User talk:Marchjuly

Welcome to the user talk page of Marchjuly. Please click here to start a new message at the bottom of this page. Messages posted here will be replied to here unless requested otherwise. Messages left on your talk page or a file's talk page will be replied to there unless requested otherwise. I am not an administrator. I may tag/nominate files for deletion, etc., but I cannot delete them myself. Conversely, I cannot un-delete something that has been deleted. Please consult the administrator who deleted the file, or COM:DRV if you require such assistance. I am also not an VRT member, so please consult at COM:VRTN if you require such assistance. Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Please be patient if I don't immediately respond. Sometimes the real world gets in the way. For really urgent matters, you can also trying posting at my Wikipedia user talk page. I'm happy to discuss any edits/comments I may have made, but please try to keep all comments civil. We are all volunteers and all make mistakes. There are really very things that I can screw up so badly that they cannot be undone if needed. Any mistakes I make are always made in good faith, and I will do my best to correct them as soon as possible. Personal attacks, etc., however, will not be tolerated at all and I will bring them to the attention of administrators at COM:AN without hesitation if necessary. Server time: February - 2024 01 Thursday 15:47 (UTC) When you've overly litigious Why don't you stop being so overly litigous? When you act like this randomly against users, trying to delete a lot of their hard work, it makes them not want to contribute. I've been here since 2009, and have written a ton about Columbus, and photographed. I've done a world of good. I'm not seeing why you want to reverse some of this by overly-analyzing image copyrights and making your own judgements. You could very well be the "straw that breaks the camel's back" and makes me leave, off to write for a magazine or newspaper or anywhere else that's appreciative of my work. Deleting valuable images of historic content should be banned here. Again, stop. ɱ (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC) I didn't and can't delete any images since I'm not a Commons administrator. I like any other Commons user can start a DR about a file that they feel doesn't comply with relevant Commons policy, and you like any other user can comment in said discussions explaining why you think such files should be kept. There's nothing overly litiguous about such a thing at all; that's part of how Commons works. If you don't like the way that Commons works to the point that it makes you want to publish your work somewhere else, then that's a choice you make. Plenty people seem to have no problems in uploading files in accordance with relevant Commons policy, but those that don't are free to upload their photos somewhere else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Duh, I know how Commons works. I have hundreds of thousands of edits and over a decade of experience. What I'm not used to is other editors targeting even the very photos I take and interpreting extreme and minute details of copyright law to interpret that they are nonfree, and then campaigning for multiple images' deletions. This is overly litigous. The Ohio History Connection aims to share history; that's the very reason they make these plaques, and a website about them. If you really think a historical society wants to maintain restrictions over sharing a historical plaque, you're in another world. Why even focus on removing this important cultural content? What good are you doing? You just make me upset and make the project worse. I might as well just ask to write articles for 'Ohio History Central' instead. Is that what you want? ɱ (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Once again, if you feel my nominating these files for deletion/discussion was somehow a violation of Commons policy, you're free to seek sanction against me at COM:ANU. Moreover, if you want to go write articles for "Ohio History Central", then that's your choice to make. People who are upset with the various policies and guidelines of Commons, a local Wikipedia project or a combination of the two aren't required to participate in those projects; they can take their talents elsewhere if they feel they aren't being fully appreciated. There are many organizations like "Ohio History Central" that I'm sure do so pretty great things, but they're not Commons and the content they host on their websites isn'taren't subject to Commons policies and guidelines. If, on the other hand, you can provide information which clearly shows the content such sites are hosting is licensed in a manner that's acceptable for Commons beyond a COM:PCP doubt, then please do so in the relevant DR so that others can assess it; the onus of doing such a thing, however, falls on those wanting to upload such content per COM:EVID. It's not necessarily me you need to convince; if you can establish a clear consensus a file should be kept, then it will be kept. You titled this discussion thread When you've [sic] overly litigious as if someone nominating a file you've uploaded for deletion is somehow an attempt to personally attack you. You also post things like You could very well be "the straw that breaks the camel's back" and make me want to leave and You just make me upset as if you think people who question your uploads are just doing so to screw you over. That's not the case at all for me and most likely not the case for many others. It's not really about "you", but rather about whether relevant Commons' policy is being satisfied. I've got zero interest in you personally with respect to Commons, and I am only interested in whether relevant Commons policies are being met. One of the things that makes the project worse in my opinion are files whose licensing is questionable in terms of relevant Commons policy being simply left be because the uploader might get their feelings hurt if it turns out the file should be deleted. There's nothing in COM:L which states Commons should keep questionable content just to keep the uploaders of such content happy, but lots about which content is acceptable for Commons and which content isn't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to change "aren't" to "isn't". -- 06:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)] I'm glad you hold 0 value in my efforts here, and will not hold the slightest degree of remorse if I move to contribute to a program that won't second-guess and try to reverse (what feels like) every contribution I make. This is a key part of what makes the community so toxic. ɱ (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC) It could also mean that the community isn't simply here to appease you and apply a different set of standards to you and your contributions than it applies to others and theirs. What you see as toxic others might view as healthy. We all agree to abide by relevant Commons policies and guidelines (as estalished by the Commons community) when we log in and edit. We all also probably get frustrated when our efforts are assessed by others as being contrary to such policies and guidelines. You seem to view having a file you uploaded being nominated for deletion as being some sort of person attack being made against you or an attempt to devalue your efforts. I simply see such things as an attempt to try and ensure that Commons policies are being followed, even if it means that doing so might not necessarily be to the benefit of any one particular user. You came to my user talk page trying to make things personal between you and myself; you can try to do such a thing if you want, but I prefer to trying to keep the discussion focused on relevant Commons policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC) File:James J. Sexton(1).png Please assist with the VRT status File:James J. Sexton(1).png. Email has been received at VRTS concerning the file. Now requires someone with a VRTS account to view it. Ticket#2023120510000308 -> URL of this file was in the email and copyright holder email permission was sent in the proper format. Thanks in advance,BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC) @BeFriendlyGoodSir: I'm not a VRT member and, thus, can't access the email. The file has been tagged with {{Permission received}} by a bot, which means that VRT received the email and is now in the process of reviewing it. If the email checks out, a VRT member will replace the "Permission received" template with a {{Permission ticket}} template, verifying that the email has been verified. If there's a problem with the email, a VRT member will most likely contact the sender via email and explain what the problem is and what needs to be done. If you have any general questions about the status of the VRT review of the email, you can ask them at COM:VRTN; however, VRT members aren't permitted to discuss the specifics of an email on any Commons page for privacy reasons, and they will only due so via email with the sender. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)