Jump to content

User talk:Ronhjones/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 35

Gooday Ron - I hope all is well with you and 'er indoors. I've read the 'guidelines' at c:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag#United Kingdom which suggests all or most UK signatures should be deleted under Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. I have however seen 2x signatures of Englishman Stephen Fry on Commons, one of which - File:Stephen Fry signature.svg is widely reproduced on many wikis, En and European languages. I had in mind to use the sig of a deceased UK author, taken from an historic (1976) now defunct UK monthly mag, in the bio infobox. What's the situation? No big deal but would give 'added value'. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Tricky - the Stephen Fry ones were done in Holland, not the UK - he may be British, but it's the country of origin that counts (see the talk pages, Stefan has tried to delete it already!). As copyright exists from date of creation to 70 years past death, I would think you are on a sticky wicket if it was signed in the UK. Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I did notice the origin but not the talk page. #CountryTrumpsNationality 8¬) --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You flagged this file that I uploaded for deletion due to it supposedly not having a fair use rationale yet its right their on the image description page?! What sort of rationale are you looking for, please let me know as I don't understand why this image was flagged for deletion?! The GateKeeper07 (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@The GateKeeper07: There is a WP:FURG for Millennium Entertainment, but it's not used in Millennium Entertainment, it's is used in Alchemy (company). There must be a FURG for each article it is used in with the article page named. I could not swap the existing FURG ovr as it would read wrong - the description would then read This is a logo for Alchemy (company), which seems not quite right. Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Now I understand what you are referring to, sorry about that. I have amended the description line in my fair use rationale, let me know if this is sufficient for you. When I insert the name of the article the image is being used in, it also adds this into the 'description' line for some reason- is there any way to change this?! Thanks.The GateKeeper07 (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@The GateKeeper07: You cannot override that field in a Template:logo fur - it's just additional data. The only other option is to use Template:Non-free use rationale instead, and fill in all the fields manually. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Query about a block

Hi, Ron. I see that there was an edit war at Pistol, and that you have blocked one of the two editors involved, but not the other one. There may well be a very good reason for treating the two editors differently, but I can't see what that reason is. Can you clarify it? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Lukeno94 is correct - user:Materialscientist did the last revert. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, opinions on edit warring differ widely, but as far as I am concerned, I have never been impressed by the idea that whoever first goes over some magic number of reverts in a specified time-limit is blocked and the other editor isn't. Lukeno94 has been edit-warring against the IP editor since 14 January, and in that time has made at least half a dozen reverts. The fact that he has (by his own account) been careful to avoid making four reverts in any 24 hour period does not in any way detract from the fact that he was edit warring. You may have a good case for taking the view that on this occasion it was justifiable to block one editor and not the other, but to say "Lukeno94 is correct" when what Lukeno94 said was "The IP made four reverts, so broke 3RR; I did not. Surely it is as simple as that" suggests that you view the so-called "three revert rule" as the only consideration when assessing edit warring, in which case you are out of line with the edit warring policy; it quite simply isn't "as simple as that". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: I only looked there as a result of a vandalism report at WP:AIV, there were only two warnings on the talk page so it was a bit lean on warnings, however there were the four reverts, which was the only real reason I had for blocking Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

GM Futurliner.

Thank you, I do have verbal permission to use Pictures of the GM Futurliners for the Wikipedia page off of Futurliner.com as a fellow Antique Truck Historical Society member. Editor Lukeno94 will not stop reverting other editors changes, he knows nothing of the subject matter. Interesting isn't it. Thanks JBSCHEV / ok thanks Ron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbschev (talk • contribs) 01:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jbschev: You will need more than verbal permission. It will need to be in writing, and may have to be sent to WP:OTRS. It would be easier to get the copyright holder of the remote images to upload them here. Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's also worth noting that every single image was uploaded as "own work", so that claim is extremely dubious at best, particularly when the images were each from completely different locations; one of them even still had its watermark at the bottom! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@Lukeno94: Well if we get proper permission from copyright holders then every one will be happy. But no permission = no include Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 1-19-15. hello Ron I have received written permission from the webmaster for the future liner. Com website to use the pictures as needed and load them to the Wikipedia Commons.Can I add the email with his permission in at the location where I put it down as my work? @lukeno94 Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbschev (talk • contribs) 05:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Either use permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to get permission verified, and then upload, OR send photo and permission to photosubmission@wikimedia.org Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Author Peter Stanford.jpg

Dear Rohnjones This is Psychetube 11:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Psychetube, the writer of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Stanford. I uploaded a photo of the guy Peter Stanford and it was deleted for various wrong licence used reasons. PLEASE can you reset it as I have now lost it within the system and want to apply the Creative Commons licence.

The author of the photograph sent in a permission letter to the Permissions@ email address. Here I copy it for you:

I hereby affirm that I, Mykel Nicolaou, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following photographFile:Author_Peter_Stanford.jpg

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Mykel Nicolaou Copyright holder [14 January 2015]

Many thanks Rohnjones, Psychetube Psychetube 11:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

OK - please see File:Author Peter Stanford.jpg, I think that's what you want - you can tidy up the summary details if you want. The OTRS banner allows 30 days for OTRS to process the data (they can take longer, but we would check to see if an e-mail is in the queue). Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Sultan Ayoub Meo.JPG - no point in restoring en-wiki one

AdnanUsmani (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Dear Ronhjones,

Thanks for your following response: "You did not add any license data or any description of the image. Hence it gets deleted. I did find the same image of commons - you seem to have bothered to fill in all the parts this time - File:Sultan Ayoub Meo.JPG - no point in restoring en-wiki one, when there is a commons one". Please excuse me for my computer and Wikipedia authoring illiteracy. I tried to upload the picture with the article "Sultan Ayoub Meo" but the system didn't show it with the article for some unknown reason (but it showed that after few hours). Then I experimented uploading it to Wikimedia commons. I would request you delete from Wikimedia commons but let it stay with the article. Or please let me know if I can delete it from Wikimedia commons and make it appear with the article again. Thanks and kind regards

The file is still on commons and just fine - just use that one - do note you have used JPG in the filename, not jpg - one will not find the other one - click this link :- File:Sultan Ayoub Meo.JPG Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Simon Van Booy

Picture is taken from authors website with full permissions directly from author and publisher (Harper Collins).

Please email author directly for further proof but do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrenbooy (talk • contribs) 12:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Darrenbooy: Sorry, we don't do the leg work. Your picture = your responsibility. Full instructions at WP:DCM, and a useful form at WP:CONSENT. If you can get the permission sent in then let me know when you do that, and it can be undeleted while WP:OTRS processes the permission. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Appeal for page deleting

Dear Ronhjones,

I hope this email finds you well,

you have deleted a page,that I created about a figure, called "Muhammad Yassien Najjar", because of the lack of links, could you please restore the page and I will edit it using the appropriate links?

Best regards Hussam.zy1 (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hussam.zy1: I cannot restore a page that does is against the BLP policy, so it has to be restored as a draft article instead. You will find it at Draft:Muhammad Yassien Najjar Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

Request for unprotection

Hi there. In response to my request on the 17th, you semi-protected Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501. The problem was a single IP-hopping vandal. You elected to make it indefinite, and I'm thinking it's time to unprotect. It's not a particularly controversial article and there has never been a serious problem involving multiple IP users. We just needed some way of cutting off that one person. They have not edited under any of the three IPs since the protection was applied; I don't know whether that's a good sign (they have gone away) or bad (they're only interested in vandalizing this particular article). Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine, we'll give it a try. I treat "indefinite" as "time to be decided later", not "permanent". If you believe he has ceased, then it's right to try to remove the protection. Please keep an eye on the article once the protection is off - it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he might have a sleeper account just to watch the page, and as soon as I remove the protection, he might get an e-mail... Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'll watch closely, it's the only article I'm currently deeply involved in. Thanks again. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Missed a spot

Hi Ron. Sorry for meddling, but you just informed an IP that it's been blocked for 3RR violation, yet it looks like it's still unfettered. Regards, Favonian (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Favonian: ??!?? Thanks - I'm sure I went through those menus twice - sometimes I think there are gremlins at work here... Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I've checked the blocking log, at least I didn't block someone else by mistake :-) Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
You could always have removed their talk page access, so they didn't complain. ;) Meanwhile, I looked a bit into the edit history of the contested article, and there may be a case to made for the IP being a sock of Christina1969, recently blocked for edit-warring. I've added the article to my bloated watch list, just in case she resurfaces. Favonian (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@Favonian: Sadly the reporting editor at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=644284547&oldid=644284479 rather shot himself in the foot with 5 reverts in under 24 hours. The IP may be a sock, but it's still a content dispute, since the article quoted by the IP does exist and has that data. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I quite agree – 3RR being a bright line and all that. Just saying the Ms. Christina may be saving up for a longer stay in the sin bin, if she continues to edit-war, logged in or out. Favonian (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Old Government House, Auckland, NZ, Dec. 2014.jpg

Hi Ron, I saw your note about the photo I uploaded of Old Government House in Auckland. You're obviously quite an experienced Wikipedian while this is the first image I've ever tried to upload, but I confess that the distinctions being made over what copyright license is granted or present and what is lacking are simply lost on me. I cannot figure out how to navigate the formidable number of steps apparently necessary to upload an image of my own creation. The various "explanatory" pages that Wikipedia provides (and to which you linked) on uploading photos overwhelm and confuse rather than enlightening - I spent half an hour trying to decipher them on the day I first posted the photo. If there's a plain-English explanation somewhere of what else needs to be done, I'm willing to give it another shot. Otherwise, I'll let the photo be auto-deleted as your message mentioned it would be. Seems a shame and a waste, but I can't figure this out based either on what Wikipedia makes available or what you've posted to my Talk page. Apologies for taking up your time. Best, Geoff Geoffharriman (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Geoffharriman: Because Wikipedia is so anonymous, any picture really needs to be uploaded to Wikipedia first to lock in the date and time of the upload. Anything else, will tend to be regarded as a copy of some web site and every man and his dog will be querying it. My suggestion would be
  1. Make the image at https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10101813427992561&set=a.10100606472346351.2533014.3150&type=1&theater viewable to "Public", so we can check it properly
  2. And add a license text to that image - something along the lines of "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." (which I got from http://creativecommons.org/choose/)
Then we would be OK to go. Ronhjones  (Talk) 11:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hope this makes things good

I switched out the Wiki globe with a gold barnstar in my championship belt, so there shouldn't be any more issues. Wasn't trying to run afoul, just unaware.

Vjmlhds (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Well done, I've closed the deletion request as keep. Not a commonly known thing - it does come up at requests for re-use at WP:OTRS, so I knew the answer - even Wikipedia screenshots have the same issue, which is why we have Template:Wikipedia-screenshot to show the issue with the logo. Ronhjones  (Talk) 11:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal

You vandalized my page Raymond Mays V8. Why its my car and my photogragh Sincerely Tentenths — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentenths (talk • contribs) 14:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You cannot have duplicates of files - File:Raymond Mays sportscar V8.jpg Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Zaza people

Hello, sorry if I disturb, but may you please be aware of vandalism in this article? There are 2 (or maybe same with 2 accounts) turkish guys who manipulate sources. I asked to use talk page and find a solution if there is something to be changed. But the user:Kmoksy, dont communicate and delete only sourced information. Thanks in advance. (P.S. User:Mttll 1and user:Kmoksy 2 were blocked several times because of POV-push). --Gomada (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, Not a lot of time to examine at the moment - I've protected the page for 2 weeks - hopefully they will now discuss on the talk page - suggest you start a new thread on the talk page. Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Purple Crow Lidar

Dear Rohn Jones, I've came to realize that you deleted an article I've added, Purble Crow Lidar. I've read your suggestions and it all made sense, I want you to kindly undelete the article just till I copy everything I've edited so far to my sandbox and then you can delete it again. Since its my first article for me to actually write, I didn't know any of the tricks and techniques so I thank you for your advice you left, and I hope you would undelete it just for me to copy the information with the codes that took up a lot of time for me to write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salim Daher (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Salim Daher: We cannot undelete copyrighted data, it must never be in any part of Wikipedia. I've e-mailed you the source. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean but I need it as a prove to my school teacher that I started editing on the article and he should see it with in tomorrow. I have edited and started changing in the article and the last version of the article isn't all copied straight from the internet.

Thanks a lot for your email that has my final edits, and I guess you wont have to undo anything now, and again I appreciate you email. Sicerly, Salim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salim Daher (talk • contribs) 03:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Tillich-acceptance.jpg

Terribly sorry. Please delete file. Vejlefjord (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Deleted as WP:CSD#G7 = Author request. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Purple Crow Lidar

Dear Ronhjones,

I made a new Purple Crow Lidar article and changed my edits in it, and because I appreciate everything you explained to me, I want to ask you kindly to go over the new article and get back to me with your feedback. Your and other Admins opinion and judgment would be the best way for me as a secondary/ high school student to learn editing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salim Daher (talk • contribs) 18:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the world best writer - more of a WP:Gnome admin :-) As you have created directly in article space (brave person) - there will be plenty of editors who roam New Page Patrol having a look. My input would be to improve the references style - most editors do not like bare urls and do not like duplicate entries. So I've done No.1 as an example for you...
It's hard to know what "tools" you have for editing (every one sets up WP in their own way, and I cannot remember the defaults - and those change!) - Check your "Preferences" - Gadgets tab and is "refToolbar" ticked in the Editing section - make sure it is. Then when you edit hopefully you get a button in the toolbar that has two brackets then CITE then two brackets - not easy to actually read the word CITE in the middle - can look like a row of small boxes! When that is clicked you get a sub menu - click Web, add a url and click the green object, WP will fill in what details it can. Add a "Reference name:" if you will use it more than once - just something to remember. Ensure the cursor is at the right spot in the text and press "Add citation" you will get something like <ref name="PCLuwo">{{cite web|url=http://pcl.physics.uwo.ca/|title=Purple Crow Lidar at The University of Western Ontario|accessdate=28 January 2015}}</ref>}} inserted. When you need to use the same ref again you just need the name like <ref name="PCLuwo" /> - NOTE the change of adding a space and a slash after the name - that makes it a self closing tag (important). Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

BorderlandsHUD

File:BorderlandsHUD.png was marked as low resolution. I hope the res will not be smaller than say 200-300 px? Because then it would be too small to show in the article. BTW, I have read the image resolution policy, but then if all images are downsampled, the originals are lost? I mean is there no way to get the original image sizes back? Or do they still exist?

Wonderfl (reply) 06:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Most images in articles are only around that figure anyway - your image is 1,440 × 900 = 1,296,000 pixels - my estimate of the final size (the automatic bot will sort it out) would be 400 x 250. Nothing is lost (at first) - a new upload is another line on the file page. We then hide the originals as they now fail the free use policy (because they are unused) - here's an example I processed earlier File:Tampines rovers.png - the date and time are struck out, but admins can still look at the images. As far as I know the hidden files files can always be retrieved if necessary - we used to delete the earlier versions (i.e remove the entire line from the table), like all WP deletions that was was also just "hiding" the part (but more hidden than the Revision Delete we do now), but in those old deletions, I think that the actual file was lost if deleted for many years - I've tried looking at some very (>5 years) old ones and the table part is there, but the image has gone. If the new size does turn out to be too small, then we can consider a bigger one - it's only a guideline, if bigger than that, then a reason would have to be added to the Fair Use Rationale to support that bigger size. Ronhjones  (Talk) 13:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 Done Re-sized. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sam Walton (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have one other question. How or where do I contest the irresponsible or none neutral or perhaps simply uneducated destruction ("undone") of particular edits. I could not even find a "reversion" comparison page (I have the edits and could repost since there is no revert page that I can find).

The 4 "additions" were not only brief, they were thoroughly sourced and referenced to specific wiki sources and pages and there was no (I would just love to be able to CLAIM "original research" but -- that would truly be fantasy) there was simply nothing original about my content (unless someone who is still a "student" and who develops "games" has had such a limited scope that my "additions" actually seemed like "original research" to this student ? !!! but even the additions pointed in general (and were sourced and the movie The Principle is also thoroughly sourced) to both classic and modern schools of thought.

There is supposed to be a page with the "edited" content and the reverted-back-to content. This "student" left no such link on my talk page. I would like to have a PEER edit -- someone at least remotely capable of editing without ignorance, prejudice, malice or a I-will-just-zap-&-undo-because-I-like-the-feeling-of-zap-undoing-today-&-it's-fun-&-easy-to-undo. My labor-intensive edits were "burned at the stake" because they sourced content that actually referenced the matter and scope of the movie. The "content" on The Principle site for the most part is rather "mean" and obviously not "neutral". What is worse, the wiki-page really had no description of the content of the movie itself in the Summary, which I tried to remedy. If Wiki wants users to go elsewhere, then they will zap and undo editors and content and wiki into digital nihilism. I am all for quality and sourcing on wiki (and I responded to the original criticism that my first hasty [1] edit addition was not properly sourced since that recommendation did improve (even if it increased the time spent editing) the quality both of the content and the ability of wiki-users to go directly to the sources and definitions for that content).

Also, I did have a few more sources to ad below in the footnotes but time constraints made it necessary for me to make those additions at another time. I had hoped for a slightly more intelligent and helpful response to any of my edits in the meantime. Startarrant (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)startarrant

@Startarrant: Every page has a history page where any version can be viewed and compared with any other - see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Principle&action=history. The "ideal" WP technique is Bold-Revert-Discuss (WP:BRD) - and one can discuss at the article talk page Talk:The Principle, if you wish to grab the attention of any particular editor just add a ping with their username - {{ping|username}}. If one cannot agree there is always Dispute Resolution at WP:DR. P.S. you'll find all talk pages have their latest entries added at the bottom. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Avelumab

Hello. You have deleted the Avelumab article for "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement" reasons. However I have reworded the article and Earwig's Copyvio Detector was fine. Please can you explain? Thanks a lot.--LamasUI (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We use our own - https://tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/ - There was too much matching and paraphrase - you cannot just change/swap the odd words - it needs to be properly reworded to survive. Slightly rough report at User:Ronhjones/Sandbox2 Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not agree with your explanation. I can not change such terms as „in patients with metastatic merkel cell carcinoma“ or„the pd l1 pd 1 pathway is“. These are technical terms. I would like to ask you to restore the article.--LamasUI (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

But msb0010718c is an investigational fully human igg1 monoclonal antibody that binds to programmed death ligand 1 pd l1 could be rewritten. I'm quite happy to change it to a "Potential Copyright Issue" - suggest use history to access article and create the new temp page from the link on the page and let the closing admin decide (it won't be me). Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

msb0010718c is an investigational fully human igg1 monoclonal antibody that binds to programmed death ligand 1 pd l1 is a short definition and I will not change it because there is no other way to say it such short. I mean this is nitpicking :-) --LamasUI (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, let the closing admin decide - you get a second opinion that way. Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

also known as (User:Ronhjones/Sandbox2) ...  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LamasUI (talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

One mo

Greetings, Ron, there is one more of these for you to peruse, The Beatles/Please Please Me. I speedied it before but it was declined and suggested that I take it to RFD.- Bossanoven (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Why have you not replied? - Bossanoven (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I was somewhere else :-) You cannot speedy twice, so you'll have to use WP:RFD for this one. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your log shows that you were on the English Wikipedia. - Bossanoven (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Somewhere else on en-wiki - I was wading though 100 open tabs of images in Firefox, unless opens a new page you get no notifications. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Images

The image(s) of the condom sign was a photo that I took in London on World AIDS Day 2005. Upon looking, it does appear to be elsewhere on the web (or at least the cartoon does), which means that it probably existed before- the cartoon on the sign probably came from somewhere else. If not that, then it came from that photo- I don't doubt that others took photos of that sign and posted them online. If I wish to reupload, what exactly should I do?Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The cartoon is a 2D "work of art", which means you cannot copy it to Wikipedia, unless you can find the artist and get permission to at least cc-by-sa license. If the artist cannot be identified, then you will have to wait 95 years from the date of creation. It does not matter if it was on public display, unlike 3D objects in the UK, 2D ones do not lose their copyright by being publicly displayed. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

Saqi Books Deleted Page

Dear Ronhjones,

You deleted a wiki article titled Saqi Books citing it was a non-notable publisher. Saqi Books is actually a prominant publisher in the UK of books both fiction and academic on the Middle East and North Africa. With a basic search you will find its online website, bookshop and its sister company in Lebanon Dar al-Saqi. See http://www.saqibooks.co.uk and http://www.alsaqibookshop.com Saqi has published many International Best Sellers including Reza Aslan's Zealot which continues to top the New York Times bestsellers at this moment.

I hope this information can help you reconsider your decision to delete the article.

Best of wishes,


AreejS22 (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't need a reason - see User:Ronhjones/DeletedPROD - Restored as a contested PROD. It's a bit weak to survive, I think. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

File:CheGevaraEXE.png

You marked this with {{Non-free reduce}}, but the file is listed as a "free" file. Please remember to also list the file at PUF so that the incorrect copyright tag is taken care of. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Doh! I must have assumed that it had to be non free to be here at all. C'est la vie Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Zaza people in Turkey" article

I had moved the article "Zaza people" to "Zaza people in Turkey". This caused some uproar. I wanted to revert my own action and create a separate "Zaza people in Turkey" article to solve the dispute, but I see that you have changed the article settings so that only administrators can move the article from then on. So can you revert my moving of the article please? Thanks. --Mttll (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mttll: Although some editors object, there may be some who don't and have not commented - I don't want to start more wars - let's do it properly (there may even be a better name suggested this way) - copy and paste just this line onto the bottom of the talk page - change the XXX to whatever you want, it does not need a title - it makes it's own...
{{subst:Requested move|Zaza people|reason=XXX}}
Then we can have a proper move discussion - if at the end of 7 days, a move is agreed, then the closing admin will move it, and then most people will be happy. If it is moved why not have a separate section within the article about "Zaza people in Turkey" - the article is not that big, creating a new page is always likely for someone to start a merge request. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


File:Maithripala Sirisena.jpg

Hi Ronhjones,

The below photograph is solely owned by me. It was taken by me from my own camera.

I own the below two cameras & also this photograph hadn't been published on any web site.

1/ Canon PowerShot A580

2/ Nikon COOLPIX S3400

Kindly see to it immediately & rectify the error without deleting it, please.

Kind regards,

Anuradha

අනුරාධ (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anuradha - it's seems OK now, looks like it was tagged in error, and then undone as such. Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind & prompt response which I greatly appreciate.

Anuradha

අනුරාධ (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible in the future to post a notice on an article's talk page when an image is to be deleted?

Would it be possible in the future to post a notice on an article's talk page when an image use in that article is to be deleted? I have Robert Gover on my watchlist, but was unaware that RobertGover.jpg was to be deleted. It is a bit impossible to respond to "F11: No evidence of permission for more than 7 days" after the fact, as there was no notification on talk pages for articles where the image is actually used. In the case of Robert Gover, I would have been very surprised if the image was used elsewhere.

Since Mr. Gover is deceased, if I had been given the chance, I believe that I could have made a reasonable argument for retaining the image on en.wikipedia under Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images:

10. Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. Note that in the case the image is from a press agency and is not itself the subject of critical commentary it is assumed automatically to fail "respect for commercial opportunity".

Given this guideline, is it not possible to appeal the deletion of the image?

Peaceray (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Peaceray: I've set it up as non free. The uploader is notified when a deletion tag is applied to the page (and of course the page is edited to show the banner - which should trigger the watchlist) Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that I was not the uploader. If I had been, I probably would have tagged the photo as one of a deceased person, when Mr. Gover died last month.
Thanks for setting it up as non-free. You may have already noticed that I uploaded a cropped version with 237 × 297 pixels.
Peaceray (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks Ronhjones for your message about File:AlisonGeissler3.jpg. I posted the whole email correspondence with Kelvingrove Museum containing the copyright permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Kreutzbruder (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia page File:Forrest Wheeler, actor.jpg has been deleted by Ronhjones

Hi Ron,

I'm new to Wiki so please bear with me in my approach to asking this question and it's format.

I received an email from you advising that the photo of my son, Forrest Wheeler, was recently deleted from my article even though I believed I tagged it with a "free license" when I uploaded it. I took the photograph of him using my camera with permission of his employer (ABC). Please advise what steps or proof of ownership (?) are required so the photo can be reinstated.

Regards,

Alice Vpellc (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Vpellc: It all looks very confusing... I've restored it until Wednesday to see what we can sort out!
  1. There are 2 images on that file name - upload on 10th Jan and 15th Jan
  2. There is a statement about the first image - but that's still there for the second image...
  3. The second image looks rather promotional for personal image, but I see how it could be
  4. Both images have no camera data - it's been completely stripped out - looks bad, I assume it's been copy and pasted to crop it, rather than pure cropping (which would have kept the EXIF data intact).
I assume the one in the green shirt was made by Shandon Photography and the statement applied was for that image. If so then all those statements about Shandon Photography need to be removed (I can delete just the single image later). Then we need to know (somehow) that you took the picture and not ABC - thus it would be better to upload the full original camera image with all its EXIF data complete, (if the image you want is just a crop, I can do that with Photoshop to keep the camera EXIF data unchanged).
Then we must have a free license selected by yourself - one of the templates shown at Wikipedia:File_copyright_tags/All#Creative_Commons - I would suggest {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}, but I cannot decide for you.
Hope that helps. Let me know what you want doing. Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the great information and for re-instating the photo! (this is my second time responding. I accidently deleted the first and don't know to where it went. Sorry) The photo uploaded on Jan 10 (green shirt) and the accompanying reference to Shandon Photography should be deleted. I no longer want to use this photograph in my article. I incorrectly thought uploading a second photo with the same file name would erase the first. The second photo uploaded on Jan 15 (ABC), which was taken with my camera, is the one I want to use as it more directly relates to a feature performance mentioned in the article. I can upload the full photo or email it to you for cropping, whichever is easier. I will use the license recommended by you. Thank you, AliceVpellc (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Ron, Can you provide a hint at how I can delete the reference to Shandon Photography included with the photo uploaded on Jan 10? I cannot find a means to do so. Regards again, AliceVpellc (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@Vpellc: - I've tided it up - the text on the page is just like any other - you just edit the page - the text in the box with the picture is done by me. Just upload the original to the same page and let me know when you have done that. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ron, I uploaded the original photo and placed it in the article using the "commons wizard", and selected the license you recommended. Thank you in advance for cropping the photo to fit: narrower on the sides and at least 1/2 the airspace over the top. Please let me know if I've done it all correctly. Regards, AliceVpellc (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@Vpellc: c:File:Forrest Wheeler.jpg Perfect - The EXIF data shows nicely, shows you used an iPhone5 - which will negate any suggestions of a professional photograph. I've cropped it to the same as the other photo (now deleted), and kept all the EXIF data intact - if you check the metadata at the bottom of the page - it still shows iPhone5, and if you click "Show extended details" it also shows "Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)" - which is what I used to crop it. You should not have any further issues with this image. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Hopefully no one will mind the small ABC logos (but you can never tell!) - I can clone them out if you have any problems. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ron! Many thanks for your guidance and help to have the photo uploaded correctly. I sincerely appreciate your support. I look forward to having the article approved and moved out of draft space soon. With warm regards, AliceVpellc (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Undelete...

Hi, I noticed you deleted the page for "John Spiker" -- and was hoping you could undelete it. If I need to add articles as references, I would be happy to.

Thank you, 162.197.92.191 (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Julie

As a full restore would be against BLP policy, I can only restore as a draft article - you'll now find it at Draft:John Spiker Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


Thank you. Howver, all of the information is gone. Do you know how I get it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.197.92.191 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 2 February 2015 {UTC}

The whole history is restored - just click the "View history" tab and click any date to see that version. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Dateline Danger! image

Hi, Ronhjones. Indeed, I had initially uploaded a smaller version of File:Dateline Danger! 03-16-1969.jpg, as the upload history shows. But as I noted when I uploaded the larger version of this long-defunct comic strip: "Previous version was so small it was unreadable, which negated the primary reason for the use of this art: visual identification of the historically significant first African-American starring character in a comic strip." It's still far from high-resolution, and at the current size the content is barely legible but legible enough to serve its encyclopedic purpose. Also, on the article pages themselves, the image appears at only 400px. I don't know why it became muddy when reduced from 500px, but I found it did. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: It's currently at 375,000 pixels with a guideline of 100,100 pixels. One must question the need to include the whole page rather than a single strip. The top third with no white space comes out at 702 x 152 = 106,704 which would be more in keeping with fair use and not lose you any quality. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a Sunday strip, so cutting it would be like only showing part of a magazine cover. I don't imagine we would do that, at say, Newsweek. There are extremely few daily strips of this obscure comic online, and the couple I could find found the African-American tied up or being beaten up, neither of which conveys his historic place as the first black hero of a comic strip. (Showing him being victimized rather than heroic also could be taken as a little racist.) --Tenebrae (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: It is a guideline, not a policy - if you believe that an oversized image is truly necessary then it's best to state your reasons within the Fair-use rationale on the page - and then remove the non-free reduce banner. Otherwise you'll end up with editors tagging it every year or so! Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC) Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
That's good advice — thank you. I probably implied it without stating it clearly enough. I will fix it now. I appreciate your time and patience in working this out with me. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

Martial arts vandal again

He's back again as 90.198.28.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'll clean up after him once you protect the pages. Based on his recent activity, I really can't think of a workable edit filter, so I've mostly given up on that idea. A pity, because I would have really liked to have seen an automated solution to this pest. Given that he's more-or-less targeting American action films and Korean dramas now, it's impossible for me to think of a workable filter unless we flatly deny any IP edits from Sky Broadband that change genres. That seems like an overly harsh solution, and I don't think it would be accepted as anything more than a warning tag (like those "warning: possible BLP violation" tags). That seems pretty much useless since his edits are already spotted almost instantly. Oh well. If you don't mind, I guess I'll just keep messaging you whenever I spot him. Tell me if it becomes a bother. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: All done. Usual dynamic Sky. Keep 'em peeledRonhjones  (Talk) 19:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Got another one for you: 90.200.123.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: Sorry for delay - raging toothache... Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You certainly don't have to apologize for that. I just hope that it's gone now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: Sadly not yet. It was filled last week, got infected, unfilled this morning, root canals cleaned out, packed with steroids and antibiotics and a temp filling on top. Less pain now, and getting better... At least I can think straight again! Anyway out MAV is blocked for the usual 2 weeks, and all those pages reverted and semi-protected. (s)He is persistent... Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Maithripala Sirisena.jpg

Hi Ronhjones,

The below photograph is solely owned by me. It was taken by me from my own camera.

I own the below two cameras & also this photograph hadn't been published on any web site.

1/ Canon PowerShot A580

2/ Nikon COOLPIX S3400

Kindly see to it immediately & rectify the error without deleting it, please.

Kind regards,

Anuradha

අනුරාධ (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Anuradha - on the image page - you said The use of this file free, on any purpose, without any conditions, any Wikipedia articles, non-commercial or educational use, any electronic media use and in any newspapers / magazines, Pl kindly to be published with the author's name - the "non-commercial or educational" restriction is what has caused the problem - we don't allow images with restriction for non-commercial. It's further complicated by too many other licenses - I see a "PD-author" and a "cc-by-sa-4.0". If you want it back you'll have to decide which

single license you want and have no restrictions (the cc-by-sa-4.0 license will always insist on the author being attributed - the PD-author license will not). Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi Ronhjones,

Thank you for your conerns on the problem.

Pl upload it back with cc-by-sa-4.0 license

Kindly see to it immediately & rectify please.

Kind regards,

Anuradha

අනුරාධ (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@අනුරාධ: Sorry for delay - raging toothache. Someone else has uploaded a new image on that file name. Do you still want the image restored? I'll have to move the new one to restore the old one? Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi Ronhjones,

Thank you for your concerns on this regard. You may keep the new image which had been uploaded by User:MediaJet & by chance if any problem with that image, I will upload my image.

Kind regards,

Anuradha

අනුරාධ (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Naatupurailavarasan

At WP:AIV, after my entry for User:Naatupurailavarasan, you posted a "No vandalism since final warning" template. That was incorrect. His final warning was on February 4. On February 7, just before I posted the AIV notice, he recreated the same promotional material on his user page that had previously been deleted from there and from several article space pages.. And now, after the page was deleted yesterday, he's recreated it yet again today. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: My edit was at 16:46, 7 February 2015 - looks like the page had been deleted by someone else at 16:27, 7 February 2015 so there was nothing in the contribution history. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

History of S.P.A.L. 2013

This is an FYI to you. The above page, for which you enacted a PROD deletion a few months back, has been opposed on my talk page. I've thus restored the page, and am letting you and the PROD's submitter know that it has been restored, in case either of you wants to pursue further deletion actions on it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@TexasAndroid: Thanks for the note - I'll let the proposer decide on what to do. There's always a few PRODs that get contested post deletion - I even made a template for the proposer some time ago - {{RestoredPROD}}. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Image - Wes Lucas

Hello Mr. Jones: The SIRVA Marketing Department would like to upload an image of our CEO, Wes Lucas, for his page. It was deleted for reasons we don't understand. Which license should be used to upload that image? Thanks.WorkerB1A (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @WorkerB1A: First off it's not "his" page, you can request an upload here: WP:FFU, also please review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and other guidelines here: Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest. Hope this helps :) Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 21:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@WorkerB1A: You set it up as non-free - that's next to impossible for a living person. You will have to upload a free image - you can control the image size so as to reduce it's commercial usage if you wish (we don't insist on uploading big images) - the one you uploaded was rather big at 2,259 × 3,388 - even if it could be kept as non-free it would have ended up as 258 x 387! Note that you need the copyright holder (usually the photographer, unless you have a written release) to upload the image - otherwise you will into the process outlined at WP:DCM Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Chemical structures

Why did you add File:Ansan Police FC.png and File:Edie britt 2006.jpg to this category? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

New rule - don't try to edit with a toothache... I must have hit the tab next to the "rescaled" tab when I was doing all those F5s. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Darick Robertson at San Diego Comicon 2009.jpg

We received a strange permission for this. Note added. Jee 03:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: I've added my note to the ticket. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Permission confirmed from both photographer and uploader/subject. Please restore. Thanks. Jee 03:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 Done Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks; page updated. Jee 03:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

Merz Telescopes

Hi Ron, thanks for removing that copyright violoation from the article. The rest of the page is largely copied direclty from elsewhere (I listed three URLs in the CSD but I'm fairly certain the page is largley copy/paste from the websites listed as refs). The creator of that page was banned for other incidents with copyright violations. —Noah 22:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Noah Salzman: I see what you mean - let's go with a plain copyvio - maybe there might be something to salvage. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. My first instinct was to stub-ify it, but I was concerned that someone would innocently go into the history and revert the copyvios back into the article at a later date. —Noah 23:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for your help BTW REALLY COOL PAGE!! Bobherry talk 01:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Also I opened a Sockpuppet Investigation into the person blocked and someone else. Bobherry talk 01:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank You Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello Rohnjones, I just wanted to leave you a short note and ask to undelete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Moreira - I realize it was created in 2006 (not by me) and needs updating to remain in compliance since some of the references had disappeared from the web over time. Thanks! Dr.Music (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dr.Music:  Done. Also nothing wrong with dead links - don't remove them, they were OK at the time and need to stay - see WP:LINKROT Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems there were quite a few rather dodgy PRODs from the editor who proposed the deletion, this was just one of them -Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vividdreams93/Archive Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Herzelia Museum of Contemporary Art

Hello Rohnjones, You've deleted the page, I've created 2 weeks ago. I didn't have a time to contest the speedy deletion, being in the office, and I am not sure I even was the one, who put the so-cold "copyrighted" text to it. Could you please undelete, so I'll be able to review it and remove any gray area text. Anyway, my original text was definitely my own work and the article itself was good. Thank you in advance Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Arthistorian1977: The original page has a huge amount of text which is an exact copy of http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/Herzliyamuse.html. The last version still has much copy or close paraphrase and also with http://www.herzliyamuseum.co.il/english/archive. I can't restore with so much matching text - the automatic bots will find it as soon as it appears. I can e-mail you the page source if you want. Pages must be completely re-written so there is no match or paraphrasing of other web sites. Note also for the copy of the "Notable Exhibitions" section you need to show that these are notable, and I would suggest leave out any artists without a wikipedia page. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Rohnjones, I appreciate if you mail email me the last version of the page. Thank you Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Arthistorian1977:  Done Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on WP:AN#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script

Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion not

Ronhjones, I am the individual that put File:Inks Dam Tailrace Fishing.jpg,

I am a novice but really am studying to get up to speed. The photo is actually of me in the blue shirt, taken by my wife. I have the original photo in hand. But being a novice I simply took a picture of my picture with my I phone. The photo is from 1996. You'll are correct about your points iphone not in 1996. But not a pic of TV. The photo is important to the page Tailrace Fishing on wikipedia. A legitimate Article with untold number of references for the type of fishing. Can the deletion go ahead, and I scan my photo with my wifes permission and put back on Commons for use on the Tailrace Fishing wikipedia article. Thank you for your time and making sure things are done correctly. I am studying everyday on proper procedures. I am not even sure if i am in commons correctly yet, Benjamin Cross is Wikipedia username; and i think Tailrace Fisherman on Commmons. Thanks again. Any help appreciated. Benjamin Cross (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Benjamin Cross: Technically, if your wife took it, then it's not yours to upload anyway - ideally it should have been uploaded by your wife direct. For some reason, the image has a terrible moiré effect all over it, and a black bar at the top. My feeling is that this is going to be an ongoing issue trying to use this actual file, it will always looks like a TV grab. My recommendation would be not to use a camera to take a photo of a photo (they were never designed for that), but to use a proper scanner - even the cheap all-in-one printer/scanners would do a far, far better job than that. I don't know what size your original image was - but 408 × 306 pixels is dire, even a low quality 300dpi scan would give 1800x1200 on a 6"x4" image. I've scanned lots of images and I've never seen any annoying patterns. The en image has gone, the commons one is likely to go, as the moiré pattern is certainly making it look too much like a TV image. P.S. You do not need two usernames - the username and password should work on all WMF sites. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will have my wife uplaod photo on her own account. It is much clearer when scanned. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Cross (talk • contribs) 00:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Thank you, I will have my wife uplaod photo on her own account. It is much clearer when scanned. Thanks again Benjamin Cross (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC) And to be clear. Please delete image. Much clearer when scanned. You can read sign on concrete wall Benjamin Cross (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

Detroit City FC 2014 Season Page Deletion

Hi there,

I wanted to reach out to you about the deletion of Detroit City FC's '2014 Season' Wikipedia page. I work with the club, and helped to maintain and edit that page. I'm not a Wikipedia expert by any means, but it says the cause for deletion was because the team doesn't play in a "top" professional league. Detroit City Football Club is a popular team that plays in the National Premier Soccer League, which is a recognized league within the US Soccer Federation that is commonly referred to as a fourth-tier league. So, while it's not a top league, it is most certainly legitimate, real and an important piece in the structure of U.S. soccer. The club sees 3,000 supporters per match at Cass Technical High School in Detroit, MI., and as the team grows and looks to advance to a higher league, it is essential that the page you deleted returns. Not only for supporters looking to learn more about our team, but also for the club's own records.

It would be helpful to better understand your reasoning for deleting this page, so we can work together to get it back. Thank you for your time.

2601:4:1F00:D800:9123:467D:1D89:DA0A (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Lindsey Pehrson

2601:4:1F00:D800:9123:467D:1D89:DA0A (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I could restore it on request, but it then would probbaly go to WP:AfD. My suggestion is first to talk to the person who nominated it for deletion - use User_talk:Tavix, as they will be more knowledgeable about the article. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Broadspeed

Hello. I see that the article on Broadspeed had previously been deleted for lack of notability. I would like to re-create this article by reason of Broadspeed having been very significant in motor racing in the 1960s and 1970s, and having had connections with several notable racing drivers and auto manufacturers. There are many magazine and newspaper articles that corroborate this, several of which I intend to cite. Please let me know if there is any objection; otherwise, I will work on the article text. --ColinMB (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@ColinMB: I could restore it as a draft if you want, or you can just start from scratch. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm quite comfortable starting from scratch. Thanks for the quick response! --ColinMB (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Culver L Hastedt.jpg

Hello - I am new to this, so bear with me... Why did you (?) delete Culver L. Hastedt's photo? I have saved it from a while back, as he is an early graduate of my high school - albeit when it was a college. Thanks - Tom Maher (aka Frank Schario) Kirkwood MO Frank Schario (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Frank Schario: Uploaded by User:Journ3eb, and stated...
  • Source = sent to me personally
  • Author = Georgette Elise Moloney
  • Permission = Evidence: Will be provided on request.
s(he) was notified of the lack of permission on their talk page at 00:43, 11 February 2015 (along with another image). There being no action from the user in the next 7 days, the image has to be deleted. Should adequate permission be eventually obtained from Georgette Elise Moloney, then the image can be undeleted. Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Request

Can you delete Angelo Gumbs?--Yankees10 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.--Yankees10 02:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
One the hardest working admins, usually topping the XTools AdminStats by total number of actions taken. When you're behind the keyboard I should probably not bother responding to AIV reports as you always beat me to it. The nice thing is that you seem to pick the same rationale/duration as I would, so I at least have that to be proud of :) — MusikAnimal talk 00:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Thanks - I'll have to go some to beat ProcseeBot though :-). Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Observium screenshot of Devices - Ports page Feb 2014.png

In which universe does wikipedia need any kind of official email regarding a screenshot. Even the most absurd north-korean legal jurisdiction will recognise that a screen shot is absolutely fair use. It's a screenshot. I made it.

I very much hope this is just some automated thing which has gone wrong, and wikipedia hasn't started requiring legal disclaimers for things as simple as screenshots.

Just when I think Wikipedia couldn't do much more to discourage participation. Son, I am disappoint.

187.155.132.50 (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@187.155.132.50: This universe - like all screenshots on Wikipedia. You did not make the screen - you just took the picture - the software made the image, and that's copyright. Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
If you want fair use - it will have to be smaller (WP:Image resolution), have a WP:FURG and a non free license. Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:State Theatre, Boston, MA, 1967.jpg

I replied to your message on my own talk page but I don't know if you saw that. Here's what I wrote:

"Why does this seem to happen every time I upload a file? I was very careful to get explicit permission from the owner (using the exact wording suggested by one of Wikipedia's copyright experts a while back), and emailed it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on January 20. Did you see the note I included to that effect under "Other information"? Is there some other email address I should be forwarding these things to? Is there some reason why my emails to that address always seem to go unnoticed until someone threatens to delete the file I uploaded and I have to write back and plead my case?"

Since then I have also sent another email to the above address with an explanation and link showing that the owner has agreed to share the file ("Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Unported"). I don't know if you have access to that account. I'd appreciate a response from someone, if only to let me know that my email was received and is being reviewed. Thanks in advance for any help. --Rosekelleher (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rosekelleher: I'm searching...
OTRS is difficult to search - there are many thousands of e-mails, so one has to try to target the search to get the right e-mail. I've searched for (just within the last 3 months of e-mails)
  • File:State Theatre, Boston, MA, 1967.jpg
  • State Theatre, Boston
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:State_Theatre,_Boston,_MA,_1967.jpg
  • Rosekelleher
None of those give any results. Finally I did find it, as you said you had sent again recently, and I was able to narrow down to the previous day's e-mails, then use your e-mail address to find the rest. Reason for no-one finding it or doing anything with it is the lack of the url - we need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:State_Theatre,_Boston,_MA,_1967.jpg in the e-mail body, so we can find it, and know on what wiki the image is located. So I've merged the 4 e-mails, and added the ticket number to the image to show it's waiting for permission to sort out. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: I appreciate your efforts and explanation, thank you. So it's not a matter of my being cursed and reviled by the Wikipedia gods, after all - that's good to know. --Rosekelleher (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

File:ECM-Uniform-NYR.PNG

Given this file was part of a set used on all NHL team articles (with equivalents in MLB, for instance), I feel I must protest the unilateral speedy deletion of this one file. I'm not necessarily saying they should be kept at all costs, but given the images have been around for over six years and do serve a purpose, I think it would be better if you restored this image and listed the lot at FFD if you feel they should be removed. Thanks! Resolute 23:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Resolute: As you will know, I did not tag the image, it was tagged by User:Stefan2. I've no idea about any "Lot of images" - only this one was tagged, and it's time at CSD was expired with no objections (there have been many such images, in the past, tagged as such and deleted without objection). If you wish you can restore and discuss this and the unknown others at WP:PUF. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
It was tagged because unlike the images used on every NHL team article (without issue), this one for the New York Rangers article was recently updated (per my request). The previous one, which was virtually the same with the exception of one small detail on the 3rd jersey, had been on there for a long time without incident. Whomever Stefan2 is, he is in Sweden and appears to be no more than a 'quality control' hound on new uploads. He obviously just saw it pop up on a scan of newly uploaded images and likely both unfamiliar with the context the image was being used in (these images are all used solely on the article respective to the teams for which they appear). Ryecatcher773 (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ryecatcher773: New images will always be more scrutinised than old ones (I do that myself!) - it's often the case that what was allowed way back, now falls foul of the current policies. I do not see what Stefan2's location has to do with it, he is entitled as anyone to tag the image if it fails the policies. As I said Resolute (being an admin) can undelete and get a consensus at PUF if he wants. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to restore and leave it alone, actually, but since Stefan2 tagged it initially, I will offer him the chance to go to PUF for a group discussion. Assuming you are amenable to that. Thanks, Resolute 00:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Resolute, why are you inclined to restore an unambiguous violation of WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#6 and "leave it alone"? The uploader created a drawing but refused to license it. Unlicensed user-created images are not acceptable on Wikipedia per WP:NFCC#6, and the image violates WP:NFCC#1 as someone else could create a different drawing of the same clothes. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The uploader couldn't apply anything but the pre-existing NFCC template because it does use copyrighted elements. The honest answer to your question is that I don't buy into the level of copyright paranoia that tends to exist at times on Wikipedia. The practical answer, however, is that this image was part of a league-wide set, one that has been accepted in practice for over six years. In my view, that warrants a wider discussion encompassing images used for all 30 NHL teams, 30 MLB teams and probably others. If we're going to look at these images, lets do it right and look at them all. Not just a piecemeal deletion whenever convenient for you. Resolute 01:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The only copyrighted elements are the ones created by the uploader. The clothes are utilitarian objects containing public domain symbols. There have already been numerous discussions about the matter, so I'm not sure what you think that your additional discussion is supposed to achieve. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The alternate logo is copyrighted. He couldn't include the third jersey in the image without an NFCC tag. I find it ironic that you asked for a non-free image to be deleted because the uploader applied a non-free license tag to it. Resolute 14:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Did I overlook a logo? The file has been deleted, so I can't see the logos, but if I remember correctly, there were only textlogos on the pictures. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Nope. I stand corrected myself. I thought the Rangers still used the liberty logo as their alternate. Seems, per this image (which I did restore to aid discussion) they have swapped to another word mark design. Let me take this away to the hockey project and the image creator to deal with the licensing on it. The Rangers are a unique case in this set as they will be the only team that has only un-copyrightable elements to the design. Though the NFCC tag may remain appropriate regardless, as there is always the chance the team introduces a new third uniform that does include copyrightable logos in the future. Resolute 15:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
No copyrigthed logos that I can see, so the file should remain deleted as a violation of WP:NFCC#1. Besides, even if there were copyrighted logos, the uploader should still license his contributions by inserting two copyright tags. Compare with {{photo of art}} for photos of unfree statues, which requires two copyright tags. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The only change made to the image (the subsequent uploading of which is what caused the problem in the first place) was the third jersey incorrectly had 'Rangers' written on it... and in actuality it has 'New York' on it. I notified the creator of the original and asked him/her to change it. He/she did, and then uploaded it (apparently without filling out the Use/Licensing tick-boxes correctly) and now it's become a debacle. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

And those numerous discussions have amounted to what exactly? Because I look around and literally every other NHL article on WP has the same uniforms template (and, until the other day, when the graphic was updated, so did the NYR article... and in fact had it for at least 6 years if you go back in the edit log). You can cite all the NFCC rules you choose, but the reality is that this is looking a lot more like a case of discrimination by the minute and the body of evidence is plainly in view for all to see. If you didn't appear to be on some kind of Quixotic crusade, I wouldn't bother replying. But the image you are arguing could very simply could be restored and the Licensing/Usage Rationale could be fixed to reflect the copyrighted nature of the uniform (same as applies to the team logo) -- it will only be used on the main article for the team.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The numerous discussions have resulted in deletion of numerous images. The problem is that there are so many of them and that the process of going through them and tagging them for deletion takes a long time. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. And I only mentioned Stefan's location because the NHL is a North American based sports league and he likely isn't clued in on the format for these types of images that appear on virtually every team article in every major professional sports league on this continent (meaning NBA, NHL, NFL and MLB). If in fact the policies have have changed, then all of those articles have images that are in violation. But meanwhile, the New York Rangers article now has an empty gap where all the other 29 NHL articles do not. In any case, thank you for your consideration. Cheers. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you start by reading prior discussions on the matter, for example Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#Template:Non-free sports uniform? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll wager that anyone with enough time on their hands could wade through the 500,000+ images at Category:All non-free media, and tag a very substantial amount of them for deletion. There are not enough interested editors to do that, so those that are interested in images tend to use Special:NewFiles and similar to try to reduce any increase of non complying images - but they do get uploaded at one hell of a rate - I'm estimating that I've deleted somewhere in the order of 25,000 images in the last 12 months (for various reason, not just NFCC), and I'm not the only admin deleting them. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, since there are too many non-free images to check them all, only some random images with problems get tagged whereas other images remain untagged for a long time. I sometimes open up all files on the most recent page of Special:ListFiles and check them for problems, but I don't have time to do this every day or with all new files, so many are not checked by me. Other people also check similar sources for problems, but I'm not sure to what extent. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Flag of Canada proclamation image

Hi. You tagged the image File:Proclamation of the flag of Canada.jpg with a request to replace the file with a smaller version. I wouldn't question that if it weren't that the image contains text that will be illegible at a smaller scale and the already faint signatures and heraldic detailing will be essentially invisible. Do such matters not factor into how large a non-free image can be? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: There is a guideline Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Image_resolution for non-free image size. But is is only a guideline - it is impossible to be correct for every image. If the image needs to be bigger, then I usually suggest expand the "Minimal use" section of the FUR, to explain why the image is so much bigger. Note the sentence in the guideline that starts "At the extreme high end of the range..." - not only are you over 1000 pixels in one direction , but your total pixel count is also in excess of 1 million pixels - so it will need a full detailed explanation to stay at that size. Most of the small text is already hard to read at the full resolution - so you have to decide if that is really necessary, my preview on that page at 740x599 still gives one a flavour of the document without going into full detail, however most of the red text is still readable. I can't decide for you what size to pick - if you do not want the bot to reduce it, then remove the banner and alter as appropriate. Cropping out the black border will help as well to save some pixels. If left untouched the bot will change it to 351x284. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Help request

Hello, Ronhjones. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please reply elsewhere (i.e., on my Talk Page). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Wolfram Wöß Portrait.jpg

Hello, as I am new to Wikipedia I think I am not completely into licensing. I currently try to create the page Draft:Wolfram Wöß and therefore I wanted to add the file File:Wolfram Wöß Portrait.jpg from my personal website (http://wwoess.faw.at/ww_biography.html). For this issue I even added CC BY-SA 4.0 License information there. As I own this file I can not really figure out the problem, can you please tell me what is still missing? Thank you for your help and best regards, Wolfram Wöß (User: Laoswikiedit) Laoswikiedit (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Laoswikiedit: The file was deleted due to lack of documented permission, if you are the photographer then please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, if you are not the photographer, then the person who took the image needs to file the consent. Mlpearc (open channel) 10:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@Mlpearc: I am the photographer and I followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, but still it got deleted. Laoswikiedit (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@Laoswikiedit: We have a real (unusual) problem with this one. Although there is a cc notice at http://wwoess.faw.at/ww.html?/ww_biography.html, when I look at the image page information I get 02 February 2015 12:07:25. However the page targeted by the speedy notice was http://www.jku.at/faw/content/e233808/index_html?team_view=section&emp=e233808/employee_groups_wiss233822/employees240280 and that image has a page information of 02 February 2015 08:59:07, in addition I can find http://austria-forum.org/af/Wissenssammlungen/Wissenschaftler/W%C3%B6%C3%9F,_Wolfram with image info of 20 February 2012 19:45:00 and there are some others. Thus it appears that the licensed image at http://wwoess.faw.at/ww.html?/ww_biography.html is the youngest image, and would therefore suggest it has been copied from one of those other sites - so although this could be a proper release it will inevitably be regarded as "license laundering", and will keep getting put up for deletion. I've restored for now and put up an {{OTRS pending}} to give us all time to sort it out. I note that none of the web images have any EXIF data, the images have all been edited without keeping the EXIF data (it's a tricky, but not impossible thing to do).
Therefore where do we go forward, choices...
1. If you have the original camera image with full EXIF data then
(a) Upload that to the same image page (but only if you are happy to release the full image to CC!) OR
(b) Send image to me (Ron Jones) at the permissions address on WP:DCM, so we can make a record of the EXIF data - we would then add an OTRS ticket to show we have validated the claim (this is probably the best option overall)
2. If you don't still have the original, then maybe one that is much bigger? All the images seem to be 180x180 or 200x200, so a much bigger one would tend to show ownership.
Hope that all makes some sense. There may be other options, nothing is coming to mind at the moment. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: Ok for clarification:
(1) http://wwoess.faw.at/ww.html?/ww_biography.html is my personal Homepage, where I upload my preferred version (same as on Wikipedia) of the picture.
(2) http://www.jku.at/faw/content/e233808/index_html?team_view=section&emp=e233808/employee_groups_wiss233822/employees240280 is my institutes website, I personally added the picture there, but unfortunately they request a special format, this is why it might not be exact the same image as the one of my website.
(3) http://austria-forum.org/af/Wissenssammlungen/Wissenschaftler/W%C3%B6%C3%9F,_Wolfram and all other sources on the web, where you will find my picture, got the picture from me or took it from the institutes website. None of my private pictures include Copyright Information, because I am NOT a professional photographer.
Removing EXIF data is not tricky, you have just to take a frame of a larger picture. And this is necessary when you have to take a picture with remote control in order to avoid copyright conflicts with with Wikipedia. As this website is build purely from user content I feel quite mistreated simply trying to upload a picture from myself. I hope this attempt works for you, I just uploaded the images with EXIF data to Wikipedia as well as my website. Laoswikiedit (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Laoswikiedit: I meant it's tricky to keep the EXIF data (not great grammar though... I was always rubbish at English grammar... also like most mad scientists I know, slightly dyslexic... ) - far too many editing program throw away the EXIF data as soon as you make an edit, or one copies a section and makes a new image... Anyway, I've tidied up the image page and left a note on File talk:Wolfram Wöß Portrait.jpg, which hopefully will stop any further issues. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for Approving Images

I really appreciate you approving on February 22, 2015 the several images I submitted. Thank you. I checked the pages and noted that the OTRS Pending notice is still showing on the following articles: E. R. Moon, James A Bushnell, Victor P. Morris (waiting approval to publish), Pacific Christian Hospital, and Martha Goodrich Administration Building (still in draft). It disappeared from Eugene C. Sanderson article. What is involved in getting those notices removed? Any help would be appreciated. Tbergquist (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tbergquist: Articles - Draft approval - that's all done by the AfC reviewers. The OTRS notices should not be on the article page - please move them to the associated talk page. I tend to concentrate on images. The text ones should get done at some time, and then the permission template will be put in place.

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

adavi kaachina vennela page deleted,please active will update corresponding references

adavi kaachina vennela page deleted,please active will update corresponding references,its authentic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.5.227 (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 DoneRonhjones  (Talk) 20:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, would you please be able to restore the Hall Road Rangers F.C. logo at File:HallRoadRangers.png? A user replaced the logo with another version but they uploaded it on Commons (see here). That version has since been deleted, leaving no logo on the page. Cheers. Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid the same goes for File:Harrogate Town FC.png, File:EccleshillUnited.png, File:Whitbytownfc.png. The user on Commons has inadvertently led to the club articles no longer having logos. Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
File:Yorkfootballleague.jpg also fell victim to a user with a similar edit pattern on Commons. Cheers. Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Delusion23: All done Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much! :) Del♉sion23 (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

ticket 2015010710020391

Hi at Draft:Victor Pierpont Morris there is a claimed OTRS ticket 2015010710020391 with permission confirmed by you (I suspect that Ron Jones is the same person as you!) But is this true, and if so what is permitted? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: That ticket only refers to File:Victor Pierpont Morris, NCC Interim President.jpg - it was deleted in Dec, and Twinkle commented out it's use (hence my single edit to that page), then it was re-uploaded with OTRS pending in January, and permission eventually received at end Feb. Looks like the uploader did not get round to putting it back into the article. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Wicked Charms

I put back the release date of June 23, 2015. I did put a reference that was from Amazon, a reliable source. The release date for this book was supposed to be next week, but it was changed sometime in January.

If you read the Evanovich newsletters, the date changed was announced in both the February and March editions. 03:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.164.84 (talk)

Not sure which article you are talking about - however, you certainly won't get anyone agreeing that Amazon is a reliable source - they are not a peer reviewed publisher. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Amazon was the first to report the change and they're very reliable. I also said it was announced in the author's February and March newsletters. 74.58.164.84 (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Amazon are not reliable in the Wikipedia sense. See WP:RS Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It's actually "Amazon is not" and if it's not reliable, then why is used a source on here? 74.58.164.84 (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2015 CUOS appointments

Please note the nominations have been posted, and there are standard questions to be answered. Members of the community may also ask questions, so please monitor your nomination(s) until the comment period is concluded on the 18th. Those who are running for both flags have two sections, and two copies of the standard questions -- the first two, at least, are likely to have different answers, so this isn't redundant. (The third one, well, it does.) Thanks for your willingness to serve. Courcelles (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article

I need your help please :) When I search for Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli on Google, it shows up as a "User:Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli". When you click it, it takes you to a message that says that the page was moved to "Draft: Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli." When you click that, it takes you to another page called "Creating Draft: Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli."

I'm not sure what to do here. It's not supposed to have "User" attached to it. Can we remove the "user" from the article so it shows up as just Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli? How does that all work?

Please reply on my talk page

Thanks, Leapsandbounds (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Replied Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
     Thank you for the information. I appreciate it. Ronhjones  (Talk)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leapsandbounds (talk • contribs) 10:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sandrine Bessora Nan Nguema

I noticed that you deleted this redirect with the comment Unsourced - no published link. There are at minimum the published material mentioned on the talk page for the article Talk:Bessora. This was also mentioned at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 3#Sandrine_Bessora_Nan_Nguema. This alternate name also appears in the --Big_iron (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It was complained about at OTRS - I cannot go into details. I can't stop you putting it back, but the complainant will probably escalate. I noted at the article page that there was the edit summary that said "The source is contradictory, and not mainly related to the topic + Any full name is not related to the notability of the subject + Presumption in favor of privacy (BLP)" when the full name was removed - hence the rationale for removing the redirect is the same reason. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I am frankly not sure what was the motivation of the editor who inserted that remark but the source is not contradictory in any sense of the word. That editor resorted to the use of sock puppets in reverting the edit on the article so I backed off. I attempted to get an opinion on the BLP noticeboard on the subject but met with indifference. It isn't a big thing and I do not actually have any vested interest if it is felt that the redirect or the associated text is somehow inappropriate but I don't like to see things settled by dishonest means. Sorry, that's probably way too much time invested on this. I'll sleep on it, I guess. --Big_iron (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I asked for a second opinion on the OTRS noticeboard. --Big_iron (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

An image deletion

Ron, your decision to delete an image is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Deletion of Wikipedia screenshots used in talk pages Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Screenshot illustrating formatting of block quotes on Wikipedia formatted for mobile phones.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hi Ronhjones,

the image I uploaded was deleted, including File:Location of the Yinggehai Basin.png, File:Sedimentation rate of the Yinggehai Basin.png and File:NW-SE cross section of Yinggehai Basin.png. Those pictures were drawn by myself or modified from others. Could you tell my why they were deleted so that I can modify them to be qualified. I will use these images in a wiki page, which is an assignment for a class I attend. Thank you for your response! Hongcheng Guo (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hongcheng Guo: They were all marked as "no source". Wikipedia is getting quite strict with all the images that get loaded (and in some categories >50% should not have been uploaded!). It's best to use {{Information}} and fill in all the fields - use {{own}} in the source field for things you drew yourself. I'll restore those three and add those templates - please tidy up the rest of the page Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

ThanksHongcheng Guo (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronhjones/Archive_28&oldid=1139291839"