Wikipedia

User talk:Ronhjones/Archive 15

< User talk:Ronhjones
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Ronhjones in topic User_talk:Kenny_powell
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

OTRS

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

To Stefan2 and Ronhjones

I haven't been active in PUF, but as a new OTRS agent, I realize that I should at least be watching it, especially for references to OTRS. I will begin doing that. However, I'm writing because I saw references to the backlog. I asked to join OTRS because I heard there was a backlog. When I joined, roughly three weeks ago, there were 800 or so open items in the Permissions queues. That number is down to 345, higher than it should be, but we are making progress. It will be tougher now, because much of the low hanging fruit is gone, and the remaining ones are more challenging. When I first logged on, there were a considerable number of requests over 30 days old. There are a few left, but none left are routine.

My current plan is to regularly visit PUF, and look for any entries where OTRS is mentioned. For example, I just added a note to the WO! album cover.jpg item. I also see one where the uploader has claimed that an email has been sent, but I see no email in the system, so I will follow up with the uploader, to make sure there is no confusion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to OTRS :-). Every so often I check out Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission for over 30 days and see if I can find an entry in OTRS (often as not - there isn't one!), If I don't find an entry the it's off to PUF. Not been in OTRS too much, as currently I'm wading through User:Multichill/Free uploads - the bot was broke on the 16th Feb, and was not running again until 29th March, so I'm been playing catch up, and I've checked up to the 23rd March - only 3 weeks more to go... to get back up to date!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ron,

I want to say thank you for responding to my query and for updating the First Tech Credit Union logo. However, I am seeing the logo as stretched on the page itself, and the image is still the outdated logo. The thumbnail logo on the image page looks to be correct, but the large image on the top right of the main page is outdated. I can provide a .jpg of the file that needs to be uploaded if necessary. I really appreciate your help on this matter, I am a novice when it comes to Wikipedia. --MThomas1222 (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If you viewed that page before I changed it - then it's pulling images off your hard drive. Wikipedia uses cached images to speed up page loading. You need to really force it to re-load (or wait 24-48 hours) - see Wikipedia:Purge and also Wikipedia:BYPASS  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that was the issue. It works perfectly now. Thanks so much! --MThomas1222 (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

 This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 12:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

about that gargoyle picture. I left my thoughts here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_May_19#File:Roger_Morigi_gargoyle.2C_National_Cathedral.2C_Washington_DC.2C_USA.jpg Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Create a page help needed

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ron You have asked that I create a page instead of adding to a DAB page. Could explain to me how to do so,your help would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards TerryTerry2504 (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied on Terry's page  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleting image licences

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In two cases, here and here, I see that you have deleted licence templates. Please don't do this. {{FoP-USonly}} only tells that people are permitted to make derivative works of the building under US copyright law but doesn't provide any licence information at all for the photographer's task. Both templates are needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, another quirk to remember.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I need your help Dr Ron.

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Sir

My name is Angela Ross and I am the management representative of recording artist ANDA ADAM from Romania ,artist signed with Roton (Warner Music ) record comp any . As I saw in your wikipedia page ,your contribution to this website is considerable ,and I assume you are the right person to contact . I would like to have a professional page of our artist Anda Adam in wikipedia ,but we couldn't create a such of page ,and last time we tried ,the page was deleted .I would kindly ask you, to help me to create an official wikipedia page of recording artist Anda Adam,or to guide how can I do it to happened .As a reference, you can check the artist official website http://www.andaadamofficial.com/,and musician facebook page https://www.facebook.com/AndaAdamOfficial. Thanks for your precious time ,and looking forward to hearing from you.

Kindest Regards . Angela Ross contact : management@andaadamofficial.com Angelaross (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't really write many articles - I'm more of a wikignome, and certainly far to busy at present to devote any time to new articles - You can write an article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation and get constructive feedback or use the Wikipedia:Article wizard.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  I see you've been busy at OTRS, nice work! SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Well someone had to hack that queue back! I only stopped because it was way past 2am... Being a true Englishman, I would prefer bitter, but that will do for now ;-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Pete moore.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This image was uploaded with the author's permission. Did I mis-tag it? RedSquirrel (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No - we have to have visible evidence of the author's permission. Sadly far too many people have uploaded files saying they have permission when in fact they have not. Also the author may not realize the full extent of the permission required to have an image on Wikipedia - people still think they can upload an image for use on Wikipedia only - whereas any image can be used for any purpose. Probably none of that applies to yourself, but we have to treat everyone the same. Also the image is already on the web at http://www.petemoore.biz/about_pete_moore.php, so when the same image appears here, it's a possible copy. So...
  1. The way to get the picture restored is to get the author to e-mail permission - details are at WP:DCM with the consent form at WP:CONSENT - don't forget to use the full current url of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pete_moore.jpg.
  2. I note we have a clash of names, so once the image is restored, ideally you need to decide on a better name as File:Pete Moore.JPG already exists - maybe go for File:Dr Pete Moore? But the name change can be done post restore.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. As it happens, I am happy for that image to remain deleted; I was more concerned that the image I actually used in the article on Dr Pete Moore might also be a candidate for speedy deletion, though this is now resolved with the help of your guidance.
I have to say that it rather smarts to be wrongly accused - no, convicted - of 'flagrant abuse of copyright' after seven and a helf years of doing my best to do no such thing. Hey ho.RedSquirrel (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey

 
Teahouse logo

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Mitsubishi FTO image

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Just checked out the updates I did a while back [1] & noticed the image had been edited. All a bit confusing, but I've hopefully filled in the Form correctly & sent it as an attachment on my e-mail. The image is 'FTO_GPX Limited_Ed.jpg' so, if all is well, trust you can reinstate it? Apologies for the delay (and for being a bit dumb on what I'm supposed to do with pix I provide) ATB, Webcor (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Found in OTRS, restored, tidied, and moved to commons  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ron, for time & effort on my pic.
I've now put it back in situ; [2]
Webcor (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I just saw you placed a notice about an image I uploaded that did not have sufficient release of copyright. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was the same person, but to remove any doubt I created this page on my blog: [3] in which I state that User:Cazort is the same person as the owner of the blog, and that I authorize that user to release my work in any way. I hope that is adequate and will prevent the need for future releases. Cazort (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That is the perfect solution. I did say I thought it would be the same, but we do get some odd people in WP, and we have no way of validating any user's real identity.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Women in Music, lodged in Archive 14

Dear Ron Jones, Our tardiness in implementing your helpful suggestions, which we have now done, had mainly to do with my denseness about these matters and also with the great busyness at his place of work, of my collaborator in this, but at long last! we have sent our permissions request to Wiki Commons to use the photos in question. Many thanks for the generous and great help. Mx96 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

heads up

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikisource:Wikisource:Possible copyright violations#The Diary of Jack the Ripper Hesperian 00:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I've added a bit. Not a site I use a lot!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

permission to use my own photograph

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I did all I could to inform wikipedia that the pack shot photo I put on Dr Solomon's page was my own work and was released to the public domain. I filled in all the fields and forms. Now I get a message requiring "proof".

Sorry, I can't bring a note from my mom as she is dead.

I'm getting sick of all the folderol in here, especially the rulebook nazis. You don't want the picture, eat it.

TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied on user's page  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

User talk:AlexanderLondon

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I have a question. You said: "The IP block is automatic and is set by the system to prevent block evasion. It will eventually expire, unless people keep trying to edit". What IP do you mean? Do you mean WP:ABK? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct. He said his IP was blocked, so the autoblock has kicked in. Only if the other users (and the blocked user) stop editing for 24 hours will the AB expire - unless one of the "other" users (who is not the blocked user!) requests an unblock.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the confirmation and the extra details.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Bromley War Memorial 2.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, you tagged File:Bromley War Memorial 2.jpg as no permission, but if you had checked the source, http://www.ww2museums.com/article/20785/War-Memorial-Bromley.htm, permission was clearly given. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, missed that one, I think I checked the page that was shown as the source http://www.ww2museums.com/, and saw "All rights reserved © 2002-2012." Thanks for sorting it out.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

File:English-Amharic-Spanish.JPG

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You informed me that this image I uploaded has "no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license". I took the photo, and when I uploaded it, I filled in every bit of information that the uploading template asked for, believing that I had made it fully legal. Your suggestions for rectifying this do not include what to do in my case: it is my work never published elsewhere, but I will send the e-mail you suggested. I sincerely thought I had adequately asserted that I, the creator of the file, was licensing it. This is not the only image that I have had this problem with. Sadly, smart people on Wikipedia usually inform the likes of me via a message full of references and links to policies and standard, but not telling us how to actually fix or prevent the problem. You, on the other had, did try to tell me how to fix it: thanks. Blokes like me would be grateful if the uploading process would collect all the needed legal steps so that there were not follow-up messages and discussions needed. I still like Wikipedia.Pete unseth (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It not the case we don't want to help, when asked we will happily do so. There are probably about 100 so called "free" images uploaded to en-Wiki every day - although the upload wizard tries to suggest that they upload to commons instead, they still get uploaded here. Thus before we move them to commons for you we have to check that they will survive on commons, as the person or bot that does the transfer becomes the uploader - and will get any warning messages if they are bad (The original uploader still has the attribution, of course). So we go through all these regularly and there isn't time to do personal messages for each one, so a standard message is sent to the user when we apply the special template which describes the error. In this case you have posted up a picture of a "store logo" - which I said in the tag, and I added The problem here is that the copyright is held by whoever painted that sign on the store. The photo is a reproduction of that. Logos of any form are always an issue - in effect they are simple 2 dimensional artworks, and we are not allowed to use photographs of someone's else painting (unless they have been deceased for 70 years). The copyright of the store logo belongs to whoever painted it, and that copyright cannot be gained by the taking of a photo. In reality to use this photo in en-Wiki, you have 2 choices...
  1. Find out who painted the sign, and get that person to use the process at WP:DCM
  2. Declare the image to be non-free, but then you will have to ensure that it satisfies the 10 criteria at WP:NFCC
Had you been much further back, and the sign was less than about 20% of the photo area, then you would have been OK, as you could then declare the sign as de minimis. Hope that makes some sense of the problem.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/3pler24

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The user Gomero who you blocked seems to have two more sockpuppets. Please check the user compare report and block them all. Thanks Dr. Jones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/3pler24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSSHASPER (talk • contribs) 00:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Socks are abounding, even socks reporting socks...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Severe vandalism

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I note that you have been tagging a lot of vandalism reports on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism with the message "User has been inappropriately warned. 4im warnings are appropriate for severe vandalism and defamation only." Could you point me to the definition of "severe vandalism"? This phrase occurs nowhere on WP:VANDAL except to state that it is an appropriate reason for employing the 4im warning template. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a fixed definition. There is a bit at Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings/Usage_and_layout. I would normally expect it for
  1. A series of vandalism attacks - often too subtle to be caught by the vandal fighters, maybe changes 6 or more pages well before the first one has been spotted, then the person who spots the first vandalism, checks the user's contributions and see the chain of vandal edits
  2. A bad attack on a BLP article - so that would be extremely negative (unsourced!) and/or racist.
I don't normally see many 4im templates around, before I came an admin, I gave out over 15000 warnings to vandals (mainly with Huggle), I rarely gave 4im, just let huggle do the normal run of 1, 2, 3, 4, AIV. No.2 point at WP:AIV is quite clear - The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop. - therefore it's only the very extreme cases where that point can truly be overridden.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this. In your opinion, if no action is taken against a user because of an inappropriate or premature 4im warning, what's an appropriate next step if the user continues the disruption? Should one start the warnings over with levels 1 through 4? —Psychonaut (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
A warning is a warning, if say we have a #1 then a 4im, then that should count as #2 if not appropriate.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Help for new user

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Message for Ron, who is very kindly helping get the page right for wikipedia standards, to make sure the page is done properly and legitimately, with the correct criteria needed to have a good, genuine, successful wikipedia article contribution. Loopwiped11 (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome applied, draft article userfied.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Notes on use of images

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello - I see you tagged two images I posted as possibly not being free to use. You reference both images on my Talk page. I myself took both photographs; I uploaded them myself; and I tagged them as free for anyone to use. I welcome your advice or guidance on how I might re-post these images in such a way as to make it clear of their status so they will not be removed again in future. Thank you! Smel4727 (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There was no question on who took the photo - the problem is you don't have the copyright. They are 2D artwork (i.e paintings) - the copyright belongs to the person(s) who did the painting, you cannot gain the copyright by taking a photo. Taking photos is OK for personal use, but not for publishing. Had the painting been a much smaller proportion of the image (<20% or so), then that could have been allowed as De minimis. The only way to allow those images is to get permission from the artist (WP:DCM), or wait until 70 years after his/her death.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Moderation Issue

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello,

I am an editor that was working on the Pendant Productions page. The block you placed on myself and editor "71.93.116.45" has prevented us from continuing our work on that page.

Pendant Productions, of which I am a writer for and the other contributor is the executive producer for, is having to remove all references to the Fan Show content that was previously produced, for legal reasons. We are in need of getting this issue resolved ASAP.

Thank you in advance; I realize you're decision was made in good judgement, and I fully understand your reasoning(I am an admin on wikia). 68.32.242.225 (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC) (Please do not respond to my talk page on Wikipedia, as I do not check it; if you cannot unlock the page without speaking to me again, please message my talk page here. Thank you!)

Discussions about unblocking are not carried out off Wikipedia. You can only communicate via your talk page, and 68.32.242.225 has also been blocked as block evasion - you are not allowed to edit when blocked.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please email [EMAIL_REMOVED] to confirm that my statements are true; we need this content removed or at least re-written to acknowledge our distance from that old content. Thank you. 76.5.142.101 (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If the content is correctly referenced then it is unlikely to be deleted. I would suggest have a look at Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem and e-mail your request into Wikipedia.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

runaway censorware?

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  • All* the content on the "drinking gourd" spiritual page has been replaced by an obnoxious censorship thing, under your name.

Just a heads up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.131.249 (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct - that's a standard copyright violation page, means parts of the article have been copied from somewhere else, my edit summary says "(Parts of article are copyvio - reported at OTRS2012052610006941)" - the copyright holder of the remote site has complained that his work have been illegally copied.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Nigel Cox image

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ron - The photo you removed from Nigel Cox article is public domain. Why was it removed?

Dkalaf (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It cannot be regarded as public domain. The image appears at http://www.gxgallery.com/artist/nigel-cox/ - a much bigger image placed on the web quite some time before the Wikipedia upload. In such cases we have to assume it has been copied. Had the image at gxgallery.com been smaller AND had a later date, OR had a suitable license showed on gxgallery.com then it could have stayed.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (May)

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 02:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Infobox scientist - Resting place parameter does not work

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since you were a contributor to the Template talk:Infobox scientist discussion about the Resting place parameter, I'd like to inform you that the parameter does not work. See the T. Wayland Vaughan article, for example. I have updated the talk page to describe this. Thanks for your assistance. Truthanado (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to thank you :)

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You were very speedy getting back to me about my translation questions, and you gave me exactly what I was looking for. Really appreciate that! You're correct, moving pictures seems a bit harder, but if I really want to do up many of these, then I will need to learn, or you'll end up doing 4000 more. I'll ask for help if when needed. Or maybe you'll hear me scream from wherever you are LOL!

For some reason it would not allow me to log in to my original account.... When I tried to remake it, was told it already exists.... I only ever used it to edit the Everquest 2 pages anyway. Just too funny:D This username is a little more suited for what I want to do anyway. Meant to be I guess....

Well, Thank you very much Eh ;P

Five Foot Two (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfree file, Montana Mines Postmark

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The postmark in question is from scanned corerespondence from MY COLLECTION made on MY SCANNER of a PUBLIC DOMAIN postmark.Look at the meta data, its shows my scanner model, whats the problem? I have several thousabd postmarks, I am in the middle of my 950th article, WHY is a postmark scam from my collection that I acknowledge the copyright to an issue???Coal town guy (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This image appears to be of United States postage stamp produced in 1978 or later. The copyright US stamps is held by the United States Postal Service.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
No, its a partial cancel showing the postmark for Montana Mines WV a coal town. Hence the article name, Montana Mines West Virginia. Its a partial cancelled image and butresses the article in question. Which Wikipedia does allow. However, that would require an interpretation and not the literal approach which would result in the removal of several hundred images on Wikipedia. I never intended to resell, redistriobute or profit and I have declared at the time I scanned the iame, I owned it, it would be rather odd on my part to willingly violate a copyright law and "cleverly hide" the image so that only a few thousand people would know about it.Coal town guy (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I have no issue with the postmark (in effect, that "technically" is owned by whoever designed the rubber stamp, but {{PD-text}} would cover that). The problem is with the postage stamp that it cancels. If it was prior to 1978, then it's not a problem, but since 1978, the USPS hold the copyright of the stamps it sells. A possible solution may be to blank out / blur the parts of the postage stamp where possible (not touching the postmark, of course), if that sounds possible then suggest on the deletion page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Proposed deletion of Alf Francis

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 

The article Alf Francis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No claim of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Stub set up as per Wikipedia:Translation. Polish article has more than enough material for nobility. Article was requested on the Wikiproject Formula 1 newsletter.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Our old Japanese friend

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

202.216.85.160 (talk · contribs)...He seems to be due a fifth and final block. Gone back to the same old patterns of unsourced editing. He needs to be stopped pronto. Also, long time, no trouble. Haha! Craig(talk) 22:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. So much easier nowadays with the rollback button. ;) Craig(talk) 22:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hard to see the point

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Although I am vaguely sympathetic with the need to control copyright, this [4] was not addressed to me but is a failure to assume good faith and I agree with him is an utter waste of time. As it happens, following a request to find a photo for this article I provided this photo (of my brother) from his university web page. I have emailed and oral permission to use the photo from the subject (him) and he has confirmed it is copyright free. Challenging the copyright in these circumstances on a robotic basis is not something I am prepared to bless by wasting time on compliance with a valueless bureaucratic process. I really don't care if WP has an article about him at all and I am not going to wasting time trying to connect a copyright notice with an email string. You have been told the status of the photo from one of Wikipedia's most senior editors (WMC) and by another admin (me). The most I am prepared to do is email you as the guilty party with the email chain and leave you to tidy up your own mess. Now it is up to you. --BozMo talk 20:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

How could it be addressed to you when then file page clearly shows User:William M. Connolley, which is why Twinkle posted it on that user page. Admins are supposed to set an example to others, and trying to by-pass the correct process does not send out a good message. I have seen so many "I have permission from the author", when they clearly haven't because they all get deleted without any response from the uploder. What is the point of having a system to donate such images if we allowed editors to use it or not. Note also that if it was left unchecked, it would get moved to Commons - and I suspect they would question the license as well.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The fact they all get deleted is much more likely to be a reflection of the fact that people do not see any point in jumping through pointless bureaucratic hoops in order to help a project which apparently does not wish people to help it. Procedures may be agreed (possibly, they come go move and change with enough frequency to make most long term admins give up bothering to track them all) but that does not make them good or correct. This one (and the way you are trying to enforce it) looks pretty clearly damaging to WP and the point on assuming good faith remains unanswered. --BozMo talk 11:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Images that have a free licence are getting automatically tagged by the bots for moving to commons. The commons admins tend to enforce the rules probably even more stricter than here - I've moved about 5000 images and only lost 14 to deletion so far. There was no point in me moving that image to commons, only to get a deletion notice placed on my commons talk page - because as the mover, I become the uploader, and the original uploader is then just the author - and doesn't get a deletion notice from commons. It's nothing to do with AGF, it's to prevent unnecessary transfer and deletion at commons. By tagging the image, it automatically removes any "move to commons" banner, and requests the uploader to fix the problem, so that the move to commons can take place smoothly.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI on banning LPC

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

In the past you have been involved in a block/unblock procedure either on the sockmaster account of LouisPhilippeCharles or an account of one of the sockpuppets. Please see WP:ANI#LouisPhilippeCharles -- PBS (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you overwhelmed the editor

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I think you overwhelmed the editor with the multiple notices at User_talk:Spokessmann. See 2012061810010369. I once suggested that if there are more than one or tow, it would be better to add one notice, then a list of related items. I haven't figured out how to institutionalize that advice. If you have some thoughts, please let me know. (Ideally, it could be an option in Twinkle).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Had he made it clear on the images pages - either by stating who he was or stating the photos were taken by the user, it wouldn't have been a problem - the was one that said "Taken by M.Jane at my house", which is the main reason I started tagging. Maybe it's a need for TW to fix - I notice on commons, if you have an uncatagorised image you get a big message, but the next one is just a one-liner - referring to the template message above. I see you have raised a further issue at User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Looking_for_feedback_on_copyright_issue.-_3d_objects_in_UK which somewhat muddies the water even more! - for his country location look at the e-mail address domain (which I cannot say here, of course).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, to be sure, there may be some messy issues regarding the permissions itself - I was simply noting that it is discouraging as an editor to see a sea of templates. Thanks for the note about commons, I'll have to check that out and see how it is done, that sounds like a step in the right direction. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Ronhjones. 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.

--Hu12 (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

RE: Oregon City Amtrak Station Photos:

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

All three of the Oregon City Amtrak station photos I submitted are ones that I took myself (in about 2004 and 2005) and own the rights to them and the right to use them, and I would like them to be used on Wikioedia, especially since there seems to be no other photo of the station in the article. I hope you will reconsider deleting them and allow them to be used in the article (and elsewhere on Wikipedia, if you like). If you have any other concerns and/or questions, please let me know. Thank you.

We have very few ways of seeing ownsership of photos on Wikipedia. One of the ways is to see that Wikipedia was the first place that the image appeared. Where images have been uploaded elsewhere and at a much earlier date we have to acknowledge the copyright claims of that web site. Your images were found at http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/oregoncity.htm, with a page file updated date of 24 March 2009 - some 3 years ago (although they may have been there longer). I scanned the site for a suitable license, but the only license I found was on the About Us page which was "Copyright © 1996-2010 TrainWeb, LLC". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steverelei (talk • contribs)
I can only suggest you contact that web site and get them to annotate those images with "CC-BY-SA-3.0", then they can be restored. Or if you have the originals, and can show a much bigger version that's sharp, to show that the images are not a copy - then let me know and we can sort it out.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Bigger version would not have to be uploaded for all to use if you didn't want that, we can do it via OTRS e-mail.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It is true that I have used my photos on other websites, but I took them originally, and I didn't think I needed someone else's permission to use my own photos. I'll see if I can find the originals. I have alot of photos and It can be quite a task to go through all of them. I'll do what I can. Thanks.

I have found the original photo discs of at least one of my oregon city station photos, and I have inserted it into the box. I hope it works. I'll have a copuple more photos later-again, they are from the original discs i had mae at the time I took the photos. I was trying to get the caption to go on to a separate line, but I am not sure how to do that. Perhaps you can correct it for me. Thanks.

Sadly the parameters for infoboxes is not always consistent...
image_caption not caption
don't use a "pipe and thumb" - use image_size
fixed for you  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo copyright?

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not sure what you meant by the comment "...which you've sourced to FLICKR=All rights reserved...". The photo, taken by me personally with my own camera, was uploaded to Wikipedia for use on that article. I'm not sure I fully understand what you're asking. Bdmccray (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Flickr image came first, so we have to use the same license as the Flickr image. There is no quick way to prove the uploader at Flickr and Here are the same person. The choice is to either alter the Flickr page to CC-BY-SA-2.0, or to use the form at WP:CONSENT and send in to wikipedia.org. Either way has the same effect - it will release the image for any use (you cannot upload images here only for WP use).
To alter the Flickr page, you log in and view the image, then there is an "Owner settings" - click the "edit" link next to the current license setting, and you get a dialog box - select "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons" OR "Attribution Creative Commons" (none of the others) and save. Let me know if you do that.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the Flickr settings. Two things about that: 1) I keep full copyright on all Flickr images by default because it's easier that way (individuals and companies who purchase my images or request free use of my images usually just email me), and 2) I actually forgot that I'd placed that image on Flickr in the first place. Out of sheer curiousity, how did you find the cross match? I ask that because I've placed a lot of photos on a lot of different websites over the years, and sooner or later, more might end up on WP if it looks like an article needs on. Thanks again. Bdmccray (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

One can use TinEye, but it's not great. I always use Google Image Search now - https://www.google.co.uk/imghp?hl=en&tab=wi - have two browser windows open, and drag and drop the image into the search box. Only been working for about 1 year, but it's really good at finding matches. Image file now sorted out OK.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:SUST Cartoon Factory.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Boss, how can I send a link? as there is no web address about the organisation except a facebook page and a group. This is operated by some university students. I can provide the facebook page/group link, and ensure information about the image by the admins there.

Tell me, if there is a way. And, please don't delete it. Rossi101 (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)User:Rossi101

The person who painted the tiger owns the copyright. Unlike some things in open spaces - photos of 2D artwork (paintings, drawings, etc) is are never free enough to be uploaded here. Your only options...
1. Find the painter - and use the instructions at WP:DCM
2. If you think you can satisfy the 10 requirements at WP:NFCC, then change it to a non-free image....
Remove the
{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0|migration=redundant}}
Add instead
{{Non-free use rationale
| Description       = 
| Source            = 
| Article           = 
| Portion           = 
| Low_resolution    = 
| Purpose           = 
| Replaceability    = 
| other_information = 
}}
{{non-free poster}}
and fill in the bits after the = sign  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

RE: File permission problem with File:Antics 2-D Animation infobox screenshot.png

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Problem fixed... we're using Creative Commons CC-BY-SA.

I hope I've indicated it correctly... oir otherwise please let me know on my talk page.

Thanks,

Eva gloss (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Replied  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

hermitage moorings page

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi I just logged in (after a very long time!) to find you'd deleted the hermitage moorings page. I didn't get any emails, so only saw when I logged into Wikipedia.

I'd like to re-instate this page: we're a co-operative, and have public open days, so I felt it appropriate to create a simple description of who we are (I thought I'd been pretty careful with the rules). http://www.hcmoorings.org has more details.

Please let me know what I need to do to re-instate without getting it wrong?

Many thanks in advance Gavin Starks (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It got deleted in January, because a text match was found with http://www.hcmoorings.org - we are unable to leave any page with matching text, as they are technically a copyright violation - we have no means here of knowing who anyone is, they are just a username - you cannot claim to be the copyright holder as we cannot prove it. To use text from another web site it must be donated by one of the 2 methods at WP:DCM.
Then it got deleted in March as "Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject" - Articles must be notable to be able to stay - WP:CORP gives some indication of what needs to be present to satisfy WP guidelines. Your main problem is total lack of reliable sources as references.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Copy of my e-mail

I am the Copyright holder of the photographs & the permission to publish & not to delete please.

Copy of my e-mail I am the Copyright holder of the photographs & the permission to publish & not to delete please.

Photos by Anuradha (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll change the tags  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:IPC logo.svg

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading File:IPC logo.svg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Not warned enough?

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Can you please clarify exactly why we need to warn a vandal three or more times when he or she is so dedicated to vandalism that he or she edit wars to insert and retain vandalism? Surely two warnings is enough for a blatant vandal who knows his or her way around enough to be able to insert vandalism using fake references. ElKevbo (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What ever happened to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. This is a person with a 2 day old account! No wonder editors are leaving - where's the assistance to the editor to explain their action - no just block them out, and let the seasoned editors have there way. We have a system of incrementing warnings for a good reason - we often get unblock requests because the author (being new) did not understand the system, did not see the "you have messages" notice - at least with 4 warnings (and where's the harm in doing so...) they may realise that their edits were problematic and change their ways (some do so...).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
We already gave them two warnings and their edits were blatant attempts at sneaky vandalism. There was no misunderstanding here, just a waste of time while you allowed this vandal to waste the time of even more editors until he or she was blocked by another admin. ElKevbo (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I suspect other admins saw the report and didn't bother - that's why it took 40 minutes to get a reply. I've seen a lot more sneaky vandalism than this one. One reason I prefer Huggle, not only auto increments the warning level, but makes the subsequent edits a higher priority to check. I will still expect 4 warnings at AIV, unless there are unusual circumstances (which is what we then have the 4im warmings for).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I was referring to the fact that this vandal continued his or her work and was blocked today. If you had acted yesterday, that wouldn't have happened. This was such an obvious case that 4 warnings would have been a waste of time, just as the situation demonstrated once you failed to block this vandal and forced others to pick up the slack.
Look, I totally get that we should be friendly and supportive to new editors. And sometimes we can even convince those with less-than-noble intentions to either stop or to turn around and become productive editors. But let's not kid ourselves into believing that every vandal is an angel-in-waiting, particularly those who aren't making minor test edits or childish jokes. This editor was employing reference templates to invent fake references supporting his or her edits to multiple articles after multiple editors had reverted and warned him or her. This isn't someone who needed a hug and a smile; this is a vandal that needed to be blocked and when an experienced editor asked for your help you ignored him. Next time, please look into the situation more closely and trust some of your fellow editors a bit more. ElKevbo (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I've seen hundreds of vandals like this one before coming an admin (I have over 25000 Huggle edits), and I always gave them the four warnings - sometimes they did stop and, of course, sometimes they didn't. I cannot say that I could tell after just two warnings if they were going to one of those that stopped or not, there seemed to be no pattern that showed their eventual position.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The Southwest School of Art

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,

I just tried to create an article for the Southwest School of Art in San Antonio, TX, but didn't read the rules first (entirely) so my page was deleted. I also copied the information directly from our website (which I learned is a huge no-no. I thought if I cited it it was ok. Regardless, I understand why it was deleted, but don't understand why the SSA doesn't have an article published already. I am the community programs assistant and now realize there is a conflict of interest, but wasn't sure how to contact an independent editor create the article instead of me.

The Southwest School of Art has deep roots and is part of San Antonio's rich history. It started out as a convent established in 1851 by the nuns from the Ursuline Order. The school is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, but has evolved over the years. We currently host exhibitions, community classes and maintain the historic grounds. We have a history museum on site which contains numerous artifacts from the prior convent and Ursuline school.

Please advise on how to get an article published on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time and kudos on all of your Wiki awards!

Mari

Mariverduzcoboyd (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/swschool/4351504460/in/set-72157623294437491/

Initially my article was flagged because of an image. Here is the link where we post all of our public shots. Thanks again!

Mariverduzcoboyd (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


Text - Needs to be donated as per procedure at WP:DCM, once that is done - let me know and I can look for the e-mail and restore the article if the e-mail is OK.
Image - Image on Flickr is CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 - not suitable for WP - change to CC-BY-SA 2.0 and it can be uploaded here.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the photos flagged on my talk page

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have started a thread on the medicine page to try to resolve those photo issues. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Can_I_get_a_little_help.3F ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Replied there.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (June)

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.

EdwardsBot (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Bob Artley Photo

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Sir - I received permission to post that picture from Mr. Artley's family when I contacted them after his death. Since the family was the ones who took the picture - taken at a small town parade in Iowa - I assumed that by them granting me verbal permission I was clear to post it. Please let me know if I have misunderstood the rules as I have never posted another photo. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Permission has to come from the copyright owner of the image. Since WP images are usually licensed as CC-BY-SA-3.0, that means that they can be used for any use (including full commercial). It has often been seen that people are happy to give images to WP, but when they subsequently read the full terms of the license, they do a U turn. Thus we have to get explicit permission from the copyright holder to ensure that they fully understand what they are giving up. The procedure is explained at WP:DCM, and a sample donation form is located at WP:CONSENT. Do let me know if a form is sent in, as I am also a volunteer for processing those requests, and can search for it and undelete it. If obtaining permission is too difficult - as the person is deceased it may be possible to restore the image as a fair use" - see WP:NFCC - again, let me know if you want to go down this path.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Got it. I didn't realize there was an actual form. Let me send the form to his granddaughter and see if she'll approve it. I'll let you know as soon as I can. Thanks again for your help - Ckruschke (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Ronjones - why don't you go ahead an proceed with the Bob Artley image deletion. The family has not responded that they are interested in working through Wiki to retain the image and in fact appear to be reluctant to A) fill out the paperwork and B) sign over ownership. If they eventually get the paperwork to me, I can always find the image again and repost. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Sadly, this is not an unusual situation. I have had quite a few conversations like this at OTRS, and once the license terms get fully explained, they tend to back-track - while they were quite happy for use on Wikipedia, as soon as it is explained that any one can use that photo for any purpose, including commercial, then they are not so sure. Nothing is ever deleted from Wikipedia, if they do come through with permissions, then undelete is just a couple of mouse clicks. They will always be the owner, but they will have little control over where it is used.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Requesting lock on Chinatown, Manhattan Page.

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ron, Please place a lock on the Chinatown Manhattan article. If possible, also appoint a moderator to oversee the edits before allowing them to be posted. Some person(s) is definitely sock-puppeting pro-NY edits on the NYC Chinatown page. He/she also accuses anyone of anti-NY, pro-SF agenda if they disagree with them. This person also doesn't want a sock-puppetting file opned against them. If this person is not what I and others think who he/she is, then what is there to be afraid of? A checkuser should exonerate them. MBaxter1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick answer - I'm just going away for a day. You have almost answered your question - sounds like a report for WP:SPI, if they are innocent, they have nothing to fear. Also you can request protection at WP:RFPP  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

OTRS 2012071010009606

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ron,

How can we add our own information and have it stick? It has to come from a site? There is absolutely no way to remove something that has been cited even if the source page no longer loads or is untrue? Is there someone who patrols editing of sites that we can speak with?

Please advise and thank you so much for your help.

Gabriel Katz - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.11.130 (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Replied at OTRS  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Reporting possible abuse, reply requested

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

User 173.63.176.93 seems to making edits to the "Chinatown, Manhattan" article for promotional purposes. Furthermore, none of the sources listed on that page can be considered neutral/independent, nor are they reliable to back his/her claims. They look like travel sites to me(i.e. www.explorechinatown.com). I have already undone the edit. Please let this individual that WP is not for the purpose of promoting their local communities, and reverse any further edits. Thanks!, 67.115.155.101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe http://www.explorechinatown.com might be spam, but http://geographyplanning.buffalostate.edu/MSG%202002/13_McGlinn.pdf is probably not - it's from a university, and those are usually allowed. Not an article I'm that familiar with.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the problem with this kind of source is that its a local university that basically talks about how large this and that is within its area w/out citing any specific source for its research. I could easily come up with similar research papers from the University of Texas claiming that Houston has the largest Chinese population in the U.S! www.city-data.com, on the other hand, uses data gathered from local, state, and federal census bureaus for all communities within the U.S. If you login to that website and type in your address, it'll even give you the propertry's history, including ownership, property value, last evaluation, etc.! 67.115.155.107 (talk)
You may well be right - but then at the end of the day, it really rolls out into a content dispute, and editors claiming ther source is the better one - it's certainly not vandalism. If you can't get the other editor to agree then the WP:DR process has to be next step (or WP:3O as there are only 2 of you).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
User 67.115.155.107 may be a possible sockpuppet of MBaxter1 or MealMachine, please look into this. Or simply a fanatic vandal who is recalcitrant in acknowledging the common knowledge that Manhattan's CTown outgrew SF Chinatown two decades ago.
Socks are not my speciality. Admins cannot be good at everything. We all have our favourite areas of admin work, and can then become more knowledgeable about that area.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a sample of a comment I found from another user in the Manhattan Chinatown talk page: "I agree. The person using IP address 67.115.155.107 spread a lot of misinformation in his/her zeal to say that SF Chinatown is larger than Manhattan Chinatown. Previously, I had listed more modern boundaries for NYC Chinatown, but that person would keep reverting my edits. After awhile, I just gave up as life is too short to deal with unreasonable people. Dyl (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)" This editor should be considered for a lifetime ban. 74.88.160.244 (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

What nerve of abusive editors like 74.88.160.244 / 173.63.176.93 / 96.242.217.91. He pretends to play victim while accusing others of sockpuppeting, citing old messages as evidence? What next? Is he going to implicate Skokum1, Jonkerz, and every other editor who comes along to contradict him. And, he's still demanding a lifetime ban? That's the kind of crap many Wikipedians like myself have to put up with. Cripes. MBaxter1 (talk)
Any sock suspicions should be notified at WP:SPI  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up on locks for "Chinatown, Manhattan" and "Chinatown" articles

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I did requested semi-protected locks for "Chinatown, Manhattan" & "Chinatown" articles, but unfortunately it was removed..probably by the same person(s) I suspect is reverting my edits. If possible, I'd like to ask this request of you since you obviously carry more weight here than I do. MBaxter1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It was declined - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=501621268. You need more vandalism to get protection.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

james burk picture

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I believe I indicated the license that the picture has. It isn't on the internet anywhere else. And there is no evidence that the license which I gave it is not satisfactory. Why has it been deleted? Also why do editors have to jump through burning hoops just to post a picture that has never existed anywhere in a tangible medium previously and therefore has no copyright license other than the one I specified? T.Whetsell (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't ask users to jump though hoops, just follow the policies. You clearly stated on the file page A picture of James Burk, provided by James Burk, creative commons license - we need to confirm that the copyright owner has fully agreed to to the terms of the licenses we accept (Note: we only accept just 2, out of the 6 available creative commons licenses). Many a image copyright holder has changed their mind when they fully read the terms of the license. Thus we need to verify that James Burk has donated the copyright and fully understands what that involves. I can only refer you to the page for donating copyright - WP:DCM - once we have the permission, then the image will be undeleted.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Ronhjones, thank you for the explanation. OffsBlink (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sunny Singh, IX 'D' of DAV Sasaram

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can you, please, create a redirect of the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sunny Singh, IX 'D' of DAV Sasaram? This title is very long, people often commit mistake while typing such a long title. I, only, request you to create a redirect (short which can typed easily) of mentioned page. Thanks for help. --110.227.67.75 (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You can't have a redirect to an non-article space page. If the page gets through AfC then a redirect may be done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Bryan Silas

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I assume since you mentioned an OTRS ticket that you were contacted by the chap himself (or a representitive) with a correction? Thanks for fixing that then. I did restore Category:People from Stuart, Florida, though, as that's where he's known as being "from", even though he was born in WPB. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A close relative.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks again! - The Bushranger One ping only 02:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, Regarding this who owns the copyright, and how is it established that they do own the copyright, given this and this in any case? It would be good to know the actual process followed here for determining copyright ownership, beyond a (c) on multiple websites. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: I will watch this page, so we can discuss here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
This was a right effort (and at times, I'd wished I hadn't started!) I did have to ask for help in some of the tricky legal bits, since I'm not US based. For ref it's all at OTRS 2012072310010142 if you want anyone else with permission to view it.
  1. The English version was first published in 1987 with a copyright notice
  2. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 2004114733, ISBN 978-1-59614-110-0, First published: 1987, © 1987 Marian Fathers of the Immaculate Conception of the B.V.M.
  3. The English version comes from the original Polish version, plus three named translators - thus the author in this case is the translators, although it is far more likely to be counted as a work of corporate authorship. Thus with a pre-1989 publication - http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm gives them 95 years from publication date.
  4. Poland now has a standard 70pma copyright term - so author died in 1938, so they get 70 years, so after 2008 the Polish version should be PD.
Hope that makes some sense. If you want to contact me by e-mail, then I can send you back a PDF of the book's fly-leaf with authors, copyright notice, etc.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I do not need the PDF leaflet, I will take your word on that one. What I do not know is how to get to OTRS 2012072310010142 to see who/how they gave you advice. Is there a link there? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Beside all legal regulations, it sounds bizarre that a world-wide prayer which has become a part of the treasure of prayers of the Catholic Church is copy-righted. I will contact the Marian Fathers to find out what they think about it.--Quodvultdeus (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
OTRS number is only useful to OTRS volenteers - it's where the e-mails for Wikipedia go to. The removal was part of a takedown notice from the copyright holder. They have also told me that they believe that Polish version is under copyright die to publication in 1981 - I'm not sure about that, as Polish copyright tends to be from the death of the author, and publication date is not significant (but I'm not a Polish lawyer!)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

hi there

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

you ask for change the license Attribution on flicker of my file...File:Ghulam Haider Wyne By Tariq Imran.jpg i'hv change it already but file is still not undeleted... license is now changed to Creative Commons on flicker Please undelete that file now thanks... Image Reply me on my talk page please thanks...:)Tariq.Imran Talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

  Done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
i appreciate it Thanks alot...:)Tariq.Imran Talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Ghulam Haider Wyne By Tariq Imran.jpg Hi Ronhjones! recently you have deleted my image again after restored it. and i dont know what was the problem with that now because when i uploaded that file you tag it for speedy del. & you told me that If the Flickr image [5] is yours, then change the license on the Flickr image to cc. then i'hv changed the license to Creative Commons on flicker after that you have restored it but i've just cheked that file is again deleted by you Could you please undelete it or please tell what was the reason this time thank you... :) Tariq.Imran Talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Requested undelete - commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Ghulam_Haider_Wyne_By_Tariq_Imran.jpg  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Commons didn't like your Flickr account - commons:User_talk:Sreejithk2000#File:Ghulam_Haider_Wyne_By_Tariq_Imran.jpg. It's a bit of a weak excuse to delete without a discussion, so I've restored the local copy as you had already confirmed it was your own work.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you sir i appreciate it... Crown Prince Talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (July)

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.

EdwardsBot (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Re: message from wikimedia concerning InusaDawuda_2007.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi; I got the message that you had nominated InusaDawuda_2007.jpg for deletion, but then you reverted back to previous admin's pass of the image. I just want to make sure that all is well with the image? I am thinking that you were able to locate the permissions letter that Mr. Dawuda submitted for the image, but I just want to make sure. Thanks in advance, Diviness (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going through loads of images and tagging several of them, then I always come back and double check (it takes time for Twinkle to do all the tags sometimes) - then I spotted the OTRS way down the page (I wish they would put it further up like I do! - rant over...), so I just rolled it all back. No issue with it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Before, Volume 1

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You said about the picture I put on the page for the mix tape Before, Volume 1, that there is "no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license." But you see, this album was released with the intention that copyright would not be attached. The entire point was just to make music, no strings attached. Joshbob10 (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The page shown for the image (http://www.complex.com/music/2011/11/mixtape-premiere-the-madden-brothers-before-volume-one) says quite clearly at the bottom "© Complex Media" - that is enough to prevent it's use here as a free image. In fact even if it had not had that message, it would not matter as since 1990 (in US) all copyright is automatic and copyright notices are not required. What is required for Wikipedia to use the image as a free image is a explicit copyright release on that web page - typically a cc-by-sa logo and message. I see that since the nomination for deletion, that someone else has changed all the data on the file page (File:Before,_Volume_1.jpg) to be a non-free image.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Being vandalised again

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Hi,

A while ago you helped stop some vandalisation to my clients page Inkey Jones. I am his agent.

For a week or so somebody is doing it again - probably the same person. It's just turned into an 'editing war' - I have added nothing to Inkey's page ever - but I am trying to take out the made up stuff the vandal is putting in.

He is keeps giving a false name, DOB, and claims he is someone else (another name) and links to some article nothing to do with Inkey. To be honest it's very annoying to have to keep editing it.

I think at first this person tried to get the page deleted????

When that didn't happen he started to do this ...

I would guess that I have now had to change the entry back 10 - 15 times already over the last 24 hours.

Tomorrow I am going to sort out the citations that have been asked for. Can you please help stop this person from doing this. I believe this time he has used two or three names.

One of the other editors suggested I contact you as you know more about the history.

I still have the email you sent me last time if you wish me to email that to you for reference

Popetman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi my client inkey jones is now getting threatening emails from the person vandalising his page - if you have an email address I can forward these onto to you.

Also is there any one I can email the citations to as I don't understand how to change them.

Plus the false information this person is putting onto wiki is clearly malicious.

Can you give me some advice or who I should contact for advice. Thanks Popetman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've given it a tidy up and commented on the deletion page. Let me know if there is more vandalism when protection ends (don't revert it yourself more than 3 times...)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The person in question has threatened to put Inkey's home address, number, bank details up in retaliation. If this happens I will have to revert it more than three times.

I do appreciate your help.

As I have stated I have never added anything to the listing... if it needs more to be worthy can I add some of the other TV shows or radio work he has done? Along with the 200 plus live shows he does a year? If it's not needed - than I rather keep it as not being written by myself and leave it to others to list.

Anyway thanks again. Though I doubt this is the last we will hear from this person as my client has emailed threats since you closed the page to his edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popetman (talk • contribs) 09:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions...
  1. You are free to edit the talk page WP:COI exempts that action - add a list of useful references if you have them.
  2. All communication between editors must follow WP:CIVIL - if you have e-mails that show the author as the WP user name which are not civil, then forward them to info-en wikimedia.org (put the AT symbol in the gap!), for my attention, that keeps the e-mails private except for the trusted OTRS persons (and let me know here that you have done that). Severe breaking of WP:CIVIL can lead to the person being blocked.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you again. Tonight I put up some more credits for Inkey - and the person who has been vandalizing the page has taken all the citations out. I don't really want to get into another editing war with this person. He demanded citations - once you and I put them in he than takes them out???? He has also done a few things off this website that suggests he's a bit obsessed with my client. He also doesn't understand (or is pretending not to) that Inkey has had many bookings as a presenter - as well as a stand up comic. I do find it amusing that he started off by trying to get the page taken down as he didn't deem Inkey a worthy subject for wiki, and yet he seems to spend so much time obsessing over him. I don't know what you can or can't do - but if you could give me some advice that would be most appreciated. I have got other credits to put up but haven't had the time yet. I just don't want to have to get into another editing war - so if you could sort out the citations (restore them - and suggest a way to stop this becoming another editing war) that would be most helpful. Once again thanks for your time Popetman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment Hi Ron. I have used correct procedure for all my recent edits, discussing them on the Talk page first and then stating my rationale for each edit. I'm not sure Popetman has grasped the concept of a reference. He makes a statement, such as "Inkey Jones starred in Raging Bull with Robert Deniro" then adds a reference [6] which shows that Robert Deniro was in Raging Bull but not the subject, Inkey Jones. I'm also not sure he should be editing the article and adding content because of his declared interest in the subject. Petergionis (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with WP:COI editing if it's just to add references to existing text - the COI may have a good list already. We don't like COIs adding the text, because then it will tend to be not neutral.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with User:Petergionis in this instance. A reference must back up the statement that it has been assigned to. A reference that does not have the phrase "Inkey Jones" is useless. A reference that has the phrase, but does not confirm the statement made - e.g. http://www.getreading.co.uk/entertainment/comedy/s/58035_small_crowd_laughs_at_inkey_jones does not confirm the five years quoted, is also as much use as a chocolate tea pot.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Help

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

i am a new editor and i could use your help - i found you on the sundial talk page - i tried my hand at editing by removing <ref> number 12) from the references list in the sundial article because i think it is "content" not a reference or a footnote and should be in the main article - the author put it back with the comment that it is useful information - if it is useful information then it should be in the main article and verifiable and it does need to be verifed - i would like to resolve this issue and would like your advice - thanks for your time  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmahorney (talk • contribs) 12:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's rather a matter of taste - the section heading is "References and footnotes" - footnotes are not so often used, but are fomatted in the same way as references - WP:EXPLNOTE. As pages are based on consensus of the active editors it's best to discuss it with them. Choices are...
  1. Talk to the editor who reverted your edit, and discuss your concerns
  2. Start a section on the article's talk page, propose a change and let other editors have their say (this one does depend on how many editors are watching the page!)
  3. It's part of a WIkiProject WP:TIME - you can do a section on the project's talk page - likely to get a wider audience.
  4. Finally you could just add {{cn}} to any part of that footnote that you believe should have a reference.
Hope that helps.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

GRAVITOELECTROMAGNETISM

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Dr. Ronh Jones. I just want you can read an article of mine related with Gravitomagnetism, this article is in Spanish but formulas are Universal. I hope this work can be useful:

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/1110

My Name is in the link and I sign MLG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.157.31.151 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Already added to the talk page for you.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Ronhjones. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 31.
Message added 01:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 01:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (August)

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.
EdwardsBot (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


The Signpost: 03 September 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Semi-human instinctive artificial intelligence

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Thanks for your message on my talk page. To stay threaded I've replied there with evidence that the paper really does date from 2006. It's just to save the copyvio team some work. --Stfg (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Replied  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yosemite hantavirus

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There seems to be opposition to mentioning this statement in the U.S. National Park Service subsection of the History section of the Yosemite article: "In August 2012, Yosemite experienced an outbreak of hantavirus, a rodent-borne virus which killed at least two people, and according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, placed about 10,000 more at risk.[1]". The fact that I'm "just" an IP address shouldn't have any bearing on the fact that a major public health risk involving 10,000 is notable and should be mentioned. An editor mentions that there have been over a thousand deaths at Yosemite - even if so, those have virtually all been attributed to falls off cliffs and other accidental or traumatic causes. Hantavirus is different, actually an infectious cause and apparently putting 10,000 people at risk, according to an authority no less than the CDC. It would be remiss to simply ignore such a major issue as if it never existed. What is your opinion? 173.63.176.93 (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "CDC: 10,000 at risk of hantavirus in Yosemite outbreak". © 2012 NBCNews.com. Retrieved 2012-08-31.
If you believe that the section should be included, then your first step must be to talk to the person who removed it and discuss why and maybe what can go in and what cannot - you can talk to him at User_talk:Vsmith, since he's also an admin, he should be willing to explain the full reasons for removal.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

 
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Foot Health Practitioners

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Dear Ron,

It appears that on the Foot Health Practitioner wiki page. The folk who have "compiled" it, obviously have a major investment in that category. There is a lot of private money to be made by individuals with regard to promote "Foot Health Practitoners". First off, the HCPC regulate Podiatrists/ Chiropodists because the title is protected by law. The HCPC cannot regulate Foot Health Practitioners because their title is not protected by law. The HCPC also regulate Physiotherapists. The wiki page for Foot Health Practitioners is very biased.

Right here goes. You do not have to have any training to be a Foot Health Practitioner. They are unregulated. Therefore absolutely anyone can work as a Foot Health Practitioner without having to go through a private institution to learn to be one.

Now the folk who train Foot Health Practitioners and insure them, do not want the public to know that...why - because it is bad for business. They will lose out on people using their private Foot Health Practioner schools, they will lose people going to them for insurance, they will lose registering on their "institutes".

For the record on a Podiatrist/ Chiropodist may register with The Society of Chiropodists/ Podiatrists. Foot Health Practitioners may not.


One of the main training schools for Foot Health Practitoners is The SMAE Institute (remember this is a private Foot Health Practitioner school). With a little legwork, I was able to find the following information from Companies House (which register Companies). They keep a history of the companies.

Here is what I found out for the SMAE Foot Health Practitioner Institute:-

1) The Company Director for The SMAE Institue is Michael Batt.

2) The Company Secretary for the The SMAE Institute is Alan Forrester.

3) Alan Forrester also operates a company called Alan Forrester.com (which is an accounting company). This company has The SMAE Institute as one of their clients - this is advertised on the Alan Forrester.com website. They also have a cleint called the Rushymede Residential Care Home (you will see the connection in a moment)

3) Alan Forrester is also the Company Director for an organisation called "Podiacare Ltd" which supply podiatry/ chiropody supplies such as autoclaves, padding, etc. Which of course means he also sells stuff to Foot Health Practitioners.

4) Alan Forrester is also the Company Director for an insurance company called "Newhall Insurance Services Ltd" (non-life insurance. This insurance company is based in Maidenhead (the same town where The SMAE Institute is situated.)

Now Michael Batt he is a Director for the Rushymede Residential Care Home and other types of housing for folk with learning disabilities. The Michael Batt Foundation (which Michael Batt is the Company Director) states on Company House "is FOR TRAINING RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITIES for elderly and disabled folk."

So Ron, I leave you to make your own deductions with that information.

The NHS do not train Foot Health Practioners. They only train Podiatrists/ Chiropodists and Podiatry Assistants.

It is only private businesses who train, etc Foot Health Practitoners.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.89.111 (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well the page is quiet now it's protected. Should the POVs come back they will have to create an account, if they abuse that account, then they get blocked, if they then come back again, they are blocked as socks. Nice and simple.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your very helpful reply. It is so good to know that Wikipedia is in such good hands.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.147.136 (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ron,

I've recently encountered a user who I believe may be a sockpuppet of another user who was banned some time ago (and has since made several accounts), and I am not sure what to do about it. I do not really have any proof of this; rather, my suspicion is based on certain behaviours displayed by this user that are consistent with the banned user and several of their banned accounts. I have warned several members that the account in question may be a sockpuppet, and at least one of them agrees with me that the account may be a sockpuppet.

The problem is that if I'm right, then based on previous behaviours, the next step is for this user to engage in disruptive edits and edit warring, and I believe I may have seen their opening salvo ealier this evening. What should I do next? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI - you only have to have good suspicions of a sock to start an investigation. An admin will look over the edits of both editors and draw a conclusion, they may invoke a wp:checkuser to help confirm the diagnosis. Sadly socks are not my field (unless they are very obvious!)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, someone has already put up a request for investigation over there. If we are proven right and this person is a sock, I think we may even have a case to take to long-term abuse. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Good. We need to stop these abusive editors. If they are targeting one particular article, then do consider asking for semi-protection - that does help stop some sockpuppets. I believe the real joy will come when IP6 gets fully accepted worldwide, then we can hopefully have one static IP for each connection.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! GregJackP Boomer! 04:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Not my page, just submitted as a request via OTRS, I will pass on the result.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Company logo.png listed for deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Company logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Ronhjones. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_August_31.
Message added 16:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"A link to the "proper exact svg version - same size, same colour" would be nice. " -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 16:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it was getting late and I had to go away for the week end - it was added to the file page. File:Question Mark 1.svg  Ronhjones  (Talk)

User_talk:Kenny_powell

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. You recently blocked this account for spam edits + spam username. I can't see the deleted edits, but this is a real name, yes? Not sure what's up here. NTox · talk 23:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to read the article - http://kennypowell.tumblr.com/ is what was on the page - hence deletion as copyvio. Thus he is spamming - probably himself, but that has not been verified User:Kenny_powell may be that Kenny Powell, or it maybe a fan. It's still a promotional user name - he can ask for unblock, and tell the admins what he wants to edit - and not his own biography - or if he is a fan then he needs to change the name, as we don't allow fans to use the subject person's name as a user name.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I disagree. But I won't make a case out of it. The folks at WT:U have specifically worked hard to make it clear that a real name as a username is never promotional (except when the name is used to represent a company/group), even if the edits by that name are the most spammy about the person in the world. The definition is codified at WP:ORGNAME: "The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional ... Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product". Yes, you are correct that a fan can not edit under the real name of someone if it is likely to imply that the editor is that specifically identifiable someone, but that falls under the misleading/impersonation criterion - not the promotional one. And it is not standard practice to block these names without some questions first, unless there is strong evidence to suggest that the editor is not the person in question. NTox · talk 20:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Since it is someone identifiable, then ideally he to go thorough OTRS to verify that. If you would like me to change it from an unblock to a warning and advice to go to OTRS then I can do so - just let me know.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that would be better. I mean, I wouldn't advocate for it myself (OTRS confirmation is only really done for famously identifiable people - imagine if we had to verify the names of all identifiable people - OTRS would need some more laborers), but the block as it stands is unrepresentative of consensus so I would say it should be changed. The OTRS warning would be more appropriate. Have a good one. NTox · talk 20:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that will now do. info-en queue at OTRS us now usually quite small, I think we could take a few more mails :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronhjones/Archive_15&oldid=1203996576"