User talk:Trijnstel/Archive/2012

This is an archive of User talk:Trijnstel

Topicons

Hi Trijnstel, could you explain the reason for this? Is there now a requirement to display one's userrights with topicons? :O Jafeluv (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jafeluv. No, of course it's not; I only added them to the user pages of stewards, to make them visible in the category Wikimedia stewards. If you don't want to be in that category or if you don't want the topicon on your user page, then you're free to revert my edit of course. Avraham did this a year ago too btw, see here. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, thanks for the response. I've removed the topicon, since I won't be a steward much longer anyway :) I wouldn't edit anyone's userpage like that, but of course it's not my business to complain for other people if they have no problem with it. Keep up the good work as a steward, by the way! Jafeluv (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about some deleted images

Hello Miss Trijnstel; You have deleted images from Pages "Sain Kamal Khan Sherani" and "Maulana Shams-ud-din Harifal" both edited by me. I don't know, but presume there must be some technical deficiencies on my part. May I request you make up that technical deficiencies, bring the images back.As I am not much expert in the given subject.M.A.Harifal. 15:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Muhammad Akbar (talk • contribs) 15:54, 28 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr.Muhammad Akbar. I did delete indeed some images from Wikimedia Commons. Please take a look on your user talk page there: User talk:Dr.Muhammad Akbar. And take a note that you're not allowed to use images from the internet and upload them on Wikimedia. You should have permission and use a valid license (Commons:Licensing). Trijnstel_talk 13:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Link

Hello! You removed a link on Hetalia: Axis Powers and I was wondering why it was removed. The link you removed was a wiki (or fan encyclopedia I guess some would call it) for Hetalia and I don't understand why pages like Pokemon and Sailor Moon can have wikis listed on their pages (Bulbapedia and Sailor Moon Wikia respectively) but Hetalia can't. The link was in no way spam. I know there was an individual on the article's talk page (who I assume may or may not of added the link in the past; I'm not 100% sure on this) who was asking the same thing a few months ago but received no response. If you could respond back to me that would be great. Thank you! 174.114.169.149 (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anonymous user. I removed that link because of this cross-wiki spam report: m:User:COIBot/XWiki/hetalia.wikinet.org. But apart from that it didn't look like a useful external link to me; it's just a private Wiki and therefore it looked like spam (judged by the page Wikipedia:External links). If you disagree with me, please say so. Kind regards, Trijnstel_talk 16:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why the link is listed as spam from that report. Though I'm guessing whoever added the link previously may have added it too many times and triggered the anti-spam bots which brought up that report; as it appears it was added throughout other wikis. The wiki isn't private but rather open (if anything I consider Bulbapedia private because they don't allow editing without signing up for an account but that's just me) and it's been around since 2009. It's considered the leading source for fans for information on the series outside of that particular Wikipedia page and the Hetalia LiveJournal community which is why I added it. I thought it would be useful for new fans who are looking to expand their knowledge on the series and as I far as I know it's the only wiki for the series out there. They've got a pretty tough policy on spam and vandalism so you can pretty much guarantee the information there is accurate. If you still think it's spam, then I won't put it back but it is a site to consider for anyone who wants to grab a broader knowledge on the series since the Wikipedia article only covers the basics. Thanks for responding back to me! 174.114.169.149 (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have one advice for you then: be bold!

Kind regards, Trijnstel_talk 20:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, Trijnstel/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. :) Trijnstel_talk 22:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up, you Dagestani

Dag Trijnstel, toevallig kwam ik op jouw bewerking en de blokkade. Persoonlijk vind ik deze username helemaal niet kunnen, kan je die niet heel eenvoudig laten verdwijnen? Ik had deze message aan jou graag op meta gezet maar om de een of andere reden worden mijn bewerkingen de laatste tijd "afgebroken", en dit is ook op andere wikipedia het geval. Kan daar iets aan gedaan worden of moet ik maar afwachten tot het euvel vanzelf weer overgaat. Lotje ツ (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Lotje! Ik zou zijn gebruikersnaam onzichtbaar kunnen maken, maar persoonlijk vind ik het niet "erg" genoeg om het te doen. Bovendien is het een langdurige vandaal die geregeld aanvalt op (met name) kleine projecten. Aan dit soort mensen moeten we imo niet teveel aandacht schenken. Wat betreft dat "afbreken" van bewerkingen... ik heb het zelf ook wel eens en ik heb geen idee waar het door komt. Ik denk dat de nieuwe mediawiki versie misschien de oorzaak is. Ik zal het eens navragen aan anderen een dezer dagen. Groet, Trijnstel_talk 10:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments

Hello.

Per the page above, I do not advise repeatedly restoring comments on another editor's talk page. While the practice is not advised, users reserve the right to keep their talk pages blank. Thank you. 69.155.128.40 (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anonymous user. I know of that rule, but this person is purely vandalizing. He continuously adds four numbers to his user talk page with blanking the whole page as well. Besides, it's an confirmed open proxy, so it could be a spambot too who does this. Please don't revert my edits. I'll call an admin via IRC. Thanks. Kind regards, Trijnstel_talk 20:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Beatles-blackbird.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Beatles-blackbird.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user vandalized the page. I now restored it. Thanks for notifying me (though via a bot). ;) Kind regards, Trijnstel_talk 10:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

Dear Trijnstel,

I greatly admire your commitment to the spirit of wiki- to make wiki a more educative and fun place to learn-- keep up the good work.

Thank you for your tireless contribution as an admin. Cheers!!!

Adheesha88 (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted images on the article Aitken Spence

Dear Trijnstel,

I'm a compiling wikis on the Sri Lankan corporate sector and I compiled much of the Aitken Spence wikipedia page. I contacted Aitken Spence to obtain images of their founders with the copyright permissions. They sent me two images and I uploaded them on to wikimedia with the info that I had. Then User: Fastily removed the images stating insufficient copyrights. It was noted that images uploaded on wikimedia should be available for use anywhere, not just on wikipedia and that I should get the necessary sharing permissions.

So I contacted Aitken Spence again, explained about the sharing permissions (Creative Commons licenses) after which they sent me licenses with CC-BY-SA for the two images File:Patrick Gordon Spence.jpg and File:Edward Aitken.jpg with the attribution to be made to the company because they hold the copyrights of the image (the images of the founders were taken in the 19th century by the company, no information is available on the exact person who took the photo, but the photos are now owned by the company). So I forwarded that email to OTRS as suggested and despite multiple reminders to Fastily to upload the images (I even mentioned that Fastily could contact Aitken Spence to verify the information provided, if he/she was in doubt of the copyright status), the images were not uploaded.

Subsequently, you had come upon my permissions email and uploaded the two images:

(cur | prev) 13:36, 16 June 2012‎ Trijnstel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,115 bytes) (+116)‎ . . (two images re-added of which an email was send)

Then Fatily has removed the images again:

(cur | prev) 01:30, 13 September 2012‎ CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (34,911 bytes) (-53)‎ . . (Removing "Edward_Aitken.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Fastily because: No permission since 5 September 2012.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 01:29, 13 September 2012‎ CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (34,964 bytes) (-77)‎ . . (Removing "Patrick_Gordon_Spence_Amended.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Fastily because: No permission since 5 September 2012.) (undo)

It is really discouraging to have the images removed after so much communication and coordination after so much time has elapsed. As a wiki composer, I want to give the readers more insight and with these efforts been stifled at every step of the way, it is driving me to point of not caring any more. I understand the importance of establishing the proper copyrights so that the rights of the original authors are protected and that wikimedia is not held responsible for copyright violation. However, the expectations should be clearly stated when the images are deleted and response needs to be timely. I contacted Aitken Spence already and informed them that the copyrights were approved and thanked them for their support. Now, if I contact them again saying that the images were deleted again and ask them to send me more communication after so much time has elapsed, it would reflect badly on me.

I have already provided the contact details of Aitken Spence to verify the copyright details if in doubt to OTRS.

I hope that OTRS would not make it such a cumbersome process to have the content available for public. It is sad that when all parties (including copyright holders) are willing/ and would be benefited from the uploads, the admins like Fastily take their authoritative position to hinder public discourse.

I further suggest that OTRS admins send a standard email with what is expected from uploaders when deletions are made, with specific comments on what is missing being highlighted. This would make it easier for all involved.

Thank You,

Adheesha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adheesha88 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 16 September 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Dropping a note here, so you know I'm busy with it. It's a huge puzzle. Lots of emails etc, but you'll hear from me soon. Trijnstel_talk 13:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The three related tickets are (after all the merging): ticket:2012051210002514, ticket:2012051210002541 and ticket:2012082010007347.

Thanks for look in to this Trijnstel - Adheesha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.154.208 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 24 September 2012‎

Hi Trinjstel, just wanted to know the status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.45.81 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 6 October 2012‎

Sorry Tinjstel, just realized that you had left the OTRS tickets earlier, I will then go ahead upload the images again. Will drop the ticket numbers with Fastily also that he knows the ticket info. Thank you so much for all the effort :) Adheesha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adheesha88 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 October 2012‎

Please don't re-upload them. I'll talk about it with Fastily, see also here. Kind regards, Trijnstel_talk 16:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Will not reupload. I will wait for the files to be restored. How long do you think it would take?..Adheesha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adheesha88 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 13 October 2012‎

I restored the two images, but the permission (in ticket:2012051210002514) is not adequate enough. I send a reply in which I ask for more information. Trijnstel_talk 18:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Trinjstel. Will get back to you with the info. Thanks again for restoring the images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adheesha88 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 15 October 2012‎

Images of Karen Lumley & David Nuttall

Hi. The images you've added today to these pages were previously added by User:The Image Man - who is the source of the images at the Common iirc. I'm fairly certain this user is a sock of User:Marquis de la Eirron (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron) who's a banned user, certainly here and, I think, at the Commons as well. I could be wrong of course, but it seems more than likely given the recent behaviour of M de la E and the extent of sock puppetry. I'm sure there's a darned good chance that permission has been received properly for using the images - my concern lies more with how to respond to a banned user in this sort of situation. I'd appreciate any help you can give in that regard. Thanks Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blue Square Thing. It might be correct that "The Image Man" is a sockpuppet of "Marquis de la Eirron" - I don't know both users, I don't know they were blocked on this project, Marquis... doesn't have an account on Commons and The Image Man isn't blocked there. The permissions are all valid (he emailed the copyright holders and they accepted), so that's not a problem either. But: as long as they don't do bad stuff on the project where they uploaded things, I don't see a problem in accepting the images. They are all great and it would be shame (IMO) if we would refuse those. It's not copyright violation now, so... Hope this helps a bit, if not, feel free to ask further. Kind regards, Trijnstel_talk 19:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw Image Man has been blocked as a sock here now. My major concern is the message this sends, particularly given that the same user (who, if you investigate the number of socks he's had - many of which did have Commons accounts afaik and were blocked there - which have deliberately misled about the validity of images in the past). My understanding is that a project wide ban is a pretty serious thing and I have some concerns that the user's just found a pretty handy way around the issue.

I'll leave it to your judgement, but it's a concern more than anything, especially given the range of SPI in place. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of channels on Virgin TV

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=4400287#big_delete_needed_at_en.wp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_channels_on_Virgin_TV why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.20.131 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 5 November 2012‎

Please explain why this big delete was needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.20.131 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 5 November 2012‎

You should contact admin Beeblebrox as he's the one who closed the AfD, see here. I only deleted it because a local admin couldn't do that. Trijnstel_talk 17:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted images on the article Rachel Nichols (journalist)

Greetings. I see you have twice deleted images on my Wikipedia page, and I'm confused about why and how this works. The images are my property - there is no doubt as to their origin or any copyright issues, since they are my personal photos of myself. When I uploaded them the first time, I was not aware I had to get OTRS permission. However, I have since followed the exact instructions for such permission - I have sent an email with a full release and identified the correct license. I then followed the instructions on the Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/FAQ page exactly - it says "As long as you have placed the "OTRS pending" template on the file description page, the image will not be deleted and the email will be placed in a queue where emails are answered in the order received." Did I not do the coding right? It seemed to show up correctly. Accordingly, the images should not be deleted, right? I am new to this (obviously), so I am happy to learn if you can steer me. I thought I did everything right - I even put a note on the edit page detailing that these were not screenshots and were from my personal collection, just so editors would have an idea of what had been submitted to OTRS. Please let me know how to fix this.

Thanks much, Rachel Rma2ran (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rachel/Rma2ran. You should know that I didn't delete the images itself. They were already deleted by another administrator from Wikimedia Commons and as such the links didn't point to the images anymore. That is why I removed them from the page and that's why "CommonsDelinker" (a bot account) did so earlier as well. I saw your email in OTRS (here). I don't have time to close it right now and restore the images, but I hope someone else will do it. When it's done, you're free to re-add them into the article. Trijnstel_talk 22:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much - I posted a response on my talk page, but I can't tell if that gets flagged and forwarded to you or not. Sphilbrick was nice enough to step in to do some Wikipedia-to-English translating for me, so here was my note to you and him:

Thanks so much to you both - I appreciate your patience with someone who needs a little guidance! As you can tell, there are two public figure Rachel Nichols, so my agency has been eager for me to post some photos of myself on my Wikipedia page, for further clarification. In looking at the two of us, you certainly wouldn't think people would get confused on who is who, but you'd be surprised! On some of the shoots we do for ESPN, the producer takes some pictures of the exact setup the camera is going to be positioned in, so we can see what the shot will look like and make modifications without rigging up the entire camera first and then having to shift that around. I have one particular producer who does not have a cameraphone, so I always have him take the pictures on my camera. I can see how these pictures are confused for screenshots, but they are not. In the Dwyane Wade picture Sphilbrick mentioned, he and I are chatting about his Dwyane's kid's basketball skills while we wait for everyone to get set up...definitely not what aired on ESPN :) I assumed since the photos are of me, with my camera, and have solely been in my possession, I have the rights to them. However, I can have the producer who snapped the photos write an addendum release, if necessary. If he does that, how do I submit it in an "attached" way to my previous email, so that whoever is reviewing them can see them together? Obviously, this will be a little time-consuming, so I'd prefer to skip this step, but if it's what's necessary, he'll certainly agree to it and I can try to get him started. Rma2ran (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UnDelete Request

Hi Why have you removed the extremely useful Virgin TV Channel List page?

It was a good source of information for the current Virgin TV Lineup (all formatted per genre) and had information about new services, old services and services due to close..

Unless their was a reason for its removal, please can you put it back..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_channels_on_Virgin_TV

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.188.246 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 25 December 2012‎

Someone asked me this before. You should contact admin Beeblebrox as he's the one who closed the AfD, see here. I only deleted it because a local admin couldn't do that. You may post a request on this page when he doesn't reply to you or when you are unable to resolve the issue: Wikipedia:Deletion review. Kind regards, Trijnstel_talk 12:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]