User talk:Marchjuly

Templates and emeralds

I used the non-optimal template because it was the one I remembered offhand, is all. There's far too many procedural details on Wikipedia for any one person to remember all of them. Thanks for pointing out my error; I've corrected it. DS (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi DS. Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't try to point out that you made an error; in fact, I wasn't sure either way. I was mainly just asking out of curiosity since watching what others do is one of the ways I learn how things work on Wikipedia. Anyway, no offense was intended and sorry if my post came of as such. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice

Hello its 82.19.95.171 here. Im very angry with you for removing the bbc three logo. You have no right to remove logos. If you carry on doing it. I will report you. Do i make my self clear. template please. SignedUser:82.19.95.171 (talk) 13:03,28 March 2016 (UTC)

Like textual content, any editor may remove any image added to an article if they feel the image's usage does not comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There are two types of image files on Wikipedia: Those that are freely licensed and those that are considered to be non-free content. There is no automatic entitlement to use any non-free image anywhere on Wikipedia; each usage must satisfy all 10 of the non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. File:BBC Three logo.svg has a non-free use rationale, but only for BBC Three (Internet television). Since the file does not have a rationale for BBC Three (former), I removed it from the article per WP:NFCCE (WP:NFCC#10c) as explained in my edit sum. When you re-added the image without adding the relevant non-free use rationale, I removed it a second time on the belief that it's usage still did not comply with WP:NFCC (once again as explained in my edit sum. I did not notice, however, that the file has been licensed as {{PD-USonly}} (a free license) until after I removed the image again, but self-reverted once I did. The {{uw-nonfree}} I added to your user talk page was also done before I noticed my error. I would've self reverted that as well, but you removed it first. Anyway, I apologize for the warning. Even though my mistake was made in good faith, it was still a mistake nonetheless.

There is a conflict between the non-free use rationale template which says the file is not freely license and the "PD-USonly" template that says it is freely licensed. This is a bit confusing and contradictory, and probably something that needs to be resolved. I will ask for calrification/verification at WP:PUF.

I moved your post to the bottom of my user talk page where it belongs and to fix the accidental damage you did to another editor's post. For future reference, new posts are supposed to be added to the bottom of talk pages ( the only exception I know of is the Wikipedia:Teahouse). This slightly differs from other online fourms/website, but it is Wikipedia's way of doing things. You can always just click the "New section" tab at the top of the page whenever you want to add a new post and the software will make sure your post is added properly.

Finally, Wikipedia is intended to be more of a collaborative project than an adversarial one. Mistakes are made all the time by editors, and the majority are just good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Edit sums are one of the ways editors use to communicate with each other, so it helps to specify the specific reasons why an edit is being made (either by citing a policy/guideline or providing a link), especially when reverting another editor. This makes it easier for the reverted editor to understand why the revert was made and avoids future confusion. Accusatory and threatening, etc. edit sums are almost always counter-productive and can always be re-written in a more neutral tone which makes them easier to understand and reduces the potential for problems arising between editors or people misconstruing things. Just some friendly words of advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Luxury cars.

	A Lincoln for you!
	You contribute like a boss. FixCop (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Random question, but...

Would you be okay/respond if I send you an email? I know that it's a bit of for me to ask, especially since you obviously have email enabled, but I ask since some editors may not access their Wikipedia-tied email often. Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Steel1943. You can email me if you like. I can't promise I'll respond right away, but I will get a notification when it arrives. If it's something time sensitive or strictly Wikipedia related, then I would prefer it be posted here, but I'll leave that up to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

A little help for you.

If you want the information added to the article, then as You said above you can be bold and do it yourself or you can propose that it be added on the article's talk page. If you've already tried to add the information and it was removed by another editor, then you should follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and discuss the changes on the article's talk page. As I said above, you need to have a published reliable source. A photo of an email between you and someone at the Bhutan soccer federation is not considered a reliable source. In addition, Wkipedia editors are all volunteers and I'm pretty sure that nobody is going to call the Bhutan federation to verify this information and even if they did it still would not be acceptable as a reliable source. I know nothing about Bhutan women's soccer and very little about soccer in general, but perhaps somebody at WT:FOOTY can answer your questions or tell you where to look to find the sources you need. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Me, i do not mind adding to the article this information coming straight from their federation.
• I have not posted the information on the wikipedia article, I expected an opinion from you.
• Me, it's been several years that I am their evolution from the famous other final, the match had pitted two teams of fifa ranking.
• I know their championship, btw than women for the first time will take place in 2016.
• The federation for the information, it may go to the pellet is requested, their federation is the most reliable source.
• Otherwise how you want Wikipedia to become a complete encyclopedia.
• Google may be the information somewhere in a painting of the net after the found, it'll be a miracle.
• A large majority of Wikipedia sources come from national or continental or fifa federations.