User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2018/October

Whiie the multiple infractions are duly noted regarding stills and screenshots I thought would help illustrate certain articles, I feel I should not stand corrected on anything I did not do. Another user/editor had already uploaded the KTVT morning newscast screenshot prior to any of my recent screenshot additions. That particular warning should go to him, not me. Shaggylawn65 (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Shaggylawn65: Really sorry about that and thanks for bringing it to my attention. It was intended to be more of a notification than warning, but I shouldn’t have added it to your talk page since it wasn’t for a file you had uploaded or added to the article. — Marchjuly (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, since you seem to know what you're talking about, I'd like to ask for your advice. My discussion with User:Kwamikagami has stalled due to his WP:Status quo stonewalling. In other words, you chose the version without my Dietrich section as Status Quo (even though it had stood for 1 year), and after initial discussion, he decided it was a 'waste of time' and has become unwilling to participate. I plan to go to the dispute resolution noticeboard in the near future and see where it goes from there. However, I've made some changes to my section in the meantime. Could I tentatively put up my improved section without edit warring? Is it only edit warring if I revert it back after its reverted? Also, I'd be interested in any other thoughts you have to offer on this matter. Thanks in advance, arigatou gozaimasu. Xcalibur (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Dan, you can develop the section in your sandbox, or post it in the talk page of the article. Also, "stonewalling" is hardly the appropriate term to describe someone trying to keep garbage out of an article.

The only reason I let the section sit there, despite the fact that the only other editor there at the time wanted to delete it immediately, was that I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as I waited for the experts to get back to me. But given that the only response (from someone your source herself recommended) was snarky, I don't see that there's much more doubt I can grant. BTW, his email is included in some of his papers online, so you can always write him yourself. — kwami (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I've been tinkering with it in my sandbox. I'll consider adding a collapsible section in talk page if that becomes useful. I was asking MarchJuly if I should test the waters with my improved version or not.

It is not garbage, and the fact that it lasted for 1 year testifies to that. When I first put it up, I had issues with Mr. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz because I had uploaded the images as fair use, which created a conflict with minimal use rationale. After conferring elsewhere, I realized I could crop the images differently and upload all but one as free works, thus satisfying minimal fair use. There was another editor who objected, but I addressed that by pointing out that the content is backed by a reliable secondary source, which was published AFTER FA review, after which he withdrew the objection. That leaves just you & me. BTW, one of my changes was to reduce the scroll-length of the section, so that it's close to Pozdniakov (which has much more text), which should make it even more suitable.

I'll give you credit for asking around for third opinions, but one quip is not enough to go on. I'll also give you credit for discussing initially, but even then you seemed unwilling to consider my points in good faith. However, I must correct you: cutting discussion short and claiming it's 'wasting your time' so that your preferred status quo can stand, is in fact status quo stonewalling. If you review that page I linked, it directly mentions the tactic.

To reiterate, my content is fine, my arguments in favor of it are more than adequate, and it's backed by RS in the form of scholarly journals, including a secondary RS. The opinion of reputable scholarly journals trumps our personal opinions when it comes to Wikipedia. Xcalibur (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi

canvassing

, it's OK to ask for the help of others.

Now, I'm going to politely ask the both of you to try and avoid turning my user talk page into a new place to continue your dispute; nothing is going to be resolved here on and content disputes like this are best resolved on the artricle talk page. I also suggest that you should try and stick to commenting on the relevant content and refrain from commenting on each other as much as possible. If either of you are unsatisfied with the progess being made on the article's talk page, then take it to the next stage of the dispute resolution process. I seriously doubt anyone knowledgable on the subject matter is

watching my user talk page, but there may be an administrator or two watching it who will have no qualms about stepping in if one of you posts something about the other which you really shouldn't have posted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this informative response. My intention was simply to seek your advice, I wasn't expecting kwami to show up, and felt obligated to respond. I agree that

WP:CIVIL at all times. Thanks again for your assistance. Xcalibur (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:DOGGY instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That explains it. I honestly hadn't realized that linking a username would ping them, my mistake. Yes, Wikipedia is fairly transparent, which is for the better. Once more, arigatou for your assistance. Xcalibur (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)