Wikipedia

User talk:Ronhjones/Archive 19

< User talk:Ronhjones
Latest comment: 11 years ago by 173.8.19.180 in topic Deleted page for InterAction (organization)
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

percee p the rhyme inspector img speedy deletion

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

to whom it may concern, this user deleted my image upload to my brother's wiki page,under the assumption it was non free, well it was taken by me, i did not write this message to be nasty,but percee asked me what happened to the image, and i told him, i would investigate, now if there is a way to right this wrong, i would appreciate a speedy reply sir...thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FORCEONE2000 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to use an image that is already on the web - then you have a very large uphill struggle. The image File:RHYME INSPECTOR.JPG. - is clearly found at http://content.bandzoogle.com/users/doja/images/photos/gallery/5368681.jpg?1 with a info date of 12 October 2012 05:28:02. Since all editing in Wikipedia is effectively anonymous, we cannot verify that you own the photo, and have not copied it from the web site. To use the image you will have to follow the instructions at WP:DCM. It's always best to take an image just for Wikipedia and not upload it anywhere else - until it's been on WP for at least a while, so that when checked (and they are all checked), we don't find any matching images.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Investigate this for me please, Ron!

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ron, you may remember me from all the HowToGeek logo and screenshot business! Well, since you seem pretty good at inspecting licenses and stuff, I'd love it if you could investigate the photos on here and all other pages that pop up when you type Micromax into the search bar of Wikipedia (top right) as they seem to have the wrong license and are apparently the uploader's "own work" but they come from here, and here and also look like promotional photos. Thanks(and drop a note on my talk page once you doing/did it, please), jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The older they are - the more difficult it gets...
File:MicromaxMMX400.png - All the available images are dated post 15:42, 10 August 2011 and nothing bigger, which put the Wikimedia image first - maybe unlikely, but very hard to prove. Sadly it's not unknown for other web sites to use our images and not add any attribution - so called {{backwardscopy}}.
File:MicromaxA70.png - now we have images up to 1000x1000 pixels, you can't make a 3 fold size increase and keep it sharp focus, so that looks iffy. I've tagged it for deletion. The screen-shot here is not important as it's an android and Google has already made that allowed for all android screens.
Hope that makes some sense.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
So then Ron, we need some evidence that they copied from the website rather than vice versa. I see about backwards copying now thanks! jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
What about this photo? jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"Speedy deletion"--having a hard time understanding your instructions to contest

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi--you placed a message on my talk page regarding an image someone slated for "speedy deletion", on the page of the Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library. You wrote, "If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". I couldn't find the button. Can you help me out?

I am very unhappy that this image was deleted, because I strongly believe there is no copyright infringement and would never violate copyright intentionally. The word "blatant" is used in the document you sent, which I find to be a bit strong, seeing as I had to go through a lot of steps to show that the image was legitimate before I was allowed to put it on Wikipedia on the first place!

I sent the following message to the person who deleted the image:

"Hello. I do not understand your justification for removing the photograph I placed on this page, showing a typewriter. I am the photographer, and I believe I stated that clearly in the information requested by Wikipedia while creating the image file metadata. I do not understand whose copyright you believe is being violated. William Faulkner did not create the typewriter or make any marks upon its surface that might be said to be his intellectual property (indeed, he made no marks on the surface of the typewriter itself that I know of); therefore his literary estate does not hold copyright over the typewriter. The typewriter itself is a commercial product, rather than a creative work, and an image of it is not protected by copyright, though I am sure that there are patents over the technology of the typewriter, but those patents are not violated by the image of it. The company that produced the typewriter risks no loss of typewriter sales because I have placed a photograph of it on this page. Please note the numerous photographs of typewriters on the Typewriter entry, which do not show permission from the companies that produced the typewriters in question."

Could you please help me understand what is going on? Is it too late to have the photograph reinstated? Am I going to have to upload it from scratch, and how do I keep the deletion from happening again? 

Leofstan (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
This issue is that it appears to be a copy of http://www.c-ville.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/typewriter-768x1024.jpg - hence the nomination for deletion. I see there is an OTRS pending now - assuming OTRS is happy then that should solve the problem. Note the text used in the message used on your page is a fixed template notice.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleted files - can you please review

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Gooday Ron - I saw your username in that you had reviewed some recent TT Races image files.

I am fairly new to Wikipedia and mostly contribute to the motorcycling pages (I am a contributor, not strictly an editor, but I also perform minor edits when I see the need). I wanted to link to a file which I find has now totally disappeared, and returns no obvious clues when searching deleted files. It was here. Even if it's a figment of my imagination and I've read similar content elsewhere on the interweb, why does the titlepage exist? And from when?

I think I read this page between Feb and April, and I thought it was impossible to expunge all traces from the database without leaving a deletion trail? I surmise that this may appear so to me perhaps as I don't have adequate priveleges, but I can see no reason why it should have been removed in the first place.

Another example has cropped-up here which is more-simple to understand but again I have to query the reasoning - unsourced material abounds on Wikipedia sometimes for years without intervention and this BLP subject is quite important and topically active

Would you be able to help? The first example is my primary consideration, but I cannot guarantee to be able to improve either if resurrected. I have skimmed-through the 2nd example which seems to have been unceremoniously railroaded-through? As with most aspects of Wikipedia, it seems unreasonably complex with too many options available after-deletion (I have checked Deletionpedia)

It's no big deal if either case cited above is absent, but it negates the contributive efforts others have made and the sufferer is ultimately Wikipedia.

Many thanks, Steve. Rocknrollmancer (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. Searching for deleted pages is a right PITA. As it's deleted, it's not in the search system!
  1. Nothing is truly deleted, just hidden from public view and can be restored in seconds if necessary. The logs are always there to see what was before.
  2. If you format the page request as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Potter_(motorcyclist) - (underscore for spaces in url) - then you get a blank page - compare that with a known deleted page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronghorn_(band) and you see how the deletion data is displayed.
  3. If you look at David Potter - there is a entry for him, and it's a red link (i.e does not exist), but directs the reader to 1976 Dutch TT.
  4. Gary Johnson (motorcycle racer). Following a change in the WP:BLP policy (due to abuse) - any BLP created after created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one reference. It's not exactly the biggest article in the world (3 lines!). Should you feel the need to improve it, let me know and I will WP:USERFY it as a user subpage for you to improve.
Hope that covers your questions.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, you had moved the page of Mahatma Gandhi here, an editor has started an RM to move it back to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, is RM the right precedure? Also nothing has changed since last RM so can this RM be valid. Thanks -sarvajna (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sir, I didn't see the discussion before nominating it for a move. Kindly tell me what should I do to avoid causing any unintentional disruption? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 17:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
A new RM is usually done when something has changed, which an editor thinks will necessitate a change of name. There's no limit to the number of RMs that can be done, or the time frame between them - although one would expect some reasonable gap, unless there is some extra reason for an early RM (RMs over the Christmas break have been later contested due to lack of editors at that time). There's not much one can do now - to stop it early will get editors who want a move complaining, to let it run will do the same with the other camp. It was a close call in February, so I would let it run - and then maybe add some sort of banner to the talk page to warn against repeated RMs (any banner added near the top or the page that has no signature will not get archived - the archive system relies on a date being present).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much sir, I very much appreciate your kind reply. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

abusive Ip vandal

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, You blocked User:82.50.38.173 a few hours ago and placed a dynamic IP tag on his/her page. The IP removed the tags and edited your User name to read as an abusive name. Then blanked the page after I reverted the edits. May I suggest a TalkPage block, with an extended block period. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Ghofran Ali Abdalalim

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to know how I can Upload images to Wikipedia without problems Please help me to maintain the image of an article _ Egyptians _ I have a collection of photos from the website www. Google. Com and you make a picture for each of these images, such as pictures _ English people_ on the site and Wikipedia English What should I do now . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghofran Ali Abdalalim (talk • contribs) 01:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Google does not have any images - it uses images from all over the web. The majority of these images cannot be used by Wikipedia, as WP allows full commercial re-use.
If you check File:21 English people.png and scroll down - you will that it's a montage of images that were all individually uploaded to Wikimedia first. That's the way it needs to be done - so that each potion of the image can show it's own license status.
But you must get images that are correctly licensed for Wikipedia use - that's Public Domain, CC-0, CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. Just finding an image on the web does not release the copyright as we require.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but sometimes Wikimedia does not contain images that I want to lay it down in the my project an article Egyptians . Ghofran Ali Abdalalim —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Theory of Everything

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Yeah, RobSinden had no reason at all for why it should have been deleted. It redirected to a relevant location with a cited source. It's common practice to create redirects for film prior to filming, so why was this different suddenly? Rusted AutoParts 19:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL - it's not been made yet. It's one thing adding a one-liner to a director's page, it another to create a redirect of something that don't exist. It may well get a name change before release (often the case) - as it would clash with The Theory of Everything (film) - something the film makers will evaluate later.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Its getting me mad because he absolutely refuses to discuss why he Nom'd it. He simply slaps the tag on, doesn't say why and pisses off. I made another one as it has been announced and he has still done it. I keep demanding an explaination and he ignores my request, simply telling me to stop creating the redirect, when he has no ground to stand on. Rusted AutoParts 20:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
THen head over to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - that's what its for.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Orphaned non-free media (File:Chatelaine magazine.jpg)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletions of prominent musicians

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm appalled that you would delete well-known musicians without checking the article citations. Many/most of your recent page deletions are not visible to me, but I'm contesting 2 of them:

I'll note that both these PRODs are from the same deletionist Vividdreams93 (talk · contribs), who seems to have a recent pattern of removing compositions and performances from artist pages, then removing the artist page itself. Please pay closer attention to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Also, go over all your recent deletions, as this is a pattern of carelessness.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Prod#Procedure_for_administrators does not require admins to access the page for suitability. It's a test to ensure that the PROD template has been placed for in excess of 7 days with no removal by anyone or anyone stating some objection on the talk page. In both cases the PROD was there, unbroken, for 7 days, and no new talk page comments had been added. Should you desire to change the policy regarding PRODs and their mode of deletion then you are welcome to suggest such policy changes at the village pump.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
For the record,
  1. You deleted Dapo Torimiro after only 3 days! (2013-06-13T02:43:30‎ PROD, 2013-06-16T22:58:48 deleted)
  2. You deleted DANiiVORY about 6 seconds later. (2013-06-16T22:58:54 deleted)
  3. Note Wikipedia:Prod#Procedure_for_administrators does require you "to access the page", and check the article, its history, and deletion log for redirects and incoming links from other pages. Obviously, that wasn't done in 6 seconds.
  4. Doing that would have indicated your reason given for deletion in both cases was utterly bogus ("Not a notable figure. A search brings up nothing but social media links.").
I prefer thinking administrators, not badly scripted robots.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

An image you reviewed for a 'move to commons'

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As I don't want to create antagonism or drama, I'm just going to point at my comments here, and ask you to be more careful in the future. (please leave me a talkback if you respond at either location..I watch pages I edit, but my watchlist is 'stupid large') Revent (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah well, no one's perfect. I assumed the uploader knew what he was talking about we he said it was very old.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:B&ML Station, Brooks, ME.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am the uploader of File:B&ML Station, Brooks, ME.jpg which you marked today for "speedy deletion". I personally took this digital photograph on July 16, 2004 and own its copyright as is confirmed by the metadata at the bottom of this file's host page. The copy of the image to which you make reference that appears on the page "Scratchbuilder looking for structures to build - with dimensioned drawings !!!" where it states that it was posted on March 17, 2007 was actually pirated from a page on the history of the Belfast & Moosehead Lake Railroad which I created in 2004, to which I also own the copyright, and which is currently co-hosted by CPRR.org, a railroad history site owned and operated by me and another member of my family, and of which I was the co-creator in February, 1999. As the sole creator and copyright holder of this image, I uploaded it to WP under my username "Centpacrr" on June 6, 2013 at which time I released it under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. Please therefore remove the "speedy deletion" tag that you added as the image was properly uploaded and licensed by me as its sole creator and copyright holder. Thank you. Centpacrr (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

After writing the above I found that an Admin has already removed the tag so no further action appears necessary. Centpacrr (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The person removing the tag was not an admin. You must realise that dozens of images get illegally copied from the web and uploaded every day, we have to ensure that the image belongs to the uploader - the primary way of doing this is to ensure that the image is uploaded here first. If not then we need further evidence. I would suggest you follow the procedure at WP:DCM and send in the form at WP:CONSENT. It is plain the the EXIF data has been modified just for the Wikipedia upload, so the notice is not useful. Also there is no copyright release at http://BMLRR.com (Copyright © 2000-2011 by CPRR.org). Therefore the tag has been replaced. If you decide to submit to OTRS, then let me know and I will change the tag to OTRS pending to allow plenty of time for the OTRS process.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

File:B&ML Station, Brooks, ME.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

File:B&ML Station, Brooks, ME.jpg In light of the uploader's other contributions (see Special:Contributions/Centpacrr), I am inclined to believe his claim to have taken the photograph in question. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

When it gets moved to commons, like most free images, it would not last a day with the existing copyrighted web images.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This is one reason why I don't upload my own images to Commons. I'm not interested in putting up with all the unnecessary hassle when I only plan on using the image in the English Wikipedia. Centpacrr (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
All free images newly uploaded will be tagged for a commons move within a couple of weeks by an auto script. It's much harder to validate the older pictures, so it's essential to tag the new ones, and slowly work our way through the old ones.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
While I have no particular problem with PD images that I have uploaded to en:WP being moved to commons, but for the reasons I have stated both here and more extensively in the PUF discussion I will specifically mark those of my own copyrighted images that I don't want moved there to not tag and/or move them to avoid them being later improperly deleted from Commons as copyvio and thus lost on en:WP articles as well. Centpacrr (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
By releasing under CC-BY-SA you allow us to move it to commons like any other free image. The bigger picture is to move all free images of off en-Wiki because...
  1. They can be used in foreign language wikipedias - which can just be a translation of the en-wiki page (Norway and others are using machine translations to make start pages for lots of articles).
  2. Finding useful images on en-wiki is hopeless. Commons has a far more structured category system which is well maintaines, and allows users to find appropriate images, without having to uploads similar ones.
  3. Commons can be set to allow the watched pages to send an e-mail when changed, so far easier to keep track of one's uploads.
The only files we won't move to commons are non-free images, and images that are not copyright free in the country of origin (e.g Pictures of modern buildings in places like France, Philippines, etc.)
The rules on commons are just the same as en-wiki - the editors are just more knowledgeable about copyright.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
If Wikipedia was not anonymous then may well not have these problems (and it occurs frequently), but as you know it's impossible to link a user to the real person. Because it's anonymous plenty of editors upload images every day that we have to delete - just my contributions can be seen at User:Ronhjones/CSD log, and I'm certainly not the only editor tagging images. Every time I go through one day's uploads there will be images just copied from the internet and claimed to be the property of the uploader.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. This is exactly the reason why I find anonymous editing to be so problematic on WP, and thus the reason I choose to not be anonymous. I try to always be as specific as possible as to the source of every image I upload that have been digitized or photographed by me from my collections as well as those that are created by me and thus own the copyright. I also could not have uploaded this particular image on WP "first" as it was taken and posted on both NERAIL and as a part of my history of B&MLRR in July, 2004 which was more than two years before I registered and began editing on WP in September, 2006. Centpacrr (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The policies do create some problems which is why we have the OTRS ticket system to address the issue of anonymity.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Shekhar Sen Tulsi1.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

uploaded ne image from my personal collection, verify it and update before go for any deletion Bheemsinh (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The image was found at http://www.shekharsen.com/tulsidas/publicity.htm - you will need to use the WP:DCM system to validate ownership.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Image Dr. Waiz Wasey.jpg Scottkenway (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi

I have already forwarded an email last time for this image and have done once again to wikipedia permissions email. The owner of this pic has granted me use of the image and the purpose of article and under free use license. This image was also used in other articles and newspaper granted by permission by Waiz Wasey himself.

Please let me know if you have resolved this. Regards

Scott Kenway Scottkenway (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ooops yes, my mistake. I missed the pending box - I've now resolved the OTRS ticket for you.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Untitled (Tree Pants)

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Mr. Bjornwireen,

I noticed that on 9 February 2008 you posted an image of "Untitled (Tree Pants)" by NYC based artist Peter Coffin. Though the quality of the picture is great, I feel that this particular installation of the pants is a poor representation of the temporary work, especially with the unfortunate growth of mold in an unfortunate place. Could you please remove or replace this image with a better example of "Untitled (Tree Pants)"? I think this image would be the best possible option http://lab.kalimo.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/move-15.jpg Thank you, and I hope to hear from you soon!

Sincerely, --Nico Tepreff (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

P.s. Here is a link to the page... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_Coffin;_%22Untitled_(Tree_Pants)%22_at_The_Wan%C3%A5s_Foundation,_Sk%C3%A5ne,_Sweden.jpg

commons:File:Peter Coffin; "Untitled (Tree Pants)" at The Wanås Foundation, Skåne, Sweden.jpg is not mine - if you read the page your will see I only moved it from en-Wiki. You will need to contact User:Bjornwireen - but he has not e-mail address logged and has not contributed since 1 March 2011, neither has he changed his account to a global one - he appeared to be editing a lot of Swedish related articles.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy response! Hmm, this is a difficult one. One problem with the image is that the artwork photographed was a non-permanent installation, and is thus copyrighted by the artist. How might I go about having it removed and replaced with a legal image? Thanks, --Nico Tepreff (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, someone beat you to it! It was deleted today as not being "permanent" as required under Swedish Law. I see no easy way of getting it back unless you can ask the original artist to allow it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Request to restore deleted image

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Ronhjones. I noticed that yesterday you deleted File:Socialist Studies № 1.png on the grounds that it was a non-free image. It was indeed non-free, though as a magazine cover page it qualified as fair use in the article in which it was used. As you'll see from the page history I was in the process of fixing the licensing metadata (which had been incorrect for some time) yesterday and was about to add a fair-use template but was called away from the computer. If you could restore the image I'll add the {{Non-free magazine cover}} and {{Non-free use rationale}} tags now. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

OK - added di-no-permission instead - gives you 7 days to sort out. Note non free will need to be much reduced (by a factor of 5, I estimate) - expected width will need to be 300-350px wide (and low resolution).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Steamboats of Lake Okanagan talkpage wasn't reverted

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I see you're the one who reverted TBrandley's booboo in April about Steamboats of Lake Okanagan. The talkpage is still at Talk:Steamboats of Okanagan. I'm not an admin so can't move it back, thought I'd ask you to do the honours.Skookum1 (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  Done That seems to have done the job.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Regarding the deletion of the article Invensis 23:44, 29 May 2013 and a new version in my user page

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. Regarding your deletion of the article Invensis, I request you if you can kindly look at a new proposal of the article in my user page: User:Jmsalamanca/Invensis and make any suggestion or observations that you may have towards its publication in Wikipedia. Your reason for the deletion was due "I'm not seeing the notability here. In terms of independent sources, there is none. There is the listing in '10 Most Promising BPO Companies', but there are no independent sources discussing that, leading me to do...". I worked on the weaknesses you pointed. Please answer in the talk page of the article, where I posted my arguments. Thanks! JM Salamanca (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I just deleted the expired PROD - you need to talk to the person who proposed the deletion at User talk:Martijn Hoekstra  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks JM Salamanca (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ownership of articles

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ron, i believe you have misunderstood me. By protecting my work, i meant that protecting it against unreasonable & edits without good reason even if i want to assume good faith. If factually incorrect information is put up displacing one's own work, i have a right to protest & remove it. I am sure you have read about the 3 very specific incidents of factually incorrect information being deliberately displaced out of nothing but ego.

If one wishes to say that it is not ego then it is pretty hard to explain how a building in Mumbai is miraculously copied & built in Surat or how two exact images portray something 263 kms apart or how two separate trains on indian railways end up have only 1 number. Besides, if i have been so wrong,then why is only one user having a problem? I am sure that we can agree that factually correct information supersedes personal opinions on wikipedia. I may have had disputes with others in the past which i consider is part of the package when you work in a worldwide environment but it has always worked out even if the end result is agreeing to disagree.

Looking forward to a reply from you. Take care. Had posted this message on my talk page but have not received any reply from you hence have re-posted it here. Superfast1111 (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

(Been rough with a nasty virus :-( ) - anyway my thoughts on "ownership" - and see also WP:OWN ...
  1. Anyone can revert vandalism - which may come in many forms!
  2. Personal opinion (or original research) is not allowed WP:OR
  3. Anyone may edit someone's text so long as the meaning is not changed (unless proven wrong) - maybe an editor wants to make the paragraph more succinct or flesh it out with more data or just a complete re-phrase - all are allowed.
  4. References should not be removed - unless shown to be false - broken ones stay WP:LINKROT.
  5. When no agreement can be reached with another editor then there is always dispute resolution and third opinion - better to get a consensus of agreement than run the risk of an edit war.
Hope that makes some sense.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have tried dispute resolution. But most of the reasons for edits have been posted on the individual articles edit history pages not the talk page hence the request was turned down. I had a word with the editor who closed the dispute but according to him both dispute resolution & 3rd Opinion required detailed talks on the talk page. Clearly that has not happened nor is it likely given our history. If someone produces superior work to one's own then that is fine & so are opinions but factually correct information supersedes personal opinions. Given the other editor's history,it surprises me that he gets away with a pep talk after admitting to an edit war the very same reason for which i received a months ban.

My argument is simply that if what i am contributing to wikipedia is so irrelevant then why is only one person having a problem & going all around the mulberry bush undoing my work failing miserably to add even a single replacement in its place.

I am hard pressed to understand how do we get a permanent solution to this dispute? Superfast1111 (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Olympiacos women's volleyball - I need your help and your expertise

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Ronhjones, I really need your help here. Please take a look at the talk page Talk:Olympiacos women's volleyball of this article and tell me your opinion. I feel that this editor GeorgeLouis is destroying the article and raises far-fetched issues. Many articles of the same category are written in exactly the same way (Fenerbahçe Women's Volleyball, Vakıfbank Spor Kulübü, Panathinaikos women's volleyball for example). I myself looked these articles up in order to create this one in a way commensurate with the wikipedia standards and structure. Now this editor is literally destroying this article, removing all the links to other wikipedia pages and demanding over-sourcing even though every aspect of the article is properly sourced. He even suggested that I was a sports public relations paid agent for Christ's sake. I think you should weigh in, I could use your experience and your objective opinion on that matter. Please answer in the talk page Talk:Olympiacos women's volleyball. Thanking you in advance, Gtrbolivar (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not my subject - you really need help from like minded editors. Since this is a sport, I've added a Wikiproject Sport banner on the talk page. I would suggest post a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports to see if you gain some assistance with editors who are used to sport articles. Otherwise the only other option if you cannot agree is to get some help at dispute resolution.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Painting at Kelaniya Raja Maha Vihara

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ronhjones,

This photograph was taken by me from my camera. It is a wall painting in a public premises. I understand the error that I have done with the above file name. Pl. delete the above file & then I will again upload the photograph as File: Photograph of the wall painting at Kelaniya vihara.

Waiting for your reply & thank you.

Anuradha

අනුරාධ (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the name - it's the photo - the painting was done by Solias Mendis - the copyright for a painting (located anywhere in Sri Lanka) will last until 70 years have expired post his death - thus it will be not be free to upload until 2046, unless explicit permission if obtained from the current copyright holder (probably his descendants). I note there is a move to convert to "fair use", if that goes through, then the image will be reduced to around 300-400px wide and low resolution, and you will not be permitted to use it on your user page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Ronhjones,

Thank you for your advice. I have already removed the photograph from my user page.

Kind Regards,

Anuradha

අනුරාධ (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank u Ronhjones:)

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank u sir,

For helping me clean my page.. Its a humble request if u cud help me secure my page and also sir I wud request u to clear the controversial part 'She was also seen and appeared topless [4] in Chitkabrey - The Shades of Grey which was promoted as the "boldest Indian film made".[5][6]' As it is publicaly demeaning my image n is a falls information(especially seen and appeared topless)which u can seen in link.. I'm waiting for u to handle n secure my page

User:Murrallli Is been reporting wrong info n being abusive not just abt me but to lot of others as 'puja gupta'(u can check it urself as she wasn't part of Chitkabrey film) page as well.. Sir its a humble request if u cud 'block him' from editing without checking the facts n clear those wrong info links from my page

Much love

Akshara gowda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.239.131 (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Page is now in my watchlist - I will keep an eye out for it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons:WikiProject BSicon‎

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to join Commons:Commons:WikiProject BSicon‎. Useddenim (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:1920 Evil Returns poster.jpg)

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  Thanks for uploading File:1920 Evil Returns poster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandals strike again...sigh...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

  Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from 2015 Formula One season, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. ...William 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

One cannot remove a speedy from a page that does not exist. It was a re-creation.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
You created[1] the article today. You're not permitted to remove the CSD tags. Maybe I should this to ANI since you're an administrator who doesn't think WP policies apply to them....William 00:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The article has already been deleted (see the logs) - I was re-creating the article (there's no rules about that), and yes I forgot to not restore the last edit, so I had to edit the text - maybe I should have deleted it again, and then undeleted - but that's getting a bit messy.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to take this to ANI tomorrow. You were not allowed to take down the G4 tag and you've evaded that point of mine not once but twice. Apparently you don't understand either WP:CSD or think that as an administrator that it doesn't apply to you....William 00:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Not evading the point
  • Speedy added at 14:50, 30 April 2013‎
  • Article deleted at 17:46, 30 April 2013 - the speedy was actioned and not deleted - its job had been completed.
  • Article re-created at 18:52, 30 April 2013 to allow full discussion at AfD.
 Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I CSD the article here[2]. You took down[3] the tag here in violation of WP:CSD. No intervening edits. You say you didn't create, this edit summary[4] says otherwise. The page's history[5] don't lie....William 00:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Sadly Wrong! this does not show the edits in between them - sad, but that's the WP way. As I have said - see the logs - they show the extra edits, including the actioning of your speedy http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=2015+Formula+One+season  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Another editor brought this issue up at WT:CSD, here. I personally think this is a really good argument for not using Twinkle at all, ever, but that's just me. No objections to any of your actions in this matter - I likely would have done the same. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm following up on the WT:CSD discussion. Were you aware of the creation protection applied to the page by User:RHaworth? Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen this question? Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The one that says "(expires 18:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)) (AfD decision)" - I could not find an AfD decision to lock until this date - and anyway that date appliedto 2015 would be obviously wrong, that would be far too late. He's done what I tend to do - pick a time from the list we get offered and let someone worry about unlocking it later. The key thing for any of these articles is to find some season specific data. The block delete of 6 articles was quite correct - it's useless to have an article that just says "This is the X season of F1".  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Did you discuss re-creation with RHaworth, WP:Deletion review, or WP:WikiProject Formula One? I'm concerned because you made two unilateral admin actions – editing through creation protection and restoring post-G4 – to advance your preferred outcome. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
In all honesty, I don't remember it being protected, and I certainly did not remove any protection (otherwise it would be in the logs!) - there is a hint of software bug here - maybe admins creating a salted document don't get any indication of protection status?. As for the G4 - well I have discussed this in the CSD talk pages - it stupid to expect any editor to know what an article was like years later, but G4 says "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion" - how can a non-admin say that?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Just tested that theory out on a user sandbox - there's is the smallest of hints that the page is protected in the logs showing - the edit window in not a red background like a normal protected page, and when you create it is has no protection and there is nothing in the log. So with the large entry of deletes - I missed the one line about the protection.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The lack of visible notice may be an oversight or by design. I'll look into it. Non-admins cannot review deleted revisions, but they can read the previous AfD. The final check must be made by the reviewing admin. The appeal process is to contact the deleting admin, User:INeverCry, or file a DRV. You do have the argument that the sources were new and different from the assumption that existing contracts would continue, but both of your F1 Fanatic sources have been removed as unconfirmed speculation. I wrote a possible WP:IAR justification due to the live AfD, but you were not aware that it had been opened. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Non admins can read a previous AfD - but they cannot (unless it was a recent deletion and they remember the page) make any judgement into how similar the page is - and G4 requires that. The issue about the lack of protection warning by a red background - I have raised it at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Is_this_a_bug_or_a_feature.3F - and have asked to file a bug report - which I will do. We expect protected pages to have a red background when editing, it's an extremely useful feature to prevent accidental editing of a protected page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Now reported at Bugzilla - Bug 48411  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean that a G4 tag placed by a non-admin is automatically invalid due to insufficient information? As I wrote, the reviewing/deleting admin is responsible for the final check. Thanks for the VPT question and bug report. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Disruption and unauthorized deletion in the Satyasraya article

Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Ron, the same user Coromandelcoast who caused an earlier disruption to the Vikramaditya VI article, has once again made unauthorized deletions and edits to the Satyasraya article. As I once pointed out earlier, sock puppets like him and several others are basically targetting my edits and contributions to such articles. For your kind information.
Even Mayasandra has reverted your restoration of Vikramaditya VI exceeding his brief as a wiki contributor.Just noticed that on seeing that article. Srirangam99 (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
There's not much more one can do - it looks like the editors know that they need only 10 edits on a non-protected page then they can edit a semi-protected article. If it gets often repeated then the only way forward is for full protection, with all edits having to be discussed on the talk page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ron, that is what I was trying to say. Well you are saying about full protection, I am for the same, because this way contributors like us have no way out against vandals of this type. Besides, I have pointed out to you also many times that I leave messages on talk pages of the articles as well as on the pages of these sock puppets to discuss article content and intended changes, but possibly it is one or maximum two persons who have created multiple i.ds. including many a times having the i.d. of a mere i.p. address, they seem to be getting away with murder. I request you formally to kindly fully protect articles like Vikramaditya VI, Veera Ballala II and Satyasraya leaving a message so as to prevent any unauthorized changes to articles without valid discussions on content. I say so because only admins like you are authorized to take such actions. You can reply to me on my talk page. Thanks in advance.Srirangam99 (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, let's see what happens now...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Let me know if the page(s) are showing a wrong version  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I thank you for the action. While the Satyasraya page is showing the right version, both Veera Ballala II and Vikramaditya VI articles are showing the wrong version. Let me know if I can help in restoring them to the right version. Srirangam99 (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Go to the history page(s), click the date of the correct version and give me the url that is showing in your browser - it will end like... "oldid=559406842" - gives me the version number to restore.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok Sir, done the same. As far as Vikramaditya VI is concerned, this is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vikramaditya_VI&diff=554758816&oldid=553188941 In specific, the version on the right of this page, is the right version, before it got vandalized. In Veera Ballala II your own intervention of 24th December protected the more stable version of this article. This is the link/url as instructed by you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veera_Ballala_II&diff=529621237&oldid=529604944. The version showing on opening the page was the one before it got disturbed. Thank you for your guidance.Srirangam99 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Sir, been busy??? I have done the needful as you desired. The links you wanted are given above this post. Thanks.Srirangam99 (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Very busy and you gave me diff links, rather than version links, with my version as the right hand side - so not sure what you want. Is this the correct version?...
The second diff you shown has the same versions on both sides...!
 Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Sir, thanks for pointing out. Well, I think this time I have got the hang of it. The version to restore is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vikramaditya_VI&oldid=552129235. Hopefully, I haven't muffed it up again!! Yeah, and the version to restore Veera Ballala II back to its pre-vandalization stage is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veera_Ballala_II&oldid=529604944 Thanks.Srirangam99 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I think I have it OK now. Enjoy.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deletion of article on the LA Screenings page and banning of the VideoAge Account

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, my account name is GiulianovaCityMan. I'm writing from my personal wikipedia account (hence the silly name). I work at VideoAge, a television industry magazine about to launch a think tank and a consultant service: we thought we'd wet start this whole think tank thing by taking it onto ourselves (via the interns) to take care of and edit the pages dealing with television industry-exclusive content. The official magazine account was banned for having the same name as our magazine, and I understand how it could have seemed like we were self-promoting, and was probably mechanical and had nothing to do with you. However, what I can't understand is why a page on the LA Screenings (among others, I believe) citing articles we have published are taken down for copyright infringement, even with substantial editing of the content. Further, we have included and cited material published by other magazines (who are also our competitors) to avoid blatant self-promotion, demonstrate notability, and most importantly, not rely on our own (copyrighted) material too much, as this whole deletion-thing has happened twice already, but to no avail. I'm donating the content personally written by me to the best of my abilities through wikipedia's channels, but I'd like to know what I can do to make sure no account gets banned or no page gets outright deleted in the future.

Thanks, hope you can help clear this up GiulianovaCityMan — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiulianovaCityMan (talk • contribs) 01:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As you said, you have a silly name. All editors are therefore 100% anonymous. I could say I was Mick Jagger - you could not prove otherwise. Thus any copying of an existing web page is a copyright violation as there is no simple way of knowing that the author may or may not hold the copyright. We have a process of using web pages - it's fully outlined at WP:DCM - but simply put...
  1. The copyright owner sends in an e-mail (from WP:CONSENT) to donate some rights so that the pages become CC-BY-SA - each web page to be donated much be listed (unless the whole site is donated) OR
  2. One places the CC-BY-SA logo on the web pages to be used (and removes any "All rights reserved" notice). Note we only allow CC-BY-SA or CC-BY or CC-zero content to be used.
Hope that helps.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's XadXgamerX asking "Could I please edit some pages on Wikipedia.org (Wikipedia)?". — Preceding unsigned comment added by XadXgamerX (talk • contribs) 01:42, 30 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia - permission is not required..
Wikipedia is a "wiki", which means that everyone can edit pages. You don't need to apply or get special permission to join us. At the top of each page is an "edit" label. Try it for example at Wikipedia:Sandbox, a practice area where you can make changes.
You don't even need to log in to edit, although creating an account gives you more options and helps you keep track of your contributions. You can create an account at Special:UserLogin/signup.
There is no central editorial board; all edits are made by individual members of the Wikipedia community.
For more information see the introduction Wikipedia:Introduction and tutorial Wikipedia:Tutorial.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Chemical diagram request

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ronhjones, I see at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Image Request that you take requests for chemical structure diagrams. I was wondering if you could do one for anthracimycin? Diagram found here. Chris857 (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Not that difficult. Give me a day or so to fit it in (New PC - I've got to install a few bits).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  Done Found all the bits quicker than I thought I would - File:Anthracimycin.svg  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Belated thanks PLUS new request

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Gooday Ron - thanks for your advice on the non-existent Dave Potter (motorcyclist) page and deleted Gary Johnson pages a good while back, now. I intended to get back to you as I had more queries but have gradually managed to resolve most of them myself, hence time has marched on. As I have too many pages under progress, I decided to leave these two 'as is' for the present.

Could you please look at the ongoing vandalism on Duncan Bannatyne's page here. I did a few edits about a month since, hence it's on my watchlist, but this level of puerile interference - mostly but not exclusively from IP addresses - is way beyond me (how to deal with it).

Thanks, Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorted - page semi-protected  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Muchas Gracias, Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Twelfth Doctor

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for protecting the page, I was getting a little worried about the 3RR (I know it was OK, as it was vandalism). Thanks, Matty.007 19:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It was getting rather silly. :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I will try and get DYK and/or ITN tomorrow. Thanks, Matty.007 19:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Unless someone gets there first... Matty.007 19:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Page deletion

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Page deletion
Hello friend, please undelete my page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brook_framework. I'm the author of Brook framework. Silvioprog (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
All editors are anonymous. You have to use WP:DCM and then we can undelete it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Trolling vs. vandalism

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

I saw that you recently declined an AIV that I filed against Ai-mu-mu. This account has done nothing but spam-fill talk pages with gibberish that includes some words that by themselves, might have a vague connection to the article subject. This is a shining example. This is whatchamacallit "an obvious troll is obvious", in other words – a vandal. Please reconsider. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Added Final warning  Ronhjones  (Talk) 11:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Heh... that went well   Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Give them enough rope... then there will be less likely of a swift unblock, once blocked...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Aren't these two IP's (78.34.170.205 and 84.44.233.165) his sockpuppets? I really believe he's here to f@^k with Wikipedia and test our patience... and most likely trolling under a different account/IP by now. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

...and here's a fresh new sock... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

They all resolve to "Germany Koeln Netcologne Dynamic Ip Pool" - so I can only suggest report them at WP:SPI, then you ask for a checkuser to see if they are all the same PC. But since he keeps switching IPs so much - I doubt if we can blaock them all Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  Done. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Mass deletion of categories - perhaps upmerge the articles?

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. I have come across your recent deletion of the gay-related categories created by a sockpuppet of a banned user. I would venture to suggest that it would be helpful to replace the deleted categories with parent categories that remain, rather than just deleting the categories outright. That way, the articles do at least stay somewhere within the appropriate category tree. To consider an example, when deleting Category:Gay men's organisations in the United Kingdom, you could have recategorized the articles into Category:LGBT organisations in the United Kingdom. Thanks, htonl (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A Lot of the pages were very multi-catagorised anyway. I only did a very small proportion, then I got bored (let someone else have a go...) - there are still about 130 categories up for deletion - Category:Candidates for speedy deletion (scroll down to Subcategories : half way down) - referring to many hundreds of pages I suspect.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry - "Subcategories" half way down on what page? - htonl (talk)
Ooops - missed the ":" - link should show now.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ronhjones, when you deleted the categories, did you consider whether they were useful or only whether they were created by a sock? Also, I understand that upmerging may be boring work but it is part of maintaining the category system when deleting populated categories, and I wonder why you chose to act on the deletions if you weren't willing or able to take the time to do the upmerging as well. It appears to me that your actions have created a mess for others to clean up - see comments from user:Bearcat and user:Diannaa and others at WT:GAY, for example - and I would appreciate hearing why you chose to act as you did. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

They fell under G5, so I deleted some of them. My connection is not the fastest, so removing the categories from the articles can mean a wait between each page, so I do get bored with waiting for WP to respond on such a lot of edits, so I just did a subset of them. I note, as yet, no one has asked me to reverse the changes - I will do so if asked.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

GonzosNoze user page

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Why would you even protect it if nobody requested that the page should be protected or if there is a violation of the 3 revert edit war going on? I added Kirby wiki because he made edits there along with his account and everything even though Muppet wiki isn't the only wiki he edited on. If you look over there, you may notice he was wrongly blocked after another user has created an account in-order to get the legitimate user blocked from the Kirby wiki.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Users may request protection of their user page if they want - it's their page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see their request somewhere on the site so it looks like no-body requested it.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Contacted by WP:OTRS - they don't have to be public if they don't want to  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Christian Council of Britain

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Ron, you were kind enough to offer advice about User talk:RevRMBWest on my talkpage. I followed your advice including dispute resolution on Christian Council of Britain but attempts to obtain any dialogue to allow resolution failed. TransporterMan (TALK) who attempted resolution provided user advice and suggested if further edits took place without talk page use then I should contact an administrator -so I've come back to you to see if you have other suggestions. Sorry if this is tedious. Regards JRPG (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's protect the page - he'll have to use the talk page as the only way of editing.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 11:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ron. He's never used a talk page & fortunately it's not a very active topic. JRPG (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
That should work. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Evilphoenix/potw

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Ron. I'm sure Evilphoenix would have deleted this page, a 2005 preparation for an RFAR, if he'd thought about it, as old pages with negative material aren't supposed to live in the userspace forever. EP is no longer around. Since Andy's MfD of the page isn't attracting any interest, I'll speedy it per WP:IAR if you don't mind. The subject of the page is offended by its existence, which seems to me to be reason enough — these ancient diffs are hardly of use to anybody, in any case. (I'm not sure why Andy cares about such an obscure old page, but he clearly does.) Bishonen | talk 16:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC).

He must have searched hard to find it. I agree it's a bit negative, I only declined the attack page, as it obviously was not set up for that purpose. Feel free to apply WP:IAR  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC).

just tried putting up Women's Health Co-Op was deleted

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So we put the page up too early and wanted to put it back into our sand box to work on it. It appears that it was deleted by you. Is it possible to make edits and then republish? There was also no reason given for it's deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sateirti (talk • contribs) 21:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I tidied it up as per you e-mail to OTRS - the reply bounced (your e-mail address munged below to xxxxx)
   SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:<xxxxx>:
   host mchenry.wikimedia.org [2620:0:860:2:219:b9ff:fedd:c027]:
   550 Administrative prohibition
Page is safely at User:Sateirti/Women’s Health Co-Op  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:David-fried portrait2.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Greetings Ronhjones, Thank you for your messages about the 8 images on my sandbox page for David Fried:

File:David-fried portrait2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs). Modern sculpture - No Freedom of Panorama exits in US Ronhjones (Talk) 21:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I have uploaded them myself and are the author of the images and content (sculptures) Did I leave something out in the file description??? Your assistance would be greatly appretiated.Hindsite (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Any artwork is the copyright of the creator and cannot be gained by just photographing it. In some countries there is Freedom of panorama, where sculptures in public places can be photographed without a problem - they are public domain. That's typically UK (me) and old UK territories, and also Germany (why I did not tag File:Self Organizing Still-life - museum kunstpalast.jpg). In US - you can take a photo of a building, but not a sculpture (normally not until the creator's death date is 70 years ago!). In Belgium, like France you cannot photograph any modern 3D object.
To use the photos do the following
  1. Follow instructions at WP:DCM and send in a consent form Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries listing all the images, the release must be at least CC-BY-SA.
  2. Add {{OTRS pending}} to all the images - that gives you 30 days (rather than 7)
Hope that makes some sense.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for response. I see if that were the case it would be a conflict, but in this case i am not only the photographer, all of the 8 images are of my own artwork - I am David Fried.
Do i have to replace the "Author" and "Source" with David Fried??? (it came automatically as "own" and "Hindsite") Hindsite (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah - Catch 22 - anyone can say they are X - we can't prove it. In effect all editors are anonymous - there is no way within the normal Wikipedia pages of linking a real person to a username (to do that to someone else is against policy - WP:OUTING). You can declare your real name - but we can only confirm it by the e-mail procedure I gave earlier.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting! Thanks for your help. I'll look into the consent form. About your code suggestion to gain more time: 

       Add {{OTRS pending}} to all the images - that gives you 30 days (rather than 7)

Where exactly does this code go? Under Author in the description?? Hindsite (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have sent the consent form. The instructions suggest i should copy the consent form into the Talk as well: I hereby affirm that 'I, (David Fried), is' the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following images and of the artworks pictured therein, links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:David-fried_portrait2.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stemmers,_sculptures,_view-1.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Way_of_words_-_david_fried.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Self_Organizing_Still-Life_-_Brussels.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:David-Fried_globalexandria_sculpture.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Globalexandria_-_sculpture_W-1-13.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stemmer_-_SS3_-_view.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stemmers,_sculpture_view-1,_david_fried.jpg I agree to Creative Commons license. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [David Fried] [SENDER'S AUTHORITY (I am the copyright-holder, director, appointed representative of, etc.)] [08/16/2013]Hindsite (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Hindsite (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Found at OTRS and replied.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your assistance! - so far, so good, but a new template has now been added without signature, and i am not clear on how to proceed:

"An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read as ticket 2013081710001795 by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this page/file. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published. For an update on the issue, please contact the user who added this template to the page, or contact OTRS volunteers at their noticeboard."

As my email is clearly associated (it is my name@), i can not understand what is meant by "originally published". FYI: My website (also under my/author/creator name) contains the same images but under different file-names. Any suggestions?Hindsite (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

  1. No signatures on the file page - signature only on talk pages.
  2. I added the OTRS received - it's a fixed text template - check your e-mail for the additional info required.
 Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

98.220.109.211

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The user with this IP address is at it again, as you seen it on his contribution. He did it once to Olympus Has Fallen and I reverted that edit of his. I also give him a warning. I thought I should give you a heads up since you blocked him early this month. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

There were other's missed - e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EMF_%28band%29&diff=567914165&oldid=566761648 - now blocked for 1 month.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
You might want to change the block setting on him, because this is what he said on his talk page after he was blocked. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Very cleaver - not. But no actual swear words used. Let sleeping dogs lie.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A go-to message to you from someone

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just a message from a user with an IP address, which is a go-to message to you. I don't know why he wrote that to me, but it's says it about a user with the IP address that has been committing vandalism. Here it what it said if you want to look at it. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone with an axe to grind trying to divert attention from themselves. 82.35.218.9 is dynamic, so it goes from quiet to vandal at the drop of a hat. IP are never indef blocked either. Could well be our friend above...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

My RfA

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I should have thanked you for your support sooner. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - you would be surprised by how many don't do that. (most don't bother!)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Lieutenant General Pak Army.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The person who blanked the page is the person who uploaded the most recent image (Thus is the author and G7 does apply) Werieth (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Werieth#File:Lieutenant_General_Pak_Army.jpg Werieth (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Just rotating an image does not make him the author of the page or the image - he made a simple derivative. It will probably go under F5 in a few days, unless some other editor decides differently - where's the rush? The real author is User:Smsarmad who found the item.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Khoka 420

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Ron. :) I just wanted to let you know that while looking into a copyright issue raised at ANI (only tangentially related to this article), I restored the history of this article which you had deleted for G12 earlier this month. I think you must not have noticed that the blog tagged as a source dates to July 16 2013, while the article was created in September 2012. This would mean, of course, that at worst the copyvio would have been a recent insertion and so the history would not be unsalvageable, as the G12 criterion requires. But if you compare the article as it existed the day before the blog was created and the blog, it makes it a little more obvious that we had the content first, although I suspect they copied it later on the day of the 16th, after these changes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that one - another one for the {{backwardscopy}}!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Unsimulated sex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irresistible (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Eric Hedlin

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Ron, thank you very much for restoring the photo! It has appeared on Eric's site. By the way, regarding the license, the email sent by the photographer is below. We had thought this would be sufficient. Do you know off hand what might be missing from this email? Thanks again, Michael Hedlin

Begin forwarded message:

From: Mike Lewis <mike@olavistaphotography.com> Subject: permission to use photo on Wikipedia Date: August 19, 2013 4:31:21 PM PDT To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

I hereby affirm that Mike Lewis is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the picture of Eric Hedlin that appears on his Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hedlin)

I agree to STANDARD CHOICE; SEE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TYPE OF LICENSE: [publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).]

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Mike Lewis, Ola Vista Photogrpahy, mike@OlaVistaphotography.com

[SENDER'S AUTHORITY: Mike Lewis [August 19, 2013]

Mike Lewis | + 1 858.242.0183 Skype/Facebook/Twitter: mike2swim see: www.OlaVistaPhotography.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewHuvud (talk • contribs) 01:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it will get done - Looks like there's about 2-3 week lag at present (why the OTRS pending is good for 30 days!)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Christian Council of Britain

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ron, you may remember this one as it has been going on for some time. Could you look at Talk:Christian_Council_of_Britain#The_Ordination_and_Diploma_of_Rev_Robert_West and advise on that page? There are also comments on User talk:RevRMBWest who seems an inexperienced user. Thanks in advance. JRPG (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Question about an editor

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

I didn't want to take this to an admin noticeboard because I'm not sure this editor has actually done anything wrong, but it looks weird to me, and is surely not helpful. User:Narrow Feint contribs [6] is persistently removing "UK" from articles, infoboxes etc, leaving no edit summaries. He doesn't seem to do anything else. What do you think I should do, if anything? I'm sure there's a guideline somewhere against this, but I can't find it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm changing 'England, UK' to 'England'. There is a guideline somewhere. (I have seen it, but I can't find it again. There are A LOT of pages like that on Wikipedia. Why isn't there a decent structure to all of this?) Check out the history of Margaret Thatcher. This has been changed at least twice. Check out the featured article talk pages (these are just as hard to look through) where I have come across the examiners removing 'UK' in these cases. It would have been good manners to have left a note on my page. And sorry to spoil your fun, but you won't see me in an edit war. Narrow Feint (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Those guidelines are hard to find :-) - I known where most of them are, but some are really squirrelled away. As I said below - England is a country, the UK is odd.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It is funny how nobody can find this guideline. I specifically didn't want to talk to Narrow Feint about it, which is why I came here rather than an admin page. I think I find it odd because the UK is a more important entity than its constituent parts are, and not everyone knows that England is part of the UK. Removing "UK" removes that clarity for those less familiar with our country's make-up. I'd be very interested to see this guideline. Incidentally, what is the difference between removing "UK" (which I said) and changing "England, UK" to "England" (which NF says)... they look mighty similar to me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I've waded (and there's a lot of UK stuff to wade through). The nearest thing I can find is Item 4 of Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/Guide#Local_government_areas wich says
The top level frame of reference is the country within the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) and is not ordinarily linked
Which would suggest that "England" is preferred to "England, U.K."  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for looking for that. Can't say I agree with it, although I'm sure some people appreciate the sentiment behind that MOS. It'd be nice to know just why "UK" is prohibited. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I've also found this [7], which is more to do with BLPs than places, but it's an interesting essay, plus the talk page and there's a link to an archived discussion as well. Just goes to show how heated this stuff can get. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Best to keep a low profile :-) Religion / Politics / Nationalities always get very heated (and often entrenched) - and let's not even mention Northern Ireland...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
In a similar vein is this guy (contribs [8]) who likes to change British to English without any kind of verification process. According to his user page he has a clear bias. Isn't there a guideline against this kind of thing? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Tricky... I don't know a guideline (doesn't mean there isn't one). UK is awkward - as the parts of it are still proper countries (hence we have national football teams - what would happen if some one would suggest a UK team?). If the person was Scottish or Welsh then we would probably say that (and I suspect there are a lot of Scottish and Welsh editors out there making sure that's the case). Would you try to say Griff Rhys Jones is British (He's been Welsh since the article started in 2006, even though he was educated in Essex)? Or Cardiff is in the UK rather than Wales? It's fair to say that won't happen. Also since the last census in the UK was forced to allow "English" as an option, then it shows there are a lot of minded people (I put English, just be be awkward). Unless the change makes it a problem (i.e. they remove UK and don't replace it with England - so the location is ambiguous), then I would let sleeping dogs lie, otherwise it can be great way to get into an edit war (country names, politics and religion all tend to start nice intense edit wars at some stage...!). Keep an eye on it, someone may start reverting it, then sit back and see what transpires - always good to watch others slagging it out.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it. I think it depends (it should depend) on what's verifiable. Changing a BLP from British to English without knowing whether those people self-identify as English is not helpful. Just using place of birth isn't enough. I was technically born in England, but I do not call myself English. What about Tony Blair? Born in Scotland – Scottish or English? The article plays it safe and says British. I think that's the way to go rather than to go around flatly changing random people to English without having the vaguest clue as to their ancestry etc. Some are easy, like Rhys-Jones as you say, but others are less so. I'm not keen on the removal of "UK" because it can often show an anti-union POV, particularly if an editor does nothing else but that... But as you say, getting into a daft edit war helps nobody. Anyway, thanks again :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree, I also think the some people want to be called English and some British (like Tony Blair), and we should respect their views where known. Agree we need verifiable data if declared English. I see no surprise that Alex Salmond is down as Scottish and we know certainly anti-union. Who knows where the UK will go if he gets his way with the referendum! May be a lot more editing needed...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
An independent Scotland... now that would be something to cause some serious Wiki discussion! It'd make the Bradley Manning debate look like a brief chat ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Not to mention they would be outside the EU - thus just think of the duty-free sales! Can't you just see Whiskys'R'Us at Gretna Green? - and it's only 73.8 miles from where I live - I can just imagine Virgin Trains doing cheap day returns :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your message regarding Mayor James T. Butts Wikipedia page

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Thank you for your message regarding other users. I am seeking your guidance and assistance as an individual that is m******y d*******d continually posts volumes of information out of context regarding a lawsuit filed 20 years ago against members of a police department that I headed. He also continually posts information regarding the management of the Inglewood Unified School District which the Mayor of city has no control of. An independently elected school board runs the district and is funded by the State of California. He edits the page sometimes daily after I remove the extraneous material. The level of his mania is displayed by the fact that he will return the extraneous and (in his belief, damaging) material sometimes twice a day. I realize this is not the first time you have encountered the situation. Please respond to me at thedriven1@gmail.com with any advice and help that you can give. Theairport12 (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It can be difficult with some editors, but you must not state you opinion of their editing ability or any other facet about them, whether you believe it is true or not - that all falls into the WP:NPA, WP:HARASS. You can only make comments about the subject matter, be it in on the talk page or the edit summary. I have munged your attack above this time. Please don't do it again. I don't know about this editor, but there are editors out there who will really rub people up the wrong way, and it's easy to lose it and get yourself blocked - then the other editors has eliminated the opposition. I see User:Orangemike has recently edited, talk with him, see if you can get some agreement on how the page should be (I saw his comment in the history). If not, you may have to go to WP:DISPUTE to get some help.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I've applied oversight to suppress the visibility of the repeat potentially libelous and clearly defamatory edit summaries. Honestly, James, I'm surprised you weren't blocked already for pulling that kind of thing. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image question

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would I be able to use one of the images from this article for the Noodles & Company page under the Advertising section as non-free image under the exception for promotional materials? Or perhaps this one I found in Noodles & Company's media kit. I note that the images include cars and buildings, etc. on the periphery of the image of the billboard itself, so it is not exclusively of the ad. CorporateM (Talk) 22:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The cars are de minimis - it's a poster. The poster is the main focus - therefore just crop the first image. If you want to use that then it needs to be uploaded here to en-wiki (not commons) at a low resolution, and not much greater than 300 pixels wide on the smallest dimension (crop of first image would do nicely). It will need a filled in WP:FURG template as a rationale. Plus {{non-free poster}} as a license. Whether or not other editors will deem it suitable (and agree with your FURG) for the article is an unknown factor!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

F9 supersedes F11 in this case

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Respectfully, I believe you made the wrong call with this. F9 applies, and even F11 says "obvious copyright violations where the uploader would have no reasonable expectation of obtaining permission...should be speedily deleted per reason F9". By keeping F11 CSD and not deleting under F9, you are allowing a blatant copyright violation to persist for a week, rather than deleting it immediately, as should be done in this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Nearly all F11 are deleted - I'm just doing what was done to me many, many times, before I was an admin - and explained to me then - as F11 specifies "It is attributed to someone other than the uploader" which is clearly the case, they have shown the source - had they said "own work" then it's a no brainier for F9. There's no certain way of ensuring hat the uploader won't try to get permission. Also (as often happens with F11) there is the distinct possibility of changing the image to fair-use - all pictured are, I believe, deceased - fair use could therefore be be possible.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

ecoPayz

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi

Im trying to create a page for ecoPayz but you keep deleting it.

Can you let me know why please?

Regards Russell — Preceding unsigned comment added by R martin84 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Because you cannot copy data from other web sites (like http://www.ecopayz.com/Our-history) unless...
  1. Extensively re-written.
  2. The web site has a clear release of copyright of CC-BY-SA or less strict.
  3. The web site owner donates the copyright (effectively the same as (2)), following the proceedure at WP:DCM.
The text of all new pages are automatically checked for matches with other web sites.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deleted page for InterAction (organization)

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ronhjones,

I hope you can help me with a question I have, or at least point me in the right direction - I rarely do anything other than look information up on Wikipedia, and I only think I'm on the right track!

I work for InterAction (www.interaction.org), and we had a Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterAction_%28organization%29). A couple of years ago, my boss asked me to update it because the only thing that was on it was irrelevant to anyone outside the organization. We talked about it and agreed to post the information from the About Us page and (at that point) newly-constructed organizational history that we had on our website.

Fast forward to this month: I just had a new boss start, and she asked why we didn't have a populated Wikipedia page. She sent me the blank page she'd found on a Google search, and while it was our page, you had deleted it for copyright violation. I haven't logged into my Wikipedia account since I did the update, so if there was any notification through the site that this was an issue, I didn't see it in time to do anything about it.

As an editor, I really appreciate that Wikipedia is careful to keep plagiarism off of the site, but my boss and I would like to get it reinstated. I'm glad to change the language if that will help us conform to Wikipedia's policies. When I started researching how to get the page reinstated, it looked like I'm supposed to contact the person who deleted the page. Is starting with you the correct place, or is there somewhere else I should begin this process? I'd appreciate any guidance you have!

Thanks,

173.8.19.180 (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Margaret Christoph, Communications Coordinator, InterAction

Ah, that was a long time ago! Being an old page, I see I tried to work out what content was an issue and from where at that time...
  1. ~1700 bytes from http://www.interaction.org/2008-annual-report-focus-on-the-future
  2. ~1400 bytes from http://www.endpoverty2015.org/node/245
  3. Most of the rest from http://www.interaction.org/2008-annual-report-first25
It's possible the http://www.endpoverty2015.org/node/245 data came from an interaction.org page in the first place - but the endpoverty2015.org page does not exist any more and neither do those interaction.org pages.
You also have the problem that editors do not like companies writing about themselves - see WP:COI - so I would suggest any new page use the WP:AFC system to start a page - but still expect a rough ride..
Because it was shown to be a copyright violation, we cannot restore it for improvement. Therefore your choices are...
1. Use the system at WP:DCM to donate the pages
even though they don't exist any more, as this is where the data was stated on the talk page to be the source of all the copy (or if those pages now exist under new names - use the new names). Once an OTRS ticket has been approved the page can be undeleted.
OR
2. I can e-mail the wikitext to you - e-mail me for that (link in the toolbox on the left) - you can then re-phrase the entire article to not be a copyvio (you can bet that someone will compare the new version with the deleted one at some stage!). Also it must not be a copy of any current web page unless donated as WP:DCM.
 Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I've brought all of this to my boss and we've discussed it some, and I think we're going to start from scratch and ask one of our interns to write it, to give it a more outside perspective. And we'll make sure to not copy/paste. When a page has been deleted, is it just the contents that are gone, and a user can go in and start it with a blank slate? Or will we need to re-create that blank slate from scratch? I really appreciate your guidance, thanks again! 173.8.19.180 (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Margaret

Nothing is actually ever deleted - it's just hidden from public view. But the page will appear unmade, so you can just create it as if it was a new article. Alternatively you may be better creating it at WP:AFC, then you get feedback on the article without it going live - thus it's less likely to get a delete request for some reason you missed to address.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks so much! 173.8.19.180 (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Margaret

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronhjones/Archive_19&oldid=1168307633"