Jump to content

User talk:Ronhjones/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Thank you :@)

Thanks for the help with numbering the references - i was so confused! Im new on here - hope ive done eveything correctly! (Tjhinlondon (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC))

I've combined the 2 identical refs for you.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

RIBA

HELLO RON JONES. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE BANKING GROUP SPAREBANK1 ACTUALLY CHARGES RIBA, AND THUS IT WOULD MAKE WIKIPEDIA POORER IF THIS FACT WAS NOT POINTED OUT. BUT I SHALL PHRASE ACCORDING TO YOUR ADVICE. IT IS HOWEVER, AS YOU KNOW, VERY IMPORTANT TO EXPAND THE ARTICLES, AND UPGRADE THE QUALITY OF WIKIPEDIA WHENEVER POSSIBLE. AND WHEN IT COMES TO RIBA, IT IS A GOOD WAY OF MAKING AN EXAMPLE BY LINKING DOCTRINE TO ACTUAL PRACTISES, SO THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE FOR THEMSELVES THE PRACTICAL WORKINGS AND DETAILS OF A MODERN BANK, IN CONTRAST TO RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE. BUT I THANK YOU FOR YOUR ADVICE ON HOW TO PHRASE IT MORE EDUCATIONALLY, AND I SHALL DO MY BEST TO PROMOTE KNOWLEDGE IN A TRUE WIKIPEDIAN SPIRIT.

THANK YOU FOR POINTING OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A BETTER QUALITY OF LANGUAGE, RON. YOUR ADVICE WILL MAKE FOR A BETTER ARTICLE. SO AS LONG AS WE DO NOT CONCEAL THE FACTS, EVERYONE WILL BE HAPPY.

G.89.9.132.100 (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Truth is one thing - verifiable data is another. All data must be verifiable and have a reliable source - especially if that data is in anyway negative to that entity.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
So you need a reference to the "fact" that that bank charges "Riba", and another to the "fact" that "people have been cheated out of their homes".  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I WILL DROP THE FACT ABOUT CHEATING PEOPLE AS FOR NOW, AND ADD A LINK TO THEIR WEBSITE, WITH REGARDS TO RIBA OR "INTEREST" SO THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE FOR THEMSELVES THAT THEY ACTUALLY OFFER LOANS AT AN INTEREST. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.232.239.17 (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

All banks offer loans at an interest - what makes this one so different?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

THEN WE AGREE THAT THIS BANK, AS WELL AS THE OTHERS, OFFERS LOANS AT AN INTEREST, OR "RIBA" AS IT IS CALLED IN ARABIC. THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.232.239.17 (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

But it's not illegal, and you cannot say that it is so, unless it's in a Arabic country.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

GOOD POINT. I SHALL INCLUDE THAT IT IS ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO BOTH THE QURAAN, AS ALLREADY EXPRESSED IN THE ARTICLE, AND IN ARABIC COUNTRIES. + - THANK YOU. GREAT IDEA. G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.232.239.17 (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

But the Bank is not located in an Arabic country. So you can't say that.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

YOU MISUNDERSTAND. THE QURAAN DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT ARABIC COUNTRIES. IT SPEAKS ABOUT THE PRACTICE OF RIBA. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE IT IS, IT IS STILL A SIN ACCORDING TO THE QURAAN. AND THIS IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT RELIGION. IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE WHORSHIP OF THE GOLDEN CALF. THAT WAS ALSO A SIN. AND IN THE SAME WAY ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREW BIBLE. IF SOMEONE WHORSHIPPED A GOLDEN CALF TODAY, THE PRACTICE WOULD STILL BE A SIN ACCORDING TO THE HEBREW BIBLE, WOULD IT NOT? AND IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT IDOLATRY, THE WHORSHIP OF THE GOLDEN CALF BY THE ISERALITES IS THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE ARTICLE. OR SHOULD WE DELETE ALL PRACTICLE EXAMPLES FROM ALL WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.232.239.17 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've not sure about the Christian bible - been too long since I read it, but I don't remember such a section. You can say what is a sin according to the Quraan, but you cannot single out one Bank, either say "Western Banks", OR list every bank and building society that gives loans on interest (it will be hundreds!) - Wikipeadia has to be written from a neutral point of view, we cannot be seen to be either positive or negative to one institution.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I AM AFFRAID YOU ARE WRONG, ABOUT THIS MATTER RON. IN WIKIPEDIAN ARTICLES NOT ALL POSSIBLE EXAMPLES FOR EVERY TOPIC IS LISTED. FOR EXAMPLE: IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT ANIMALS, NOT ALL ANIMALS ARE LISTED. OR IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT SOCIETY, NOT EVERY HUMAN ON THE PLANET ARE LISTED. ARE THEY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.232.239.17 (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

AND IN YOUR OWN WORDS, RON: WHEN SOMEONE VANDALIZES WIKIPEDIA, YOU SINGLE THEM OUT AND EDIT OR BLOCK THEM. WHEN SOMEONE COMMITS DEADLY SINS, I SINGLE THEM OUT, AND EDIT OR BLOCK THEM. AND AS YOU SAY:

THATS LIFE. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.

G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.232.239.17 (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct, but they are not listed in a negative way, and they can't sue Wikipedia either - we cannot be seen to libel an organisation.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Calvin Blignault

Dear Ronhjones

You just deleted my contribution on Calvin Blignault, because it is identic with a web site that you quoted. Please check the date of the other web site. It has been copied from Wikipedia and not vice versa. I would be pleased if you re-instate my contribution, after confirming that this is the case.--NearEMPTiness (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. All reverted. Web page was indeed a copy, without an obvious attribution. I've also added a comment on the talk page to assist editor's in future.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy reply and action.--NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

William Arbegast

Thank you very much for the comments on some work in progress on William Arbegast which has indeed some word-by-word similarities to his autobiography. It is my intention to modify the words, while keeping the content. Is this acceptable? Do you think it makes sense to shorten and rephrase this article and then upload it again? Is it acceptable to copy the list of literature?--NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

To prevent future deletions, then the web page must be completely re-phrased - and that needs to be done on your own PC - a copy of the web page cannot appear (no matter if it's going to get changed) here - note the alteration of one or two words in a sentence won't work. The list - bit of a grey area, there's no real copyright to a list - one could in theory make such a list without ever seeing the web page. It is a very long list, and I would question if the whole list needs to be shown - one could always link to the list elsewhere - such a long list might have the editors reaching for the SPAM button.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the very helpful comments. I fully agree both regarding the too early upload and the length of the literature list.--NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk page

No problem, you don't deserve that level of personal attacks on your talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

One needs a tough skin as a vandal fighter.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

what happen if other Company than disney buys Club penguin?

Hello ronhjones, what happen if Other companys buys Club penguin? when Disney will stop reletionship with Club penguin, Thanks, Ren and stimpy100, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ren and stimpy100 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a lot, I would guess. The logo will obviously change, as it has the Disney name in it. A piece will be added to the Article to say who bought it, for how much, and maybe what the new company's plans are. Otherwise, much the same. Lots of items change hands, it doesn't cause much problems - the only other changes occur where an owner/sponsor is part of the name, then once the deal is completed, the page has to be renamed.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted files

  1. (Deletion log); 23:17 . . Ronhjones (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Two-port S-parameters.svg" (F8: File available on Wikimedia Commons as File:Two-port S-parameters.svg)
  2. (Deletion log); 23:17 . . Ronhjones (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Two-port series-series proper.svg" (F8: File available on Wikimedia Commons as File:Two-port series-series proper.svg)
  3. (Deletion log); 23:17 . . Ronhjones (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Two-port series-series improper.svg" (F8: File available on Wikimedia Commons as File:Two-port series-series improper.svg)
  4. (Deletion log); 23:17 . . Ronhjones (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Two-port series-parallel.svg" (F8: File available on Wikimedia Commons as File:Two-port series-parallel.svg)
  5. (Deletion log); 23:17 . . Ronhjones (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Two-port parallel-series.svg" (F8: File available on Wikimedia Commons as File:Two-port parallel-series.svg)
  6. (Deletion log); 23:17 . . Ronhjones (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Two-port parallel-parallel.svg" (F8: File available on Wikimedia Commons as File:Two-port parallel-parallel.svg)
  7. (Deletion log); 23:17 . . Ronhjones (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Two-port cascade.svg" (F8: File available on Wikimedia Commons as File:Two-port cascade.svg)

All these files were marked with {{KeepLocal}}. Do you have a reason for ignoring it? SpinningSpark 00:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As per the discussion at Template_talk:NoCommons, use of this template is designed for images in high risk templates - these do not qualify in that category.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no discussion there - one person stated an opinion and never got a reply. Few people watchlist the talk pages of templates so that is hardly surprising, this cannot be taken as any kind of consensus. A better measure of consensus on this is from the deletion debate for this template. Point to a properly reviewed policy or discussion to justify this. SpinningSpark 00:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a hardly a consensus on that page either. It not as if these were photographs which might have a subsequent copyvio issue. They are simple inkscape drawings. Still if you wish to restore, then please feel free and I'll leave them alone.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
That's right, the result was "no consensus". That is, there is no consensus for you to be doing what you are doing. The default position in a deletion debate for which there is no consensus is "keep", and by extension, this should be applied to the images to which the template is attached unless there is some other reason to delete. Many felt that such images should not be deleted through politeness, if nothing else. Through politeness, you should be informing template posters that you are about to delete against there wishes before you do it. Through politeness, you should now restore rather than telling me that I can if I want - what happens when you do this to a user without the power to restore? My reasons. SpinningSpark 06:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I will restore, no problem. (if a user couldn't restore, then I would not have suggested it). I have to add that I do not agree with your comment on My reasons - "it does not even trigger a watchlist of the article when the image is removed" - I have always uploaded to Commons (when possible), and I get an e-mail whenever an article is deleted that is on my watchlist - as I have the option "E-mail me when a page on my watchlist is changed" checked in "my preferences" on Commons. I suspect that doesn't work if you upload to Wikipedia and then someone transfers the picture. BTW, I have also adjusted the {{now commons}} template on your drawings to stop them showing up on the backlog.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for being so cooperative in this. It is exactly the point that transfers don't go on my watchlist at Commons. Even if they did I would then be obliged to continually monitor Commons (or e-mail) which would be the case if I directly uploaded to Commons. Thanks again. SpinningSpark 20:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeefy

Just get someone to block him (or are you admin?), please. look at his editing history. sparse as it may be, it shows a clear sign. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am an admin, and watching... Deleted the user page for racist tones.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Avocado etc...

Yeah I forgot about that fire. I'm fairly sure there was nothing unusual about that though. Eric & Co were genuinely shocked when it happened As for the other two.... As regards the sprinklers, the fire brigade had previously considered the water-reactive risk was a bigger likely hazard than the chances of a fire. They always had a standing plan for dealing with the plant - stand back, bund it, use water screens and let it burn. Dunno why they didn't do that when it finally did go! Olddemdike (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

They did. They only fought it for about 30mins, then told my manager - "you've lost the building", then they just kept the separate flammable side stores cool.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
safest thing to do - let it burn all the toxins out, especially given the fact there were no drains on that site (I don't think anyone ever realised that) and the concrete raft the building was on was 12 feet thick and impervious. Thats why we bought it. I've made a few more edits to the piece - I just hope no-one gets into trouble about it as it looks an "inside" job and theres not many who have the historic knowledge Olddemdike (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
And the lift shaft pit still stank many, many months later... Mind you the thick polystyrene coating on the underside of the roof (put there when it was an engineering unit, so I was told by JP), did do a major assistance on propagating the fire (which no-one knew about, until it was burning...). As I said I'm leaving it well alone as I still work for them - sounds like you used to...? Your username does not help me know who you are, (or if we have even met) - not that I'm allowed to ask (users and their names are allowed to be "secret")!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I've put some of the references "in-line" - leaving them as a list at then is a good way of attracting attention as "lack of in-line refs".  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
well done - I've never worked out how to do that without screwing it up totally. Looks better now - I like the way you've placed/titled the two MTM reports together. Somehow proves the point...

We didn't know about the polystyrene. To be honest I'm surprised it was there as we lost part of the plant roof during a major storm and as far as I remember there was nothing on the panels that came off. You're right about the engineering. It was owned by Aspinalls. They made structural engineering products in the main part, while the side annex (where the pit was ) was an erecting shop where they bodied the oversize rubbish lorries which pick up dumpsters. The pit was the vehicle inspection access. Olddemdike (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Diplomatic Society of St Gabriel

Why would you remove this recogized organizations page? The DSSG is an UN recoguized NGO , just visit their links to the UN? Ambassador William Weiss, MA , JD DSSG listed with; United Nations Office of Drugs & Crime United Nations Global Compact United Nations Economic & Social Council United Nations Economic Commission for Europe United Nations Educational Social Cultural Organization United Nations Enviromental ProgramCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.44.178 (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's very simple - copying of web pages is not allowed. That page was a copy of www.diplomaticsociety.org, where it states at the bottom of the pages Copyright © 2010 Diplomatic Society of St Gabriel. Thus the page has to be removed as soon as possible.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

hangon wrt new ESCalate HEA Subject Centre page

Hi

I have been asked to fix the fact that the Higher Education Academy Page has links to some Subject Centres and not ours . I'm sorry I can't figure out where to put {{hangon}} or JocelynWishart (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Jocelyn

That's because it has been deleted as SPAM. Advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you wish for it to be userfied then let me know. Even if that is done, it will have to be changed ASAP, as user pages are not exempt from the advertising rule.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Please advise

I am completely mystified by the approach being taken here. There is a longstanding article on the Higher Education Academy with active links to several of its subject centres. It has been noticed that there is no link to our subject centre: ESCalate and I have been asked to redress this gap in the previously written article. I was trying to complete an unfinished web page not create an advertisement. Please check the HEA Academy page and advise me on the best way forward.

JocelynWishart (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

incident command system

It's an incident command system, a common noun, not a proper noun. So incident command system is not a redirect to the correct name - Incident Command System is incorrect. --Espoo (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your CSD said "The page to be moved to this name is Incident Command System. (link to perform this move) Reason for move: as seen in the (first two) sources, there is not a single ICS - it's not a proper noun and not uppercase according to WP's MOS. Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance. See CSD G6." But the first two sources that you said to look at - both show (repeatedly) the name as Incident Command System. therefore I don't see a reason change it. I would suggest that the best way forward for this one is to list it at WP:RM - then you will get a consensus of opinion, and if pro move then the closing admin will do all the moving for you.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The sources clearly use ICS as both a proper noun to refer to a specific ICS and as a common noun (e.g. It is also dangerous to assume that one "incident command system" is as complete, or as effective, as any other.), which means that the WP article about incident command systems in general should be lowercase in WP according to MOS. It's irrelevant that these sources also usually use uppercase when referring to ICS in the general sense - such uppercasing of common nouns is a common bad habit especially in "explanations" of acronyms, but this violates MOS and usage in carefully edited publications. --Espoo (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, you convinced me.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Great, please also move Community Emergency Response Team. Thanks, Espoo (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

incorrect code on this page

The comment "If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere" covers up the last lines of the last comment on this page in Firefox. --Espoo (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not my code (I "borrowed" it, plenty of other editors use it), it works fine in my firefox, here and at work. It should cover the orange line at the bottom of the page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
That's interesting, could i send you a screen shot or upload it? Maybe there's something wrong with my Firefox since the db-move template isn't visible except when clicking "compare versionss", e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_emergency_response_team&diff=384287657&oldid=174881776 --Espoo (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the move template either - I think that nothing shows under a re-direct. Anyway see http://www.ronjones.org.uk/PageBottom.jpg - I overdid the JPG compression, but it shows the effect, and where the red bar is. (My IE8 seems to be similar)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The end of the page for me (Firefox 3.6.9 even in safe mode) is now "You did say that in your bikini waxing edit summary. As for being similar, well, there is a major difference, but " --Espoo (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Red Dwarf CSDs

I don't understand why deleting a redirect to move an article to a standard disambiguation name is considered controversial when it never has been in the dozens of other times I've requested it. Standard disambiguation for episode articles is Title (series), not Title (series episode). These deletions already have consensus based on the broader consensus and putting them through separate move requests is a waste of editorial time and effort. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB does not says that the word "episode" cannot be used, if fact in part of the text it gives an example with the word episode in it. Also I did not see any discussion in the main articles talk pages to show any consensus.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons and that bikini waxing image

Hi Ron. Regarding that bikini waxing image you nominated for deletion on Commons, if it shows more leg it is not a duplicate, and in fact the one in use is a derivative work of the one you want to delete, so deleting the original really seems rather foolish, as it is in scope (as derivatives in use, as well as work by notable artist) we do not require that the image itself be in use. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I never said it was a "duplicate" - I said it was a version of it with more leg. If Commons wants it to stay, then that's their decision. They are so similar I don't see the need to keep both, but we'll wait and see.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
You did say that in your bikini waxing edit summary. As for being similar, well, there is a major difference, but providing variations upon a theme is what we do. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes I did, but that's a bit of poetic license - In the context of the Article in question it was a duplicate, it was the same girl, and at the same resolution (3328 pixels wide), showing the same area post waxing. Fuller details were supplied on the Commons delete request.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Thanks

Thanks for the lovely support vote on my RfA, Ron. Really appreciated it. Warm regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 15:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

How long is 'far too long'?

Re: User 131.137.245.206 I note that you removed my vandalism warning level 4. It was only two months after the vandalism warning level 3, and a large number of other warnings, so that surprised me slightly, but I realise there may be a policy or guideline I'm not aware of. Can you point me in the direction of it so that I know for next time? Thanks! --Korruski (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It a bit arbitrary. I've known some editors "reset" their IP warning counter after a few days, some after a week or so. The page WP:WARNING doesn't really help. You may well be even more correct than me... Personally, I think that after two months, then any vandalism is likely to be a different user. The whole point of blocking is to protect Wikipedia, not punish (that's definitely written down somewhere...). Also I normally used Huggle for vandalism, and Huggle does the auto-incrementing of warnings for you, but resets back to No.1 after a month. Hope that helps (not too much I'm afraid), but keep up the good work.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah well, you could be right. I figured that based on the number of prior warnings, a further escalation might be in order, but I see your point that an ip user might well actually be a different person after two months. Thanks for the help anyway. --Korruski (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Was about to throw in the towel :- ) RashersTierney (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Never give up. Help will arrive...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Shelby Systems

I own the copy written on the Shelby Systems Page you just deleted. It is not a promotional piece. It is history of the industry. Shelby Systems was the first church management software company before most people even had PCs. The vision that it took to write software that helped churches manage their congregations is significant and historical. Please reconsider your position. Mcanady (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Maggie C.

It's not my position, it's Wikipedia policy. If you wish to use web content then it must be properly donated. Please see donating copyright materials for ways to achieve this goal.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you please undelete this article? We have now received OTRS permission for it which I can add as soon as it is restored. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 Done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 10:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:IP vandal

I know why the Twinkle warnings aren't showing up when I do revert the poor material. I think it's being blocked by popups and thus, I'm not getting the opportunity to warn the vandals. I shall have a look into why this is not the case and see if I can change that statistic ASAP. Many thanks also for the kind words, as it can be a pain to revert such rumours on here knowing how some IPs will not rest without a fight! Regards. Cs-wolves(talk) 19:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If necessary one can always load the vandal talk page direct and manually add the page name into the warning selection box. Not ideal, I know. You can always post a message at Twinkle's talk page, maybe someone else has seen the problem. I don't use pop-ups, so I can't comment (what with Friendly, Twinkle, and a few Admin tools - there's precious little room for any more tabs, lucky I use a wide-screen monitor.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, fair point. I think I'll just do it the direct way as you have stated, and widescreen monitors all the way! Cs-wolves(talk) 20:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Declined G7 on Religious interpretations of Genesis

Regarding your declining the G7 speedy deletion of Religious interpretations of Genesis, I nominated it because the article creator left a message on the talk page indicating that "it is okay to delete this article" (I didn't realize anyone was asking his permission but that's another matter I suppose), and every revision since the initial creation of the article has only added, removed, or fixed maintenance or deletion templates. Therefore, the author's initial contribution is still the only addition of substantive content.

If you still disagree that this meets G7, I don't have a problem letting prod expire, and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. =) —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't usually read the talk pages for a G7 - I look at the history of the Article for...
  1. Is requesting user the author?
  2. Is the major content from the author?
If both are "yes" then I delete it, otherwise it gets declined. Anyway, thanks for the message, and it's deleted.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Re: Edit notice

Looks top notch! Hopefully that will deter the IPs from adding unsourced information. Regards, Cs-wolves(talk) 23:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It won't stop them all, but might make some "think again".  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, indeed. Any reduction of the unsourced stuff is a step in the right direction. :) Cs-wolves(talk) 23:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thathaal (clan)

Hi Ronhjones, there was a discussion going on about the title change of the article Thothal/Thathaal, before any decision is to be taken, the title was changed by someone to Thathaal (clan), because there has to be one title and not 2. According to an advice from an admin, a "requested move" tag has been set by me on 17th sept. After a week I put another tag to have the people more time to contribute. ( this other tag has been removed by you, because one can not have two tags at the same time). I was in the favour of changing the title to "Thothal", but since we find 6 villages, belonging to this clan, named "Thathal", while there are only 2 villages named "Thothal". This tilt the title change in the favour of "Thathal". The tag move was relisted by you on 30th Sept. This means, today the week has completed. Do you think if the title could be changed now?. Would you removed the tag now ?. Your advice is needed.Regards.Jogibaba (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

About Miratel

The only reason why User:Miratel blanked the page Miratel because he wanted the page to be deleted. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I suddenly realised that - it was surprisingly large for author delete, and was just too late to delete it!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

S.MS Removal

Hello,

I was editing the article S.MS on the wikipedia site when someone changed it to be redirected to SMS instead and then was deleted by you.

I believe this person editing the page did so in error as I am in Los Angeles and was just at a presentation for the independent S.MS chat platform designed for SMS (http://s.ms).

I am requesting that it be undeleted so that I may continue adding content.

Thank you, Chris

Chrisedu99 (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Userfied - see User talk:Chrisedu99/S.MS  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

why??

why did u delete my imtvojr thing??? imtvojr--Imtvojr (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not allowed. Please read the policies.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Online Pharmacy

Dear RohnJones,

just wanted to know why you felt the line below would not be appropriate as it is a landmark achievement in the UK online pharmacy sector. How should this be written to be approved as it would vastly benefit patients on progress and where to find safe places to buy from UK registered RPSGB online pharmacies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.254.190 (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for recommendations on where to buy - that's WP:SPAM. You have to write it from a neutral point of view  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Here

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For beating me to vandalism way too many times tonight, here's a barnstar for you. Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Connection is rather good tonight, usually the US based vandal fighters beat me hands down, maybe it's down to the new version of Huggle.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have the 9.7 version of Huggle. Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

So do I, we all do. But the 6 version has been very slow of late as it could not use the IRC channel, and it made it very slow here, often too slow to use.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It was very slow, and is this edit constructive? Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't like those sort of edits, you eventually have to find the referenced article and check the data. It's not really the obvious vandalism that Huggle is for.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and should I revert the warning that I put on his talk page. Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A quick check at http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2010-03-28-california-bunny-museum_N.htm does mention "holidays", so that would be yes, I would kill the template, and ask that they make use of the edit summary, so that their edits are not misconstrued.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Edit

Is this edit constructive? Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, another grey area. It's only the sandbox (the template is fully protected, so trials must be done with the sandbox, before requesting a change). I assume his trials did not work... so he deleted them (normally one would copy the whole of the template to the sandbox to trial changes), ideally he should have just reverted back to the version of the last user, if he blanked it and left it that way then I would have just reverted and posted a message that it was better to either revert to the last user before his trials or copy a fresh copy of the template to the sandbox, rather than leaving it blank.

Thanks

Thanks alot for reverting the vandalism on my user talk page. Here's a cookie.

Wayne Olajuwon has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I've found a nickname for you. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you also block Miaa143 indefinitely because of vandalism? Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice, chocolate chip one I hope.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Enjoy the cookie. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please also block Miaa143 indefinitely because of vandalism? Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting until he vandalises after his final warning.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wayne Olajuwon has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Sam Binns / Marcos Senna

Do you still believe Sam Binns replaced Marcos Senna in the Spain World Cup squad?

You did well to revert my asinine edit, but you could have dug deeper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.252.125 (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It was vandalism, it got reverted.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course it was - I have just admitted as much! Why don't you revert the reference to Sam Binns also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.252.125 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If you know it's wrong then change it and explain in the edit summary.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest Ron, the prospect of embarrassing this idiot Sam Binns was more enticing to me than any satisfaction gained from simply removing his notoriety. I am aware I have abused the spirit of Wikipedia but I have just drunk three glasses of white wine. Thanks for your work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.252.125 (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy the next glass :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You are a gentleman. Many apologies for having wasted the time of a genuine Wikipedian for a cheap giggle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.252.125 (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

ineo Tech Article

Hi Ronhjones,

The article Ineo Tech should not be deleted. Ineo Tech is a major OEM and ODM manufacturing company that obtains many global patented products and Develops New Technology. This article is intended to claim and explain the breakdown of new terminology for Complex RAID also original creator of this technology type not founded in Wikipedia or other sources. The following corrections will apply:

Article editing for removal of other Company name's.

Sincerely, thank you.

Sungwu611 (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Sungwu611

Now there is a "Hangon" template, you should explain fully at Talk:Ineo Tech - otherwise the deletion is not contested. 23:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks

I am always surprised at how many people are watching the 2010 Copiapó mining accident and how quickly vandalism is reverted. An incredible amount of work by many people has gone into to improving the article. Thank you for keeping an eye on it. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy to have helped  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

{{Gold compounds}}

Hey there

I took out your addition of some obscure gold compounds used as drugs. I'm thinking that this template is supposed to list all the commonly available gold compounds, those which tend to be used as building blocks for other things perhaps. Do let me know if you feel strongly otherwise. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No particular preference. There were so few gold compounds, that I just listed all I found. Feel free to adjust.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Morphan.svg

Can you please take a look at File:Morphan.svg? Based on the reference I added to the article, and on Chemical Abstracts, the structure should not have a double bond in it. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's Life! I rather cheated, and let SymexDraw construct the formula and the SMILES from the IUPAC name - thus it got a double bond as the IUPAC name was "1,2,3,4,5,6-hexahydro-2,6-methano-azocine". I will re-draw it tonight (I still have the original skc file), and overwrite the one on Commons. Garbage in = Garbage out... Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Huggle templates

Should Huggle use last warning instead of final warning on Huggle final warning templates and regular Wikipedia final warning templates? Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

They were "last" once. There were changed to final - e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Huggle/warn-4&diff=prev&oldid=346439336. I would suggest Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback may be the best place to ask why. I suspect because Huggle uses it's own set that maybe it's always playing "catch up" with the main warning templates.

P.S. Busy night on Huggle - why is Monday always so bad!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I know because I had school today. Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

Reply to me at my E-mail pls. hershelistheman@yahoo.com


-best wishes, Wikipedia user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.229.137.40 (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Duncan Sandys/Norwood constituency

Kindly rationalise your reversion of my edit on the Norwood constituency page, and consequent "Level 1 warning" and "Level 2 warning" to me. Duncan Sandys was first elected for the seat at the Norwood by-election, 1935, not the 1935 general election.

This is obvious from various sources, including the Gilbert biography of Churchill, the works of Craig or, closer to home, the Norwood page itself which details results of elections in the seat.

I have included a level 1 warning to you in this post for clear use of an auto-bot, which has twice reverted a fact back to inaccurate, misleading and false information on what is meant to be an encyclopedia. In future, please only revert yourself, information which you yourself know to be untrue or unsourced. 217.39.4.234 (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no page "Norwood by-election, 1935", which you put up as a link. There is a page United Kingdom general election, 1935, which link you removed. If you wish to show that he was elected at a by-election and not the main election, then you need to explain with some references what happened. There is no BOT operating here. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I invite you to read Gilbert, Prophet of Truth (Vol V of the Churchill biography), p626, or the Constitutional Year Book 1937, p198 ["Constituencies and Elections - England - London Boroughs"]. If these are not to hand then please take a glance at the election results immediately below the list of Members of Parliament for Norwood on that page. It should be painfully obvious that Duncan Sandys was elected at a by-election prior to the 1935 general election; in this case, at a March by-election prior to a November general election. Now kindly do not make further reversions to this page while I add sources. 217.39.4.234 (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is basically what I said, add some sources, and you remove the potential for reversion. The addition of a red link instead of a blue one without any reason will normally be reverted immediately. It is done so often by vandals.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I needn't have bothered, as the article, prior to my revision, already contained Fred Craig's book of 1918-1949 results in the sources. That book contains the results for the seat. A glance at that book would have given the information necessary.
I am currently on a trawl of London seats prior to 1974, and would be very grateful for an absence of attempts to ban, suspend, or warn me while I in one or two cases remove inaccurate information and include facts. 217.39.4.234 (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Then may I suggest that the edit summary is your friend. Just a few words explaining will save you a lot of problems. I don't have a browser open (I open FF3 to reply on this page, then it gets closed) - Like others, I vandal fight with Huggle - it just shows us who changed the page, the size of the change, the edit summary and the "before" and "after". With something like 15-30 pages being vandalised every minute, it's the only way we can keep on top of the onslaught.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

HELP!

i need help with a world geograohy project. Do you mind if i use some of your information?

Wikipedia user P.S.- i need to know soon... like within 2 days. TY in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.229.137.40 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You may use any Wikipedia data - but it must be attributed - see WP:CC-BY-SA  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Re: Speedies

I see you don't like my speedy templates - it took you a long while to not like them (>1 year). I use them all the time, it's just identical the same system that Twinkle uses using the standard Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace messages, so it was compatible not complicated. I know others use them as well. Now I will have to add all of them to my config, and manually check the warning level each time, or jump into Twinkle. I think that's more complicated. C'ést la vie.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There is already a template for telling people not to remove speedy deletion tags, in the template messages list. Why on earth would you want to issue such messages with a four-level warning system? If they remove the template twice, either they read the message and decided to ignore it, in which case just leave generic warnings until they can be blocked, or they didn't read the message, in which case what makes you think leaving the same message three more times will have any effect? Gurch (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The same argument would apply to the standard warnings Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace where there are {{uw-speedy1}},{{uw-speedy2}},{{uw-speedy3}},{{uw-speedy4}} (also used by Twinkle), but those are there, and I have seen them often used as well. In general removal of speedies is a novice user, changing the message to vandalism after one speedy message could confuse them.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yep, the same argument applies to the "standard" warnings. Most of them are unnecessary, redundant or overly aggressive, and those that aren't are often so verbose I can't imagine users ever read them. This is, of course, part of the reson Huggle has its own, intentionally terse and limited, warnings in the first place. Gurch (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ronhjones. You have new messages at Template talk:AfricaProject#Book class.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PBSKIDS

Hello Ronhjones, thank you for your contributions on articles related to PBS Kids. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject PBSKids, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of PBS Kids articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks!


sry!

sorry i did not know what it did. I thought it would not delete the whole section.

-sincerly 

Wikipedia user

help

Hi Ron, I worked on my user page, but I can't seem to get the barnstar back in place. Can you help with that? Thanks. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit to protected page

Hi Ron! With this edit, you relocated a {{Main}} template in an article. Unfortunately, there was no consensus for that move. Moreover, the individual asking for it is himself at the centre of the edit war that gave rise to that page being protected. There is currently a discussion on the article talk page suggesting that the move was inappropriate as it suggests that the entire section in which the template is located relates to that one topic when in fact that template relates only to part of that section. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 04:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done  … with this edit. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
That looks a better result - {{Main}} are normally at a section start (I don't know of another one in mid section), hence I saw not problem with the move.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
You make a very good point. In the end, the editors there made the decision to eliminate the {{Main}} entirely and to just use a contextual wikilink to the topic. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Recently Deleted Page about His Eminency Dr. Hazrat Sheikh Shah Sufi Mohammed Nurul Alam

Hi Ron! You have deleted my page because it was for copyright infringement but I emailed the permissions page telling them that I have permission to use His Eminency's information from his website. How do I put the page back up? The permissions people did not email me back either. What do I do????? Here is the website that I have permission to use http://www.dayemicomplexbangladesh.org/id27.html I also tried flagging my page to tell you guys that i sent out the email. But I do not know if I did it right. Niraleah1 (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. We have no way of knowing who any user is. To us all users are equal. Thus we cannot accept any permission for copyright work use that does not follow the very careful rules laid out on donating copyright materials. In a nutshell there are two choices.
  1. An e-mail from the website owner to permissions-en@wikimedia.org using an e-mail address associated with the website, e.g xxx@dayemicomplexbangladesh.org. - in which case an OTRS ticket will be generated that can be displayed on the articles talk page. OR
  2. Placing suitable license tags on each web page that you intend to use - suitable tags are PD, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA
E-mails claiming ownership that cannot be verified as being the website owner will not work.
If you can arrange for either one to be done, then the page can be easily restored.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Note, however, that information taken from the subject's own website is likely to violate our principles of verifiability, neutral point of view, and reliable sources of information, since there is an obvious conflict of interest involved. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
And other editors will chop it around, delete bits, add bits, etc. You cannot keep a page static once on Wikipedia.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
We just got usable OTRS permission, so if you'll be so kind as to restore the article I'll add the tags for it. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
His Eminency Dr. Hazrat Sheikh Shah Sufi Mohammed Nurul Alam restored - it's all yours.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Ronhjones. You have new messages at Talk:Peter Sutcliffe.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ok, thank you for restoring it, I am adding references. But I need to know how to add the picture to the right side of the page like all other wiki pages? How do I also add the notes section to this page? Niraleah1 (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I realized I do not need a reference list anymore because all the information can be found in the external link I provided. I was wondering if I got the picture from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hiseminencywiththelogoofwashintondc.jpg and would like to edit it in photoshop to make it a 200x300px could I do that and then upload it? Niraleah1 (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you so very much for your patience and feedback! Niraleah1 (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

CSD declined on Eminem-No-Love-Official-Single-Cover.jpg

Hi, Ron. I am constantly messing up deletion noms so maybe you can help me learn how to handle some situations better.

You just declined my CSD F9 nom of File:Eminem-No-Love-Official-Single-Cover.jpg with the rationale that a "full and complete FUR template is in place". The thing about that rationale is that is contains untrue claims, so the basis of the fair-use rationale is false.

The Description says, "This is the cover art for No Love by the artist Eminem ft Lil Wayne. The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the label, Shady, Aftermath, or the graphic artist."

The Source claims, "The cover art can or could be obtained from Shady, Aftermath".

Both of these claims are false, as the (sole) place I found the image is at http://coverlandia.us/?p=26964 (included in my F9 nom), which is a Web site for fans to post cover art they have made themselves. The site includes "© Copyright • Coverlandia 2010" on every page. The FAQ page explains how to submit your cover art, and how to request that somebody make a certain cover for you.

So this image on Wikipedia is not the cover art for No Love by the artist Eminem ft Lil Wayne. The cover art copyright should not be believed to belong to the label, Shady, Aftermath.

Since the FUR is based on lies, we can't really use (or keep) the image on WP. So how do I best approach getting it removed? It seems like it'd be CSD:F7, but I never have any luck with that one, either. F11 comes close, but it seems these things have to be an absolute perfect fit (they almost never are for me), and this one probably isn't close enough.

What's the best tack to take in this situation? Fake cover art pops up a lot, so I'd like to figure out at least this one case. Thanks for your time, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Join the club. I had 3 CSDs for images declines last week (we don't normally delete our own nominations User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#My_CSD-f9.27s). I would ask that how do you ensure that it is a true fake? I know that some album covers differ for each county they are used (e.g a US one may not be the same as a UK one). There is no claim as to the origin, so one has assume that the uploader has taken a photo/scanned of his own album cover. I agree the "source" statement is a bit woolly, but it might also be true, and one could always ask the uploader to correct it if he has taken the photo himself. The whole F9 thing is under great review - see Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Once_again_-_we_.2Areally.2A_need_to_clean_up_F9. Nothing else in the FUR looks disturbing.
Sorry if this was not the definitive answer you required - all I can add, is that if you do see a fake cover and know it so then go for CSD-G3 (blatant hoax). Also you might want to ask at WP:IMAGEHELP  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
My presumption was that since I couldn't find it anywhere else on the Web, and it appears to be only on a site whose purpose is to host and share fan-made cover art, that it must be a fake cover.
Now I am not so sure, as I have also found it on the German Amazon.de page for the single (different from US Amazon.com artwork). This still isn't conclusive to me, as I have seen another fake cover used by a similar site (which led to said artwork being added repeatedly to the song's article) for weeks until the real cover finally surfaced.
I think I won't pursue its deletion now, but wait and see if it gets re-added to the article. It sure would be nice if the official sources would cooperate a little though; I have scanned the sites for Eminem, (his lables) Shady Records, Aftermath Music, Aftermath Entertainment, and Interscope Records, and none of them show a cover any different from that of Recovery the album from which "No Love" is a single.
Well, now I'm exhausted, so it's off to bed for me, but thanks a lot for your help. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Boeing 747

Pardon me but all of my recent edits have been immediately reverted. All of my finding are backed by undisclosable yet reputable sources. I kindly ask you to repost them as soon as possible. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.126.226 (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

All data here has to be verifiable from reliable sources. Undisclosed ones won't do.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

BS24

I suggest you revist his block. The two new allegations of sockpuppetry are most certainly not BS24. There is no reason for BS24 to create two new accounts prior to his being blocked that would take opposite positions against him regarding a mediation that he requested. Arzel (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the checkuser request has been approved, so we will know one way or the other in the near future. That will be a suitable time for him to ask for a new unblock - assuming the check user is false. He may still not get it, as it is obvious that he created a new user name to avoid a block, and action which would normally give rise to an instant indefinite block anyway. He will need to format his next unblock request carefully.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
So an editor makes an honest statement about a previous behaviour for which he has appologized. He then starts over without causing any problems, and by all accounts has been a reasonable editor during the past 10 months, is blocked because he should have been blocked anyway? I thought the purpose of blocks was a corrective action, not a punitive action. This appears to be punitive. The most disturbing facet of this whole affair is that the action was started by AKA as a way to remove BS24 from the mediation process. Arzel (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a grey area - while he was editing as BS24, he was always in violation of the block policy, and the "normal" response is an indefinite block - (that's not forever - it's a block that cannot be "sat out" - it needs the user to request unblock and explain why). I did not say he would not be unblocked, I said he would have to phrase any unblock request carefully. He will have to persuade an admin to unblock him, but he cannot do that while all this SPI is still active.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, he not only violated "fresh start" rules, he also wasn't a "reasonable editor during the past 10 months". I especially think that there is a problem if a user tries to scare away new other users with unjustified vandalism claims, which was the reason for me stepping in and providing "evidence". Arzel, you may not like AKA, but his arguments against a fresh start in the SPI were basically all valid. If NYyankees51 would have followed the Wikipedia rules, then AKA would have no leverage to "remove" him. But the point is, it is not about "removing" NYyankees51, but following the Wikipedia rules. If NYyankees51 followes the Wikipedia rules in the future, then he's very welcome back again. The difficult question admins will have to answer is how NYyankees51 will likely behave in the future. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The check user result is "Possible for both accounts, though the strength of the duck test makes it very likely. There is a proxy and some other advanced technical magic in play here, so checking for sleepers is nigh impossible." Does not look good for NYyankees51 - that's what we should call him, anything else is a block evading sock.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
And now there are 3 more possible socks.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Cusack

Hi Ron, Thanks for taking the time to come to my rescue I'm a complete novice with this Wiki stuff and will be trying to upload some pictures to go with the the history I've done on the Cusacks. I've had eventually tracked down the family of the person who's publications I wish to use images from. They have given me permission and even sent me copies and negatives to use, these had not gone to Trinity College Dublin with the rest of her research papers after her death. I see you have a stone too, I've got images of four stones to put up ! Best Regards C.Cleeve (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Always willing to help anyone who is trying but struggling to follow the policies  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Victor Dahdaleh

Have reworked entry so to conform to copyright infringement have also linked to Clinton Foundation so not an orphan. Diginerd84 (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Huggle then

If you look at this list, most of these users aren't using Huggle today. I wish I using Huggle during that time. Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Editors of all sorts come and go. I think there's 1700 or so admins, of which only 1000 are active. It's just the nature of the beast. Everyone deserves a break from time to time. A year is a long time - not for some vandals sadly...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It's true what you're saying, Ron. That's Wikilife. Most of those users are doing other stuff on Wikipedia now than they did at that time. You were still on that list at that time, too. Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
You'll find me at "11:26, 5 July 2009", before then I was using WP:VF and WP:TW - nowhere near as efficient.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I saw your edit and here's your summary with that edit: (Adding Ronhjones (HG)). I started using Huggle on "18:50, 12 September 2010". Does it matter if you wished you used Huggle then and started this year like I did on that date that I started using Huggle? Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I learnt a lot using Twinkle - although every time I use it now, there are even more options to pick from! Use of TW and HG almost sunk my RfA, as the so-called "automated edits" count was 85% - I'm sure if I was standing now, I would not get through!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
You're right but I never fought a lot of vandalism myself either until I wanted to have rollback then I started fighting vandalism a little more until I got to revert number 50 when I requested rollback for the second time and that's when I started to use Huggle. Will you help me get to your point which is an administrator because I really want to become an administrator? Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Wayne, I think you're approaching adminship the wrong way (at least it looks like it). It seems like you still perceive it as a sort of prize. It can be a goal to work towards, but you may be viewed as power-hungry if you constantly mention you want to become an admin. My comments here still apply. Have you seen Wikipedia:How to pass an RfA? That may be helpful. Take your time; I think you need a few more months of editing before considering adminship. You're on the right track though; we could always use more vandal fighters. Keep it up! Airplaneman ✈ 00:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's my belief that a true vandal fighter will not become an admin now. I often see such RfAs sink like a bomb. My best advice (it's what I did) it to keep looking at WP:RFA (once a week will do, as most last 7 days). See what other editors expect in a new admin - remember that not all those comments are from admins, there are plenty who are not and who have (strong) views on what admins should be like. You should be able to then be able to see the important points (important to the other editors), and try to make sure that you can satisfy them. Edit counts don't count - but they do! - if you get me. Watch what your edit count is doing - especially the automated ones - you are at 78% now (http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/index.php?user=Wayne+Olajuwon&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&begin=&end=) - that not good for an RfA, that also shows 4000 or so non automated, most editors will want to see 6000 here. Another thing I did was to drop into some of the help desk pages and try to help users (usually the science one, for obvious reasons). On talk pages always double check that you are being civil when in discussion - one heated exchange will come back to haunt you later - there's always someone who'll find it! And make sure you keep the nice clean block log. You may note that some editors have a "minimum admin requirement", which they keep as a user page - you may see them referenced at RfAs - always good to check them out fully - some are well OTT, but there are reasonable ones.
You might like to add importScript('User:Ais523/adminrights.js'); to your monobook.js file, it shows you at a glance who is an admin and who isn't - nice when you're viewing the RfAs.
Hope that gives you some ideas where to go with your editing to assist you, it's a bit of playing anumbers game, but we all have to do it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Airplaneman, I'm not approaching it like if it's a prize or a goal. You even said it on your talk page that being an admin is no different than no being one. Ron, how do I get that percentage to go up? WAYNEOLAJUWON 14:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Down, not up - I know I got though with 85%, no need to catch me up! If you look at that link, you will see all the possible "automated tools", so any edit made with them, just adds to the total - each revert with HG or TW is 2 edits (one revert and one warning). Only edits made manually - like here on talk pages or just editing any page are counted as non-automated. Even adding CSD tags etc, can be non-automated if you do it manually and don't use Twinkle - but rather boring. I would suggest looking at articles you might want to improve, we all have knowledge about some particular field (e.g mine is chemistry and UK canals). Another thing to do (and is often mentioned at RfD), it to act like an admin (with care!) - Showing good judgement here could be useful (but on the other hand bad judgement would be bad) e.g closing various deletion process. Some you cannot do without the tools, of course (keeps are easy, deletes are impossible) - See WP:DPR#NAC (and WP:NADC) for details of what non-admins can do - remember to ensure that the full time allowed for debate has expired. If that sound exciting(!) then put {{Admin dashboard/ab}} on your user page to see where there are backlogs that you might be able to assist with. WP:RM is another area you can look at (always heavily backlogged) - you can close some of these either way - the "no move" is easy, the "move" is sometimes possible if the destination page does not exist, or is just a redirect with one line in the history (i.e move over redirect), there is a 3rd choice here, if no consensus after 7 days, one can relist - see Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Non-admin_closure. Hope that gives you some ideas to help you work towards improving your edit count and showing other editors that you have the correct qualities required. There are probably other areas you could also look at - WP:3O comes to mind, there are probably others I can't think of at present.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
If you look at my contributions, I participated in three templates for discussion. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
All good edits towards your non-automated count.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
If you look at my contributions from your standpoint, do you think I have good contributions? WAYNEOLAJUWON 17:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

:File:John hayes.jpg

Hi, I would have thought that if a copyrighted image were copied from a website with no release, then it would be appropriate for a CSD due to blatant infringement even if there is no license chosen by the uploader. As in this case the photo is of a living person, no FUR would be appropriate. Is there established guidance on how speedy does not apply in these situations somewhere? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

F9 is a can of worms - I had lots of CSDs decined, just the same (I'm still learning!) F9 is when there is a claim of free use which is not true, if there is no claim then you can't use F9. Have a read at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Once_again_-_we_.2Areally.2A_need_to_clean_up_F9 - there's plenty of opinions...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

SPDFGH

So if I have this right, I made an edit on the SPDFGH entry and you've deleted it.

Even though I personally know the girls in the group and went to many of their gigs in the early 1990s and thus have some unparalleled understanding to their backstory, whilst you appear to be some old bloke in the UK who probably wouldn't even recognise the girls if you fell over them in the street.

And you think you have the right of way in editing me? I swear you Wikipedia types are all the same. You get so uptight in your own little worlds and your own interpretations of what's right and wrong, you really can't see the wood for the trees, sometimes. And this is a GREAT example of that in action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.65.222 (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I just apply the policies, which all editors have to follow. The policies were decided by a large consensus of regular editors, not by any small group. Any edit that has any hint of a negative tone (especially if it's about people who are still living) must always be referenced with reliable sources, or it will be immediately reverted. If you want to add such statement to some blog, then you are quite free to do so. Any data that is known only to the editor and not referenced is original research, and can not be included here.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Medical College of Virginia (MCV)

I'm looking for some detailed historical information on the Medical College of Virginia (now VCU Medical). It seems the merger wiped out most of MCVhistorical data and focuses on recent history. The old photos and logos and historical details of MCV are gone or perhaps they were never available. Is there a place where I can acess the MCV history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.28.65 (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It was not a merge, it was a proper move and I then merged the histories as it had been the victim of a "cut and paste" move. Following my actions, it was then again moved by "cut and paste" by User:D203. I Have fixed the page histories (again), so that the whole history is under the main article. I have also messaged User:D203 to inform him/her that the move was incorrect.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Cusack - adding images

Hi Ron, I've added a number of images to illustrate the piece. I dont know if I've done it correctly. Could you please have a look sometime to see if I need to make alterations and let me know what should be changed to what? Best Regards C.Cleeve (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems OK to me, not too big, see you had trouble with getting text below the pic (been there myself) - use a clear template - I've done it for you, have a look.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ron, Thanks for your help and guidance. C.Cleeve (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Cusack - Image Size Reduction

Hi Ron, Is it possible to reduce the size of image 'Cussac Le Vieux' to that of 'Cussac, Aquitaine, France' above it on page 1 of 'Cusack'?. If so how do I do it? Regards C.Cleeve (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No. It is the same size - Wikipedia sets the width of the images. The height depends on the original jpg. One is 150x180, the other is 230x300 - so the thumbnails end up as 120x144 and 120x157. The only option would be to take File:DeCusack Sign.jpg, reduce it to 230x276 by cropping mainly bottom of the photo (maybe a bit off the top) and uploading it (to the same filename on Commons)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ron, Thanks again for your help. Best Regards C.Cleeve (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(thio)urea organocatalysis

dear dr. jones,

thanks for your optimization of the article's format. I'm a specialist in (thio)urea organocatalysts but not in the wikipedia style. The optimized format including the references refine the entire article. Best regards IP 79.233.106.53 for email-correspondence:(removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.106.53 (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad you like it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Ernest the Sheep

A couple of editors are supporting the concept of "one last chance." --Stephen 04:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ron. Ernest has the useful advantage of being in the right. MOS:BIO is quite clear on this; country of birth is inappropriate for mention in the lede when it is not relevant to the person's notability. The "consensus" asserted on Nicole Kidman's talk page is also at odds with the MOS. I feel that an indef on an editor is inappropriate when an editor is editing in accordance with accepted guidance, and the editors reverting him are editing against the MOS in a spirit of POV. I ask you to unblock Ernest and allow all to take this to the article talk pages. - Josette (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Without going into whether or not the editor is "in the right", the 1RR meant one revert, not one revert unless Ernest the Sheep is "right". I have commented at greater length at User talk:Ernest the Sheep. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Heitor C. Jorge disrespect me

User Heitor C. Jorge came to my talk page to offend me. He left the following message (he wrote in Portuguese):


Cala sua boca, seu moleque! Se você realmente entendesse o que é vandalismo, não teria sido bloqueado por 1 ano na pt-wiki. To cansado de editores como você, um verdadeiro câncer para o projeto. Fique longe de mim e da minha página de discussão.

Translated into English:
Shut your mouth, your kid! If you really understand what is vandalism, there would have been blocked for one year on pt-wiki. To tired of editors like you, a real cancer to the project. Stay away from me and my talk page.

[1]

I do not admit these offenses. He disrespected and policies need to be blocked. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

We have policies on warning as well. Thus I have warned him to be civil, to discuss content and not other editors, and to talk in English. If he ignores the warnings then please report at WP:AIV.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

November 2010

File:Chris Coons Senate pic.jpg Please give me a chance to defend myself. Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations are not allowed to stay. Please do not use warning templates for valid admin actions  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

1809 in birding and ornithology

Many thanks.I will continue year by year but not piecemeal which I think was the problem.Maybe in a few weeks you will let me know what you think. All the best Robert aka Notafly (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Barkly Street Uniting Church Cricket Club

Why did you remove the Barkly Street Uniting Church Cricket Club page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.77.85 (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not quite me - It was tagged at CSD G12 on 12th October, I deleted it as a blatant copyright violation of http://barklystreetcc.org/barklyst/?page_id=33. Looks like it was then re-created and tagged at CSD A7 and deleted by User:Davewild on the 7th November.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Huggle/warn-speedy-4im

Template:Huggle/warn-speedy-4im has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. mechamind90 05:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

note

Hi, as you commented at ANI I noticed that User Edwardo Sellan has on his talkpage identifying detail (removed), this identifying personal detail was also used as part of the insult. I have seen such stuff removed, and perhaps he should be pointed to read (removed) as I said, I am unsure how we treat such userpage detail so I will leave it to you, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted (including intermediate revisons - and in this page as well) as (removed)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, for the future was there a better way or location I could have brought the issue up? Off2riorob (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
You need an admin to be able to delete the intermediate revisions - so that no one can go back into the page history and read the data. Trouble is, that tends to spread the word - I think the best place to go is WP:RFO - it's constantly monitored, so one can be hopeful of a very quick response.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Right, many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

1809 in birding and ornithology

Good morning I've added some text here.I'm not too keen to add more since there are 200 years to cover. I also need to add some general text to Timeline of Ornithology explaining (for instance) how the focus changes from country to country.1809 as you will see is dominated by France and the emphasis is on collecting expeditions, museums and illustrated descriptive works.But things are starting to happen in Berlin.What do you think? Notafly (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC) ps.The stub 1806 in birding and ornithology illustrates the approach to scientific development

It is a lot better now, it was tagged as "very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject" - I think that is now not the case. Feel free to move it back when you are ready.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Huggle's problems

Huggle is way too slow and it keeps forcing me to close because it has too many problems and I don't always close it. Like Gurch said in '08, "Sadly, Huggle is a piece of junk". WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally the whole system slowed when the Flagged Revisions trial started, and it has never got back to its old speed. My connection has also been slow for the last week, I suspect partly due to the severe gales we have had - may have killed some connections routes, my sync speed dropped from ~5500 to ~4000, it's slowly coming back, and it's windy again - at least living on top of a hill with the sea in view 2 miles away means we can't flood :-). Are you on XP or W7 - I'm planning to move to W7 very soon, but I'm putting the W7 on a Solid State Drive to help boost some speed into this PC.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I have XP but I put this problem on WP:HG/F, too. I think you need to let Gurch about the Flagged Reversions. Do you think this also have to do with my connection speed? WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

1809

Many thanks.All the best from Ireland Robert Notafly (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand...

Hi Ronhjones, I think you misunderstood what I wrote. From reading the discussion on the image deletion proposal page, (1) Nathan claims he made a mistake in attributing the images and explains why, (2) he's being called a liar, (3) an editor who's had harrassment issues in the past makes a claim such actions are commonplace for Nathan (though his block log does not support such - and I cannot find other deleted images to check rationale used). I think the images, sans proof that the copyright holder gave permission, should be deleted. But I do not think an admin should ever make such a libelous claim on no proof and no previous record to support such (ie: "lied") - a simple selection of more appropriate wording would have been better "misrepresenting image copyright attribution" (or whatever), since there is no proof that Nathan lied and since one of the two images (that is used to warrant the block) is being "guessed" to be the same. Hope that explains. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Example... there are images used on the Star Trek: New Voyages page that are ours by copyright. They were uploaded (with permission) by one of our fans. They never indicated such. Under the type of response above, they too could be (incorrectly) called liars had things went in this direction. I've since fixed that (after they'd already been proposed for deletion) by giving permission for their use... but... see what I'm saying? They were guilty of not properly attributing permissions and such. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
No, no. I was not commenting on the block, it was just a reply to your comment - there are too many people who assume (wrongly) that because there is no copyright notice on a web page, then any picture there is fair game for use. You said "The site in question claims no ownership of the image(s) and clearly states it takes fan submissions for the images and stories" - I did not want any others to see that and feel that they could somehow use such pictures, so I just expanded on how copyright is automatically obtained and that those pictures cannot be used here. As for the block, I'm rather neutral - this is his 4th block in under two years, this smacks of someone editing how he wants and if he picks up a few blocks on the way, then that's just another notch in his Wikipedia walking stick (not to mention the attitude of "OK, I read the policy, now unblock me")- so I left the unlock request for someone else (a week for such a blocking pattern I would guess is shorter than most would apply), I feel it might be a while before he succeeds in getting unblocked, if at all, we'll wait and see.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah... got it. I should have added that clarification myself when I made my post, since the image discussion wasn't on his talk page (where he mentioned he'd gotten permission from the image's creator/copyright holder). Sorry I neglected that, and thanks for the answer! Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Oikophobia

I am the primary editor of the article. You have prevented me from defending my article from vandalism. Did you also stop Wayne Olajuwon, TwistOfCain, Xxanthippe and Dougweller for orchestrating this organized attack? Or are you the ringleader? I love the way you do it here at Wiki. Someone, say someone who has no life and spends it here day after day all day, decides he doesn't like a politically incorrect article. What to do? Why, erase the whole damn thing and put up a lefty lie or half-truth in its place! Then, when the author attempts to restore the article under attack, accuse him of vandalizing his own article. And do this by an organized effort. Not one lone scholar. No, no. Leftwing propaganda and organization is here at Wikipedia. And its deep.

And its odd about the timing. Just after James Taranto entitled an article "Oikophobia" in the Wall Street Journal concerning the mosque at Ground Zero. Just when the term began gaining some interest. How strange.Vasser24 (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea about that - I'm just trying to stop a large edit war - I see no point of blocking editors for WP:3RR when a short protection could enable users to come to the table and (slowly) settle their differences.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Then please revert to the article that was up for over one year before the organized attack began November 13.Vasser24 (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no opinion which one is best - the old version was bigger, but that does not make it better and [[]] says "dl material that seems to be WP:OR/WP:SYN, sources need to mention subject of article)" - which is a perfectly good reason to remove material. In addition there are more than one editor who appears to want the smaller version. Since nothing on Wikipedia needs to be done immediately it's probably best to leave it as it is.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronhjones/Archive_7&oldid=1143273052"