User talk:Andrew c/archive9

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

Images:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_October_9#Image:Siberian_Shaman.jpg You have tagged these image as possibly being unfree. As I have already stated: as the author I am with in my rights to place them under the GFDL images category. To clarify I am the author of the images posted on Wikipedia. I am not Sivkov. It appears that in the course of maintaining the integrity of this sight you have jumped to unfounded conclusions.

Respectfully, DebrayR—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.176.169.21 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 October 2007

You'll have to forgive any confusion:

I would like to point: Though, I am not the artist I am the owner of those to paintings. Under property rights law I can release them in any fashion. To explain this: If, you own all of Wal-Mart you could use the logo in however you saw fit.

DebrayR —Preceding unsigned comment added by DebrayR (talk • contribs) 23:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity:

Starry Night, the magnum opus of van Gogh, is owned by (entrusted to) the Museum of Modern Art in New York (the MoMA). It is the MoMA that has discretionary power over the image. Not the heirs of van Gogh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DebrayR (talk • contribs

) 18:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The editor who has posted this also claims the copyright. The artist, however is still alive. It is unclear if the editor is also the creator of this image. Freshacconci | Talk 00:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I received a message regarding this image to my talk page: Images:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_October_9#Image:Siberian_Shaman.jpg You have tagged these image as possibly being unfree. As I have already stated: as the author I am with in my rights to place them under the GFDL images category. To clarify I am the author of the images posted on Wikipedia. I am not Sivkov. It appears that in the course of maintaining the integrity of this sight you have jumped to unfounded conclusions. Respectfully, DebrayR—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.176.169.21 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 October 2007

It is clear to me that since this person is not the artists Sivkov, even if they did take the photograph, they cannot release it under the GFDL because the subject matter/content of the photograph is copyright. That's like saying I could simply photograph the Wal-mart logo and then use it for my business because I was the creator of the photograph. I'll try to contact the user to explain this.-Andrew c [talk] 22:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Here is some more info. The person claims that they bought the artist's work and that they own this painting. That changes thing, but I am not familiar enough with copyright law to know if transfer of ownership applies here (it probably does. I know that it's highly probable that IBM owns their own logo, not the artist who created it Paul Rand).-Andrew c [talk] 23:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know for sure how this process works, but I believe it needs to be an administrator who makes that decision. You may need to contact someone who works within the arts and ask them. You can try here: WP:LA. Freshacconci | Talk 22:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the images - I think if you go to the tags and then click on the discussion, say that the paintings are needed for the article, they belong to you, and you'd like any input from an editor in order to correctly describe the proper attribution. Modernist 22:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know when my images will be removed as possibly being unfree.

DebrayR 21:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of

) 22:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

ok

ok i understand, it is that i have to put in there the soucre that where is it from (the image), but i put the airlines´ website that is a soucre for the logo. Do you think i have to umploadd the image and them add in threre the [Fair use rationale] the image will be free of any roules violation=? or what specific i have to do so the image wont be deleted=?

Lacreta 03:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, if you can spare time, I invite you to have a look at Biblical criticism. I've spent some time trying to improve it and would like to have some other input. Cheers PiCo 01:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the DYK backlog, we should probably update as often as possible. It is due now.--

) 15:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

07:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. I agreed with you. I deleted under

13:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The differences haven't been workable for a month, it seems. Maybe longer. (I have only arrived in the past week or so.) And as far as I can tell, the conflict isn't confined to any two people. Efforts to resolve it at the talk page have failed. Is it reasonable to request mediation yet? If not, can you advise us of another step we should try? Please follow up at Template_talk:Islam, whenever you find the time. 67.71.1.139 15:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you were mistaken to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Lonestars as Withdrawn. Had no one participated in that AfD, it could have been withdrawn. However, I had participated in that AfD with a delete position. Merely because Allstarecho changed his view on what should be done with the articles was no reason to ignore my delete position and close the Austin Lonestars AfD. Allstarecho does not obtain control over an AfD that exceeds those who participate in the AfD merely because Allstarecho listed it. Please reconsider your early close of that AfD. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 21:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reopening it. : ) -- Jreferee t/c 00:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for disturbing, but an update of the DYK template is quite overdue. I asked Anonymous Dissident‎ a while ago, but he seems to be away. The next update is ready to go. -- !! ?? 13:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

...with the image of the van on Pro-life!LCP 17:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the description of the second part of the list to read "Others whose positions could be construed to be supportive the ban at one point or another." Does that work for you?

I was trying to get together a list of those seeming to be supportive of the ban to see who B might have had in mind as his pair of socks. --Pleasantville 15:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Photouploaded has extended the complaint raised on

) 18:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge ArbCom

You pretty much answered my question

(Ni!)

02:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent comment on PAS page

That was terrific. Seriously. Thanks.LCP 02:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you do the DYK update within the next two hours? I want the Michigan hook to be on the main page during the game.--

) 21:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just found a message telling me that after my recent update (and other people's diligent proofreading), Vix has been included in DYK. I feel appreciated. Thanks. athinaios 22:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the nod for Blanca Errázuriz... did you spot it was a double nomination as the author should get two DYKs too. thx for your godd work Victuallers 22:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, an IP got one past us all. Several revisions ago, someone put Seventh Day Adventist in the very first sentence. As I went back through revisions, every one after Joseph Haller's had some vandal trash in it. I still could be missing something, so I wanted you to know what's going on.

I also put in an RPP semi-protect indefinite. If you agree with that, perhaps you would add your weight to the request. I know that you spend so much time protecting and improving the various articles on Jesus. Probably no two of us will always agree on issues, but we can look at it this way: if two of us agreed on everything, one of us would be superfluous (Meant to be humorous). I tremendously appreciate your efforts, and am glad for this "opportunity" that has reminded me to say THANKS, ANDREW! Afaprof01 23:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that they're vandalizing again. If they continue, do you think the range-block should be re-instated? Acalamari 16:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to act independently. I just IP-range blocked the range again for 3 months this time. I noticed last night (exactly a day after the block expired) the vandalism occurred, and it has since come from 3 different IP addresses in that range, despite my attempts to warn them. It is completely inappropriate to continue the disruptive edits directly after a block, and I have tried to communicate with the user. If you think my block was too long or too soon, I'd be glad to undo it.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the block: as was pointed out when you did the first range-block, the vandalism went on for months, the histories of several pages were ruined by the constant overlinking vandalism, postings to their talk pages were ignored, and no good edits came from those IPs anyway. Also, as you just said, they vandalized with different IPs not long after the block expired. I would, however, suggest you leave CambridgeBayWeather a note about the block, as he was also involved with this as well. Acalamari 16:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Done.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No problems. I noticed they had started again. I forgot they were blocked and seeing as there were no complaints it looks good to me. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you do me a favor? Please notify me if this ever reaches Deletion review, as I believe the closing administrator just counted votes rather than interpreted the strength of the arguments presented.

18:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I think there has been a little confusion about this DYK notification on my talk page[1] for Cyclura rileyi cristata: this DYK rightly belongs to User:Mike Searson who is the author of the article, as well as the original nominator; I just provided an alt hook for it when I saw it on the Suggestions page. I suppose the attribution info got mixed up when the various hooks were moved from Suggestions to the Next Update and reduced to a single hook, or something.

I could move the DYK section from my talk page to Mike Searson's talk, but I guess it's preferable that I let you award it to him "officially".

On a related note, I usually prefix my alt hooks with " ** + ALT: ...that ", but please let me know if it'd be useful that I copy-paste the original nominator's info on an alt hook before signing it, so as to limit you guys' workload on a DYK update.

Cheers — Komusou ^talk @ 07:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. : There must be something in the Kool-Aid today, because I just received a second DYK notice in error, so I guess that makes copy-pasting the original author a must when having a lil alt hook fun ;-) — Komusou ^talk @ 15:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, I think the DYK banner you are looking for for hook-writers (not "hookers") is here: User talk:Espresso Addict#DYK ... hook. If not, never mind. --PFHLai 23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I get it. Thanks.Stretchdeary 16:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sortof new to all of this, so bear with me here. I had changed the section on Christian Heresies to include Mormons, Jehovas Witnesses, and Christadelphians under the catagory of "Other Heresies" rather than "controversial groups." You reverted it back to its original state saying I didn't have any sources, and therefore, my actions were "extremely biased." (honestly, that's an absurd accusation, you don't know my background or my motives, and nearly anyone educated on the subject of Christian Heresies would agree that the three groups catagorized as "controversial" are unorthodox and heretical according to historic Christianity). For one, none of those three can affirm any historic Christian Creed -- Nicene, Apostle's, Athanasian, etc.. Another point would be that they contain beliefs which are similar or the same to other groups which already have been classified as heretical on the CH page (particularly under the Christological catagory).

Look at the section on Christology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_heresy#Christology), it states that "the earliest Christian heresies were generally Christological in nature, that is, they denied either Christ's (eternal) divinity or humanity." And yet Mormonism, Jehovas Witnesses, and Christadelphians, all do just that (amongst other things). So in condemning the Arians, etc., the Early Church also condemned these other groups (albeit, unknowingly and without direct intent -- simply because these three groups didn't exist back then exactly in the form they do today). MattH1517 15:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I just wanted to let you know that a new user

12:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Abortion in South Africa

Hi, Andrew. Would you mind checking out the recent discussion at

) 17:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the DYK!

Thanks for the DYK on Bonny Warner. I really appreciate it. Chris 22:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Help! In 2 hours, we would have missed a full update!! I've moved hooks to the next update page. Need admin help to move to the main page. Thanks. Archtransit 15:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks/resolved. Archtransit 16:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to upload and protect commons images locally, or vandals can show porno on wikipedia's main page by uploading at commons! --74.13.128.59 16:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Howcheng protected the Poe image at commons. So it's okay now. --74.13.128.59 17:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrew,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture

} 17:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK next update is RED! Thanks. Mrs.EasterBunny 23:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Was this really a good idea?[2] Doesn't pass

06:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

GDFL-self tag

sorry but those images where bought by me in a flight simulator program and i got permision to put its in the web. Why i can't use GDFL-self if i am acepted as the owner of this work-copy by the page?? Lateta 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at

01:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Upps

Sorry but im not User:Lateta, this is my sister's user. Sorry again, my languaje is not the english thats why this article

has too many grammatical errors. What do i have to do for the correction of tis article? Thanks Lacreta 21:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I read your list of Six-String's sock-puppets here. I was wondering if there were another sock currently operating within WP, and specifically the John Lennon article. I am not sure, as Six used to claim that he knew someone who used to work for Lennon, and there is another long-time user in the article who has made the same claim. i hesitate to mention the name, in case the user is innocent, but a quick glance at the discussion page for that article would quickly indicate who the subject of the concern is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do, Thanks for the response. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Andrew c.

) 06:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Urgent - DYK needs updating

FYI. The DYK section of the Main Page needs updating. It has not been updated in almost eight hours! Chris 14:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just fyi, my "recent data" statement was my justification for removing a claim about firstborn children weighing less. I did not place or advocate for the claim about a woman's primiparity that you removed. Antelan ^talk 01:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Youi never sleep,so you are tired? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.46.129 (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! This is my first one. :) 18:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I can seem a little rude in some edit summaries, and in general one should deal with anons much more delicately, I suppose. However, the anon in question is actually the user "Biblical1", as coordinated contributions to a comment on my talk page has led me to understand. This user has an extensive edit history, and therefore I'm not going to bend over backwards to explain policy to him (I've already done so with 3 other users this week, typically to no avail). As it stands, I feel that my summary was an adequate explanation of things.

How hard must one try to explain that removing sourced information to replace it with unsourced information that supports only one point of view is not "adhering to NPOV" or "removing bias"? It's elementary to understand, but this user is persistent. Additionally, this user has been leaving the occasional message on my user page, in which he speaks in a condescending manner to me as if I'm some sort of imbecile (not being aware that this is my primary field of study as well). Note, additionally, his rather rude summary here.

As much as I enjoy being told to "read more books" and to be proselytized on my own user talk page, there may soon come a time where I will report this user for harassment. In any case, one can understand that the user is pushing an agenda; in doing so he is (ironically) ignoring

05:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments

Please read my reply.[3] Sbowers3 19:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded a fixed version of the tugboat diagram that I think addresses your concerns here. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

ωδε η σοφια εστιν ο εχων νουν ψηφισατω τον αριθμον του θηριου αριθμος γαρ ανθρωπου εστιν και ο αριθμος αυτου χξς. Try to learn Greek and translate the word ψηφισατω. Is it count, or is it vote ? There is no one who refuses that the word "ψηφισάτω" also means "vote". At the same time everyone who translates the Bible in English translates it as "count" or "calculate". I mean everybody, and this is very strange, really. If the writer really wanted to say "count" he could use a lot of other synonyms, like "μετρησάτω", "υπολογισάτω" e.t.c. But if he wanted to say "vote", there is only one way to say it, it is "ψηφισάτω". How do you explain the fact that , although everyone knows that "ψηφισάτω" also means vote, none dares to translate it like that?

Before translating the bible, let me remind you how serious the translation is. Let me remind you the curse of the writer of the apocalypse: "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the wood of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicsies (talk • contribs) 02:04, 16 November 2007

Thanks for bringing that to my attention! Who knew it'd be in demand. I've emailed the owner so we'll see what happens. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even notice at first: the alt text says it's from a Tampa home for sale. Ugh, realtors. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As it happens it's not in Colorado either. A relative's house in PA, where enclosed knob and tube is completely insurable. Not a single house on the block has replaced theirs. I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to believe that 80 year old wood could look like that in Tampa. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to revamp the images related to various synoptic problem, source criticism issues. However, Image:Synoptic problem Markan priority.png is misleading if not inaccurate. The hypothesis of Markan priority only states that Mark was written first. It does not necessarily negate the idea that Luke used Matthew (or vice versa). For example, the Farrer hypothesis supports Markan priority, but your image would not account for the Farrer hypothesis (and while we are on that topic, will you please note that Image:Synoptic problem - Farrer hypothesis .png has a major error). Also, the image is a bit misleading because it seems to imply that there are no other sources for Matthew and Luke than Mark (when the most popular solution is the two source hypothesis). I think because of the complexities with Markan priority, it may be best to simply not have an image for that article. Also, another brief note, if you are going to be uploading text and line graphics, they are generally better rendered in vector format, so if possible, could you make these new image files into SVGs? I'd be glad to try an explain how in more detail if you are not familiar with the process. -Andrew c ^[talk] 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I do see how the image of Markan priority is misleading? I could put questions marked arrows in between Matt and Luke, but actually we probably are best off without any image. "Mark Was First" is sufficiently simple that we probably don't need an image to convey it, at least not on the Markan Priority page. And thank you SO much for the catching the Farrer hypothesis error. How embarassing-- thank goodness for the many eyes of Wikipedia. I've corrected it.

About SVG-- I spent way too long trying to con my stupid M$ Visio 2003 into saving the images a SVG. it works... sort of, but it produces very strange results-- for example, see: [:Image:Synoptic problem markan priority.svg]

Say, if you're have a second or three-- would you look over Purgatory and tell us what you think? I felt like it had major stylistic problems, to the point that a general lay audience would have basically no chance of understanding it. I did a rewrite, but it's proving to be more controversial than I'd expected, and I can't get it to stick. I'm running an RFC, but as usual nobody shows up :)-- if you find the time to lend us your view on whether the rewrite is a step in the right direction, I'd be most grateful. :) --10:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, The changes currently being made to

) 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. C, There was so much back-and-forth on that page, including deletions by LCP, I hardly think I am guilty of of 3R. LCP deleted additional information I put on that page. Please go back and recheck the back-and-forth. --131.216.41.16 (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. LCP and I have begun to engage on the talk page. --131.216.41.16 (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you sent me a message saying that one of my external resources I added to an article was against the rules and you removed it. I don't understand this. How can adding a worthy source that is helpful to the article bad? If an article is about a person for example, and you post the URL to the person's blog, is it not credible? Or if the article is about a book of the Bible and you post a URL to an article written by a reputable and well known pastor or author about that book of the Bible, is that not helpful? I just need clarification. Thanks! 208.253.81.23 (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Saw your question on this on the village pump - I answered there, but figured you may be more likely to see this here. Anyway, this sounds like it could be something to do with a Firefox configuration item. If you type "about:config" in the address bar, you'll get a page containing all the Firefox settings. Parameter browser.cache.check_doc_frequency controls when the browser will check for new versions of a page, when it will use the cache, and so on. Values are: 0) checks for page updates once per session (so hitting back should only use the cache); 1) checks for page updates every time you visit a page; 2) uses the cached version every time, if it exists; 3) checks automatically (by looking at the Date Modified field on the page - if that field is more recent than the cached page's date, the page will be reloaded).

Personally, I use value 1 on FF 2.0.0.9, and don't see the problem. Might be worth checking what cache size you've allowed to FF too - if the page isn't in cache, it will always reload, of course.

Anyway, hope that helps you out, but those are things worth checking out. Carre (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

17:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, anyway!

) 17:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK is way overdue. It has been 13 hours since last update. That means one complete cycle has been missed and the next cycle late. Please help. I saw that you edited recently so I am contacting you. I am contacting more than one person due to the extreme lateness ! Red alert! Thank you.

) 16:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)