information to dancers all over the world.
Wikipedia already has a page for Skippy Blair. I have helped Skippy for over 50 years. She just called me a few months ago for a description of Flying Lindy. I also have several pages I wrote helping her with suggestions for her "Dance Terminology Notebook." Skippy is a very nice lady, but she does not have anything on the web that would compete me in any way. Yes she has done a lot for swing dancing speaking and getting paid for it to attend events. My dance web sites are sent for free.
The following are my most notable awards, events & dance videos.
2015 World Swing Dance Hall of Fame Award (Special Recognition Award) - Error: Video heading falsely says US Open, Should be WSDHOF.
http://www.matvsport.com/videos/242981/us-open-2015-hall-of-fame-leon-raper-6-6mb/
2010 California Swing Dance Hall of Fame (Golden Stars Award) - The most highly recognized awards in the world. See 2010
http://casdhof.com/hall_of_fame.html
1973 Flying Lindy competition dancing by Leon Raper & Colleen Raper/Johnson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyLUAJkClmc
1973 World Swing Dance Championships at the Palladium in Hollywood, CA dancing by Leon Raper & Colleen Raper/Johnson (No Video)
Someone removed this from my References on Wikipedia.
Should I just give up, or should I keep on trying to get Wikipedia page approval.
Leon Raper
Hubert Leon Raper 21:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonRaper (talk • contribs)
Hi again Hubert Leaon Raper. Before I try to answer your questions about your draft, I am going to suggest a few things that I think will make it much easier to communicate with other editors via Wikipedia. Some of these may have been suggested before by myself and others, so I apologize if I am telling you something you already know. To be frank, the harder you make it to communicate with you, the less likely some editors are going to be willing to try and help.
  • Please take some time to read through Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Talk pages are how we as editors communicate with each other, so it's important to understand how to use them correctly. I think it would be wise for you to put your draft to the side for a little while and better familiarize yourself with how to use talk pages.
  • Please sign your posts using the 4 tilde (~~~~). As I and others have said, there is a special way of signing your posts on Wikipedia so that not only other editors can tell who posted what where and when, but also so that the Wikipedia software can tell who posted what where and when. Simply adding "Hubert Leon Raper 21:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)" is not sufficient or even efficient. It takes over 30 charcters to type all of that when all you really need is to type ~~~~ at the end of your post for the same information to be automatically provided by the Wikipedia software.
Now, I will try to answer your questions.
  • Wikipedia's notability guidelines require that subjects have received signficant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Significant coverage means something more than just a passing or brief mention in a newspaper or magazine article or on a website. The coverage should be such that any editor/reader, including perhaps those who do not know anything about you or about swing dancing, can look at the the source and say "OK, this is not just name dropping, but fairly in depth coverage about who this subject is and what they have accomplished, etc." This does not mean that you can only cite a 1500 page book that someone has written about you as a reference, but it does mean that something a little more in depth is needed to show notability than websites/article which only mention you by name or only very briefly (perhaps in association with some event, organization or other individual). So a website such as casdhof.com/hall_of_fame.html is probably sufficient to show that you have received such an honor, but not in depth enough to establish Wikipedia notability. The only way I could see this being helpful in establishing Wikipedia notability was if this award can be shown to be dance world equivalent to major awards such as Oscars, Grammys, Pulitzer Prizes, Nobel Prizes, etc. The award would have to be so notable in its own right that anyone recieving it is almost surely to receive signficant coverage of it in reliable sources.
  • Sources which are independent from the subject matter are needed to show Wikipedia notability. Anything you have authored/published in print or online such as personal websites, YouTube videos, books, etc. are considered by Wikipedia to be primary sources. Primary sources may be used in certain cases to verify article content, but Wikipedia requires that sources written by other persons completely unconnected to the subject matter be provided to establish notability. I am assuming that the Arizona Daily Sun and Orange County Register, etc. articles you have cited as references were written about you, but not written by you. These may be helpful in establishing Wikipedia notability and I have tried looking for online versions of all of the references you listed, but have not had any luck so far. As I explained above, sources are not required to be online but being online does make it much easier for any editor anywhere in the world to verify the source. If an AfC reviewer is unable to verify what is written in the cited sources, they are going to be less likely to approve a draft.
  • I am not familiar with Skippy Blair, but whether she has a Wikipedia article written about her (actually it's a stub in her case) is not really relevent to whether there should be a Wikipedia article written about you. As I've posted before, there are lots of articles added to Wikipedia each and every day which probably shouldn't be added in the first place. Sometimes these are deleted rather quickly and other times it takes years for someone to notice. What I'm trying to say is the fact that another article exists does automatically not mean it should exist. That is why saying that other stuff exists is not really considered justification that an article written about you should exist. Wikipedia notability is not transferable or inherited, so an individual is not really Wikipedia notable simply because they may have a connection with someone who is.
  • Many drafts submitted to AfC are rejected the first couple of times they are submitted. It has nothing at all to do with the AfC reviewers wanting to see you fail or not wanting to know anything about you, but everything to do with whether the reviewer feels the draft satisfies relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The AfC reviewers who declined your draft are Samtar and Onel5969. You can ask them to clarify their concerns about the draft at User talk:Samtar and User talk:Onel5969. There is no limit on the number of times a draft may be submitted, but constantly submitting the same version over and over again is eventually going to be seen as disruptive. I cannot say whether you should give up. Wikipedia editing is supposed to be fun, but it can also be very frustating when things don't go as we like. The question (once again) that you need to ask yourself is whether you are here to help build an encyclopedia or here only to get an article about you added to Wikipedia. If it's the former, then they are many ways to do so and have fun. If it's the latter, then the end result tends to be more frustration.
For what it's worth, "Skippy Blair" was created in 2009 by an editor named Altenmann who is still active on Wikipedia. I've pinged Altenmann in this post, but perhaps you can directly ask them to take a look at your draft by posting at User talk:Altenmann. You can also post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dance and ask some editors more familiar with dance related articles to take a look as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly,
Thanks for the info about Skippy and Altenmann.
I would like to make a recommendation regarding my web page. Can we take one issue at a time and resolve it or delete my page.
My first recommendation would to solve the autobiography issue. Wikipedia people know I wrote my page. However if the page is published Billions of people throughout the world won't have a clue who wrote it. If this issue can be resolved then we can move on to the next issue. If not Wikipedia can just cancel my page and I'll move on to something else in my life.
Thanks,
Hubert Leon Raper Hubert Leon Raper 19:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ::::LeonRaper (talk • contribs)
Hi again Hubert Leon Raper. I am not sure how I can help you in any other ways than what I've tried so far since there are only so many ways to say the same things that others have been trying to explain to you as well. Trying to write an article about yourself is an autobiography according to Wikipedia. Autobiographies are not expressly prohibited, but they are highly discouraged. Creating a new article that complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is hard to begin with; creating an article about yourself or something you are closely connected which complies with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines is much much harder to do. It's not impossible, but it's extremely hard. So, the problem is not so much that it is you writing the article (i.e., it's an autobiography; It's that you've failed to establish that you are Wikipedia notable by showing you have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia has no way of verifying any of the documentation you have in your possession, so you basically seem to be saying "trust me, I have these articles, etc. and I know they show I'm Wikipedia notable. You need to take me at my word". That is a leap of faith that Wikipedia simply does not take and your inability to understand that basic concept makes it easy for others to assume that your primary interest in Wikipedia is promoting/recording your activities/accomplishments in dancing.
The next thing you seem to not completely understand is that Wikipedia articles are not owned by the subjects they are written about or by the people who create/edit them. In other words, it's not "your page" or "your draft" any more than it is "my page" or "my draft". Editors have absolutely no ownership rights or exclusive editorial control over any content they add to Wikipedia. Anyone anywhere in the world can change whatever they want whenever they want for any reason they want and there's very little that can be done to stop them. All we can do as editors is try and clean up improper edits when we find them and keep articles as stable and as compliant as possible. Creating content is one aspect of Wikipedia. If you're looking for total control over what is said about you, then you're better off using one of the websites you have to reach out to others.
You also seem to feel that as long as you don't explicitly say "written by Hubert Leon Raper" somewhere within the article that only "Wikipedia people" will know. That's irrelevant and not true. First of all, there are no "Wikipedia people" per se because anyone who reads/edits an article can claim they are a "Wikipedia person". Anyone who can access an article can click on its edit history and see who created the article and when so anyone accessing "Leon Raper" can see it was created by someone whose user name is Leon Raper. The same person can then click on the link to your user page and read every post anyone has ever added to your user talk page or see any post/edit you have ever made in Wikipedia. Anyone can do the same for me or any other editor. There's pretty much a record of every edit ever made on Wikipedia, so it's quite simple to find out who created/edited what and when.
I have tried suggesting ways for you to become more familiar with Wikipedia and how it works, but they seem to have fallen on deaf ears. You even seem unwilling to do something as simple as properly signing your posts using 4 tilde even though it's been explained to you numerous times by myself and others. This post not intended to be disrespectful, but as I said at the beginning there are so many ways to say the same thing over and over again. Wikipedians are volunteers and I'm pretty sure that you're going to be hard pressed to find anyone willing to come at their own expense and to personally inspect the documentation you have it your possession. Moreover, even if they did it would still mean very little since there would still be no way for others to verify said documentation. So, you need to provide as much information about these sources as you can on the talk page of the draft so that others have something more to work with. That's no guarantee that doing so will get your draft approved, but it may lead to a better understanding of these sources and whether they are useful for establishing notability.
It's getting harder to avoid coming to the conclusion that you are more interested in what Wikipedia can do for you than what you can do for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you are going to find it hard to get others to help you if that's their impression of you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


I have 2 .pdf files containing Articles and Pictures (1) Orange County Register, Oct 1974 and (2) Jitterbug Magazine, Sept 1992. Just let me know how to get them to you. Leon Raper Hubert Leon Raper 15:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hubert Leon Raper 15:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonRaper (talk • contribs)

Hi Marchjuly, do you think it might be better to just consider finishing my page for dance? Once it is finished, then we could work on creating a new page to replace it with all my lifetime material. At least we could get one problem out of the way.
Hubert Leon Raper 17:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonRaper (talk • contribs)
Hi Hubert Leon Raper. First of all, you read the pages about indentation and your ability to indent posts has gotten better. It's still a work in progress, but an improvement has been made which is a good thing. Now, you need to work on signing your posts. You're still doing it incorrectly and also adding your signature to the both the beginnings and ends of your posts. This is why an automated bot called User:SineBot has been pretty much going around and adding your signature for you like this and this. Even experienced editors forgot to sign a post every now and then, but you really should try and get the hang of properly signing things the Wikipedia way because it does help make things easier to follow.
Next question I want to ask has to do with ownership. You often refer to the draft written about you as "my page". This is probably a casual way of posting so it's not a big deal, but I just want to confirm that you understand Wikipedia's policy about the ownership of content. Do you understand that every time you post something on Wikipedia that you agree to irrevocably agree to release all claims of ownership to it? Do you understand that you have no final editorial control or any information you add to Wikipedia once you click the "Same page" button. I am asking this because you seem to get easily upset when someone posts something that might not agree with how you think. If you started your own online forum, then you would have some say and control over the things that other people post. You have no such say when it comes to Wikipedia. So, if someday someone (not just you) writes a draft about "Leon Raper" which gets approved and added to the article namespace, then that person is going to have no exclusive control over the article. It could start out being primarily about dance, but then through the editing of other editors move in a completely different direction where dance is hardly mentioned. It could be vandalized by some editors just looking to cause problems by "tagging" various articles with their version of online graffiti just to try and "shock" others and feel good about themselves. Some editors may add unfavorable information about you or your businesses if they are able to find reliable sources discussing such things in some detail. (I'm not say that's the case, but if by chance such a thing does exist someone is likely to eventually find it and add). It could even be deleted if enough editors examine the and discuss the article and come to the conclusion that it does meet Wikipedia standards. Many article creators, especially new editor single purpose accounts, often are quite shocked and disappointed when they find out (usually the hard way) that the Wikipedia article they have created about themself, their business, or something/someone they are connected to ends up as something entirely different from what they wanted it to be. As long as you realize and accept this very importa aspect of Wikipedia, you'll should be fine; otherwise, you may find yourself someday wishing you never started writing this draft. You should be prepared for the worst in that any article written about you is going to be brutally trimmed down to remove any promotional speak, unsourced/unverifiable statements or puffery to bring it more inline with Wikipedia standards.
Finally, you do not need to send anything to me or any other editor. That will do you no good because the problem of verifying the source still would remain. Other editors are just as unlikely to take me at my word as they are to take you at your word when it comes to this. Also, sending such things to other editors would establish a off-Wikipedia connection between you and them which might mean the other added would then also have a conflict of interest when it comes to you. I tink that the best thing you could do is to try and post complete versions of these articles, etc. somewhere on one of you personal websites so that they can be accessed by anyone who can access the Internet. The versions should be legible enough to read and the name, date, etc. of the source should be clearly there for someone to see as well. They also should not be altered/edited in any way, but as close to the original as possible. Basically, what you'd being doing is creating your own online archive of the things reliable sources have written about you. This will make it easier for others to verify these source. There is no guarantee that these source will be considered sufficient to establish notability, but it would be a move in the right direction to helping AfC reviewers better understand the sources you are citing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly, thank you very much for your detailed information. People can learn more about me through the following different sources.
I'm not providing this information trying to get business. I am just trying to let people know more about me as you recommended.
Hubert Leon Raper 11:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonRaper (talk • contribs)
Nightclub Swing Dance is one I have been creating for several years. It combines many other dance forms and is quite easy to learn depending on a dancers level of dance experience.
Hubert Leon Raper 11:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonRaper (talk • contribs)

About 5th CEAP MINDANAO GAMES

Hi, I'm Barniso from Butuan City, you are not to discuss and delete the File:CEAP Mindanao Games 2016.png, because the President of Father Saturnino Urios University approves that logo and use it for the sport events. By the way, you're not from Butuan, Philippines. This is our main logo for our Mindanao Games. If you disagree, go to 5th CEAP MINDANAO GAMES for more information about 'where did I get that Logo'.

Thank You and DAGHANG SALAMAT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Galope Barniso (talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC+9)

Hi Ronald Galope Barniso. Wikipedia has strict policies regarding the use of copyrighted materials such a photos and images. Whenever there are doubts about the licensing or use of such files, they are discussed at WP:FFD. You are welcome to add any comments you feel are relevant to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 12#File:CEAP Mindanao Games 2016.png, but you do not get to decide what is discussed on Wikipedia and you do not have any ownership rights over anything you upload to Wikipedia. Perhaps you do not understand how image licensing works, but the license you are using for the image means you are agreeing to allow anyone anywhere in the world the right to use the image in any way they see fit (even for commercial purposes) and there's nothing that neither you nor the Father Saturnino Urios University can do to stop them. Wikipedia is not a personal website and it's not Facebook, so the licensing of content that Wikipedia uses is quite different. I suggest you be very careful with the type of licensing you choose and ask for assistance at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions if you have any questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi again. the File:CEAP Mindanao Games 2016.png was Copyrighted under the People of Father Saturnino Urios University (which I was included and I studied). I authorize you to stop discussing about that logo, and stop deleting this photo and articles once and for all. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, not to deletion of articles. If you have a passport, go to Butuan and face me personally.
DAGHANG SALAMAT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Galope Barniso (talk • contribs) 08:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
First of all, please take a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines so that you a a little more familiar with how they work. It will be much easier to discuss things if you use proper formatting, etc.
Next, we do not give ultimatums on Wikipedia in an attempt to resolve problems. We try to reach a consensus through discussion based upon Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. No editor needs your authorization to discuss anything Wikipedia related and as I said above you do not own anything you contribute to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, but it does have a deletion policy which you might want to familiarize yourself with. Articles and files, etc. which do not comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are constantly being deleted. It sounds like you might be slightly misunderstanding what Wikipedia is all about, so please take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
Finally, telling me to come and face you in Butuan is just as silly as me telling you to come and face me wherever I am at. You should be really careful about posting such things because they might be mistaken by some editors as some type of attempt at intimidation which could lead to an administrator getting involved and blocking you from further editing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I see all but one of the external links have been removed. It was stated that all those links were included in SwingDance.com.

That is true, however nobody would even know they existed in SwingDance.com. I would really appreciate if they could be put back into my web page so other reviewers would know what they are. They are all very important to swing dancers.

Thanks

Hubert Leon Raper 22:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonRaper (talk • contribs)

As I explained on your user talk page (see User talk:LeonRaper#Centralizing discussion about the draft), it's best to try and keep all discussion about the draft on it's talk page. This makes it much easier for other editors to see what is being discussed as add comments as needed. I explained why these links were removed in more detail at Draft talk:Leon Raper#External links, so feel free to comment there if you like. I am more than happy to discuss this with you there.
Just for reference, you do not really have to indent your posts when you are the first person posting in a talk page thread. In its simplest form, a talk page discussion is like a flight of stairs. The first person posting is the ground floor so no indentation is needed. The second person posting is the first floor so they indent their post one indentation level, the third person posting is the second floor so they indent their post two indentation levels, and so on and so on. This a bit of an over simplification since indentation can actually be a little more involved than that; however, if you can keep in mind which floor you're posting on, you should be OK indentation wise the majority of the time.
Finally, and I don't know how many more times people are going to keep reminding you of this, you need to properly sign your talk page posts. You seem to have stopped posting your signature at the beginning of your posts which is a good thing. Now, please practice using the four tilde. It's really easy and it will become second nature once you do it a few times. If, by chance, you are signing your posts with 4 tilde and it's just not working, then something may be wrong with your setup which might require some special technical assistance. If that's the case, please let someone know so that others can help figure out what the problem is. -- 00:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Morelos Campus Deletion

Hi, kindly delete the article Father Saturnino Urios University - Arbp. Carmelo D.F. Morelos Campus? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Galope Barniso (talk • contribs) 01:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronald Galope Barniso. I am not an administrator, so I cannot delete articles. The article has been nominated for deletion by another editor. The relevant discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Father Saturnino Urios University - Arbp. Carmelo D.F. Morelos Campus. You can add any comments you want to that discussion, but I suggest you read WP:AFD#Contributing to AfD discussions first to familiarize yourself with the process.
Finally, please try to remember to sign your talk page posts per WP:SIGN. Signing posts makes it easy for other editors to see who posted what comment and when they posted it. Signing posts is especially important in discussions, such as deletion discussions, where many editors are posting comments. The easiest way to sign posts is using 4 tilde, but there are a few other ways as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
For your good work at Draft:Leon Raper and associated pages. It is great to see editors who are willing to go the extra mile to help a new comer. JbhTalk 23:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer

Hi, would you mind giving me a hand monitoring this article one guy keeps reverting the article, including the changes you made. thank you IQ125 (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi IQ125. I'm not sure what I can do since this seems to be similar to a "content dispute" between two editors. For what it's worth, I do not think either of you should revert anymore because no matter how right you each think you are, you're both coming really close to WP:3RR or WP:EW which is likely going to lead to ANI and both of you being warned or blocked. The best thing to do is to try and discuss this on the article's talk page in good faith. Make your argument referencing policy and guidelines and invite the other editor to respond. You can also ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion or WT:CHESS. If your reasoning is sound, then others are likely to agree with you and a local consensus to use the category will be established. If the consensus is to not use the category, then just accept it in good faith and move on. You can suggest that the article be reverted back to last stable version before this all started per WP:STATUSQUO while the discussion is ongoing. As long as you're suggesting and attempting to discuss, you will be acting in the spirit of WP:DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that is "three" editors as you have reverted. I attempted to discuss on the editor's talk page with no luck. Do you know someone that can arbitrate? IQ125 (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
My edit (revert) was related to how links to category pages were being inappropriately added to the "See also" section; I was not really judging the appropriateness of those categories. I think it's good you've tried to discuss this, but　content issues (which I believe this sort of is) are better discussed on the relevant article's talk page. More editors are likely watching the article and its talk page than are watching the other editor's user talk page, which means your chances of getting comments from others is greatly improved. You can post a link to the previous discussion as reference for others, and you can suggest to the other editor that further discussion takes place on the article talk page. You can also post links at WT:CHESS (that's the WikiProject whose scope the article falls under) and WT:CfD (since that's the general discussion board for category-related matters) to also try and get other editors involved. As long as you keep your wording neutral and avoid canvassing, you should be fine. If after all this, it's still just you and the other editor, then you can try suggesting WP:3O. The other editor does not have to do any of the above, but at least you will be following the steps of WP:DR and will be seen as the party more interested in resolving this through discussion and will be in a better position to gain the support of other editors. Although your intentions might be good, it looks like you've violated WP:3RR. Unless you are prepared to claim an exemption from 3RR per WP:NOT3RR, I think it would be best to self-revert your last edit and suggest discussing things on the article's talk page. Just for reference, WP:AN3 is full of editors who mean well and are sure they are right, but who also end up getting blocked by an administrator. Unfortunately, and I'm not saying this is the case here, but some editors are quite familiar with 3RR and will try and bait the other editor into a third revert. If you self-revert, this might be seen as a sign that you had a brief lapse in judgement but really realize edit warring is wrong and that discussion is the best course of action to take. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Different Types of Swing Dance

I need to clear up something related to Skippy Blair on my proposed web page. First, I do not mean anything negative about Skippy. I have loved her as a friend for over 50 years. I have helped her many times. However, Skippy has nothing to do whatsoever related to my preferred style of swing dancing. I learned basic swing dancing and ballroom dancing before I ever met Skippy.


There are somethings people don't know about swing dance. Skippy's type of swing dancing and mine are completely different. Yes, she created a great form of West Coast Swing, but it was quite slow compared to the type of West Coast swing that I learned like Flying Lindy. It was a much higher speed version of swing dancing whose roots go back into the early 1930's.


Someone put a statement on my proposed page under Dance Instructor stating that "Raper studied with Skippy Blair in Los Angeles." I attended a couple of her training sessions to see what she new about swing dance. That is not studying with her. I studied with Dean Collins, Maxie Dorf, Willie Desatoff, Bart Bartolo, Kenny Wetzel and many other dancers who were in many movies. You can see the types of swing dancing I loved and still love today at http://www.MastersOfSwingDance.com/


I hope this clears up some issues related to my proposed Wikipedia page.


Sorry, I still don't understand how to sign off on anything I write.

Hubert Leon Raper 06:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonRaper (talk • contribs)

Hi again Hubert Leon Raper. I am going to ask you once again to please post your concerns about to the draft at Draft talk:Leon Raper. That is the best way for such discussions because it makes it possible for every editor (not just you and me) to more easily participate in any discussion that ensues. You are aware of the talk page because you've posted there before. If you're worried that I will not see your post, the please rest assured that I will. I have the page on my watchlist, so that any time any edits either the draft or its talk page, it will show up on my watchlist. If you are worried that I might forget to check my watchlist, then you can ping me by adding {{ping|Marchjuly}} to the beginning of your post. When you ping another editor, they receive a special notification at the top of their user page where the little bell is. You can also ping more than one editor at the same time by using the syntax {{ping|username1|username2|username3|....|username50}}. You can ping up to 50 people at once, but you have to make sure you get their usernames right (spelling, spaces, capitalization, etc.) for the ping to work. If you're still worried that I might not check my watchlist and I might not notice your ping, then you a post a friendly reminder on my user talk page; for example, "Hi Marchjuly. I added a new post to Draft talk:Leon Raper. Would you mind taking a look?" or something similar.
If you do all three of the aforementioned things and you still haven't received a response, then perhaps one of the following has happened: (1) I have died which means I no longer will be able help you; (2) I am unable to access the Internet for some reason, which means you will have just be patient and wait or try and found someone else to help you if waiting is not an option; (3) I have decided to take a wikibreak for a certain period of time which means (once again) you will just have to be patient and wait or try and found someone else to help you if waiting is not an option for you. The tone of this post so far might seems as if I am angry, but I am really not. I am, however, perhaps getting a little frustrated with my inability to figure out a way to explain things to you so that I you understand and I don't have to keep posting basically the same things over and over and over again.
So, let's try one more time with the signature, OK? Go to your user sandbox at User:LeonRaper/sandbox , type a practice post (anything is fine) just as if you were posting something on a talk page in the editing field and then sign your post as you always do. When you've finished, scroll down the page click Show preview. If everything looks OK, scroll down the page again and click Save page. Look at the final result. Now, go to the top of the page and click Edit and add a second practice post exactly beneath your first practice post. Try and remember to add one level of indentation at the beginning of your second practice post and every time you click "enter" or "return" on your keyboard. When you've finished your second practice post, click your mouse one time at the very end but don't sign your post. Then, scroll down to the bottom of the page and look for Sign your posts on talk pages. You should see 4 tilde which look like ~~~~ between Sign your posts on talk pages and Cite your sources. Clicking on those 4 tilde will add your Wikipedia signature to the end of your second practice post or wherever you clicked the cursor. After you clicked on the 4 tilde, click on Show preview. If everything is as you want it to be, scroll back down the page and click on Save page. Now look at both posts, if you've done things correctly you should notice that the signatures are slightly different. It's not just the times that are slightly different, but also the formatting and color. Move your cursor over the first signature and you'll see that your username is black and that there is no "(talk)". Next, move your cursor over the second signature and you'll see that your username is in red and that there is a "(talk)" link which is in blue. Your username is a red link only because you have yet to create a user page and "(talk)" is a blue link because User talk:LeonRaper does exist. Try clicking on the red and blue links and see what happens. Hopefully, if you do all of this you will finally understand how to properly sign your posts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I can't thank enough Marchjuly, Theroadislong, Jbhunley, and many others at Wikipedia for all their help.
Theroadislong has been doing a lot of work on Skippy Blair's Wikipedia pages. That is great. Skippy is a very nice lady. Why didn't Theroadislong ask Skippy or her Assistant why my Special Recognition Award wasn't listed on their web site? The award is hanging on the wall in my home. I also included in my References a video of the award being presented to me. And yet I keep getting comments telling me there is no proof I received the award. I can give you Skippy Blair's and Jim Tigges' home phone number and email addresses if you would like to pursue this issue.
I searched through just about 48 years of my records at home and added about 19 to my References. I also added over 9 pdf files verifying the validity of many of those References.
I told you early on that I spent thousands of hours preparing all my work on the internet to help dancers free.
I'm sorry at age 80, with a memory problem, that I can't pursue this any longer. Too much important stuff has been removed from my proposed Wikipedia page.
Please forward this message to your Wikipedia upper level management.
I'll leave you with something completely different which are my teenage memories of Eddie Cochran at https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10202018400572017&id=138085516265525
I wish you all well.
LeonRaper 11:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonRaper (talk • contribs)
On Wikipedia, it's the burden of the editor adding information to an article to show that the information can be verified through reliable sources and otherwise complies with other relevant policies and guidelines. Other editors are encouraged to try and find sources to support such information as opposed to simply removing it whenever possible, but removal sometimes does happen. Theroadislong is a very experienced editor and he would have added a source for you receiving the award if he was able to find one for it; however, he is not going to start calling people up and asking them to personally verify what is on a Wikipedia page. So, it's a bit much to expect him or any other editor to do such a thing on your behalf, but you certainly may call those people up and ask them to put something about your receiving the award on their website. If they do, the information should be able to be re-added without any opposition from other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Jeni Couzyn fair use lede image

I don't understand why you have tagged this for deletion. I responded with this:

It's the front cover page of Couzyn's first volume of verse and the photo is by Jo Spence, a noted photographer. As such it's not replaceable.

If this is not acceptable can you please explain why. As book covers go, this is a rather well known one. It would be a pity not to use it over some quibble about the rationale. NotAJF (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi NotAJF. There are two problems with the file's use in that particular article. The first one is WP:NFCC#1. Couzyn is still alive (at least she is according to the Wikipedia article) and non-free photos are almost never allowed to be used for reasons of identification in articles about living people simply because it is considered possible for someone (including Couzyn herself) to create a free equivalent which serves the same encyclopedic purpose by taking a photo of Couzyns and then freely licensing it per WP:NFC#Meeting the no free equivalent criterion. The second problem has to do with WP:NFCC#8. Non-free cover art such as this is typically only considered acceptable when it's used to identify the book, etc. in a stand-alone article about the book itself, as explained in WP:NFC#cite note-2, but is not considered acceptable when it is used in articles about the author, etc. unless the covert art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary within the article so that the context required for non-free use is clearly evident. If you still feel the non-free use of the photo is justified, then feel free to ask others about this at WP:Media copyright questions if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I updated the rationale for File:Lithuanian-Football-Federation-logo.png. Can it be re-added to every Lithuanian national football team's articles? – 78.157.68.60 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi 78.157.68.60 and thank you for your message. WP:NFCC#10c requires that a separate, specific non-free use rationale be provided for each use. What you have done is try and combine multiple uses into a single rationale, which is something (in my opinion) that is not allowed. Also, simply adding a non-free use rationale does not automatically mean it is valid. All that adding a rationale does is prevent the file from being deleted per WP:F6. There are other problems with using the file in the individual team articles which have to do with Number 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Previous discussions at WP:NFCR and WP:FFD regarding the use of similar logos in a similar manner have come to the consensus that the national federation/association is the "parent entity" and the individual team is the "child entity" in such cases, and the consensus has been that non-free use in the "parent" is, but non-free use in the "child" is not. It's possible that there may be extentuating circumstance when it comes to the Lithuanian national teams, so you can ask for feedback from others at WT:NFCC, WP:MCQ or even start at discussion thread at WP:FFD. Finally, just want to point out that the fact that other non-free rationales are written that way or that other non-free logos are being used in team articles is almost always never a good way to try and make your case at FFD. The fact that other stuff exists could simply just be a case of other stuff exsiting and being wrong. There are lots of non-free files being used on Wikipedia and not all of them are being used correctly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi my friend. I'm not too familiar with wiki rules, sorry. I do not really understand the reasoning why the logo is not allowed for team pages. Can u please explain why in plain english so I can understand better. Also can you explain me why logos like England FA is allowed on England team page but Iraq logo not allowed on Iraq team page. Thank you sir Hashim-afc (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hashim-afc. I think you will find the answers to your questions at WT:NFCC#File:Lithuanian-Football-Federation-logo.png, but basically it has to do with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and how it's being interpreted and applied to the use of such logos. It's possible that you will see similar logos being used in various articles, but this does not mean that the usage is automatically considered policy compliant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It may take an FFD discussion to determine whether a particular usage is according to Wikipedia policy. For example, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg was a discussion about non-free logo use in Brazillian team articles. If you see articles where non-free logos are being used in a way which you feel does not comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy, then you can start a discussion at WP:FFD to get opinions from other editors. I hope what I've written is not difficult to understand, but if it is then I'll try to explain it in another way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2016/May&oldid=771732850"