User talk:SlimVirgin/June 2020
Hi SlimVirgin. The AfD for this article has been closed as "keep" and the page protection you applied is going to run out in a few days. So, I'm just curious as to whether the subject has contacted you or anyone else via email to clarify his concerns about the disputed content as well as to confirm that they are indeed the subject of the article. You protected the article a week ago so I'm wondering if you know whether any progress has been made in trying to resolve this in a manner than is acceptable to both sides; otherwise, what is going to happen if someday someone either re-adds the disputed content or similar content that the subject of the article also feels impacts his safety. Is the subject going to be given sort of de facto editorial control over the article content? That seems like a recipe for edit warring with the subject on one side arguing BLP and removing the content and others on the other side arguing CRYBLP and OWN. The disputed content is still in the article's page history and it seems it should be just as much of a risk there if it's truly a risk. So, perhaps it would be a good idea to bring this up for discussion at BLPN before the protection runs out, but it seems that it would be necessary to provide a diff to the disputed content for others to assess it, which in turn might not be the best thing to do if the content truly places the subject at risk. Any suggestions on how to proceed here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2020
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).
Administrator changes
CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
- The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.
Arbitration
I can't breathe
editOne more thing has to happen. To me it looks strange to say both men choked to death in both years. We know what it really means is one choked to death one year an the other in the other year. I think I am correct "respectively" accomplishes what I am looking for.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, "respectively" could be added, but it seems to me that it's understood in that sentence. People can't choke to death twice. SarahSV (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Request for assistance
editHi. I'm trying to fix some of the issues at Jacy Reese Anthis, but it seems that in the wake of some edit warring, my edits are being dismissed by another user without a chance for discussion. Could you please help? I don't know the procedures for this kind of thing. I don't edit Wikipedia very often. Please take a look at the COI/Promo section of the talk page. Life Rabbit (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- The same editor is also blocking my edits on the related page The End of Animal Farming, if you could take a look. He refuses to discuss it with me because he says I'm a sockpuppet. Life Rabbit (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ponyo has blocked this editor for block evasion, so presumably he believes that they are a sockpuppet of Bodole. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:OWN behavior at Becky (slang)
editI am finding some of your behavior at this article somewhat WP:OWN-like and I don't think this is especially collaborative. In the past week, you have repeatedly restored your preferred version of this article[1], including new proposals and deletions of certain sections of content, threatened me with an ANI report[2], and objected to specific proposals supported with sources with vague and sometimes not clearly relevant points (e.g. I come to Wikipedia, a largely male website, and the talk page is literally full of discussion about the penis
... Not sure where this even comes from?), and then asserted that "there is no consensus" in a largely two-person interaction. We're not expected to agree all the time, but it's not up to any one editor to exercise this level of control over a single page. It might be helpful if you could let up a bit. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- This is in many ways a silly article. I got involved only because a woman at another article was called a Becky. But there's a serious side to it, so I've been trying to draw that out, using better sources. It's therefore discouraging to have you repeatedly add to the lead that really the term means a woman who engages in fellatio, and today watch another editor refer to "Becky (slag)" and "Karen (slag)" in edit summaries.Anyway, there are three of us on talk, and two of us object to adding fellatio to the lead. Therefore, the onus is on you to gain consensus for it. That becomes increasingly untenable the more sources are added that show the way the term is actually used. SarahSV (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Silly or not, it doesn't matter. You are dominating this article, reverting others and issuing threats of ANI reports to enforce the status quo (along with your other changes). This is not amenable to other editors interested in this article. As for the content disagreement, the sources that were already in the article before I joined the discussion noted that the term was used as a reference to oral sex. It's necessary acknowledge all of those usages, not pick our preferred one as "more serious" and gloss over the rest. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello SlimVirgin, Akerbeltz does not abide by the established rules of English Wikipedia and you protect him instead of telling him to follow the established rules or to leave his beloved Wikipedia in Gaelic. You as an administrator have an obligation to enforce the rules and standards of wikipedia in English and not to protect and help others not to comply In breach of Wikipedia standards Ref:Comply with Wikipedia standards:Lists of published works for authors should be included. The list items do not have to be noticeable enough and full play lists are encouraged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works You have to comply with Wikipedia's rules. I remind you that this is not Gaelic Wikipedia, this is English Wikipedia and it has its rules that must be followed by all users, including administrators. If you disagree with these rules, you have the option to leave and go to your loved Gaelic Wikipedia. Everyone can collaborate following the established rules, no one should submit to anyone and there is no need to kneel. Avoid the "illegal" reversals of this administrator who is dynamiting English Wikipedia on his personal page, encouraging confrontation and turning to Gaelic Wikipedia. You as an administrator have the obligation to enforce the rules of the English Wikipedia or you will be a participant and collaborator with premeditation and treachery of irregularities and illegalities in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.84.194.15 (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protection applies only if the page in question faces a serious vandalism problem. On the Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier page, vandalism is being carried out by the user Akerbeltz, in breach of the norms and rules established in the English Wikipedia, making reversals against the norms of Wikipedia, a vandalism carried out only by the pride of not paying homage to it. Half protection should be used only if it is the only option left to resolve a page vandalism problem; Only when there is evidence of a serious vandalism problem should it be applied. Thus, it should not be used in editorial disputes of any kind, as it restricts some publishers and not others. Semi-protection is not: A method of preventing anonymous people from editing pages. it is not a method of preventive protection for items that could be vandalized. Mrs. SlimVirgin you must enforce the specific rules of the English Wikipedia, therefore you have to do the semi-protection of the page of Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier, without the reversal of the user Akerbeltz, since it is he who vandalism is being carried out on said page, violating the established rules of the English Wikipedia that says:Basic list style - examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works Lists of published works for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists should be included. The individual items in the list do not have to be noticeable enough to deserve their own separate items. Complete lists of works, appropriately obtained for a trustworthy scholarship (WP: V) are encouraged. Kind regards, comply with the rules as administrator of English Wikipedia and perform the semi-protection of the page to the previous version.--85.84.194.15 (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Ms. SlimVirgin you added has drafted the policies of the rules and regulations of Wikipedia: All material in the main Wikipedia space, including everything in lists, must be verifiable and any material whose verification has been questioned or is likely to be questioned, must include an online quote that directly supports the material. A burden of proving verifiability falls on the publisher who adds or restores material, and is satisfying by providing a quote to a trusted source who directly supports the contribution.
Basic list style - examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works Lists of published works for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists should be included. The individual items in the list do not have to be noticeable enough to deserve their own separate items. Complete lists of works, appropriately obtained for a trustworthy scholarship (WP: V) are encouraged: Online dating that directly supports the material:
Japan National Library:https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/11489518
National Library of Albania:http://bksh.al/adlib/scripts/wwwopac.exe?&DATABASE=avm&OPAC_URL=/adlib/beginner/index_al.html&LANGUAGE=1&l1=Lezama+Perier,+Patxi+Xabier&LIMIT=50
National Library Germany:http://d-nb.info/gnd/1208944886
National Library of Spain:http://catalogo.bne.es/uhtbin/authoritybrowse.cgi?action=display&authority_id=XX6067034&index=LCNAME&lang=es,
Confirmed the verifiability of the citations of the listed material, I request that they be included in the article, so reverse the changes of Akerbeltz and then put the semi-protection so that it does not change it again, it is something that you do only for your ego, violating the regulations of the standardized laws of the English Wikipedia and that is something that cannot be consented to. The rules are to comply, users and administrators, otherwise we seriously jeopardize this Wikipedia. I hope you act accordingly and you are the one to reverse the changes, thus setting an example of compliance with the rules.
Best regards.--85.84.194.15 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, the place to discuss this is Talk:Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier. Two editors have reverted you, at least in part because your edits are introducing confusing text. So you should explain on the talk page what you're hoping to achieve and why, and work things out there with other editors. SarahSV (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
It is not true that my edits are introducing confusing text. The rules of English Wikipedia are clear and say that Lists of published works must be included for authors, illustrators, photographers, and other artists. Complete lists of works are encouraged, properly obtained for a reliable scholarship (WP: V): The verifiability of citations of listed works material are the most reliable that exist: National Library of Spain, National Library of Germany, National Library of Albania, National Library of Japan ... the most important libraries in the world.
Wikipedia's rules say that you cannot use semi-protection due to edition conflicts, only for vandalism and vandalism is being carried out by an editor administrator, that's the problem.
You have to use common sense and with the data in hand and Wikipedia's established rules to fix it. If you are not breaking the rules yourself too, when you know them and helped write them.
You cannot protect and much less help an administrator editor who acts of vandalism violating the laws of Wikipedia.
If you, precisely, the publishing administrators do not comply with the established laws of Wikipedia, you cannot ask the collaborators that they comply with them and what is worse, you will be giving a bad image to the public, endangering the life of Wikipedia.
You know the rules, you have all the data and what you cannot do is ignore them to incubate the vandalism of a publisher, no matter how administrator you are, because you administrators are the first to set an example with Wikipedia's laws and against the injustices they see.
Editor user Scope creep used common sense and stopped reversing and helping editor user Akerbeltz.
Don't be an accomplice.
The established rules and laws of Wikipedia must be respected by "all" users, administrators, publishers.
User Akerbeltz has a long list of complaints and does not respect the laws.
Your obligation as an administrator is to comply with the laws of Wikipedia.--85.84.194.15 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
There comes a time in life, that one has to decide whose side is, if he is on the side of justice or on the contrary is on the side of injustice, if he is on the side of the laws or on the contrary is against the laws
What part are you on?
Best regards sincerely.--85.84.194.15 (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Examples of unclear writing: "sculptor and writer author"; "work in several different fields, from sculpture to literature and design, as well as creation". Plus the bibliography issue and no talk-page posts. It isn't vandalism, but it is disruptive and not a straightforward content dispute. Please go to the talk page and discuss the issues there. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Examples of unclear writing: "sculptor and writer author": Ref:
https://www.getty.edu/vow/ULANFullDisplay?find=&role=&nation=&subjectid=500490078 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.84.194.15 (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Examples of clear writing: "sculptor and writer"; "working in several different fields, from sculpture to literature and design as well as creation." Ref: http://coolturamagazine.com/creatividad/arte-contemporaneo/xabier-lezama-mitologia-vasca
The topic of the bibliography and Wikipedia rules are also clear and say: "The lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators and other artists." Complete playlists, properly obtained for a reliable scholarship, are encouraged.
The sources are the best National libraries in the world.
The argument of: "no posts on the talk page". It is not an argument or perhaps is the discussion necessary?
You as an administrator, your obligation is to enforce the laws of Wikipedia.
The problems I sponge here, because you carried out the semi-protection and you have the obligation as administrator to solve it and not wash your hands and look the other way as you are doing. Fix it or remove the semi-protection.
The solution is clear and your obligation too: Reverse the changes and put Semi-protection, but reversing the changes with Wikipedia's laws in hand.
Thank you.--85.84.194.15 (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- This isn't the place to discuss this, so I'm going to close this. I looked up Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier on WorldCat. In case it helps, there seem to be two two entries, a 20-page document called "Mitología vasca", also published in German. That's all I can find. Please discuss this on Talk:Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier. Many thanks and best of luck, SarahSV (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Here is a version on Google Books that can be previewed. SarahSV (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Request for withdrawal of the semi-protection of the article of Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier
editI request that you remove the semi-protection from the page and this is something that according to Wikipedia laws I have to request here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Semiprotecci%C3%B3n_de_p%C3%A1ginas
How it should be used Semi-protection applies only if the page in question faces a serious vandalism problem and can only be applied by librarians. They apply semi-protection in the same way that full protection against vandalism is applied, both on their own initiative and following a vandalism alert.
How not to use Half protection should be used only if it is the only option left to resolve a page vandalism problem; Only when there is evidence of a serious vandalism problem should it be applied. It should also not be used for editorial disputes of any kind, as it restricts some publishers and not others.
How to check out To request that the semi-protection of an article be removed, a message requesting it is sufficient. In general, it will rarely be necessary, since the article will probably be unprotected at the initiative of the person who protected it.
By the way, the argument he used to perform the rollback is that it was the same book, as you can see here https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/11489518 is not the same book and nothing has to see, one is from the Basque culture and the other is from the Japanese culture. The next argument he made is that he was not notorious and as the laws of Wikipedia say Manual_of_Style / Lists_of_works Lists of published works for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists should be included. The individual items in the list do not have to be noticeable enough to deserve their own separate items. Complete lists of works, appropriately obtained for a trustworthy scholarship (WP: V)
Without valid arguments and in violation of Wikipedia's laws, he continued to make reversions with premeditation and malice against the rules.
So, I request to remove the semi-protection of the page because it is preventing the necessary changes to the user editors.
Regards.--85.84.192.36 (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Please discuss why your edits should prevail at the article talk page Talk:Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier. There has been no discussion there since June 2019. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Mr. Johnuniq ( talk), you are an administrator and you have all the data on the table here and you know the laws of Wikipedia. It is intolerable that "some" managing editors break Wikipedia's established rules and it is intolerable that they help each other when they see the injustices and irregularities that "some" comment. Users cannot be required to contribute who are the hardest workers to make contributions, spending a lot of time searching the networks for information, quotes, reliable references and when they have them and put them on the table to make the corresponding contribution, " Some "managing editors don't even look at them and then what are the references for? What are the wikipedia laws for if certain administrators act as manipulative" politicians ", incubating and covering up injustices and irregularities found by other administrators?
You say "Discuss why my edits should prevail on the article talk page. Talk: Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier.
I can tell you higher, but not clearer, you have here the complete discussion, all the data and all the references. I don't like discussions and avoid confrontations, but I hate injustices. It is not about prevailing a contribution in an edition. It is about complying with Wikipedia's laws, because if these laws are not being met, what are they for? The arguments of the user editor Akerbeltz can be verified in the edition: first it says that it is the same book, it is shown to be a lie and it is not the same book, then it changes and says it is not notorious, it is told that Manual_of_Style / Lists_of_works Lists of published works for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists should be included. The individual items in the list do not have to be noticeable enough to deserve their own separate items. Complete lists of works, appropriately obtained for a trustworthy scholarship (WP: V) and then runs out of strong arguments but still still does not accept Wikipedia's laws and does not stop making the contribution that as demonstrated by Wikipedia's laws . Take the solution, it is in your hand and please do not wash your hands looking the other way, because this is a serious issue that affects the whole of Wikipedia, not just an edition of a contributor in an article. The "modus operandi" of certain administrator publishers who breach the rules only because of their status is highlighted, and this is an injustice that cannot be consented, since it puts the credibility of the administrators in doubt.
Use your rank and common sense to fix the issues this administrator editor Akerbeltz has been doing for many years, a user who has a long list of complaints from contributing users and administrators. Many of these people have abandoned Wikipedia and their contributions because of this person who only seeks to discredit English Wikipedia to promote Gaelic Wikipedia. User who has not done any editing on this English Wikipedia for many years, but who hinders and does not let other users make edits, encourages confrontation, hates English Wikipedia and seeks to discredit and sink it so that the Gaelic Wikipedia gains prominence. I am sorry to say it, but he is a true tyrant, who wants everyone to kneel at his feet in order to make contributions. I have been editing for many years and I have NEVER had problems with anyone, only and exclusively with this only administrator who wants to sink the Wikipedia in English. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Akerbeltz
I hope as administrator take action on the matter.--85.84.192.36 (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Urgent Wikipedia laws are needed against admin editors who fail to comply with established rules so that administrator privileges can be revoked for violators.--85.84.192.36 (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I invite all administrators to contribute or make changes anonymously on Akerbeltz pages...You will see what happens.--85.84.192.36 (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I request once again and repeatedly that the semi-protection of the article be removed. the semi-protection "should NEVER be used for editorial disputes" of any kind, as it restricts some publishers and not others. Semi-protection only applies if the page in question faces a serious vandalism problem. Medium protection should be used only if it is the only option left to solve a vandalism problem. On the page in question there is a problem of editorial dispute and not of vandalism. For what I demand eliminate the semi-protection since it is breaking the laws of Wikipedia and it is restricting with premeditation and malice to some editors and not to others favoring the vandalism of an administrator. Remove the semi-protection and comply with the laws of Wikipedia.--85.84.193.238 (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- See the message I left for you at User talk:85.84.192.36. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I request that you remove the semi-protection from the page and this is something that according to the laws of Wikipedia I have to request here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Semiprotecci%C3%B3n_de_p%C3%A1ginas
What happens to administrators? They know Wikipedia's laws, they are supposed to set the example in complying with these rules, and instead they are the ones who don't comply with them. I request remove semi-protection and comply with Wikipedia laws. "should NEVER be used for editorial disputes".--85.84.193.238 (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
It is necessary to lead by example.--85.84.193.238 (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC). Why do they not comply with Wikipedia's laws?
Creation of administrative law in Wikipedia
editIt is necessary and urgent to create an administrative right in Wikipedia, which regulates the organization, operation, powers and duties of all users, including administrators.
In other words, an administrative right that covers the organization and operation of the entire Wikipedia. And all this, from the double perspective of seeking the effectiveness of Wikipedia laws but also guaranteeing the rights of contributing users in their relationship with Wikipedia and administrators.
A sub-function of the development of Wikipedia, in charge of the good operation of the standards and norms whose elementary function is to maintain and verify the actions and irregularities of the administrators so as to be able to revoke privileges when it is verified with repeated evidence that they abuse their position by committing irregularities.--85.84.192.36 (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
It is shown with data, citations, verified references and Wikipedia laws that an administrator (Akerbeltz) does not respect the established laws of English Wikipedia and repeatedly vandalism editing reversals with total impunity in compliance with the laws. It is shown with data, citations, contrasted references and Wikipedia laws that another administrator (SlimVirgin) performs a semi-protection of the page restricting some editors and not others to edit the page, when the laws of Wikipedia says that you must use the semi-protection only if the page in question faces a serious vandalism problem. It is shown with data, citations, contrasted references and Wikipedia laws that an administrator (Akerbeltz) is repeatedly carrying out a serious problem of vandalism of editing reversals in breach of Wikipedia's laws. It is shown that the administrator (SlimVirgin) knowing the Wikipedia laws does not remove the semi-protection of the page for breach of not being used for editorial disputes and does not use the semi-protection of the page for repeated vandalism of the user (Akerbeltz), who insists on not complying and respect the laws of English Wikipedia.
Equality before the law is the principle that recognizes that all people must be treated in the same way by law, and that they are subject to the same laws of justice (due process), recognizes the equal equality of all and therefore, The law must ensure that no individual, administrator or group of administrators is privileged or discriminated against by Wikipedia solely for being anonymous based on justice. Equality before the law of Wikipedia, is to interpret and apply the order of the norms and rules of Wikipedia, without incurring discrimination.--85.84.193.238 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I need your insight on my draft.
editHello, please review this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Saron_Gebresellassi
I have had many unsuccessful creation in past, but this time I chose someone with awards! It's a brief page with lots of content, and references. Although, I am having trouble sorting out the references. Please let me know how can I make this page successful?
StaySafe#
Sincerely, TheNavedKhan (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi TheNavedKhan, I'm sorry to take so long to respond to this. I've taken a brief look, and I think you may have a problem with notability. I'll take a closer look shortly. SarahSV (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020
edit
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020
- Library Card Platform
- New partnerships
- ProQuest
- Springer Nature
- BioOne
- CEEOL
- IWA Publishing
- ICE Publishing
- Bytes in brief
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
Greetings, Incidentally I came across prima facie a promising draft Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam. I contributed few edits. As such made a section wise content review on it's talk page.
But I think the article needs a good tightening up from some one experienced and having interest in the topic. And it seems you have worked on article Islamic feminism long back. Just requesting you to find if you can support the Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam towards it's betterment.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Bookku, thank you for asking me, but it isn't something I'm going to have time for. I'll put it on my watchlist in case I can jump in with anything, but that's the best I can do. Good luck with it. SarahSV (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Death of Keith Blakelock
editSince I was sort of giving you a hard time here let me also say that I sympathize with the frustration of feeling like your work is being attacked. It wasn't necessary for me to pile on (even tangentially to the main discussion), so apologies for that. --JBL (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- JBL, that's very nice of you. Thank you. I really appreciate it. SarahSV (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Realschule in Linz.jpg
editHi Sarah,
Is this file not in the public domain in the US because it was created before 1925? As for Austria, the rule is
- 20 pd (photographs published prior to 1932)
- 20 pr (unpublished photographs created prior to 1932)
so it should be PD there as well. Am I overlooking something?
The reason is that I fixed up Bundesrealgymnasium Linz Fadingerstraße and this picture shows the old school building. I thought it could be moved to Commons and categorized as "Bundesrealgymnasium Linz Fadingerstraße". Because the school has this interesting history -- Hitler, Eichmann, Kaltenbrunner and Wittgenstein -- I thought it might be nice to do a gallery as well, showing the old building, the Wittgenstein memorial plaque, and the nice entrance.
I'm happy to do the work but though I'd check with you re. copyright first.
Thanks!
== Peter NYC (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Peter, this is about File:Realschule in Linz.jpg. Taken before 1909, but I don't remember how we know that. See the Hirtle chart. The author is unknown and first place of publication is unknown, so that complicates everything. If I were you, I would look for a better source and take it from there. SarahSV (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Sarah, according to the Linz Hitlerei pages, where the image originates, the picture was taken in 1909, and there is no copyright claim, unlike for nearly every other image on their pages. I did an image search but couldn't find any other pictures. BTW, the school moved into their new and much nicer building in the summer of 1909, and Linz should know when their pictures were taken. According to the Hirtle chart we're OK.
- Best, == Peter NYC (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- If you're sure the Hirtle chart says it's free, that's great. But that can be tricky when the author isn't known, as is finding the right Commons tag. SarahSV (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Best, == Peter NYC (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
edit | |
| Three years! |
|---|
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
edit| Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. |  |
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Category:Tanning has been nominated for renaming
edit
Category:Tanning has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)