User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2015/October

Researchgate.net/profile/robert_lewy2/contributions

Www.researchgate.net/profile/robert_Lewy2/contributions

Hello Marchjuly Hope you are well. Researchgate.net is a third party scientific publication database which first requires faculty verification and then creates a bibliography of the authors. No one has any influence over it. Would you consider putting the above link in my entry? It contains how often each article was cited shows which work I've really been best known for scientifically. We have talked about how I feel the article is too reliant on one NY Times article which is erroneous about my role in litigation and suggests I acted improperly. Since I don't have a refutation of that part, I'm hoping this will better represent my career. Thank you for your consideration. Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kingseason. I believe such things are better discussed on the article's talk page to increase the possible that other editors will be made aware of your concerns. Article talk pages tend to be watched by more editors than user talk pages, and that is where discussions are about article content should take place. Therefore, I moved your post to Talk:Robert Ira Lewy#Researchgate.net/profile/robert_lewy2/contributions and will add my thoughts there. I do suggest that if you do comment there that you try to do so as "Kingeseason" and not "108.54.216.170". It will make things easier to follow. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

2015 Sydney Roosters season

I would appreciate if you did not make any more changes to this page.
KC Roosters — Talk 07:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You are aware of WP:OWN, right? Anyone can edit any article and I'm pretty sure the changes I made were improvements per the Manual of Style. Which edit in particular do you feel was not an improvement? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand your changes to this page but I believe that having that many references is unneeded. Manchester United, for example uses embedded links. I believe you are unnecessarily targeting this page without prior research on other pages. I understand that I do not own this page, however I am the primary contributor of this page. I would appreciate if you respected my thoughts about this issue. I suggest you read the following: Single-editor ownership.
KC Roosters — Talk 10:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if a good reason for embedding links is because that's how it done in another article and I think the "Avoiding embedded links" I cited above is quite clear on this. I am also familiar with "single-editor ownership", but my edit sums were quite clear as to why I converted the links including citing the relevant Wikipedia guideline and I also posted on the article's talk page in a further attempt to explain why embedded links are problematic and also to discuss things. This is not a content dispute. I have not removed any of the links, I only converted them to the preferred Wikipedia style and actually "fleshed them" out by providing more information about the source being cited. This is actually an improvement because it will make it easier for other editors to repair the links if they have problems with link rot someday. Anyway, I do not wish to engage in edit warring, so I have asked for feedback from others at WP:ELN#Embedded links within articles. Please feel free to comment there and cite whatever Wikipedia policy or guideline you feel supports your reasons for wanting to keep the embedded links. If the consensus at ELN is that the embedded links are acceptable, then that's fine with me. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Www.researchgate.net/profile/robert_Lewy2/contributions

Hi Marchjuly Nothing has happened since this discussion was relocated. You once before made a successful proposal about adding publications to the article. Would you consider it in this case? Researchgate collects scientific publications, is third party and I believe should be cited. The idea is that the Career section talks about something besides breast implants and litigation, which is settled now, but more important work much more frequently cited of mine. Thanks again. Kingseason (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kingseason. I think it's better to try and keep this discussion at Talk:Robert Ira Lewy#Researchgate.net/profile/robert_lewy2/contributions to avoid confusion and keep everything in one place. It has a better chance of being seen by more editors on the article's talk page than it does here. So, I've move your post there and will respond specifically to it there. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Romanian Football

Do you wanna help me to improve Romanian football ? Thanks.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the message, but I'm not sure which article you're talking about exactly. Football in Romania? To be honest, I don't know much about either Romania or soccer. I sometimes edit soccer articles, but usually just to clean up the formatting, etc. You should also try asking at WT:FOOTY since that's the WikiProject for soccer-related articles. FWIW, I guess I could try to clean things up a bit such as maybe replacing the table in "Qualification for European competitions" with prose and trying to find a few more sources. ro:Fotbalul în România seems to have quite number of sources which might possibly be able to be used per WP:NOENG, but I don't speak Romanian, so cannot verify the sources and figure out where to use them. Do you understand Romanian? If you do, then you might be able to translate some of the information in that article yourself and use in the English version per Wikipedia:Translation. Finally, I'm just curious as to what brought you to my user page. I don't think I've edited that particular article. Did our paths cross somewhere else? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I have seen you edited before in Romanian football articles, but probably just minor edits.

I do not talk about Football in Romania, I talk about Romanian football pages in general, for example, Liga II, I still edit in it, I will finish it, but how you see, there are lots of missing seasons for example (in the column of "Year"): 1935–36 Divizia B and 1936–37 Divizia B till 1988–89 Divizia B !

I have also references : [1] and [2], for each season, but I need a fast way to take the write and put them in tables in Wikipedia. Maybe you know a fast way to edit, and after I will tag the teams to their correct page on Wikipedia, and add extra information. Thanks.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember those edits, but they were probably just some kind of clean up of something I noticed or some image I was checking. Anyway, I took a look at Liga II and if you're goal is to create a stand-alone for each season, then that's quite ambitious and is probably going to take some time, even with a small group of people helping. Articles like that aren't impossible to create; It's just time consuming and busy work, so not lots of people want to do it. I still think it might be a good idea to check at WT:FOOTY and see if anyone there is interested. There may be templates, etc. which can be used which will make the work a little easier and faster. I don't mind helping out a bit every now and then doing clean up or whatever, but not sure if I can be of more help than that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I know it will take a long time, but if everyone will edit at least 1 season, it will be done by the end of the year ! We currently work on Cupa Romaniei, there is same problem, many seasons missing, so the Liga II is the next on the list, thats why I need new people to start edit here also, Can you create a template or something to can add fast the information from those pages (references) which I showed to you ? Edit one season at least, the second one, the first one is already done, summarily.

Same happened when I started to edit Cupa Romaniei, I started alone, and after other people joined and look now how much we advanced. Thank you.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not know how to create such a template. Perhaps someone at WT:FOOTY can help you with that. The only way I can see to do this is to add each result one at a time. One idea might be is for you to create a user draft where you can lay out the basic format such as the tables, etc. Then, another editor such as myself could help add the information to the tables, etc. If you want people to create their own article from scratch, then be advised that each editor you ask for help probably has their own approach to editing so there is no guarantee that each article will look exactly the same when finished. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not a good editor, I know more about football, than edits, but the first season : 1934–35 Divizia B can be an example for the next seasons, or 1992–93 Divizia B, it looks better, so is basically the tables for the beginning, after I will add more information.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You're probably a fine editor. You seem to be here for the right reasons and willing to colaborate with others which is very important on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles do not have to be perfect so don't worry about making mistakes. Any edit made to Wikipedia can be fixed by someone else. Some editors are pretty good at doing things like fixing dead links or bare urls while others are really good at adding tables or images. If you think there are problems in an article that you do not know how to fix, then you can add a cleanup template to the article/section to let other editors or a bot know there is an issue. There are also really no deadlines. If you start an article, then do what you can because others will add any needed improvements eventually. It is pretty much on the really bad stuff which cannot be fixed at all which ultimately gets deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me then with this 2 articles : User:Alexiulian25/Copa del Rey Topscorers and User:Alexiulian25/Copa del Rey Topscorers by Season ? The people do not want them to be accepted ... :( --Alexiulian25 (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I can do to help you with those articles. One was deleted via speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A1 and the other was deleted via WP:AfD. This means that both articles had problems which were so serious that enough editors felt they couldn't be fixed. If you feel you've made enough improvements since the deletions so that the drafts are now worthy of being stand-alone lists, then I suggest you discuss this with Swarm. They are the administrator who deleted the articles and userfied them for you to continue working on. They are the best person to ask about what kinds of things need to be done for the drafts to be added to the article namespace. Just for reference, I've interacted with Swarm before and I found them to be quite fair and helpful. So, if there's a way for them to help you, I'm pretty sure they'll do what they can. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

waiting for your reply

Please give me reply regarding Keith Sequeira article' s Section Personal life. So that i can request a Administrator or OTRS volunteer for the removal of the copyright violation tag. kartiktiwary3 (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I've responded there. Please try and understand that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service so sometimes it takes a little time to get replies, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Upset and Angry

You are making my life harder then it should be. I believe that it would be best if I was able to revert 2014 Sydney Roosters season and 2015 Sydney Roosters season back to want I want and for you to move on from this. I am deeply passionate about the Sydney Roosters and being in this edit war is making me uncomfortable. I would be very upset if I was banned from editing Wikipedia because of this.
KC Roosters — Talk 11:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to make your life harder than it has to be, but the changes I made were actually improvements and in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I've tried to explain this in edit sums and on various talk pages, but for some reason you seem to not be convinced. I've also explained to you that blanking article talk pages is something you should not do per WP:TPG unless there is a very good policy based reason for doing so. I am totally willing to continue assuming good faith, but, as I explained early on, we don't own the articles we create and edit and we don't get what we want just because we want it if it's not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Have you read the policy/guideline pages I've linked to in my edit sums, etc.? If you don't understand something, then I'll be happy to try and explain it. You can also ask at the Teahouse if you have questions about the changes I've made if you'd like the opinions of other editors. Most of the editors answering questions there are quite experiemced and familiar with policy and guidelines. Their only concern is helping to build the encyclopedia, so if the changes I made actually make the articles worse, they will revert them and be sure to let me know exactly why they aren't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like you to tell me the differences between 2014 Sydney Roosters season and 2015 Sydney Roosters season external links and these similar pages: 2014 Brisbane Broncos season, 2014 North Queensland Cowboys season, 2014 New Zealand Warriors season, 2015 New England Patriots season, 2015–16 Miami Heat season, 2015 New York Mets season, 2015–16 Manchester United F.C. season. All sports teams season pages have a large amount of external links, it's the norm for these pages and I strongly believe there is nothing wrong with it. Because of this I believe that you aren't' making an improvement, the Sydney Roosters pages are different to the examples. Why have you targeted the Sydney Roosters pages and not any other similar pages? I don't know why you can't move on from these two pages. I would like you to know that because of you I have been contemplating if I should stop editing Wikipedia.
KC Roosters — Talk 02:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I've cleaned up external links which were embedded into other articles before when I have come across them. I am also not the only editor who does such clean up. You can ask about this yourself at WP:ELN if you like. If there are problems on other pages, an editor will eventually get to them. It's better to have properly formatted citations because it makes it easier to fix if the link goes dead. The more information provided about the source the better. Just embedding bare urls into articles is quick and easy, but not really how sources are supposed to be cited any more. Embedded links weren't used for citations in other parts of the article, so I'm not sure why you feel they should be used for game results. MrX, an experienced editor, posted about this at WP:ELN#Embedded links in articles., your user talk page, and Talk: 2015 Sydney Roosters season#Embedded links within articles and your response was to blank your user talk page (which you can do) and the article talk page (which you shouldn't do at all unless there's a really good reason).

In addition, it's not only the embedded links I've been trying to clean up, but also the incorrect way some of the citation template parameters have been entered or the way am/pm is used. These might seem little things, but they are improvements and simply undoing them without any policy/guideline reason because you don't like them is not really how Wikipedia works in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you ever change external links to references on 2015 New England Patriots season, I am certain that if you did it would be reverted. There is no differences in external links between 2015 New England Patriots season and 2014 Sydney Roosters season and 2015 Sydney Roosters season. You should talk to DPH1110 (as experinced as MrX), this user has worked on NFL team season pages since 2009.
KC Roosters — Talk 06:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am still not exactly sure why you feel embeded links are better than proper citations. I've stated why I think they are not using policy and guidelines. I haven't changed any article content, and only did some formatting clean up, but your response seems to be that the page should be the way you want it to be because you're a passionate fan of the team (perhaps implying that you know best?) or because it's the way it is done other pages. I'm not sure what will happen on those other pages; I think the links shouldn't be embedded. Perhaps they will be converted to inline citations by me or another editor someday and maybe those edits will indeed be reverted back; the issue would then hopefully be resolved on the article's talk page one way or another. Two different editors (me and MrX) removed the embedded links from 2015 Sydney Roosters season so the local consensus for the article is, at least for the time being, that links shouldn't be embedded for the reasons given in the various edit sums and on the article's talk page. Of course, you can disagree with that consensus. I suggest you post your reasons why you think the links should be embedded at Talk:2015 Sydney Roosters season#Embedded links within articles and continue this discussion there per the dispute resolution process.

Now some other stuff. You've posted you're thinking of quitting Wikipedia because of me and I certainly don't want anyone to do that. However, you've blanked the article's talk page anytime someone posts something there, leaving only the edit sum "Update". You've also reverted almost every every edit which has been made to the article by anyone other than yourself, leaving only the same "Update" edit sum or no edit sum at all. Just since the end of last August, you've reverted IP 2401:A400:4400:2700:B04C:E8F7:2D3F:C5AE 3 times, Victory1239 once, Auzcast351 once, MrX once, Yobot once, Mattlore once, and me twice. This edit sum left by Mattlore in January 2015 even invited you to discuss things on the article's talk page, but your reponse was to revert the edit and then remove their post from the talk page. You did the same thing when I and MrX left article talk page posts. All of that seems to indicate that, despite what you've posted at User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2015/October#2015 Sydney Roosters season, you're trying to exert some kind of ownership over the page so that it stays the way you want it to be, which is something completely contrary to the spirit of collaborative editing, consensus building and dispute resolution. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply to nomination of deletion of Template:Select

You were right. Sorry for creating that template. I will use one in my own userspace. Frank (User Page) (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)