User talk:Ronhjones/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Re:

Afaik those text has been posted on that forum on the 7th of February, so I asked the deletion on wikiversity too, anyway feel free to make a further investigation and draw your conclusions which may differ from mine ;) --Vituzzu (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe - if they get deleted on wikiversity then I would suggest re-tag - it's evident he has copied them from wikiversity by the content, did he also put up the wikiversity pages - who knows? Sometimes it's very hard to track down which article came first, as most web sites (sadly) do not put up a time and date stamp on every page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Those pages on wikiversity were created some hours ago, while this post has been written seven months ago, so, to me, it's definitely a copyvio, furthermore is quite spam and an misuse of userpage so, if I were on another wiki I would have deleted them...three hours ago! --Vituzzu (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
You convinced me. Now you can convince the admins on en.wikiversity.org ;-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Mmmmmmmh a first (hard) step will be "find a random active admin" :D
--Vituzzu (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Our good friend seems to have returned a couple of days ago with more of the same on various kana articles. Hasn't edited in a couple of days, but definitely worth keeping an eye on. See also WT:WikiProject Japan#Ip edits to kana articles from a few days ago. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. What is it with some of these IPs, just keep trying the same old behaviour, as soon as a block ends and never does any talking (or edit summary). I've another one that plays up on Formula 1 pages... C'ést la vie...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(Likely) massive copyright violation

"(Deletion log); 19:14 . . Ronhjones (talk | contribs) deleted "File:119 NYC 11.26.04 copy 1.jpg" (Media file copyright violation without fair use or credible claim of permission. (CSD F9) http://www.clustershot.com/justinfarrow/photo153127 - perfect ovelay when size adjusted)"

Unfortunately User:Pauljoffe uploaded multiple images with "I created this work entirely by myself." - is it needed to hunt for a source of copyright violation for every single file? Maybe mass delete is a good idea in this case? (File:98BOAT 01 23 09 153k.jpg etc)Bulwersator (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
That can be done, but not on a single view - please bring it up at
WP:CCI  Ronhjones  (Talk)
21:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

suggestion

hi sir, earlier i ws unaware of syntax writing on wiki. Now i've written in
proper way in my sandbow. Will you please see thid and advise me should i write that on the original page.
Please reply me on my talk page. Sagar06ssb (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

File:IE8 BETA2.JPG

I tagged this file because it is a screenshot of a copyrighted browser (Internet Explorer), not because it's a screenshot of a WP page. Therefore I think it should be deleted. Thanks! — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Then it needs tagging as incorrect license (no permission). I will put one on. It's then up to the uploader to get permission OR set up a Fair Use Template  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

Unblock request

Dear Sirs,

Please can you kindly unblock my IP.149.7.36.58 I do now understand the reasons for the bot in the first place but I am trying to rectify this matter.

I have been exchanging emails re this matter with Orange Mike and yourself Ronh Jones.

I am very clear on the 3 points from Mike re

1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory 2) Conflict of interest re Ten Alps admin etc 3) Notable subjects

With the best intentions all this is new to me. I would liek to log on new name


I did read Wikipedia is drawn form Italy so you have alot going on but if you can help to resolve it would be much appreciated.

Thanks

149.7.36.58 (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC),

I assume you are User:Manasanyal??? Note a few points.
  1. 149.7.36.58 is not blocked - how can it be, if you have managed to post here?
  2. 117.194.36.108 (as shown on User talk:Manasanyal's page - I would guess the autoblock has expired - they only last 24 hours.
  3. A block applies to a person - and not an address. Leaving
    block evasion
    , and will result in all accounts and IP addresses being blocked for longer periods. (I will ignore this posting at this time - as you may not be aware of those facts before).
  4. Please to not ask here on on any talk page for a new account, you may request a new name change (
    WP:CHU) OR create a new account and mark the old one as retired - once User:Manasanyal
    is unblocked.
Therefore please return to the User talk:Manasanyal and continue the discussion there.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Supply chain engineering

Hey there - I CSD G12'd this a short while back. I still haven't found the original, but looking again I've noticed the edit summary which accompanied the first paste-in: "The page refers to a brief on Supply chain engineering its methodology and definitions". I think that's where it came from - the brief referred to. Only Ye Gods and Little Fishes may be able to track the original down! I'm going to bring this to the attention of a copyvio expert, and see if they can find it and deal with it. Hope this is OK by you. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 03:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Always difficult when you are sure, but cannot find the original - been there myself! I ran many short phrases through Google and failed to find a hit. There's nothing to stop you from going to
WP:SPA, maybe an AfD will cause him/her to surface and discuss your concerns.  Ronhjones  (Talk)
18:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I've just seen the note by User:Moonriddengirl on Talk:Supply chain engineering. If correct then the article is OK.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Yup, I thought Moonriddengirl was the one to pass it over to :o) Definitely not in the category of Little Fishes, and God would really have to become Goddess :D So MRG is the Official Goddess of Copyvio Hunting. Thinking about it, hunting has frequently been the preserve of goddesses (just think of Diana) - I think it's something to do with the female of the species being more deadly than the male. Not that being another female of the species would result in any COI, or anything ... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Favor to be done

This is an album for a band who's article got deleted long ago. You know what to do, I don't know how somebody missed this and it managed to stay undeleted for so long. • GunMetal Angel 03:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you could have tagged it yourself... :-) I rarely delete on sight (that's a bit like being judge and jury...), so I've tagged it, and hopefully some other admin will do the necessary.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For your attention here :) -- fgTC 19:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I always carefully check image CSD claims (especially when they have been around for some time) - usually by starting with a high zoom and compare in PhotoShop.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
That's "Full service principalling!" as
Buffy might say. -- fgTC
21:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I need help.

I am having a problem figuring out how to add a footnote. This is the reference I want to use. Is this okay as a reference? http://cultureshark.blogspot.com/2011/06/rtv-responds-to-competition-by-making.html The problem is that I can not get the footnote to show the title, instead of the entire URL. This is where I screwed it up. It is footnote #1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorro_%281990_TV_series%29 Can you help me? Defgirl666 (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Phyllis Pollack

Thank you!

It took me a while how to figure out how to post this thank you message to you!!! Thanks, Ron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You rock! Defgirl666 (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Phyllis Pollack

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Thanks!

Thanks so much for fixing my block problem! Manny may — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manny may (talk • contribs) 21:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for forgetting to sign! Manny may (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
We all forget some times... :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for posting at bugzilla. The autoblock has been triggered once a day for the last three days. ??? Thanks, Manny may (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Katie McGrath and other well known actors images and details

Hiya. I could do with some help regarding licencing and Wikipedia rules and regulations please. In conversation with Katie McGrath's agent I realised my lack of real knowledge regarding who may edit what, where and how. On the subject of self promotion: Katie McGrath should not edit her own page? But may her agent? May her agent upload images for use here? How should they best licence the images for their and our best interests? Since the agent is so willing to provide images and details and has a strong interest in making sure their clients are well presented (and of course accurately) it seems to me that being as helpful and accommodating as possible is a very good idea. This could lead to many pages being greatly improved. Please help by providing answers to any and all relevant questions either here or implied. Thanks a lot for your interest so far. -- fgTC 13:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The old
WP:COI
... If you read it it actually stops short of saying no editing, just "strongly discouraged". That would apply to both the subject and her agent. There are 2 options here:
  1. They can edit (with care) and ideally declare their COI in advance on the talk page. Editors will usually respect those who are honest and open. This sort of editing really does need good quality
    reliable source
    references - and not refs back to the owner's site.
  2. If there are regular neutral editors - then the COI editors can propose changes on the talk page, and allow the "neutral" editors to move what data they feel appropriate to the article.
Images - there's no COI problem on an image - they might pick the most flattering one, but it's still an image of that person. Page to read is
CC-BY-SA 3.0) - that means they retain the copyright, but allow other users to use that image provided that attribution is given as specified.  Ronhjones  (Talk)
19:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Of the 6 possible CC licences - only CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are acceptable for WP usage.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Ron. That's a whole lot of policy. I have read most of the suggested pages and have passed the URLs and the URL to this and other related pages to the agent. Now it is up to them how best to proceed. Hopefully the effort won't put them off contributing. I will of course keep an eye on proceedings and make sure no pages are "whitewashed" etc. It's good of you to make this effort to help. I didn't imagine adding a picture to an article would cause this much bother. I have if nothing else learned a lot of WP policy though. So all good :) Thanks again. Good man. -- fgTC 12:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Glad you enjoyed(!) it. An amateur photo uploaded by the photographer, is so easy compared with using professional images.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Cookies!

Nitromatt1 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thanks for your message! I tried out the Wiki table method you suggested but that didn't really work, so I tried the align-right method and that worked perfectly, so to show my appreciation I thought I'd send you some cookies. Thanks again! Nitromatt1 (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Thank you. Looks more like biscuits to me - hey ho, good old
WP:ENGVAR strikes again. ;-)  Ronhjones  (Talk)
21:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Biscuits it is then. Either way, they look pretty delicious! Nitromatt1 (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll second that, and yes, they are biscuits in the UK (I just looked it up) :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I just realised, these are Oreos! I live in the UK like you, and agree, these are biscuits not cookies. Just like they have a black colour, not color. ;) Nitromatt1 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Correct - I just edited the Oreo page (UK section) to show they are called biscuits here - that's what it says on http://www.oreo.eu  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Good idea, wish I'd thought of it myself! Most of these types of confectionary are called biscuits here in the UK, but in America, most of the exact same products are called cookies! There are traditional cookies on sale here though of course, and I'm pretty sure you can buy biscuits in the US too. Nitromatt1 (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

#157

Haha! I'm not one for showing off my position, if I'm honest... ;) Craig(talk) 22:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Haha, no! If I was going for the 100k, I would've stuck the userbox on to boost the edits of course! Yeah, mine is different in about three different places...oh, if only it were accurate. Ha! Craig(talk) 18:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Too true, haha! Korea, Phillip Island plus IndyCar and BTCC finales. Pretty much covered for all of Sunday, I think... Craig(talk) 19:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For an amazing admin and Wikipedian contributor like you - who could be better? Thanks for everything you've done here. You make Wikipedia a better place to be! Pinkstrawberry02™ talk 01:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Note to user getting this message: Please reply on Pinkstrawberry02's talk page. If for some reason you cannot, you may reply on your own talk page, but please still leave a {{talkback}}. It is highly asked that you reply on their talk page though. Thank you for your understanding!

Oooh, thanks - I've not had one of those for ages. :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 13:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Banrstar

No problem, Ron! You most definitely deserve it, you have been such a great editor and admin here. I'm glad you like it. :) Pinkstrawberry02™ talk 00:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Moira gunn redirect. Anyway, I think we should probably undelete and just revert to the non-copyvio version. What do you think? I can do it or you can. We always refdel the copyvio additions. --Slp1 (talk
) 02:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean - rather clever trick by the copyright violator - making two bad pages at once. I think you'll be happy with the result - I left the copyvio data deleted, just restored the good edits.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks good. I am inclined to think it was more related to wiki-inexperience (about copyright, about articles) than a deliberate trick, but without any kind of official release, it needed to go for sure. --Slp1 (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Cliffside Preparatory School

Hi Ron I got permission from the author to use the article about Cliffside before even attempting to put it on Wikipedia, all she asked me was put a reference to the museum, which I did. She also gave me permission to use it on Facebook a few years back and gave the museum credit for it then and it's still in use on Facebook today. Ian Weir 23:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Weir (talk • contribs)

No use telling me - I'm not an OTRS person - you have to follow the instructions at
WP:DCM - there have been far too many "I have permission" statements in the past, most of which have been bogus (and thousands of images and pages have had to be subsequently removed or re-written), so this system was put in to ensure that there really has been permission obtained.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Is he getting better?

There are some edits which are still pretty poor, but some are worthy of standing at present. Not many mind you. Although this chap is even worse. No edit summaries, no talkback on anything, having been warned several times about incorrect information relating to the Intercontinental Rally Challenge and the World Rally Championship. For instance, I added a reference showing that Valeriy Gorban had used Sergey Larens as co-driver in Rally Portugal here but low and behold, he couldn't admit he was wrong so he decided to remove it here. He has reverted it several times since, and until he is stopped, he won't stop. Cs-wolves(talk)

15:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Shall do! Ah, it's definitely not sunny up here now. Humid, but not sunny. Cs-wolves(talk) 17:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Level 3 NOR template added to the 202... user talk, for continually going at it over Gorban. Argh! Cs-wolves(talk) 21:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the selected entries are alright in part, but some are just there for filler. I had been discussing with Pc13 about removing some, but haven't defined all of them yet. Cs-wolves(talk) 00:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd imagine it be more tripe than good...but I can look that one out when I have some kip! Haha. Cs-wolves(talk) 00:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Level 4...last chance I believe? Cs-wolves(talk) 13:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
All remaining edits are okay. Craig(talk) 20:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

He started it again! When will the guy learn... Craig(talk) 16:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

F11 image tagging

With regards to the images you left CSD F11 notifications about at User talk:Rackmount-guy such as

www.chassis-plans.com is Rackmount-guy's company/website. With the Industrial Computer Source (ICS) images, he was one of the founders of that company, so he can certainly release old ICS photos or other materials under a free license as well. I'm familiar with his uploads because I've been working in this image area on Commons for awhile now. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I guessed that. But the images are taken from a web site - and if I didn't tag them someone else will, some time in the future. It's just a question of time. The user knows how to get OTRS tickets, as he had done so for other images (now moved to commons), so it should not be too difficult for him to repeat that exercise. Once the OTRS has been obtained, then they can be moved to commons as well - then they can stay without question of permission.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Well... Maybe he also uploaded some of them to his website because he thought the {{Information}} template required a URL as a source? ;) Looks like he is working on OTRS tickets for them anyhow, but all those talk page notices sure did look ugly :P --Tothwolf (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Once they are read, they may be removed.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ronhjones. You have new messages at Train2104's talk page.
Message added 00:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Proposing new article for E5

Hello, Ronhjones. You have new messages at Bouteloua's talk page.
Message added 22:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied again on my talkpage. (Noting here in case you didn't spot it.) --Bouteloua (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

And replied again. --Bouteloua (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

He's baaaack...

User talk:98.237.20.196. See U (kana) and related articles. I'll revert them all now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary

This IP hasn't made any edits without an edit summary since March. 129.100.249.35 (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No reason not to use one. Removal of referenced data needs a summary.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I did use one. I don't know why you think I didn't. 129.100.249.35 (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
"change" does not explain the removal.
ygm
}} template.

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Ronhjones! The

WMF
is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:LEELATROPY.jpg

This image is a very low resolution of an uncopyrighted image. So request you to look back about this. Thank You (User:Contribut) —Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC).

  1. Resolution has no effect on the policies here. A copyrighted image can not be used, except under the fair use policy -
    WP:NONFREE
    , which cannot apply here, as images of living persons are "replaceable".
  2. No such thing as an "uncopyrighted image" - every photo in the world gains copyright the moment the shutter is pressed. That's copyright law. The photographer immediately gains the copyright (unless he has previously been paid to transfer the copyright to someone else). What he does with the copyright later is up to him - he can just keep it, sell it, or give it away (e.g
    CC-BY-SA 3.0
    ). If given away under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 then the image must have such a notice with it on the web site to show the owner and the license - then every use of that photo around the world must do the same - i.e. show the owner and license (that's the "BY" of CC-BY-SA = Attribution to the author).
  3. The alternative to the above is to obtain OTRS - that just confirms that the owner is willing for it to be used as CC-BY-SA 3.0, and he does not want to bother changing his web site.
I see no reason to alter my submission.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please edit protected page

As you are an admin, could you please delete Wikipedia:Special:CrossNamespaceLinks as per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_19#Wikipedia:Special:CrossNamespaceLinks. I'd speedy it but it's protected. Appreciated, Rcsprinter (shout) 20:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for fighting vandalism!!!

HOOOOBLAAAA!!! Muhammad Mukhriz (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

AdamWhiteTheReason.JPG

Dr Jones, the image above was uploaded by me, 76wins/Mike F. Campbell.

I add the copyright tag - "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license versions 3.0, 2.5, 2.0, and 1.0." - to all my images, but perhaps you can suggest how I can make sure "there is...proof that the author agreed to license the file under the given license."

Thanks!

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76wins (talk • contribs) 23:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I did suspect that might be the case - but the data shown is not clear enough. I would change the text from
...photographed August 2011 by Mike F. Campbell at the Ancaster... to
...photographed August 2011 by Mike F. Campbell (User:76wins) at the Ancaster... OR
...photographed August 2011 by User:76wins at the Ancaster...
We need to know that the photographer and the uploader are the same - the file (as a free media) has a transfer to commons template - if transferred "as is", it's likely to last 5 minutes on commons!
There's a few similar others - I did not tag them - I wanted to see the result of the first one - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/76wins. When you change the text just let me know and I will remove the tag (the automatic bots tend to find authors removing CSD tags on their own images!).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Jones. Thank you very much. I went to the Special:ListFiles/76wins and changed the summaries as per your second suggestion. I would assume my images already in the Commons area do not have the same "proof" issue. Thank you for helping me learn a little bit more. 76wins (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed that F11 notice I placed. The commons ones - I looked in your deleted list and these have blue links (deleted from en - but still on commons)
The first one was OK - I changed the other 4 to match  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. 76wins (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

TheFortyFive
 01:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick action on this. ---
TheFortyFive 01:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Klaber&diff=457986990&oldid=457971925

Yes he has edited since he blanked the article, but only after a careless vandalfighter reverted his blanking of the page and gave him a vandal warning (!). It's clear the author was trying to erase the article but was led to believe that Wikipedia would not allow it. Meanwhile we have a BLP sitting here that's attracting vandals. 74.64.103.240 (talk

) 19:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of a grey area. The blanked version had lots of red links and did not look good, since then the original author has trimmed down the article, and other authors have sorted out all the red links. Ideally G7 is for pages where only the author has edited (except things like odd spelling changes, adding categories, etc.), but someone has taken their time and effort to resolve all the red links in this version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Klaber&oldid=425744879) to the current version we now have, and we should not ignore their contribution. It should have been deleted in March, but no one spotted it. I would ask the author - but I see no reason to do so, as they have not edited since March, and they have not included an e-mail link on their account - so I doubt if they are even looking at WP. Subsequent vandals we can deal with, and I have warned the vandal at User talk:64.134.159.57 for adding unsourced negative data to a BLP, I have also removed the warning on User talk:Quixotism1 - in case they might return. The article may go on 5th November as proposed, but anybody can object that one. Then it might have to go to AfD. It may well be an autobiography, but that's not actually forbidden - it's just strongly discouraged (WO:AUTO). The refs need putting back, without those, the vandals have an easier task - I'll have a look at it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Putting back the refs inline where they below, shows that he is probably too notable to be killed off by a PROD, so I've removed it. Any further discussion will have to go for a full
List of "Occupy" protest locations to List of Occupy movement and 15 October 2011 protests. Can you help? — Moe ε
01:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sort of. The page has only recently been protected for move warring. It would be a bit rash to move it with only a days discussion. In such cases it's far better to have a formal move discussion and let it run it's course. That gives time for any editor who might have an opinion a chance to contribute. It also stops (we hope) future move warring - on the basis that everybody had sufficient time to state their case. I will therefore add the formal
WP:RM for you, just add your support below it. In a week an admin will automatically evaluate and move if required.  Ronhjones  (Talk)
01:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. — Moe ε 01:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Image question

Hi Ron, I would like to have an image of the book in this article which I created. I can take a photo of the book cover. Is that permitted? or can I use a low resolution image from this web site under one of the fair use licenses? Please advise, my friend! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of book articles that show the cover - once the book is out of copyright (70 years after death of author - in general), there's no problem. Otherwise we need to have it as fair use only...
  1. Image must be uploaded here (en-wiki) and not commons - either copy web image or take your own.
  2. Image should be low res (I use setting ~4 out of 10 in PhotoShop)
  3. Narrow dimension should be about 300px max
  4. You need to add a
    WP:FURG
    - copy the blank template on the page and fill in the details.
  5. Plus you need to add {{Non-free book cover}}
I think that will just about do it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


Thanks Ron, you are the image wiz! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you check a file upload please?

Hiya again. I just created and uploaded an image derived from a commons file. My version is here. I didn't know where better or indeed else to ask; Could you check and see if I did it right? It's a complex procedure and I am quite fuzzy headed when it comes to legal mumbo-jumbo. I'm an open source cyber hippy man! I'd really appreciate your knowledge and feedback if you have the time. Thanks. fgtc 04:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Not that bad, I've given it a tweak (I think I'm right!). I dropped the "self" in the license as it has be be the license of the original, and you are not that creator - that for some reason loses the cc-by-sa bit, so I've added a plain template for that. Lost those long links! - just went for Wikilinks (need a : after the double bracket before the "File" - otherwise it shows the picture, not the link (how often have I forgot that one...)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Ron. That looks much better. My greatest concern was getting the wording wrong and for no other reason the file being deleted (even though I was allowed to use the source etc.). So as long as that's all good...erm...that's all good! Thanks again for checking. I'll get used to it eventually I'm sure; very technical though. Probably puts a few potential contributors off. fgtc 23:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Glad to have helped - fortunately, I have done several derivatives myself.
talk • contribs
) 02:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to raise the issue please ask at
WP:OTRS/N. I have been told that i month is more than enough for a request to be processed. I am not an OTRS volunteer, I cannot see the OTRS requests.  Ronhjones  (Talk)
02:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ronhjones, I got a message that you are attempting to delete pictures on articles I created. These pics have been vetted and on the pages for quite some time. They have been uploaded directly for the purpose of the page and are not links to another webpage. The articles have had permissions sent to permissions and wikimedia and there is nothing wrong with them I would appreciate it if you did not delete them and cause me the extra work to re-do all my work. If you have questions or concerns please contact me directly. You can email me at [email protected]

todd gates R. T. Gates (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ronhjones, I am in receipt of your missals demanding copyright declarations from the photographers for the images used. I have written to all of them, but in anticipation some may be away on leave, would rather the deadline was postponed for another week at least. Overall, I find the whole business extremely tedious and would rather, on the premise of 'Innocent until proven guilty', the images were allowed to remain until such time as a complaint was made. All those submitted by me are bona fide works, some of which have been on Wikipedia for many years, and this retrospective procedure is an unwelcome and tedious distraction. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply to all OTRS issues To all above - as per my talk at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard&oldid=458222426, I would expect these picture to be left one month before deletion - I will add such a note to each one today. If they do get deleted and you later obtain OTRS then the OTRS volunteer will ask for undelete - you do not have to upload again - normal deletion is on Wikipedia is actually removal from public view. Unless these images are tagged, they tend to be forgotten, and technically in a copyright violation until permission is proved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 12:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

All images added a note to request deletion delayed until 1st December 2011, and also added a second note at Category:Wikipedia files missing permission as of 31 October 2011.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 13:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Photos

Hey Ronhjones, thanks for the updates on the photos; I guess my strategy of hunting down copyright holders and enticing them into sending release forms is more like herding cats than I thought. I'll try and find some of the emails I found the owners at and ask them to resend (or send, if they flaked) the release forms. If nothing comes in fairly soon (the month, perhaps?), feel free to just delete them. Thanks! Richardo42 (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:Simoncelli

As far as I'm concerned, I think that now a week has passed, the not-so-desirable editing will have ceased. Having a look back to the history of Shoya Tomizawa's article, there was only one vandal edit after a week had passed. Of course, Tomizawa wasn't anywhere near as popular as Simoncelli, I think we can be pretty much safe from any possible threats. On an aside from it, thankfully I have not seen the crash again since the race programme itself, because it made me sick to the stomach watching first time around. You just knew it was bad from the moment you saw him lying on the ground without the helmet. I think most of the riders will be glad to be done with the season after Valencia on Sunday. I just hope the potential tribute that Dorna put on for him matches the honours that the cyclists gave for Wouter Weylandt in this year's Giro d'Italia, and of course, our own Dan Wheldon in the IndyCar finale. Boy, us motorsport fans have had it tough the past 15 days... Craig(talk) 16:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Shall do! Yeah, that was a bit baffling to say the least. I was keeping a track of the situation with Twitter as well as the TV, and I think it was repeated on several occasions that someone in Race Direction had said he was conscious. Of course, that turns out to be a whole pile of crap, because if you think about it...He was administered CPR for 45 minutes until his death at 56 minutes past the hour...work that back to the incident, and the crash happened at 5 minutes past the hour (yep, had to look back at the tweets...) Six-minute window, with the "conscious" claims out around 17 minutes past. Just does not add up. Craig(talk) 23:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (September)

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

  • Apologies for the rather long delay in posting this issue; it appears that the bot just missed the request... Bad bot. Craig(talk) 22:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:Article requests

I don't know how many of those have been fulfilled since I started doing the newsletter, but I imagine it isn't many, haha! Indeed so. Just a quick note that the infobox date of birth doesn't match the lead date of birth. One month difference! Craig(talk) 01:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I've made that mistake on here many times; usually from this hour onwards... Haha! Perhaps the sleep will sort out the change of month, what with October now turning into November! Craig(talk) 01:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Natural gas in Qatar

That was a good spot. I'm working through the 200-article copypaste backlog so can go a bit mad looking at sources trying to spot the right licenses etc and most have missed this one - as you say it wasn't very noticeable. Dpmuk (talk

) 18:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

History of Maharashtra

Excellent work on sorting the wheat from the copy-violation! The topic is of course a worthy one, but its a shame so much of it was copied material and not properly researched. You're good work has made me look less beastly in the process. SFB 21:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

CocaineHCl.svg

Thank you for the updated version of this image. Is chemistry one of your interests? I'm planning a further overhaul of the page to which it is linked. I am getting some related research papers from another with access to them at a University on wednesday (hopefully). Nagelfar (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Interested in Chemistry - good idea, since it's been my job since 1966... ;-) The re-draw is part of a grand plan at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures - to
  1. Move all svg in Category:Classified Chemical Structures (non-orphan structures) to commons (done).
  2. Move all png (in same) to commons (part done)
  3. Re-draw jpg and gif (in same), and place on commons - started.
  4. Delete all jpg and gif in Category:Unclassified Chemical Structures (orphan structures) (done at FfD)
  5. No decision yet, on svg and png in Category:Unclassified Chemical Structures - my view is delete, there's no easy way to find a useful orphan structure, and it's probably quicker to re-make!
 Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I won't misdirect your focus then, keep up the great work!
db-self}} has worked for such cases up till now. Could you tell me what the correct procedure would be? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk
) 20:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realise you owned the bot. I think that must have been the first G7 I seen, where a bot was the original creator.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Problem with deletion of : Dr.Gopal Kundu

Hello Ronhjones!!

This is regarding the deletion of article Dr.Gopal Kundu. I want to inform you that, Dr.Gopal Kundu is a former scientist in National Centre for Cell Science(i.e.NCCS) located in Pune,India. He is very well known for his work. And this article comes under Biography category of wikipedia. The reason why it had been deleted before is due to, orphan article, and some of the contents of the articles are similar to www.nccs.res.in/gck.html. It is because he works there, so please don't delete his article this time.

Thanks & regards, Shrikant101 (I am a representative of Dr.Gopal Kundu)

I'm a scientist, I've a PhD, and well known for my work in my field - I see no page for me on Wikipedia. That's your problem - if he's only really known in India, then he's unlikely to be
reliable sources, then it almost certain to get deleted. It won't be up to me, it will be up to the community - it's already been recommended for deletion by two independent editors. There are hundreds of scientists doing great work, but only a small few are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

My point about this is the attempt to break the communication between spammers and targets, the deletion fulfil it, a simple blanking doesn't...have a nice day! --Vituzzu (talk

) 21:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a user talk page - they are only deleted in exceptional circumstances. I don't see this as exceptional. It's not even suitable for redaction as it's just spam. The correct place to request delete for a user's talk page is at
WP:MFD  Ronhjones  (Talk)
22:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
.___________. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Early industrial piece.jpg

Hi Ronhjones,

I got this message from Wikipedia:

Dear Bienrecu,
The Wikipedia page "User talk:Bienrecu" has been changed on
3 November 2011 by Ronhjones, with the edit summary: Notification: tagging
for deletion of
TW
)
Indented line

I confess to being a bit flummoxed by how the licensing works. If I explain the situation, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the best way to solve the problem.

The image in question is from the estate of Lawrence James Beck. He took this particular photo himself. He can't give permission to use it because he is dead. Alex and Nikolai Beck are his sons. I am their mother and his former wife. It's a bit complicated, but we all want this photo of his early work to be in the Wikipedia article. Nobody is trying to do any dastardly deeds here. But I'm having trouble sorting through all the options about how to make the posting of the photo OK. If you can possibly help me decipher the best path, I would SO much appreciate it.

Best regards, bienrecu aka Diane Schenker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bienrecu (talk • contribs) 01:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No one said there were any dastardly deeds, but we have to try to be fair to all editors, and sadly there are a few who do not play the game. Anyway, two useful pages...
  1. WP:DCM
    shows how to donate the copyright by e-mail to Wikipedia.
  2. WP:IMAGEHELP
    - you can ask questions here, and get replies from experts. I'm not certain who gets the copyright when someone dies - you might want to ask this first, as you are his former wife then you may now have the copyright - if so then all you have to do is change that summary to something like...
Uploaded by User:Bienrecu, wife of the late Lawrence James Beck (the object's creator) and current copyright holder
and remove the {{di-no permission|date=3 November 2011|source=Alex and Nikolai Beck}} line.
Hope that makes some sense.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for replying--situation is complicated by the fact that Larry and I were divorced before he died, so our sons hold the copyright, not me. I will read the sections you suggest. Another editor has just flagged 5 more images, so I need to figure this out. I don't mean to sound cranky, I just am swamped with a lot of other things at the moment. I've asked Nik and Alex to pitch in and try to help me sort it out. Thanks again for your kind help. Best, 144.211.101.117 (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Diane Schenker aka bienrecu

my new page

I currently just made a page called Neonconnectionz and I would like to know why you deleted it I have read the information that was given however I would like to know why it is not important.

Liamhollands (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The answer is in the deletion statement - Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. All articles must be supported by
userfied, then just ask me to do that action.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

File namespace noticeboard idea

Hi there. As a file worker, I'd like your input on the idea of a noticeboard for file workers. The prototype is at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#File Namespace Noticeboard

.

Please comment at the VPIL thread, or edit the page linked to there directly, as I can't keep track of this conversation if everyone I invite to comment on the matter responds on their own talk pages.

Wha?
07:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ed Bishop image

I don't know whether, as the uploader of the image, you have an opinion on the copyright concerns expressed here and its removal from the article here? The dispute seems to relate more to how well Bishop is illustrated in the image - I'm not sure whether the user has a point or not. SuperMarioMan 13:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe an editor with a {{WP:COI]]? Only edit on Ed Bishop - who knows. Easiest way is substitute another image (done!) - not in an acting role - shame, because the best images (as one would remember him) are those as an actor. Still I don't see the need to lose any sleep over it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ronhjones. You have new messages at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CSD log archives

Hi Ron, I saw your request on Misza's talk page and I have tweaked your parameters on Miszabot for your CSD subpage for testing purposes. I shortened to 10 days to see if October will be archived for testing...if it works then change it to whatever you want. I also changed the minthreadstoarchive to 1. Remembering that a thread must have a section header, you have two threads on that page currently...one for October and one for November. If the bot finds this page, I'm hoping to see it archive October.

Question: if you set a redirect on the CSD main page to the talk page where it archives, do you think it will write it to the talk page automatically? I'm wondering if there is a way to automate your manual moves.

Hopefully helpful,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

My initial idea was to get the bot to move from the actual log (not the talk page of the log) to the archive. When that didn't work I thought I would try the manual copy from the log to the talk and then get some automatic archive to the archive page. I think I will keep it that way - If I get 200 odd entries in the log then Twinkle slows down so much that it starts complaining about edit conflicts - because each save takes so long, and I maybe tagging quite a few files on the trot. I did forget about the headings being the "thread" - good idea to change to 1. I could turn the log off, but it's so useful to make sure that no one creeps back and deletes the F11 without reason.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 12:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Glad to see this worked. :) I was worried the bot wouldn't find the subpage.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Good choice of parameters!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Ronhjones. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Orphaned non-free image File:Ed-Bishop.jpg
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
).

PLEASE NOTE:

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Issue fixed. Hopefully the bot will undo it's edit.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Have you asked the copyright owner whether you may use that photo, or have you just picked something from the internet to replace that screenshot? These photos are OWNED by people and "fair use" really doesn't mean you can go around and take your pick. The people you have taken this picture from where personal friends of Ed Bishop. If they had wanted to add one of their photos to Wikipedia, they most likely would have done it already. So why don't you wait until someone comes forth who owns the copyright of a picture and adds it to the Bishop page? Grainsofsalt (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
One does not have to ask permission for fair-use - indeed there are over 400,000 such images on en-Wikipedia - Category:All_non-free_media. If I did go down the path of asking for permission then it's a all or nothing - images with permission on WP can be used anywhere in the world, and even for commercial usage without payment. By keeping it non-free then it can only be shown on the image page defined in the non free rationale, and may not be used elsewhere - there is no way a image on Wikipedia can ever be given permission just for use on Wikipedia alone. Had he still been alive then non-free is never allowed as that would be regarded as being "replaceable". Should someone come along in the future with a free image, then they are more than welcome to replace the image in the article, and the current image is automatically tagged for deletion.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The people who TOOK THE PHOTOGRAPH are alive and at least in the past they earned their money and fan memberships with them. What about copyright don't you understand? This is NOT fair use and there also is absolutely NO reason to foist some image onto this page. So far no one complained. It's not as if people interested in Bishop couldn't buy a DVD and have a look. Read the licence you are using. Just because Bishop is dead doesn't mean you can infringe on the property of others! Grainsofsalt (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
It is fair use in the Wikipedia system, just the same as any deceased actor - there are hundreds of very similar examples on Wikipedia. The photo is copyrighted, that's why it can only be used under fair use. You complained about the first image because he was in a role, so as it was a valid but weak complaint (there are also plenty of deceased actors with images in "roles") I changed it for that reason to one of the few images on the web that does not show him in a role. Personally I prefer the first image, it's more how more people will remember him, but you wanted otherwise. It occurs to me that for some reason, you seem have a very serious
neutral point of view.  Ronhjones  (Talk)
23:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Help with photos

Hi Ron,

I see that you have signaled that my images of Russian Pointe's logo and the Ballet Alphabet from Growing Through Arts should be deleted because it does not state their copyright. I do have permission from the companies to use the photos and can show the link where they came from but I do not know how to include that information with the pictures. Can you explain that to me, please?

Thank you! Lauren Heist — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaurenHeist (talk • contribs) 21:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not that easy, but possible. Due to far too many pictures saying "I have permission" (and they didn't - and they aren't here any more!), we have to make sure that the permission is genuine. Page section that can help is
CC-BY-SA 3.0 box to the remote web page with the image - like code - HERE) Ideally images with permission should always be uploaded to commons, but someone will move them for you in due course.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for deleting my editnotice per the U1! BurtAlert (talk