User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 60

← Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61 →

Jacob Avigdor

Hi. I think you should have warned me. Indeed, I took the picture but I no longer have it. How can we replace it now (?!)Healkids (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Healkids. We cannot replace it without evidence that the owner has given permission for Wikipedia to use it. The image that was uploaded was not the original photo; it was a low resolution, poor quality copy. If you have proof that you took the photo then we can reupload it. I have a copy of it if you wish to have it for personal reasons. But you cannot upload it to Wikipedia or Commons without supplying evidence that you took the photo, or that the photographer passed on copyright to you. If you wish to have the copy of the image, email me, and I'll send it to you in return. SilkTork (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, just saying that you could have given me the opportunity to do the proving that you talk about before removing. Anyway, I did take the picture over 50 years ago even if it was poor quality! I don't know how I can prove it at this time, there were witnesses who are now dead. I stated in good faith that I took the picture obviously its not enough. The picture was in Wikipedia for many years without anyone questioning it. If you will hold your stand I suggest (for the benefit of the readers) that you could include a photograph of him found in the article "History of the Jews in Mexico" under the title" "Mexican Jews of Polish descent in 1961". He is the first man at right (sitting with hat). I know because I am related to him. ThanksHealkids (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Healkids. You were notified that the image was of concern: [1] so it is somewhat inappropriate for you to be claiming that you were not notified. I'm sorry that you didn't keep a copy of the image, but as Wikipedia is not a repository of images, it is ultimately the responsibility of the copyright holder to look after the original images, not ours. Be aware, that images can be deleted or altered at any time. The image itself was not a photograph, it is a low resolution, poor quality scan of an image that may have been of a photograph or may have been of an image published in a magazine or on a website. As such it is difficult to accept, without further evidence, that any person merely saying so is the genuine copyright holder. We have rules regarding the use of photographs, which are there both to protect Wikipedia from being accused of using copyright images inappropriately, and to protect copyright owners. An insistence that you are the owner of the image when the image itself is not original is not sufficient. Wikipedia and commons are subjected to thousands of claims that stolen images belong to the uploader, when this is not true. As such we have to do due checks. Sometimes illegal images remain for years on Wikipedia. That they have not previously been spotted does not make them legal. As regards the image you suggest, File:Judíos polacos en la Ciudad de México, 1961.JPG, I am not going to chase it up, but the uploader has taken a photograph of a photograph and claimed the original image as their own. This is a dubious act, and if looked into may result in the image being removed from Wikipedia and Commons. Also, other than your - no doubt true - claim, we have no evidence that the person you speak of, is the person in that image.

Wikipedia is intended to be a source of reliable knowledge, so we strive for verifiable information. I have had a quick look on the internet and found this page: [2]. There are two additional images there. What I suggest you do is contact the website to be put in touch with the copyright holders and ask them for permission to use the images on Wikipedia. The contact details are here: [3]. The procedures for gaining permission are given at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Good luck with that. And if you need any further help, please do ask. SilkTork (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my changes and name

Hi @SilkTork, thanks for the quick response.

My name is John McLean (https://ca.linkedin.com/in/ajohnmclean), and as a Group Technical Manager at HCL I currently have 2 "named" responsibilities in HCL Commerce: Service Release Delivery and Documentation as well as the informal "whatever it takes to get the product out the door".

In 2019, HCL acquired the IBM Commerce product set, along with a ton of other stuff. When discussing some documentation issues with a customer recently, they pointed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCL_Commerce as the authority on releases that are available and they had concerns that we were not keeping this documentation up-to-date. I would have hoped they would see our documentation pages as that authority, but that's another battle. I saw that product links were to the now-deleted IBM material and as you can see from my edits, I corrected those to point to the right place for the product versions acquired by HCL. Additionally, the latest stable release was the wrong number and the wrong date for that wrong number. My intent was only to correct that information and keep it up-to-date as releases are published, so no real "opinions" that should be seen as conflict of interest.

As for the name, I made one change without an account, knowing that the IP address was going to be recorded. I assumed it would have been HCL's vpn address, not my home ISP-issued one. That led to creating an account. I looked at some other examples and it seemed that people were not using their actual names, so in a spur of the moment decision, I created "HCL Development" then realized that was too broad, hence the change request to HCL Commerce Development in the interest of transparency.

I am open to (virtually) anything in the way of a name, and appreciate any feedback you might have in that regard.

HCL Development (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

User:McLean at HCL would be accurate, informative and acceptable, though you may find you enjoy being involved in Wikipedia, and may wish to have a name that reflects you more broadly as you begin to edit articles on things that interest you (the music you listen to, the place you live, the countries you are going to visit, the occupation your grandfather had, etc). Meanwhile, as you are writing about the company you work for you need to read WP:COI and follow the guidance there. SilkTork (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

I promise I will not give you any reason to regret unblocking me. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

District categories

What do you make of the suggestion I made here about in general not sub dividing at district level, that is to say generally only having "X in" categories at county level and then putting in the district topic category (or parish)? This would mean categories like Category:Transport in Uttlesford should be merged. Fordham in Colchester district and Little Chesterford in Uttlesford district are both in Category:Villages in Essex and Fordham is also in Category:Borough of Colchester and Little Chesterford is also in Category:Uttlesford but I think if we sub divided at district level namely Category:Villages in the Borough of Colchester and Category:Villages in Uttlesford it would be far more difficult for the average reader to find the articles since most people are very likely to know what county a place is in but they are very unlikely to know the district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

MOS:ORDER lost

Hi. In the edit you did to Karnataka, the MOS:ORDER was changed for the Short description. Can you verify if the AWB settings are good? Thanks! -- DaxServer (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I just checked, and this is a reported issue: Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#AWB_not_respecting_MOS:ORDER. I'll download the version they indicate there, and see if that fixes things. SilkTork (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

That explains! -- DaxServer (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

-- DaxServer - yes. And it's an odd issue because I did update my AWB, but it seems that the updater misses out on the fix. If you hadn't let me know, I'd have messed up a lot of articles! Hopefully, I have caught all the ones that were altered incorrectly by my AWB. SilkTork (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Films associated with the Beatles has been nominated for renaming

Category:Films associated with the Beatles has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Template talk:Authority control

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Template talk:Authority control, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

The formatting you removed from my comment was directly relevant to the substance of the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi David Eppstein. I apologise for any upset you have felt. The formatting was interfering with the text on the page, such that it was not possible to click on the link to Lori Lamel; the adjustment I made was not done to offend you (though you may opt to take offence if you wish, I have no problem with that), it was done per the guideline you link to above, under "Fixing format errors". SilkTork (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The interference of the formatting with the text on the page was deliberate, to mimic the interference of formatting of the new textbox with article content. By changing the formatting you are changing the semantic content of my comment. You shouldn't have to be told not to do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

No worries - you've told me now. I'll go stand in the corner. ;-) SilkTork (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

And thank you for seeing sense and adjusting the formatting. Your attitude is questionable, and your responses to others is a matter of concern for someone who holds admin responsibilities, but at least you make adjustments to your behaviour when it is pointed out to you, so credit for that. SilkTork (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)