User talk:Knightoften/Archive 1

Archive 1

All Pages:

1 -  ... (up to 100)

Teahouse

Hi! Just wanted to let you know that I responded to your post on the Teahouse!

EGL¹²³⁴ 04:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Pyotr Glebov.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Pyotr Glebov.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I have added the template and reasoning for disputing fair use; please let me know if I put it in the correct place. Please also let me know if I still haven't met your own listing of criteria I missed, I think I have but I'm not sure. Please also let me know if merely adding critical commentary about the actor's appearance in the film would merit non-free use, as well, as I could merely do that and it might save time (under "no existing equivalence"). For instance, I have now added "The role as Grigori Melekhov was Glebov's breakthrough role and through which he was measured in all subsequent appearances. His hair and cap were an identifiable icon in Soviet cinema" to the caption, instead of merely "Glebov as protagonist." Let me know. Cheers! Knightoften (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The template you added seems to have been added properly. An administrator will review the reasons why the file was nominated for deletion and your response explaining why it shouldn't be deleted. The adminstrator will assess the file's non-free use and determine whether it violates relevant policy or whether further discussion is needed. If the administrator feels the file doesn't comply with relevant policy, they will delete the file; if they feel further discussion is needed, they will either start a discussion about the file at WP:FFD themselves or suggest that someone else do so. If the file is deleted and you disagree with administrator's assessment, you can ask the administrator for clarification by posting on their user talk page; if the file is sent to FFD for further discussion, you can explain while the file should be kept and others will also be able comment as well to see whether a WP:CONSENSUS can be reached either way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Sounds good. Knightoften (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Pyotr Glebov.jpeg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pyotr Glebov.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ƏXPLICIT 00:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Explicit: Sounds good, I attached the license explanation page to FDD from the talk page, which was originally below the deletion contest template. Thanks for letting me know! Knightoften (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pyotr Glebov.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pyotr Glebov.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Following citation formats

Thanks for your recent contribution to the Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts. Whenever you contribute to a page, you should follow the extant citation format to the best of your ability. If you're unsure how to do that, look carefully at the citations already on the page in the edit mode as they will guide you accordingly. Also, when you add information from books or articles, you need to cite the page number. Otherwise the reference is sort of useless. Incidentally, you also added something from what would be considered a primary source. This is something Wikipedia highly discourages, except under certain conditions. The reason for that is that such contributions are generally considered original research, something not allowed on Wikipedia. Finally, the information you contributed on the Cossacks was a bit ancillary, so I converted it into an informational note. Hopefully, my observations here don't discourage you in any way, as they are meant to be constructive.--Obenritter (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Obenritter: My mistake, I only made a cursory glance and didn't see that you were separating citations out. I like the way you incorporated what I wrote into an informational note; I don't mind really, I thought a bit of context on the Cossacks was necessary and after your edit it's still there. As for WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge...but any interpretation needs a secondary source." Which is why there were two sources. I see that you removed one of them, questioning why it was there. That was the reason. Cheers! Knightoften (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Unfortunately, your secondary source had no page number. If you have that, please add it back but follow the page's citation format. BTW -- should you ever have questions with how to use citations on Wikipedia, don't hesitate to ask. --Obenritter (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Very kind of you!! And I'll see if I can't pull it out. Knightoften (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Maltese nobility: dubious source

I've no reason to suppose you're acting in poor faith, but the Gauci source you added is deeply suspect. Gauci was the original creator of dozens of dubious articles on purported noble Maltese titles on Wikipedia, among others claiming some for himself, his parents and his family. After a fairly epic business spanning a couple years (and the use of several sockpuppets on his part), he was community banned from Wikipedia, his websites spam-blacklisted, and almost all of his article creations stricken. He has a long history of claiming to be a genealogy/heraldic expert, but as was said in a RfC fifteen years ago, we've only his word for it, and his reaction to being asked for reliable, independent sources for anything was always either "How dare you question me?" or accusations of animus towards the nation of Malta.

More recently, he's unilaterally claimed to be the "Chief Herald of Malta" [1] [2], and has been repudiated by the Committee of Privileges of The Maltese Nobility, the quasi-official body governing such things. When all is said and done, he's just not a trustworthy source. Ravenswing 03:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh :( I was unaware of that. I am but a humble researcher. I was about to dive into my university's proper reference engine; the sources I've cited were only what I could find so far in English, Spanish and Italian in search engine. I see I see. Knightoften (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• No way you could've known; the flap started in 2005, when people first started questioning the legitimacy of the articles, but really blew up in 2006, when the guy's own legitimacy became an issue. Not a problem. Really, when it comes down to it, the whole subject of "Maltese nobility" (for a small island with a modern population smaller than Nashville) doesn't come to a whole lot more than "Yeah, there were some people given nominal titles." One quote from a descendant that was cited in 2006 was along the lines of that he figured the average Maltese didn't give a moment's thought to the ex-aristocracy. Ravenswing 04:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

WP Voice

When I referred to "not in WP voice", I didn't mean it wasn't phrased encyclopedically, although it wasn't - I was saying that we can't have Wikipedia calling the sell-off a "dismemberment". Thank you for fixing that. We just need to be sure that controversial information in a WP:BLP is properly cited. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: Oh! Gotcha, yeah in hindsight that was not the best word to use, but it was the first to jump into mind! Knightoften (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)