User talk:Andrew c/arhive17

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Andrew c. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Great Work

Andrew, I keep coming across your edits everywhere I go. I really appreciate the good work you have done, as well as the fair and balanced attitude you bring to disputes. Best wishes from Port Grace to the Commonwealth of Virginia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Well stated, Ret.Prof. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much, the both of yous. Though I must admit I feel like I haven't had the time to give ample attention to Wikipedia over the past few weeks (or has it been months). Ret.Prof, I appreciate you taking the time to improve the NT book articles, and adding sources, and even the minor formatting stuff. I'm glad someone has a fresh set of eyes, and the time (and will) to contribute! -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

EU flag

I've replied to your comment at Wikipedia talk:Non-free_content. Specifically regarding the flag of the European Union, the copyright license accompanying the European Union flag is unfree (it can be seen on the images page).

I cannot find a copyright license for the flags of South Africa, Fiji and Canada but they were all created within the current copyright period. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A possible subst?

When you made this edit, did you subst {{Non-free reduce}}? If so, fyi, that template is not normally substed.--Rockfang (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I did. It was a year ago, ha. I think since speedy tags are subst, I may have been in the habit of just adding that. Simple mistake. Thanks for reminding me of the basics. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Catholic social teaching

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Catholic social teaching/GA1. I have placed the article on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Roman Warm Period

Excuse me, sir, may I ask why you deleted the page 'Roman Warm Period'. Farawaychris (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, I speedy deleted Roman Warm Period based on G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. G7 refers to the speedy deletion criteria, WP:G7, "author requested deletion". In this case, on 11 December 2008, a user created the page as simply a redirect to Roman Age Optimum. It had no other content besides the redirect. Then, 7 minutes later, the same user tagged the article, requesting deletion based on G7, so as an admin going through the category for speedy deletion, I handled this request (and obviously accepted it and complied with the editor's wish). This is entirely non-controversial. You are welcome to start the article yourself, or restore the redirect, if you feel it is appropriate and within our inclusion guidelines. If you have any more questions about this, I'd be glad to help out. Hope this helps. -Andrew c ^[talk] 05:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I should also note that Roman Age Optimum was never an article, so the redirect was to a bad page in the first place, so it also was a WP:R1 situation, as we don't allow redirects to non-existent pages (and they clearly serve no purpose). -Andrew c ^[talk] 05:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Abortion redirect stuff

Would you please read the comment I added at Talk:Pro-abortion violence? Thanks in advance. 84.194.228.192 (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Andrew c. You have new messages at Koman90's talk page.
Message added 16:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Koman90 (talk), A+ (Verify) 16:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Pidilite Logo needed

Based on your discussion at WP:GL/I, I am requesting you to extract the SVG logo from the PDF source here, for the article Pidilite. Thanks. --JovianEye (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, see File:Pidilite logo.svg. Also, I reverted to an earlier version, as it seems there was a large amount of copyvio material added in the past few weeks (and it was written in an unencyclopedic, marketing fluff manner). Hope this helps! -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Cheers --JovianEye (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your warning

I would really hope that before you warn you check to see what the real situation is. This article has been up for 8 AfD's so it is a very controversial article. It is my intention to improve it rather than to try to bring it up for a 9th AfD. I did put up notice of my changes on the talk page and asked people to please bring their issues there rather than simple wholesale reverts. I did not revert but improved, added references, checked sources that were not properly reflected in the article and also provided the point of view of the "opponents" (as it was termed before) of this analogy. There were good reasons for every change I made, and I began with putting my changes on the talk page. I certainly hope that you also warned the others who are doing the wholesale reverting without comment on the talk page. Thank you! Stellarkid (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I see I am the only one that you warned. Perhaps you did not notice this by user:Tarc or this by user:RolandR? I reverted one time in order to try to get those editors to comment on specific edits on the talk page, rather than simply reverting. Considering this I think it quite unbalanced that I should be the only one you chose to warn. Stellarkid (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Making 1 revert of disputed new content is normal (per WP:BRD). Both of the users you mentioned made one revert each. If they continue to revert, then they very well may end up being warned as well. But it is you who not only once, but twice restored this disputed new content, simply ignoring WP:BRD. It doesn't matter if you feel you are right, or improving the article. I don't care about the merits of your edits if there is an honest dispute. The controversial new content should stay out until all parties have reached an agreement or compromise on the talk page. That is how things stay civil and edit wars are averted. Keep in mind, partial reverts still count again WP:3RR, so restoring your content, but adding a source, still is considered a revert and counts against you. The point is, users don't agree with your edits, so the thing to do is NEVER, EVER restore the controversial new content, but instead try to change hearts and minds on the talk page (and thus, reaching a new consensus to include your proposals). I hope this explains why you feel like you were singled out, and why your attempts to 'justify' or 'rationalize' your edit warring will be in vain. Again, please work out your differences on talk. Thanks, and good luck. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Based on your interpretation above, would you please consider warning user:RomaC based on the following 2 diffs in the Gaza War article? [1] [2]? Thank you, Stellarkid (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not been active the past couple days. I am not currently watching that article. If you feel someone has violated 3RR, you can report them at WP:EWN, or warn them yourself in accordance with {{uw-3rr}}. Good luck.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi there,

I have responded to your post on my two requests in the Photography workshop and I was wondering if you could go back and complete the two request. I know your are busy but my requests have been posted for over a week with no one showing any interest except you, so I was hoping you could complete them for me.

Thanks -Qaqwewew (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but I'm not going to touch the low resolution image. I believe I reserve the right to refuse work which I think is pointless or detrimental to the image quality ;) I'll see if I can't work on the other one later. Oh, and by the way, I've asked a flickr user if they wouldn't mind donating one of their images so we can replace the low resolution one. If that doesn't work, there are more flickr users we can ask, so hopefully, eventually, we'll find someone willing to donate an image, and we won't have to deal with that dreadfully low resolution image. You may get better luck asking one of the users who worked on your requests that you posted to the illustration workshop.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you addressed that photo but I was wondering if you could help with my other request, the photo of Tim Hudak? It is a high quality photo I just need cropped a little.

Thanks -Qaqwewew (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

International Men's Day repetitive deletion

Asking your assistance. This IP 87.248.173.128 (who may be this editor User Spitfire), is creator of this IMD logo which he recently uploaded to the commons on March 5th 2010. I understand he is Adam Alexandru the owner of the Moldova IMD website where his logo, named "The Adam Badge" is hosted.

There was already an IMD symbol uploaded on February 27th 2010 by me which I placed in the International Men's Day entry on February 27, and which an unknown Russian editor also placed in the Russian IMD entry on March 1st

The above editor has deleted this image and replaced it with his "Adam Badge" 7 times:

March 5th

March 10th

March 11

Can something be done to stop this editor deleting the prior image, it is becoming tiresome. Positive male role models (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. I believe you may have been dealing with the same editor of the Moldova IMD website in the following reverts: Adam Adam you Adam you Adam you Adam you Adam you Adam you Adam you Adam you Adam Adam you Adam you Adam you Adam you Adam you Positive male role models (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please consider WP:DR. You need to work out your differences. The most obvious solution/compromise would be to include both images, but it may be more complicated than that. Try to keep dialoguing with the other party to reach a consensus. Request for outside input if necessary, and if disruptive editing continues, you can always request page protection or report 3RR violations. It appears some editors may be attempting to circumvent 3RR by editing while not logged in, and this is not a good idea (and will get them blocked). Hope this helps. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I will not delete the "The Adam Badge" if you feel it should be included, Andrew. You are an Admin and you will be responsible for that recommendation. In fact I have NEVER deleted it, but only reverted to the earlier symbol I had placed in the entry and which was deleted without any good reason by the owner of the Adam Badge. So what I request is that the earlier symbol be reinstated, alongside the Adam Badge if you desire (your suggestion), as there is no reason for the earlier image to be deleted (this has been my primary concern all along). Do I have permission to re-post the [3] symbol? Positive male role models (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to make it clear, first of all, that as an admin, I have no more control over content than you, and since I have edited the IMD article in the past, it would be a conflict of interest for me to block you or the other party (but I can clearly report y'all to an uninvolved admin). My primary concern was to stop the edit warring. I have not stated my preference for the images, and really I don't care that much, and would much prefer you two to work together on something to reach an agreement (or seek outside input via WP:DR). I disagree with your assertion. It appears the anonymous editor does not want your preferred image on that page, or else they wouldn't have been replacing it with their preferred image. You want one image, the anonymous editor wants another image, and you have both removed (reverted) the other image in favor of your preferred image. This is why I said there is no more consensus for your image than the "Adam Badge". Just because yours was posted first doesn't mean another editor appears to not want it on the page (and thus it lacks consensus for inclusion as is). Finally, you don't need my permission to re-post an image. It would be advisable to make sure everyone is on board on the talk page before doing so, but again, I have no more control over article content than you, and you are welcome to edit as you please (keeping in mind disruptive editing and edit warring could get you banned). If you want my advise, don't re-instate any image until there is agreement on the talk page to do so.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have followed your recommendation "to include both images", and for the sake of peace will ignore any/all other rational reasoning I submitted above. Thanks for your sage direction Andrew. Positive male role models (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

File:GeneSummersSchoolRockRoll.jpg recently readded to Gene Summers

Andrew, after your fair use review of this image on the article above you told me to notify you if the image was readded o the article. Unfortunately, User:76.183.77.196, recently reverted your edit with the following edit summary, "Undid revision 347019112 This photo has been approved by Wikipedia since it was first posted a couple of years ago. STOP REMOVING IT!" So at least they finally had an edit summary instead of just reverting an edit, but the editor seems to use numerous IPs such as User:76.184.135.131 and User:76.184.148.139. Aspects (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Help Desk Barnstar
		For your great advice on creating a SVG image, thanks again! Tsange ^►talk 17:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Article issues

Hi Andrew, you have moved/ removed my article and you refer to some issues. Trust me I do not understand what those issues are. Please enlighten me on this and whatever you suggest I shall follow in letter and spirit. Many thanks (Jammu And Kashmir Issue) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC).

Catholic Church RfC

Input is welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Dermnet

Thank you for cleaning all that up!! ---kilbad (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Countenance divine

I have opened an AfD for Countenance divine at WP:Articles for deletion/Countenance divine if you are interested. Tb (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of vegans

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of vegans. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegans. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Image name changed

An image I uploaded to wikipedia was given another name when transferred to Wikimedia Commons. (Image:1614BiblePrayer.jpg became File:Lord's Prayer-1614LowGermanBible.jpg). I am not happy with this name for it is not in harmony with the names of the other two 1614 Low German Bible images I have uploaded also. About six weeks ago I asked for a name change by an administrator using the rename media template, but the name remains unchanged. As an administrator in early Christianity and biblical studies, can you help me? I wish to keep my original name of 1614BiblePrayer.jpg or 1614BibleLord'sPrayer.jpg. Thank you. Bhschwarting —Preceding undated comment added 05:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC).

Why does the name change not make you happy? I can understand the consistency thing, but that's about it. I believe the new name is more descriptive. Would you instead consider renaming the other two images to be more descriptive as well, and be in line with the Lord's Prayer image? File:1614 Bible.jpg -> something like File:Title page-1614 Low German Bible.jpg, and File:1614BibleBookJohn.jpg to something like File:John 22-1614 Low German Bible.jpg? Your original names are less descriptive, more ambiguous.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I dislike the use of the dash. I very much wish to keep the original names as I have made them. I very much would like to keep 1614BiblePrayer.jpg, but if that is not acceptable, I will perhaps accept 1614BibleLord'sPrayer.jpg. Thank you kindly. Bhschwarting April 18 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC).

The image is hosted on the Commons, so we shouldn't really be discussing image changes here on en.wiki. I personally disagree with your suggested rename, so I'm going to recuse myself from taking any admin actions (such as moving). Sorry. If the image is already tagged on the Commons, I guess you can just wait it out, or bring it up at the AN that there is a file renaming backlog or something like that. Good luck. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

For a great many years there has been an almost-loophole at this policy "cite facts, including facts about opinions, but not opinions themselves." I have always interpreted this to mean that a verifiable account of someone's view is encyclopedic. However, some people read this to mean that Wikipedia should emphasize facts, not opinions. And opinions = views. I think this line of thinking leads to a contradiction in the policy (that we must include all significant views from reliable sources) and undermines the dictum, "verifiability, not truth."

The problem is, there is a user, user:Zaereth who states excplicitly on his user page that he is opposed to our NPOV policy and wishes to change it. And he has been trying to edit the "loophole" I mention above to mean that we should strive to present the truth. He has teamed up with user:QuackGuru who is claiming that there is another policy called "state facts accurately" which he believes means that certain claims do not have to be attributable to any source (since they are "facts" - i.e. a total subversion of "verifiability, not truth."

Currently, the discussion is happening on the bottommost sections of the talk page (there was a convenience break). I think the discussion really could benefit from the input of experienced editors with real institutional memory and I am asking that you consider participating in this discussion until this issue at NPOV is satisfactorally resolved. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That sure is a lot to read. Egads. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I realize a LOT of talk has piled up over the past two days. Frankly most of it is repetitive and does not bear close reading.

Slim Virgin did a major edit today - supported by several other editors. Would you mind just keeping an eye on it? If Zaereth or QuakGuru start reverting the edits or pushing their POV again, it would be good to have another experienced editor who understands policy to get involved. Given how important NPOV is. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll watch it at least, and see what I can do... but no promises ;) -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 10:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have time can you comment on the renewed ASF discussion here; Kotniski brings it up (his wish for a "pithy statement"). The pithy statement he prefers is "State facts, including facts about opinions" which I have a lot of trouble with, and I just made a proposal and went ahead and added it to the article; it is a very different formulation but I think more direct and clear (if I understand his real point, and that of other editors). Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein alleged ... "He has teamed up with user:QuackGuru who is claiming that there is another policy called "state facts accurately" ...

I never claimed there is another policy called "state facts accurately". I never teamed up with user:Zaereth. Slrubenstein, please strike your comments.

... QuackGuru has been removing sources and citing "assert facts" as his justification... Slrubenstein | Talk 10:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not true at all. Slrubenstein, why are you spreading misinformatiuon about me. Slrubenstein, please strike all your false statements against me. QuackGuru (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Wiki Azerbaijan Heater.jpg

Hi Andrew,

I have been granted permission by the owner to use the abovementioned image on Boustead Singapore Limited, please refer to Ticket#2010042010010782 and do not tag the image for deletion, thank you very much!

Athenak (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That e-mail does not give sufficient permission. I should know because I am the agent that handled that ticket. You need to get the copyright holder to make a clear statement of consent regarding free licensing. You didn't explain enough in your e-mail. Here are some e-mail templates that might help you Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. It's important that they state what license they are agreeing to release the work, and that they understand that third parties may modify, reuse, and possible profit from their work. If you send in a clear statement of consent, then we can keep these images. As they stand, they are lacking proper copyright tags, and are tagged with fair use rationales (where all of these images would fail WP:NFC). Please see WP:IUP for more information on how to format content on image description pages to avoid deletion (but keep in mind, if we don't have proper permission to use these images, and they aren't eligible for fair use, then they will be deleted.) Hope this helps. If you have specific questions, I'd be glad to help you further, or you can refer to the media copyright question desk or the general help desk. WP:MCQ and WP:HD. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for help with album cover image on Brooke White

Andrew c, you have helped me in the past with an album cover issue on Gene Summers, and I am now asking for your opinion/help with a similar issue on Brooke White. User:24.19.180.90 keeps adding an album cover to the infobox despite there being three free images already in the article including the former one used in the infobox. I have explained how album covers should not be used in the infobox of living people in edit summaries, on the article talk page and on the user's talk page. The only response I have ever gotten is one edit summary of "why not?" I would greatly appreciate any help you can give me with the situation. Aspects (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocking

I see you blocked User:Boomba Goomba as a vandalism-only account, but the block was hours after the vandalism had stopped. I had the user's talk page watch-listed since I had issued two warnings already. That looks punitive to me, rather than preventive...can you explain your reasoning? Frank | talk 12:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Serious BLP infractions, the use of racial slurs, and possible death threats put this user over the line for me. This wasn't a matter of simple vandalism, IMO. I'm sorry you don't agree. I'd be glad to take this to ANI for more opinions and review, and consider an unblock, if you really want... but look at the 4 edits, and keep in mind vandalism only accounts, in some circumstances, may be blocked without warning. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I "don't agree", and I definitely don't think ANI is necessary. Not even sure an unblock is warranted. I was really just asking. My own approach has been to watch and wait. I am convinced that such situations aren't necessarily solved by immediate block; the person behind the account may well show up elsewhere. If we watch the account, sometimes people will just go away quietly. If we block quickly, they may be upset and do more damage than if they were warned multiple times and then "got it". Thanks for your response; no action is requested. Frank | talk 15:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for communicating your position and concerns with me. I agree when it comes to average/childish vandalism. Just thought the nature of this vandalism required stronger/immediate action. Thanks again.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons Duplicates

My understanding was that the 'categorisation' should be done at Commons, not on enwiki.

Can you raise this in the appropriate place so there can be a definitive answer?

No more images will be tagged whilst such a disscussion is pending. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Help required

Hello, I have two issues which I require intervention from you.

User User:Ліонкінг in following link, asks for help from other administrator User:AGKto get support so he can falsely misinform other readers in Wiki. This user is already warned by admin, but still does his dirty tricks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AGK

2nd issue, is another pro-armenian user User:Aregakn, who acts neutral but slowly implements armenian propaganda in Azerbaijan related articles, he warned me by saying I cause racism, despite I was just saying my opinion without any insult and also he don't have any admin rights.

Here is link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NovaSkola

Could you please take action? Big thanks --NovaSkola (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure User:AGK is smart enough not to fall for 'dirty tricks', if in fact this is what happening. As for User:Aregakn, based on you dropping a "pro-armenian" accusation here on my talk page, I can agree generally with the sentiment in the message they left for you. I have no idea why Aregakn left you that message, but do you really want me looking into it? For future reference, sound like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts maybe be of use to you. I'm not exactly sure what you wanted to accomplish by contacting me, but at this venture, based on your words to me and half a minute of research, I'm not going to take any actions. I wish you luck. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How small is small?

I saw your note on Shimer College Logo.PNG. I'm happy to change it. But what is the appropriate size? I went off the logo size on current university FAs, which are unfortunately all over the place -- some are 500 pixels and larger. What is the rule of thumb for these things? Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The old guideline is <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content&oldid=279858640#Images>, but that was removed as being problematic for some reason. Using other images as examples isn't necessarily helpful because a) they may also be too large and b) there may be different amounts of detail and content in the image itself which may require a higher resolution. Basically, we want to not reduce it so much that key information is lost, but have it just big enough to convey the logo. For this logo, anything over 300px width is too much, and even 300 may be a bit much. If you have photo editing software, play around with different sizes, and see what looks decent, yet not too big. I guess it is a bit subjective, but I'm sure you can make it work.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad it was not just me.:-) Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Non-free reduce

Howdy. In my experience, {{Non-free reduce}} typically isn't substituted which I assume is what happened here.--Rockfang (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Got to remember NFR=no subst, NRD=subst. Hard to keep track of it all when I don't use it every day. Sorry. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess reminding me of the basics back in February did nothing for me. Deja vu. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:D-Link.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:D-Link.svg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandal had orphaned the image... Fixed. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Duane Pederson and Duane C. Pederson

Instead of creating a new page for Duane Pederson I created a new one for Duane C. Pederson. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Xenia Tchoumitcheva uncorrected biography

The biography isn't correct. She's born in the 1987, as you can see in this page http://www.areaticino.com/xenia_tchoumitcheva.asp and when she has arrived second at the miss Switzerland 2006 contest she was 19 years old, as you can see in this article: http://www.swissinfo.ch/ita/Miss_Svizzera,_anatomia_di_un_successo.html?cid=5436642. I tried to fix it twice, but now the page is protected.

That's an encyclopedia, so why do uncorrected pages are protected? It isn't a promotional pourpouse.

She's not even that tall, about 5'5' ', but it's ok. Every celebrity changes her height and weight (not so much, indeed).

Anyway there are many newspapers articles about her real age, I'll give you more, if you want.Germanotta87 (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

For simple facts like this, it is best to source them to official sources. Her official modeling agency profile, official facebook page, etc all give the updated statistics, in addition to being confirmed by the subject of the article and/or authorized party via e-mail. When there is a discrepancy in sources, we should normally go by what is official, as an obscure newspaper article from 2006 could have got it wrong or made a typo. Sure, there is a chance the subject could by lying as well, but it isn't our jobs to be detectives like that. Unless a third party has reported on the discrepancy, it isn't our place to question the official sources. Please do not continue adding out-dated or incorrect information to articles about living people. Changing such facts and statistics could do real harm to the individual's career. Thanks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Gilbert Mackereth

Andrew, there was already some discussion about the correct orthography for his surname on the talkpage. Is it possible to give some details of the OTRS ticket there - it was noted that his gravestone, which was presumably approved by his wife does have the uppercase K. Thanks. David Underdown (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

pro-life topic

I've proven that my material isn't copyrighted and yet you state it is. Can you prove this? On the site that I quote, there is no statement of copyright whatsoever. Therefore, it is not copyrighted. If you can prove otherwise, please do. To remove the topic is showing a bias on your part. I've read your comments about the topic of violence against abortion doctors and I see your slant is on the abortion side. Therefore, I ask that you let this alone and let someone who has no bias analyse my material. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.152.52 (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Coming here and accusing me of bias isn't winning you points. Please don't discuss editors, but instead focus on content. Personal attacks won't be tolerated. That said, I missed where you have "proven that my material isn't copyrighted". The lifenews.com is clearly copyrighted. Just look at the bottom of the page. Copyright © 2003-2010 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. So why on earth do you keep adding that content over and over? As for the HLI site, I'll agree with you that there is no copyright notice. However, under US law, that is no longer necessary. All works are automatically copyrighted on publishing. You need to explicitly release something under a free license or into the public domain. Lack of copyright notice does not mean free. Wikipedia:Public_domain#Published_works : Under the Berne Convention, copyright is automatic: no registration is needed, and it is not even necessary to display a copyright notice with the work for it to be copyright protected -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Accusing me of stealing certainly isn't winning you any points either. So, what would suffice? A few lines? How does one get this section to balance the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.152.52 (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What would you call copying copyrighted text without permission? I'm sure there is a euphemism for it, but "stealing" seems most apt, even if it was done an accident or out of ignorance. But I don't mean to offend you, so please understand I wasn't trying to personally attack you or anything. As to the second part, just write an encyclopedic summary of sources. Look what the other section of the article is like, how it is summarizing sources, and try to do the same. It's like writing a research paper. Use your own words, cite your sources, etc. Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual and WP:T are good places to start. Even Wikipedia:Your_first_article could help. I wish you luck. I'd be glad to assist you further if you have question. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Contex-t.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Contex-t.png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Andrew c. You have new messages at Floquenbeam's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OTRS help

pls. provide assistance in this otrs/permission issue, i am out of my element, pls. guide user Romualdas Arm to the conclusion of the otrs process.details are on my talk page.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears other users have jumped in to help. Is there still anything I can do, or has it been handled? -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Jesus

A possible birth in 3 or 2 BC is mentionned in the first note of the article. It corresponds to the elements given in this book pp.120-127 about church fathers counting backward. My personal impression is that informations in the Gospels about the public life of Jesus may be closer to the core of the Christian doctrine than those about his birth, and may be more factual. Ec.Domnowall (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Article content discussions should take place on article's talk pages, so that everyone watching the article may participate. Just remember to add sources to all new content in order to let our readers verify that text. I'd be glad to discuss this further, on that article's talk page. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the issue had already been debated in the talk page, as early as February / March 2006, by contributors like Haldrik. Anything i could add would be déjà-vu. Let's forget it. Kenavo. Ec.Domnowall (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... with how extensive the archives are there, I'm surprised you found that! I had no intention, what so ever, to quell debate. I just personally try to keep all content discussions which are pertinent to a specific article on the corresponding talk page. If you want to drop it, that's fine, but I more than welcome you to bring any concerns you may have to Talk:Jesus, and I'll gladly discuss any edit or revert I may have made to Jesus in more detail at that talk page as well. Good luck! -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for advice

Would you please advise me on how to resolve a disagreement with LoveMonkey about a statement that he believes is based on a citation that in my view does not justify the statement? I hope that the following links are enough for understanding what the disagreement is about: Citation needed, my latest edit of the article, LoveMonkey's latest edit of the article. Esoglou (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hdfcbank logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hdfcbank logo.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright inquiry

Hi, I realize you are probably quite a busy editor, but I noticed you have been a somewhat regular editor on the copyright board. I was hoping you could reply to this inquiry at your earliest convenience. Thanks, --Nosfartu (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyrighted images

Hello. This is with regard to [4]. The fact of the matter is that, for a long time, my (now ex-)girlfriend had used my account to edit articles and upload images from our shared computer. I have never explicitly posted these images anywhere or authorized them to be posted. Nobody is changing his mind. I just don't want these cropped, modified images to be posted under my name with incorrect copyright and attribution information. For instance, why is my website referenced? Please work with me on this. Contact me at neo@mig81.com 204.50.113.43 (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

G6 Images

' Local description page for commons Image' Using G6 in preference to F2 (whose wording doesn't cover the situation despite what many claim.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Where are you getting this? All I see at WP:CSD is If there is any information not relevant to any other project on the image description page (like {{FeaturedPicture}}), the image description page must be undeleted after the file deletion. There is a category for abortion images on the English Wikipedia. I'd suggest you nominate it for deletion (or propose renaming it to non-free abortion images), so that this category would rightfully be removed from the page, thus leaving the page empty. If you go the category route, and it is a success, I'll personally delete the empty pages for you. But I don't believe G6 applies to these situations. I could be wrong, of course! So I'm curious what you are quoting ' Local description page for commons Image'. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My Name is Tanino article

There are several websites that point out McAdams was nude in this film. Some even provide pics based on screep captures to prove it, including the one you deleted. What would be a reliable source for Wikipedia? Lechonero (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear. I'm not disputing the veracity of your claims. I'm disputing the relevancy and notability. This is an encyclopedia. Just because something is true, doesn't mean we should mention it, unless it can be established, through notable, reliable sources, that the information is important and relevant to the topic. Think of say adding to an action film/actor's page "This is the first movie where X portrayed a character that commits murder". Might be true. Might even be some fan-based, self-published website that documents such occurrences, but if newspaper articles, review articles, biographies, and so on, don't make note of the fact, we have no reason to point it out here, even if it's true. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Bob McDonnell

Thank you for your edit today on the Bob McDonnell article. It is amazing to see how three people, one of whom is an SPA, are trying to put a political spin on every sentence in the article. We need a lot more editor involvement, and I certainly never intended to make the article a major focus of my Wikipedia efforts. But there seems to be a recent trend for an advocacy group to try to "take over" certain political articles. I can understand how people can get a bit opinionated about Scientology, or the Arab-Isreali conflict, but this? Is there any way to investigate 173.53.60.89, who has made distorting this article a major effort since Feb. 23, 2010? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Shivneri Bus Service by MSRTC.jpg

Hi Andrew,

Just wanted to know why this File:Shivneri Bus Service by MSRTC.jpg file has been remove? Also want to know that if somebody says that the particular image belongs to him, then what kind of reference/source he should have to claim? KuwarOnline ^Talk 15:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You can see from the deletion log, I wrote Copyright violation: http://irj.fotopic.net/p38341848.html and OTRS 2010061010036752. We received a request from the owner of the website. The image was posted on the website before it was posted to Wikipedia. I deleted the image as a copyvio. The user who uploaded it might have uploaded other copyvios as well, so more a few more images of the sort could be deleted shortly. Hope this answers your concerns. Do you have any additional information to offer for this case? Something I may be missing?-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I do not have much info but I came to know as I m watching Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation where the image was linked. KuwarOnline ^Talk 19:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Abortion

You were former involved in a discussion in Talk:Abortion#More reliable references so, if you're still interested about the outcome of that discussion, I ask you to express your opinion in Talk:Abortion#Assessing the current agreement status--Nutriveg (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

re Information update request from OTRS regarding Dundas

emails are not good reliable references. the information given as ref on the page comes from The Highlander, the Magazine of Scottish heritage; April 2009; 2009 Directory; Published by Angus J. Ray Associates, Inc.; ISSN 0161-5378, USPS 579200; this is a reliable good reference and I have checked and can confirm the information as given. This information from the magazine would certainly have been taken from the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs (of which I am a member). Tell your corespondent to ask The Dundas to contact the Standing Council at: The Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs, Hope Chambers, 52 Leith Walk. Edinburgh, EH6 5HW, Scotland. From there the mater can be corrected officially and the information will be sent to all specialist clan magazines. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Minuscule 742

Yes, because other ancient works also have manuscripts, and they are also numbered. Perhaps someone will create articles for the manuscripts of Septuaginta, for instance [Minuscule 898 (Rahlfs)], [Minuscule 2013 (Rahlfs)], or manuscripts of Vulgate. It would be problem in the future. The same problem we have with papyri (e.g. papyri of LXX). What do you think about it? I hope that edit war in Papyrus 1 is over. Someone thinks that 17-20 differences is to much for close agreement. In genealogies number of differences is always very high (spelling of Jewish names). If we will compare Papyrus 1 with other manuscripts number of differences will be 50, 70, and more. Unfortunately on en-wiki we have many problems with supporters of Textus Receptus (only on en-wiki). On pl-wiki we have many problems with Jehova witnesses (only on pl-wiki). They regularly vandalise wikipedia articles (Cross, Trinity, divinity of Christ, etc.). It is wasting of time.

Actually I am about to finish my book "Introduction to the New Testament", but not in this year. There are many things that can be improved and my Polish grammar is not to good (it is not my language). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Supply Better Photo for p1

Andrew, do you object to putting a better photo of p1 on its article page to replace the one supplied (which has the top cut off)? Here is the reference University of Pennsylvania, "Library Images,"

http://images.library.upenn.edu/mrsidsceti/bin/image_jpeg2.pl?coll=manuscripts;subcoll=e2746;image=e2746_wk1_body0001.sid;level=1;degree=0

The same thing is at the below addy, but seems not quite as high a quality as the U of Pa above.

Universität Munster Institüt,

http://intf.uni-muenster.de/vmr/NTVMR/viewer/viewerCodex01.php

I inserted what I thought was proper documentation for the comment that the top of the mss was missing on the article page. Someone reverted it. What is wrong with my documentation? The reverter acted imperious and made no comment on the talk page to explain his revert. Thanks(EnochBethany (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC))

I don't object generally with an image replacement. Though, I'd say we could not do a one for one replacement, because the UPenn image contains copyrighted material of Kodak. We'd need to crop most of the scales out of the photo (I think the ruler may be OK). However, a larger image may not look as good in thumbnail, and there may be some reasons to support keeping a more tightly cropped version, even if it does cut off the ragged edges.

As for your comment, I removed it as I felt it wasn't encyclopedic. I explained further on the article talk page. I think it is also original research to look at a photo and them publish your impressions of what you are looking at (a ripped, worn, or ragged edge... which one is it? If you cannot tell from looking, then you shouldn't be speculating, and we should leave that up to the experts). Anyway, perhaps we should discuss image replacement on the article talk page to see if there is any objection.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:Bible verses

Thanks for letting me know about that discussion. I do very much appreciate the courtesy. I disagree with your summary of the situation though. The community never agreed that they "were not appropriate content for our project." A long series of AfDs ended in keep votes. The debate was over organization. After five years, I think it is evident that proposed alternative have been a failure. The content of a page like Genealogy of Jesus is great, but it is also entirely different from what was in the verse by verse articles. It's similar to how and article on the Noble gases might have some overlap, but still be a very different page from that on xenon. - SimonP (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I opened a hornets nest, but things have calmed down. I don't have much time on weekends to edit, so I'm sorry if it looks like I started something that I couldn't finish. I just wanted additional input, and it looks like some went a bit far? Anyway, I'll have time to contribute and comment more in a few days. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:RoyBoy/Sandbox#In_art.2C_literature.2C_and_film

If you are able can you please review my draft of a new abortion section; please add your notes in the section below. Thanks! - Roy Boy 02:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)