Jump to content

User talk:Ronhjones/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fausto_Cercignani

Hi, I am Pierre Abbé. You helped me with an image problem concerning Fausto Cercignani. Everything is OK except for the German version of the page. Can you help once more? Many Thanks. P.A.--Pierre Abbé (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The German page looks fine to me - is it a case of your PC caching an old version? - you may need to refresh or purge the page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The German page looks fine if you are logged-in, otherwise it doesn't. An I right? Sorry to inconvenience you again.Pierre Abbé (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes.... German Wiki has a revision system - The latest version will not be seen by an IP address until a German reviewer approves the edit. As it says a t the top of the page - 1 Änderung dieser Version ist noch nicht markiert. Die gesichtete Version wurde am 26. Dezember 2012 markiert. Nothing I can do about that.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

RfA on Commons

Hi, Ronhjones. Please, accept his RfA on Commons here. Greetings, Érico Wouters msg 00:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, have done so.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for the cleanup of File:Mies-Barcelona-Chair-and-Ottoman.jpg--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Some of those OTRS received cats seem to be languishing. Most need forcing to a conclusion, thankfully this one had reached that.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi Ron, in the end of December, and a bit before that I was constrained to seek your intervention w.r.t. vandalism. Of course on 27th Dec. when I wrote to you last, I realized that being in the west, you may be away on your Christmas sojourn. Indeed I am sorry and I consider it stupid on my part not to have wished you a Happy New Year. Of course, the first week of Jan usually also envelopes me (sort of) as I usually fall prey to change in the weather and other ailments associated with cold weather. Temperatures in India (as you might have followed on channels like CNN/BBC) are hovering between 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit. I was of course down for 2-3 days since 2nd Jan. Sorry once again, and here's wishing you a very happy and grand new year!!! Thanks for all the help and guidance once again. Also, congrats on your securing the TUSC token (what's that, I suppose admins are entitled to have it.)Srirangam99 (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
And the same to you. Looks a lot colder than here (10°C today - one advantage of living on an island).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

MCT page

Looks like my article submission was declined, and now "McClatchy-Tribune Information Services" redirects to The McClatchy Company. The problem is that this page doesn't even mention MCT!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/MCT

Help! Is there anything I can do at this point?

--Media Maven (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. The reviewer says that the article exists as McClatchy-Tribune Information Services - if fact that page is a redirect to The McClatchy Company. The question is (and you would be better at knowing the answer), does the article at The McClatchy Company cover the data at your page? If not then you have two choices...
  1. Expand The McClatchy Company to cover McClatchy-Tribune Information Services with the data you know, maybe make a separate section. In other word merge the two pages.
  2. If you think the subsidery company can support it's own page then be bold! Review is not compulsory (useful most of the times). Move your page to McClatchy-Tribune Information Services - there is only a simple redirect there with no history, so you should be able to move your page over the top of the existing one (don't cut and paste - just move). Naturally remove the banner once you move it.
Hope that makes sense.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Douglas Pohl and David S Cowper

Italic textGood morning I understand you have been having email communication with Douglas Pohl regarding the entry on Wikipedia regarding myself, David Scott Cowper. Douglas Pohl also tried to download 4 additional photographs and these have been blocked awaiting communication from myself to yourselves confirming authorisation. I hope you will accept this communication with yourself as giving that authority and that he can proceed with the photographs that have been forwarded to him. The reason that I gave Douglas authority is that I am not computer literate and unable to do it myself and he kindly volunteered to do it on my behalf. I would be grateful if you could kindly acknowledge this message and notify me whether he can now proceed. Many thanks Best Wishes David S Cowper — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Scott Cowper (talk • contribs) 10:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sent e-mail  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (December)

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name. EdwardsBot (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Howard Chaykin image

Hi, Ron. I think I've just added all the licensing information — I was having trouble because of all the templates and because this is a crop and a color-correction of the original public-domain image here — which as you'll see is cluttered, unnaturally red, and, when in reduced size for the infobox, makes the subject, Howard Chaykin, almost too small to see. I've undoubtedly done this in an awkward and convoluted way, and I would surely like to do it more neatly if I only knew how. Thanks for the follow-up. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the link for you - it's colon - wiki - colon - link (all in square brackets as normal). Easy when you know how.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Kind of you! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

New post from Media Maven, Jan. 11, 2013

Hi Ronhjones! I went on the help desk live chat and received a lot of advice. One editor suggested I add some information on MCT to the McClatchy and Tribune articles, then link to my proposed article, once it's live. I made those additions.

Another editor suggested I convert the timeline format in my history section (article is here-->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/MCT) to a narrative format, more similar to McClatchy and Tribune articles. So I did that. Can you please take a look at the article and the edits in the McClatchy and Tribune articles and let me know what I should do next?

--Media Maven (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Kenmahoney2012.jpg

Hi, not too long ago, you nominated File:Kenmahoney2012.jpg for deletion at WP:FFD for a lack of permission, and I deleted it as such. The uploader recently notified me that they sent the permission on December 20. Since you are an OTRS volunteer, I was wondering if you could take a look at it and see if anything comes up? — ξxplicit 00:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

When someone sends permission to OTRS, they will get a reply (maybe not same day, but they will get one) - the reply will have an automatically assigned ticket number in the subject line. Did they ever get a reply? - it much easier to find a ticket number than searching for free text.
Searched for
  1. Kenmahoney2012.jpg
  2. Kenmahoney2012
  3. Deed89
All gave no hits. Sorry can't do much else.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Araksi cetinyan.jpg deletion declined - did you actually look at the URL cited?

Hi, you recently declined a speedy delete on File:Araksi cetinyan.jpg - however, I don't think you looked at the argument I made, so I am reiterating it here:

  • The photograph is actually of Günseli Başar, the 1952 Miss Turkey and Miss Europe. She is not deceased. This was the link I used as an example: Images of Gunseli Basar. If you need additional links, here are links to pics from the Miss Europe pageants for 1952 and 1953, both showing that this photograph is of Gunseli - same hairstyle, same dress, same make-up, same face. If Gunseli Basar were deceased, then the image could simply be renamed and moved over to her article, but she isn't - so it should be deleted. If you're still not convinced, the real Araksi is presumably one of the women in the photograph on this page - although all very pretty, none of them are similar in appearance or dress to the photograph that purports to be of her. It seemed very clear cut to me, so I'm asking if you can have another look at the case. 11:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
There are far too many issues to be settled by a speedy.
1. Who is the image? We have...
http://www.huliq.com/files/imagecache/article_main/news_article/images/Araksi_cetinyan.jpg and
http://www.ziranbula.com/fotograf/gunseli-basar/
Which are opposed to each other.
2. Is the image replaceable? Since the person is notable for winning a beauty content, one could ague that an image of her much, much older is not appropriate, but we are then back to the question of death - the file data page clearly says "deceased" - if deceased and correct image then fair use is OK.
This really needs to go to a WP:FFD to allow some discussion from other editors - it's possible then that some of them may be able to throw more light on who the person in the image really is, and if alive and correct, is non-free possible due to the nature of the article?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, thanks - I've taken it to a XFD, will see what others say. Interesting point about the possibilities of non-free use in this case. Mabalu (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I just published

Glendale Veterans War Memorial
you had written me:

"Has replied, you are OK to upload the image you discussed. License is CC-BY-SA-3.0, add {{OTRS pending}} and let me know - I have to add the actual ticket number"

I am guessing that you have not heard from Joe Tyler concerning the use of more images? Carptrash (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ticket added - and yes you are correct - no further communications.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
WOW! "Faster than a speeding bullet . . .." Carptrash (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I get an e-mail when this page is changed.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I am also about to add a picture of Canadian sculpture, and am assuming that its laws, being a Commonwealth nation, will match yours and NOT mine? Carptrash (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

OH, yes indeed! Those nice Canadians - used our system :-) commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

You obviously know what you are doing and solved the other editor's problem. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Okay, here is the deal

thumb|150px|left|Matt Gordon I have my family's archives, both written records and that sort of thing as well as photographs. There are numerous copyright issues and we might as well deal with them now. I imagine that the pictures taken in China dating from both sides of 1900 probably are not a problem - or are they? Pictures taken in the USA pre-1923 are not a problem, but how about ones taken after that? Ones shot by my grandfather, an avid photographer, are okay because I am as much the holder of the copyrights as anyone, but how about pictures that have just just ended up in the archives? Work pictures of my father, taken in Sri Lanka, then Ceylon, in the 1950s and 60s? Who knows who took them, might have been a friend, might have been some government photographer. might have been a United Nations photographer? I am claiming that because they have ended up in the Caldwell Kvaran Archives (also sometimes known as the carpchives) that I have as much right to them as anyone. Which brings us to the picture that I just uploaded. Matt Gordon was a guy who had a crush on my mother in high school - she has always stoutly claimed "he was NOT a boyfriend." In any case, he went off to fight the war, joining the Flying Tigers in the Burma, China theatre. While over there he sent my mother a picture of himself. On the front it says, "Yours, Matt" and on the back is a caption in my mother's handwritting. He died while flying back to the USA. What gets him into wikipedia is his roll in the Black Dahlia story, where he is already mentioned. So I am slapping in his picture. And. claiming that I am the person who can put it in the public domain. Or whatever. Please think about all this and drop me a line - at your place is fine. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If the photographer is unknown and you have made an effort to look, then it's just 70 years. Thus an image before 1943 with an unknown photographer is now PD. For 1943 or later, you will have to say that you own the copyright. Burma in the WWII would have copyright like UK (since we ruled it! - another loss to the Empire...)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
So mostly good news, though I am sorry about your Empire. Carptrash (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The rot started here - American Revolutionary War :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
True enough, you gotta cut that s**t out early or it gets out of hand. Perhaps if we gave you back everything below the Mason Dixon Line we could start all over? Carptrash (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Does that mean we get the oil?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
You can have it all. I support the Texas Secession Movement,(who knew that would be a blue link?) including the oil. It might as well go to a good cause. Carptrash (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Disruptive editor

Hey Ron,

I hate to bother you with this sort of thing again, but could you please take a look at this user for me, please?

He's been making a series of edits to the [[1]], 2012, 2013 and probably half a dozen other pages where he has been changing the font size in tables to 100%. He insists that there is "no logical reason" for it and claims that it is for the benefit of vision-impaired readers, which I can certainly understand, but I know that the motorsport pages use 85% font size in tables as standard. I have told him that he should seek a consensus for this; however, he insists that he does not need it and that there is no established consensus that he has to obey. [2] Furthermore, his attitude is very poor, deleting messages from his Talk page because he does not want to hear what another editor has to say. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  1. Is there a "Manual of Style" for the pages - if not you need one. Otherwise other's may well jump on the bandwagon. it's like if I'm drawing a chemical structure then I follow this MoS. It's difficult to tell someone what to do when it's not written down and agreed by consensus. It just needs to be a sub page of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (with a link from the Wikiprojects page to that page(s)). Plenty of Wikiprojects do has their own MoS, it saves lots of problems later.
  2. Yes, some people do delete messages on their talk page, that's life. You just have to take the view that by removing it, they have read it.
  3. As for vision-impaired - most of those will know to hold the ctrl key and use the mouse wheel to zoom - 85% won't make much difference.
If no MoS - I would suggest you raise it one of the Project talk pages.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I see nothing relevant at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Manual+of+Style%2F&namespace=4  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I have tried explaining this to him, but now he is engaging in edit-warring. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
But you need to be able to show him some policy/guidline/MoS that says the table is at 85%, otherwise it's just your view against his. Start a thread at the Project talk page and resolve what style need to be implemented with a consensus (let him have his view as well), then an MoS can be written which is the majority view.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Hi Ronhjones,

I uploaded the following 5 photographs from my family collection which I have the copy rights. When I upload them the wikipedia delete them. Can I pl. get the rights to upload them.

1. Photograph of Ana Seneviratne

2. Wedding Photo of Ana & Krishnajina Seneviratne

3. Photograph of Nalin Seneviratne

4. Photograph of B. D. Rampala

5. Photograph of Nissanka Wijeyeratne with Elephant (Raja)

Waiting to hear from you please

Kind regards,

Anuradha

Photos by Anuradha (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I can undelete them - you don't need to upload again. I think your problem is that you are not linking the account you uploaded the photos with to the claimed copyright holder. I just looked at one of them (I suspect the others are the same) - it was uploaded by User:Photos by Anuradha and states the copyright holder is "Anuradha Dullewe Wijeyeratne" - which then links to User:අනුරාධ - since we expect users to only have one account unless there is a good reason (please see - Wikipedia:Username#Using_multiple_accounts), most people will naturally assume that User:Photos by Anuradha is not User:අනුරාධ and will therefore delete the images. Can you confirm that you have both accounts, then I will sort out the undeletion of the images...
I have checked all deleted images - Can I assume that they are all wanted - I can see...
  • File:Wedding Photo of Ana & Krishnajina Seneviratne.jpg
  • File:Photograph of Ana Seneviratne.jpg
  • File:Photograph of Nalin Seneviratne.JPG
  • File:Photograph of B. D. Rampala.jpg
  • File:Photograph of Nissanka Wijeyeratne with Elephant (Raja) .jpg
  • File:Hon. J.R Jayawardene & Dr. Nissanka Wijeyeratne with Raja.jpg
  • File:G.A.D.E.A Seneviratne.JPG
  • File:Don Granville Nalin Seneviratne,.JPG
  • File:Bamunusinghearachchige Don Rampala.jpg
  • File:Ana Seneviratne.JPG
  • File:Wedding Photo of Ana & Krishna.JPG
  • File:Nalin Seneviratne.JPG
  • File:B. D. Rampala.jpg
  • File:Nalin Seneviratne.JPG
  • File:J.R Jayawardene & Nissanka Wijeyeratne with Raja (elephant).jpg
  • File:Hon. Gamini Dissanayake.jpg
  • File:S. B. Dissanayake.jpg
  • File:Hon. Gamini Dissanayake.jpg
  • File:Udaya Gammanpila.jpg
The following show up in deleted (in en-wiki) as they have been moved to commons, but are OK there and no problem.
I would also stick to using just one account - it will save you lots of problems.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


From User:අනුරාධ

Hi Ronhjones,

Sorry for the delay in replying to your mail. Thank you for your valuable advice & assistance.

I will stick to use User:අනුරාධ (just one account) and i will stop using User:Photos by Anuradha account from today (27th January 2013)

Pl. undelete the following 5 files only at your earliest convenience & also keep as it is the ones which have been moved to commons as there is no problem with them.

1 File:Wedding Photo of Ana & Krishnajina Seneviratne.jpg

2 File:Photograph of Ana Seneviratne.jpg

3 File:Photograph of Nalin Seneviratne.JPG

4 File:Photograph of B. D. Rampala.jpg

5 File:Photograph of Nissanka Wijeyeratne with Elephant (Raja) .jpg

Thanking you once again,

Kind regards,

Anuradha Dullewe Wijeyeratne (User:අනුරාධ)

Photos by Anuradha (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Ronhjones,

I greatly appreciate your kind assistance & Thank you for the same.

Anuradha Dullewe Wijeyeratne

අනුරාධ (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013 deleted photos

Ronhjones -

Help me understand this, you have deleted the photos due to copyright issues. However, those are truely my own work. Is this the only problem with the images? I am trying to get an understanding. I believe those photos added value to articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightia13 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Every editor is effectively anonymous (even with an account) - we have no idea who you really are and no way here of telling. Thus any image that is uploaded elsewhere first is guaranteed to be flagged as a copyright violation, when subsequently uploaded here - plenty of editors check the day's uploads with Google Image search. Always upload here first if you plan to use the image on a web site later. Otherwise you will have to go through one to the two processes described at WP:DCM to release the copyright (the quickest way is to place CC-BY-SA releases on the remote web site - or I've even seen a non-indexed page of a web site just with the images that are released to Wikipedia with the proper CC-BY-SA statement).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Pca aguilera.jpg

OK, then, what about that: http://www.peopleschoice.com/pca/photos/gallery.jsp?galleryId=1005000005&parent=2013_photos#13 http://www.peopleschoice.com/pca/images/1005002091.jpg

Chronisgr (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

http://shootvide.com/christina-aguilera-2/ is the biggest and sharpest version, and the other images on that page has been copied to the Flickr account as well. Flickr users are often not careful about what they upload.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Also known as Flickrwashing commons:Commons:License laundering  Ronhjones  (Talk)

Sig headshot

Thanks for cleaning up after me. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 00:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No Problem. Never worry about size - the way the images are reduced and cached does not affect performance.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Got it. That's good, because lot of images with decent resolution seem to get more blurry in article-space when they are re-sized. If you ever need something from me to keep an image, don't hesitate to ask. About half of my contributions to Wikipedia are in a PR role and I can usually get the article-subject to give up copyrights with a bit of arm-twisting. CorporateM (Talk) 00:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
When placing an image you might want to consider making the image size a direct multiple - it's easy to reduce a bitmap by 2 or 4..etc., - that's a direct merge of pixels (2x2 to 1x1 or 4x4 to 1x1)- when you reduce by some non power of two then as well as a merge there is some interpolation.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! CorporateM (Talk) 01:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey can I ask you another image question? Just as an example, I have an article in AfC here, which has two non-free images I want to use in the software infobox.[3][4]. The issue is, since it takes AfC longer than a week to review the article, the non-free images will get deleted tomorrow. I try to avoid direct editing where I have a COI, which makes non-free images very inconvenient, since they can't be placed in draft space. But I need editors reviewing my proposed edits to be able to see the image I'm proposing in article-space.

Images do fall under non-controversial edits per WP:COI, so I could put them in myself, but at least one editor I know Noununiquenames has felt in some cases my over-use of images was promotional, and this makes it a COI issue.

Any thoughts/suggestions? I've been pretty sloppy about it thus far and should clean up my act in the image category. CorporateM (Talk) 18:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Tricky - you can't use non-free out of article space. I've made an edit - see if you like it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Yah, that can help a little. I've used this one before. Looks like someone else moved Viralheat to article space, which is nice because the images would have gotten deleted tomorrow. I'll see if editors feel it's long enough to qualify for GA. CorporateM (Talk) 22:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Did I do something wrong with this image? It says it will be deleted unless "an email from the copyright owner is sent or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org" however such an email has already been provided and the image properly tagged by OTRS. CorporateM (Talk) 13:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I've fixed it - I can't say a lot about OTRS - not sure who actually sent the e-mail for one. There was an e-mail with 4 files described (that's how I found it - a search for "The fighting pair" gave one result), the ticket was approved, and links for three images sent back - looks like one was missed in error. If you send to OTRS, be sure the image has it's ticket after 30 days - it become vulnerable then, as it appears in Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission for over 30 days  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I cleared that Cat out of files 6 months ago, looks like I will be busy this week...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Yes, the email to OTRS was forwarded by me from Heritage Auctions. They auction historical artifacts and have a lot of professional photography of them. I guess in the future I need to get companies to send a separate email for each image. CorporateM (Talk) 21:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, but otherwise just make sure that X images asked for = X image links returned (not X-1)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Tears Of The Enchanted Mainframe - Album Cover.jpg

Regarding File:Tears Of The Enchanted Mainframe - Album Cover.jpg

Although the file in question clearly indicates it is GNU Free Documentation License and Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 - an email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with WP:OTRS none-the-less. Thanks. Cadillacula (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Both web sites state "All Rights Reserved." - that stops it dead without OTRS permission. Also album covers are always regarded as copyright problems unless the main web site shows otherwise. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Understood. I designed the album cover, own it and have reached out to the OTRS, so let's prepare to break the norm. Thanks Ron. Cadillacula (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, very few (count on a couple of hands I suspect) album covers have been uploaded by the copyright owner! You are breaking the mould. ;-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Unblock

Please unblock my another account Piku662, which was blocked by you on my request and now I need to unblock it for some modifications in wikimedia commons which I have made previously from that account. Thankyou.User:Priyanku.PhukanPriyanku.Phukan (Talk) 13:04, 02 Feb 2013 (UTC +5:30)

User:Piku662 account is only blocked on en-Wikipedia. commons:User:Piku662 and commons:User:Priyanku.Phukan are not blocked. But you should stick to one account.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Can you help me how to delete a file in wikimedia commons?User:Priyanku.PhukanPriyanku.Phukan (Talk) 10:48, 03 Feb 2013 (UTC +5:30)
View the file page - In the left margin is "toolbox" - open that up and you will find "nominate for deletion"  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Dan56 changed unsourced genres. Block him.

Sorry for interrupt, that user Dan56 changed unsources music genres, because I don't know what he doing.

Anyway, block Dan56 with expiry time of indefinite, before I will change back into genre correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofpyrus (talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't block on sight. Please discuss edits with user. Otherwise, you may then apply standard level warnings 1 through 4, and finally report at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism for block evaluation.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Unlogged edits

I am new here and I made by mistake these edits unlogged, please hide my IP / delete my IP edits: <removed IP>. Thanks! --BogatRadvan (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

All done, and removed from this page as well - there is no link from your account to the IP address  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

File:Sarah morris black jacket.JPG

Could you check if this is the same photo as the one you nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 December 20#File:Sarah Morris.jpg for having an insufficient OTRS permission? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It sure is!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, nominated for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Test_and_Reserve_Drivers

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Test_and_Reserve_Drivers.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

split proposal for Aqueduct

I note your contribution to Talk:Aqueduct and I would like to bring to your attention a proposal that the article Aqueduct be split to Aqueduct (watercourse) and Aqueduct (bridge), with the original article directed to the existing page Aqueduct (disambiguation). Please feel welcome to comment on the proposal at Talk:Aqueduct#Split proposal (2) Please note a similar proposal was made a couple of years ago (see about halfway up the talk page).Nankai (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

Unlogged edits

I am new here and I made by mistake these edits unlogged, please hide my IP / delete my IP edits: [5] . Thanks! --BogatRadvan (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Not yet, please...looking at something.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
That IP's contrib here matches a different user's contrib...someone is socking. I'll file the report.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll leave that with you then!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Daily Mail section you created on Bacau talk page

Hi Ron,

the term "tabloid" has also a derogatory meaning, please see the well-written article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid_journalism. Many people believe that information in these newspapers should be taken with a grain of salt. Most would say and do anything just to sell more copies, unfortunately. This is why, me and so many other people don't see such papers as reliable sources and I am really puzzled and disappointed by Wikipedia's "friendliness" towards tabloids. I am also saddened that abusive information that are a big part of tabloids contents can be freely posted on your website. This will gradually make it lose all credibility.

Best regards,

Fanenis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanenis (talk • contribs) 21:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It depends on your reading of "tabloid" - the words real meaning is "small size" as compared to a "broadsheet", which is twice as big. I agree some UK tabloids might not be reliable - I won't name names here, but the Daily Mail is not one of them - there are quite a few of the "here today, maybe gone tomorrow" type, but one or two should not be tarred with the same brush, and I would say that's the Daliy Mail and maybe the Daily Mirror and /or Daily Express which have built up long reputations of many decades of successful publishing.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Vlad the Impaler

As you have locked the page, I am unable to edit the image in the infobox, which someone has converted into an animated .gif where the eyes move after about ten seconds! If you could edit the infobox image File:Vlad_Tepes_002.gif to File:Vlad_Tepes_002.jpg that will fix the problem. 212.225.116.44 (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Spooky... Image changed, and I've nominated the gif for deletion.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you help me?

Hello.

I'm a (usually) anonymous Wikipedia editor. I usually edit gaming, music and wrestling related pages. I have an autistic spectrum disorder called PDD-NOS, so I was wondering if you could help me with a problem I have on Wikipedia.

Over the years, I'd been editing in peace here as User:45g with no issues. That was until in 2010. Now, I never get blocked on Wikipedia at all, unless I try to delete sock puppet tags from my old user names which then alerts people that I am Grace Saunders (even though 45g was my main name). I signed up as Grace Saunders initially, but felt safer editing as 45g due to trolls stalking me on the Internet and I wanted a name that was less likely to be discovered on Google. Below is an example of a so-called sock puppet account:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:82.41.49.26&action=history

That's one of literally dozens of such pages. I'm not a sock puppeteer or a nuisance to Wikipedia. I simply edit articles like anyone else in the world does, yet it seems a small group of people here would rather I wasn't allowed to do so.

This "Grace Saunders" user name I've frequently used is really quite notorious online. This is a character in a game called Alone in the Dark 2 and my real name is Peter, but I registered that handle on a lot of forums. Nearly every time I've been on Resident Evil related websites under that alias, I've been targeted by trolls just because they do not like me. The same would also apply now to Wikipedia. Nobody knew I was Grace Saunders on here until I said something that lead ED on the trail in 2010.

In 2010, User:Michaeldsuarez made this investigation page, deliberately fabricating things to try to make me look like a wiki vandal when I'm no such thing. He also posts on Encyclopedia Dramatica where he was appointed as one of their administrators. He's been harassing me alongside others for several years on ED (since at least 2008). I understand that technically has nothing to do with Wikipedia itself. There's an article about me on there which I cannot get deleted because they're hosted in Sweden and they use a reverse proxy to disguise their WHOIS information. I've tried to get the page deleted for years, but have only had temporary success. But unlike Wikipedia, their articles are only there to abuse people and cause emotional distress.

Here is the Grace Saunders "case" which Wikipedia users User:Snaisybelle and the aforementioned former moderator Michaeldsuarez heavily edited to make me look bad. They were editing stuff on there so quickly that I barely had time to report it. I said I was going to sue those responsible, then they claimed legal talk wasn't allowed, when I felt I was being hastily backed into a corner. Not once have I vandalized anything written on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Grace_Saunders/Archive

There are tons of accounts (including many IP address pages on Wikipedia) all referring to me as a sock puppeteer, etc, when I was never giving a fair chance to speak up to the staff on here. Some of the same moderators on Wikipedia also sometimes post on ED. How can it be that I edited for years as User:45g (not counting User:Grace_Saunders) and never had any issues like that until they came along?

So, is there any way to rename and retire ALL of these accounts as other websites keep putting up duplicates of these pages? I was also wondering if some of that information on the sock puppet case could be deleted, as it's a bit personal.

If you could permanently disable and retire all of these accounts, I'd be grateful. Peter.78.148.99.130 (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No. We're not going to be changing the SPI archives for this. Further, after seeing this edit, it tells us that you are here to grind an ax yourself.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with Berean - this is not a small amount of socking. In addition there is no mechanism in the wiki software that lets accounts be deleted. There is the right to vanish, but that is only for editors in good standing, and you have to get a bureaucrat to do the change (only they can rename accounts) - unlikely in your case.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're referring to my edit about ED, which is one edit out of hundreds, it was merely a joke because for 1 day, they had every page replaced by something else and it looked too good to be true. I even had to contact Daniel Brandt to see if he knew what it was. I'll be rejoiced when they're no longer active because I strongly dislike people who intentionally flame bait others, hack websites and make cruel statements. But I'll be waiting in vain, most likely, for them to be deleted. However, that's between ED and whoever.78.148.99.130 (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, as I said, admins cannot play with account names - you need a bureaucrat  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

reference requests

Hello, Ronhjones,

I was not sure what you specifically mean by "reliable reference" in regards to the recent history information added to the Lake County California section, this is David Suskine, and I did receive your message, I added a further reference and blogspot page address to one portion of the information placed on the site. Thanks for your attention to detail, if there is something else I am missing in this regard please send me a message and I will address it immediately. I have put the recent history section back up on the site at this time. The citizens group in our county feel it is very important to have a recent history section on the page, and although it may ruffle the feathers of some in our county, the information is accurate and the depictions presented historically accurate as well. Thank you and sorry for any problems this may have caused you. This must be a full time job trying to keep up with this, but you do a great job and thanks again. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Suskine (talk • contribs) 15:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Any data added must have a reliable source, even more so if there is any element of negativity. There was no inline reference in the section. I note you mentioned a blog - blogs are not reliable sources, and can be ignored. We need references from journal, books, mainstream newspapers, etc.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

International University in Geneva

Hi -- re this, any chance of uploading that scan? I don't doubt that it's appropriate to restore the text on the basis of your having seen the article -- it's mainly curiosity, and it would be useful to know what kind of article it was. The practical reason is that there was speculation that it might have been paid-for content in an advertising supplement. Thanks, —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied e-mail.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks -- fully satisfied, no need for anything further. Much appreciated. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

Edit Request Review

Hi Ronhjones --

Would you be able to review and implement a minor edit request I have left on the talk page for Gail Cook-Bennet ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gail_Cook-Bennett

Jcsmg (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, you may wish to try adding {{edit request}} on that talk page in future, then it will flag up at a special page, and you may get a quicker action (or not..) :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I have added the edit request tag and look forward to your review.
Jcsmg (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Rahjones for implementing these edits.
Jcsmg (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I see you've been busy at OTRS. I wish we could figure out how to clone you, or at least get others to emulate you. SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, it can be a bit like trying to stem the tide at times...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Attempt to clear up some confusion.

Re 2013022410000801 I undeleted the article Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Silver_Heart_Club a couple hours ago, after seeing his attempt at permission.

That may help clear up some confusion.

Frankly, I'm surprised we don't trip over each other more. This one is still a bit confusing. Not well-done, and issue with text and images, so may take a while to sort out.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Block

Hi there. Could you please explain in detail why you blocked/unblocked my account? I've had a clean block log ever since I registered in 2007. Please remove that erroneous block entry from my block log. Also, please note that if the erroneous block entry is not removed, I will report this issue to the appropriate Wikipedia boards. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It was an error, as I stated. I was looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=540148364 at the time, I misread your name and the other user name.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

William C. Rader

Hi -- you protected this article for edit-warring -- but it has become clear that there was extensive socking, please see [6]. Under those circumstances, would you please consider semi-protection instead of full protection? Further edit-warring is now unlikely. thanks, —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 11:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

IP block

Hi, Ron. You were the administrator who responded to User:WayKurat's report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. The IP user who you had blocked has since continued to re-add Philippine cable company lineup information to articles like SkyCable, Destiny Cable‎, etc. See these two edits from today [7] and [8]. We really don't want to keep edit warring and reverting these edits, so I'd like to ask you as an admin how best to proceed here, particularly since the user leaves no edit summaries and does not reply to talk page/user talk page messages. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't learn, does he. Blocked 1 week. Just watch when his block comes off. Also note I resolve it as a dynamic IP, he might change IP - if so the choice is the semi protect pages or go for a WP:SPI for a blocking of an IP range - my feeling is that if he is truly fixated with just these edits, then an IP range is not the best option and we can lock down the pages from his access.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Move unprotection request

Could you please revert the move protection at Nemesis (Marvel Comics)? The editors involved in the edit warring have reached a consensus to move since then. Diego (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Any autoconfirmed editor can now move  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

Gandhi move

Hi. Re your close of the Gandhi requested move. Vote counting is not generally considered a good way to read consensus. You might also want to check out this discussion. --regentspark (comment) 00:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't vote counting. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Nope. It definitely was not clear enough. Your entire close - "overwhelming support", "greatest support" - gives the appearance of vote counting. But, if you say it wasn't, then that's fine. You should, however, explain why you think we need to make an exception here to a well established guideline. --regentspark (comment) 14:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I said "overwhelming support" - due to the fact that everyone agreed we needed to change the name (I don't think anyone opposed with a reason to keep the old name). Therefore the question is to what new name? The "greatest support" was showing "Mahatma Gandhi" as the WP:COMMONNAME - and as one editor (at the end) summed it up "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included".  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, there was plenty of evidence presented that showed that the name is very often found without the Mahatma. Scholarly sources, for example, almost never use Mahatma (as the evidence in the discussion shows). Frankly, and with apologies, I don't think you paid full attention to the discussion. But, in the scheme of things I suppose this is not a big deal so never mind. Perhaps I'm wrong anyway since I see I'm the only one complaining!--regentspark (comment) 00:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Scholarly sources probably don't use the common name of a lot of things! With such a well known person, one is probably subconsciously noting what that person is/was called in one's own country - and if I now think force myself to think back, I think he nearly always had Mahatma when in the news programs here. But a move is not the end, anyone can start another move request - maybe that would be the best option, there wasn't opposition to the move just variations of what to move it to. Now it's moved, a full discussion of "Mahatma Gandhi" vs. "Gandhi" could take place.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Request unprotection of Clown

Hello. Over two years ago, on 7 October 2010, you protected Clown due to excessive vandalism. I would like to request that you unprotect the article, but the request comes with a caveat. That article was recently linked to from Reddit. You may want to wait a few days, then unprotect it. Thank you. 24.22.75.14 (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been two weeks since it was linked from Reddit. It should be safe to unprotect the article now. 24.22.75.14 (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 Done Let's see how it goes...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

James Goodnight

Hi Ron. I wonder if I could get your opinion on the Request Edit here as it has to do with images. The current image makes the subject look grumpy and squinty-eyed; like he's giving someone a nasty look. The company donated an image they'd like to use, but their image sort of swings the other way (pretty cheery). I don't know if there's any rules on whether we prefer to have a picture of the subject smiling or grumpy, but I noticed on Barrack Obama for example we used a smiling shot. CorporateM (Talk) 02:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ticket No: 2013012510002559

Hi Mr. Ronhjones,

The above photograph was published by me & now some issue had come up on it which I have explained all the necessary details to the below e-mail.

permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

Pl. be good enough to intervene to this matter urgently & get it solved for me.

I appreciate your kind attention on this regard, please.

Kind regards,

Anuradha අනුරාධ (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to reply to the last message on that ticket. There's not much I can do in thus case. I'm sure the OTRS person handling this ticket will help you as much as possible.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

Philip Trevelyan

Alas, the information you removed is both accurate and entirely verifiable. The key reference is Burke's Landed Gentry, and specifically the entries on the families of Darwin of Downe [9], the Trevelyan Baronets of Wallington [10], and Pryor of Weston [11]. Also, I don't understand what on earth OTRS 2013022010008042 means.

OTRS = Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team and the number is the ticket number. When someone e-mails the Foundation they get a ticket number assigned to the e-mail. We don't edit for them, but if they state that the data is "inaccurate and unreferenced in Burke's" the we have to assume they are correct, particularly with BLP articles - it's safer to remove for now, and let others, with the data check the claims (I can't see those links - it's a paid web site). Hence the edit summary states their case and give a ticket number - if I wasn't around you can always ask questions at the Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard about the ticket - although we are not allowed to say much about what is in the e-mails or who they are from.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Could you therefore please add those links at the appropriate place on the article - because as of now, it appears that there is one vague reference at the end of a rather long paragraph. Note that Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team states "and will have protection from immediate reversion" - so I had to go back to the removed version until this is done. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, well, thanks. Is the complaint coming from the subject or someone connected to the subject? Does the cite any sources? Does the source offer any corrections to a mistake that's been made? The information was accurate when I checked it. And if you don't check it, I humbly suggest it's reasonable for you to rely on what I tell you. You can get 72 hr access to Burke's for £7.95. Most large libraries will also carry Burke's. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The OP says those sections I removed were "inaccurate". I can't say who the OP was - they have fully disclosed who they are and we have to keep it private. If you wish to fully reference all facts in that paragraph, the that's up to you - but one ref at the end is just not enough when it's disputed in a BLP. Maybe you can bring it up at the Wikipedia:BLP noticeboard - you may find other editors who have access to Burke's and are also in OTRS.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:25, 24 Februry 2013 (UTC)
Well the OP is wrong. Here is a diagram of the relationships that are documented. I'm afraid to say the OP is mistaken, or you've misunderstood what he's trying to say. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for delay in replying - I had to talk to other members of the team. A summary of their views are that if it is really encyclopaedic and each part can be correctly referenced then that can be put back, although some to feel that putting it all back may well be WP:UNDUE and maybe some WP:SYNTH, also the emphasis on "cousin marriage" is a little over the top - that cousin marriage article is really about first cousin and a little second cousin marriages - extending it to third cousins is maybe a bit too far - it tends to give an unnecessary negative tone to the article (although cousin marriages have always been legal here - it's not the same in the rest of the world). A final comment I got was "Someone's third cousin will rarely be encyclopedic unless there is discussion in reliable sources about not just the third cousin but the third cousin in relation to the subject, showing a close real world connection". Hope that helps you go forward in this instance.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Right, so somebody connected to the subject, possibly the subject itself, complained about the article claiming it was inaccurate (when it demonstrably wasn't).
Yes, the relationships are documented; most of these have their own Wikipedia articles that are referenced, and there's Burke's. It takes only a few minutes to navigate through the articles.
Normally I think links to relatives should generally be restricted to (1) other subjects that are notable in themselves, (2) are close relatives that were alive concurrently with the subject, and could therefore have influence on the subject. So parents, siblings, yes, and uncles, grandparents, probably. Great-grandparents, probably not (they usually die before their great-grandchildren are born).
I understand the requirement for a "real life connection" to mention, however Nelly is mentioned primarily because she is his wife, and surely this is a "real-life connection". Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm just giving you all the info I can - the choice is up to you (and taking into consideration other editors and comments) what you wish the paragraph to be. As for a real-life connection - sure she can be given a brief mention, but she's is not notable in her own right.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
You are aware that it's Hobson's choice? Actually Nelly is a somewhat notable herself as an artist [12], and is clearly closely involved with her husband's farming work. And it would be customary to mention her parents, as both have Wikipedia articles too. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm just pointing out the shortcomings in the removed sections - and given you some advice from my fellow OTRS team members. At the end of the day we're all trying to build an encyclopaedia that is fair and neutral. As for Nelly - she may be notable, she might not be - she sells paintings, so do a lot of people - 160 quid for an original framed oil painting that size is not very expensive - go to eBay, you'll see plenty at similar sizes and prices, and they certainly are not notable artists. She certainly hasn't a page in Wikipedia - so notability is not yet proven.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Shortcomings? What "shortcomings"? First you claim the "shortcomings" were "innaccurate", without disclosing what the source was, then when it was pointed out that they were in fact entirely accurate, you seek to switch to claiming that this was "irrelevant", without fully explaining why this was "irrelevant", probably because you're reasoning is about as crock as the original complaint. Yet you can do this because you claim that you are acting in good faith, and you have a key to some secret untransparent "OTRS system". Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Well one shortcoming is calling it a cousin marriage when in fact they are third cousins, hardly that close, plus somewhat undue information on his non-notable wife's relations. Should you wish to create a page for his wife showing her notability, then that would be a good time to expand the article. As I said before I took much advice from several other admins about these edits to the article and I gave you their opinions as well. If you wish you can send me an e-mail address via my e-mail link (in the toobox in the left margin), and I will pass it on to the original poster - whether or not they choose to reply back would be up to them. I have not stopped any subsequent edits to the article, just asking for full references to all facts, and to ensure that all edits are truly encyclopaedic and neutral.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Well third cousins are cousins; indeed the articles on HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh note that they're both 2nd cousins once removed and 3rd cousins. Btw, I hardly need to point out that his "non-notable wife"'s relations are also his cousins. I do not see how this doesn't fall under Wikipedia:Autobiography. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Well where do you stop then - forth cousins, fifth cousins... Yes the Queen will have a long linage - this person is a farmer and film maker - not royalty. Do you know you any of your third cousins? I certainly don't - I could even be married to her! It's not neutral to claim cousin marriage for such a weak relationship when the second paragraph of that page says Such marriages are often stigmatized in parts of the Western world - when you and I know it's not even relevant in the UK - and then follows but marriages between first and second cousins nevertheless account for over 10% of marriages worldwide - thus indicating that articles is (for the Western world) dedicated to first and second cousins.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Let's try to keep this discussion civil and away from absurdities. No, the article doesn't need to list all of his cousins or ancestors. It needs to lists his wife who also happens to be his cousin, and the article should explain that his wife also happens to be his 3rd cousin, and in reality, his wife is also his 3rd cousin. I don't see what the problem is here, it's a statement of fact that is commonly included in other articles (as demonstrated). Yes, Philip and Nelly knew that they were 3rd cousins; Nelly's brother William Pryor thanks "Trevelyan cousins" in his autobiography, as well as mentioning their marriage in the same context, and explains at some length how being descended from Charles Darwin and growing up in a Cambridge-based academic intelligentsia with a requisite detour via Eton was important to his background. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
If you wish to state and reference the wife as a 3rd cousin, then that's up to you. But I don't agree with linking to the cousin marriage article, as that gives undue negative tones which are not warranted, as that page is really for 1st and maybe 2nd cousins.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

IUPAC polymer nomenclature

Dear Ronhjones, Many thanks for your help back in 13th of October 2012 on the images related to the article I have been working on. You've rightly surmised that I am rather confused by the various image styles/formats that should be used. I now hope that they are there are correct with respect to this. Apologies for having created the extra work. I took quite a break as that all got a bit confusing and I felt it best to stand back a bit and try and understand a bit better, but it seems, as far as I can work out, thanks to your good work that the images for this page are now acceptable in terms of copyright and where they should be placed in the Wiki directories. I was wondering if you could give further advice please? I would like to press the 'submit' button for the text in the main page in my sand-box now, however, I am concerned about the copyright for the text. It comes from the IUPAC document cited in reference 1 (which leads to http://iupac.org/publications/pac/84/10/2167/). I received a direction from the then President of IUPAC to transfer the text to Wiki (I work with IUPAC). IUPAC states, in effect, that all work can be reprinted/republished freely as long as the origin of the work is cited - this I have done by inserting reference 1. Thus on IUPAC's side there is no concern, indeed, there is a strong wish to see the work go up on Wikipedia. However, would you be able to tell me please what should I best declare so that on the side of Wiki there is no concern with respect to copyright? I would hate to cause much work again through my not having understood the protocols to follow with respect to this! Many thanks again for your much appreciated help, with the hope that I have posted this text in the correct place, best wishes, Rogerchiorns (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Since that link (and also http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/) does not show any unambiguous permission for re-use in Wikipedia (we prefer to see a "Creative Commons" license - it stops any problems later, we have to assume that it's the default - i.e. "All Rights Reserved" (but with some re-use allowed). Remember text on en-Wiki can then be re-used elsewhere for any purpose. Therefore we need to see permission for the re-use - see WP:DCM - we need a statement from the copyright holder to show that the material is released with a suitable license (like WP:CONSENT). If you can get that form sent by the copyright holder to yourself, then forward it to the "permissions-en" e-mail address at WP:DCM, then you can gain an OTRS ticket for the work. Add {{OTRS pending}} to the top of your work while you are waiting for OTRS to process it. The minimum license we can accept is CC-BY-SA (which would be ideal for you - BY means with attribution, SA is share alike, means any other re-use has to use CC-BY-SA again - ensuring that the work will always be required to be attributed). If you wish you may add FOA Ron Jones at the top of the e-mail and let me know, and I will look for it, or just leave for one of the other agents to approve. Ensure when you forward the permission that there's an e-mail address shown from the original, as OTRS will reply to both yourself and the original poster - and that address should be one that's relevant top the web site. Hope that all makes sense.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

pauline nordin pic

Ticket#2013031710008001 this was sent to me by email to refer to the pic - I have given it to the photographer to send back to Ron Jones for the pic release. Which I am taking went thru since the pic I have on my article is still there, not sure but i think the pic you removed was when i was trying to figure out how to put them in, wiki has 5 different areas on uploading images that contradicts the other, and quite painful process. Amzingrl (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

All is well. You uploaded one image to en-wiki and another (very similar) to commons. The commons one is waiting for a reply from my OTRS message, and has been tagged accordingly - this is the image on your page. The en-wiki one was unused, and had no OTRS pending on it, so it had to go. We always try to get/move free images to commons anyway, so we would not have kept the en-wiki image, even with OTRS permission.
The choice of where to upload is
  1. Commons - ideal for "free" images as any wiki in any language can use the images. Images must be free both in the US and the country of origin
  2. En-Wiki - Same as commons, but images can only be used in en-wiki - images suitable for commons will eventually get moved there. en-Wiki can also hold images that are "free" in the US but unfree in the country of origin (e.g some countries do not allow images of buildings to be published). Also small non-free images can be stored on en-wiki - if they meet WP:NFCC
 Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

pauline nordin pic

I found this and contacted Ron - not sure if it helps - which pic is which but hope it clears something up

Note to OTRS volunteers: If the email contains sufficient confirmation of the validity of the license, please replace this template with {{PermissionOTRS}} Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2013031710008001 Amzingrl (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocking; Defamation, etc.

I was concerned by your failure to block a couple of clear vandals, where blocks would have been appropriate yesterday. One instance was here. There was no good reason not to block. Your assertion was addressed. It had no relationship to the facts -- calling an organization criminal is of course defamatory, as well as disruptive, and how you could think otherwise escapes me.

And the impact of failure to block? Continued disruption to the project.

If editors are going to take the time to make a report, and the vandal should properly be blocked, and there is discussion that makes that clear (even if you missed it in the first instance), it is unhelpful if you fail to block them. It chills the interest in good editors to make proper reports.

And it leads -- as it did here -- to further vandalism across the project that could have been prevented with an appropriate block.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Before being an admin, I did a long period of vandal fighting with way over 50,000 edits against vandalism. I've seen plenty of it, and plenty extremely worse than those simple edits, and occasionally vandalism so bad that a 4im warning is then appropriate (usually nasty attacks of BLPs). As I also said WP:DONTBITE - this is an editor with a blank contribution record before the 11th March - it's well known that it can sadly take at least 2 warnings posted before they even realise there's even a talk page for them to read. If you smack them down so fast after a couple of edits, you'll likely never see them again - we are trying to encourage new editors, such actions will have the reverse effect. It's better to try to teach the new editors how to behave, hopefully then some will learn the ways and stay - yes, there will be ones who don't want to learn, but we need to be 100% sure that's the case before blocking them.
As for the Female hysteria edits - that lede phrase has been changed back and forth so many times over the years, even I did not know which one was right by a quick view of the history (seasoned editors had added the is back as well - it's been a right muddle), therefore it could be was more content dispute than vandalism, and thus I went back to the first edit to view the initial version. Having find that said was, I reverted the article back to that phrase, and made a note for all on the talk page - should anyone in the future change it back to is without a ref, then that become a clear vandalism act.
I'm always happy to block persistent vandals (I think I did 3 or 4 earlier tonight), but as WP:AIV says at the top
  1. The edits of the reported user must be obvious vandalism or obvious spam.
  2. The user must have been given enough warnings to stop their disruptive behaviour.
If other editors are happy just to revert and not warn (not yourself), then it makes it difficult to be able to teach new editors what is appropriate - I'm always seeing reports at WP:AIV, where I can see at a glance that the talk page of the declared "vandal" is a red link. We therefore cannot take reports at AIV as gospel, and have to review each one alone.
 Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Two instances caught my eye. Above I focus on only one.
The editor defamed an organization by calling it a criminal organization. In wikipedia's voice. Disruptive editing continued after that as well.
This was reported at the board. Yet you wrote, in failing to block the defaming editor: "User has been inappropriately warned. 4im warnings are appropriate for severe vandalism and defamation only." (emphasis added).
Ron, if you don't think calling an organization a "criminal organization" (when it is not) is defamation, we have a very basic disconnect. I have other thoughts, but want to emphasize this one first. Can you please explain? I'm flabbergasted, frankly, that: a) you failed to act because of your assertion that it was not defamation in the first place, b) after this was pointed out on the board, you still did not admit you had erred and still did not take appropriate action, and c) you even failed to address the matter in your discussion above, when I raised it to you yet again.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I feel we are experiencing a language barrier, if my view of defamation is different from yours (maybe by location?) then I'm sorry - where I am, we would mainly equate that to libel. I have tried to find a guideline for the use of the 4im template and I don't see much help - Wikipedia:Vandalism says only warning; for severe or grotesque vandalism only, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings/Usage_and_layout#Multi-level_templates_for_vandalism, states Only Warning – Assumes bad faith, very strong cease and desist, first and only warning. Generally used in the case of excessive or continuous disruption from a user or specific IP. Maybe the text used at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism needs changing - the guidelines I quoted above don't use the word "defamation", it only evident in the text shortcuts admins use in AIV - the text is unchanged since it's first version.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it was clearly defamation. And (as it was published) libel. See Defamation "the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated ... to be factual, that may give a... business... a negative or inferior image". How can you possibly not view wikipedia (via this editor) calling a business a "criminal" entity the statement of a fact that confers a negative image? It's a poster child of defamation and libel.
Are you suggesting that if we publish false information to the effect that a company is a criminal organization, that that falls short of being defamatory of libelous? That's what you asserted in failing to block (see your note, in which you asserted as the grounds for failing to block the defaming editor "4im warnings are appropriate for severe vandalism and defamation only."). Well ... that note was fine. Except for the fact that this was blatantly defamation. So the "explanation" made zero sense. As was pointed out both subsequently on the noticeboard. And above.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
As I said above it's a language thing - libel in this county is for people (see Defamation#England_and_Wales - English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them.), not companies. As for Defamation, I'm sure we both know, if we used that as a basis for posting 4im, then most vandals will fall into that category, whereas 4im is only occasionally used - and certainly I see it being mainly used in line with the guidelines on the application of the warning templates. I'm sorry if you don't agree with me, at least it's taught me not to use that AIV template again, as the text does not support the guidelines - I will make my own version up in future, which has a text more realistic of the guidelines.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
You asserted that it was not "defamation." In English common law--for well over a century at least, as in the US, defamation applies not only to individual persons but also to corporate persons. See, e.g., cases supporting the principle that companies and other legal persons may sue in libel in the same manner as natural persons include South Hetton Coal Co. Ltd. v. North Eastern News Ass'n Ltd., [1894 1 Q.B. 133, 138-39, and Bognor Regis U.D.C. v. Campion, [1972] 2 Q.B. 169, 176-77.] So I'm still perplexed. This was defamation of the worst sort, under both US and English legal traditions.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'm no lawyer, I was taught libel (and slander) was for people. It does appear that very rarely it can be applied to companies in this country - as everyone knows English Civil Law is always a pain as the Judge makes his own mind up, and that sets a precedent for the next case. I'm sorry if my interpretation of defamation does not agree with your own. As I said before, the guideline on placing 4im, does not mention defamation, so I will not be using that word any more at AIV.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand that non-lawyers might not be familiar with the meaning of legal terms. We see that all the time in non-lawyers seeking to construe and apply copyvio laws on wp.
But the term "person" in both English common law and in US law is quite often applied to corporate persons as well as natural persons. It has been that way in England for far longer than I can remember -- certainly back into the 19th century. And I've never seen anything to suggest that that application or interpretation is "very rare", as you assert -- do you have any basis for that assertion?
It is in fact quite the opposite. As the cases mentioned, and the treatise and other refs now in the article you pointed me to and set forth above and below in this string, make clear--it is the norm under English law.[1][2][3][4] What is called "well-settled." This is elementary, both under English law and US law, and whoever taught you incorrectly I fear did you a disservice. Yes, law is always construed by judges, who as you suggest are people, but this is a fairly basic point as to which we don't have any notable disagreement.
I have other issues I wanted to discuss, relating to the same failures to block, but first wanted to address your failure to block on the basis of your assertion that there was not defamation. That was an incorrect basis. There was clear defamation. So your reason for not blocking was unsound. I'll start a new string if I have a moment to take it from there, and so you can better understand why I was troubled by your failure to block.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Douglas W. Vick and Linda Macpherson (1997). "An Opportunity Lost: The United Kingdom's Failed Reform of Defamation Law". 49 Federal Communications Law Journal 621. Retrieved 15 March 2013. {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help)
  2. ^ Sir John William Salmond (1907). The Law of Torts: A Treatise on the English Law of Liability for Civil Injuries. Stevens and Haynes. Retrieved 15 March 2013.
  3. ^ Sam Howard (15 March 2007). "Defamation of corporate entities in England". Lexology. Retrieved 15 March 2013.
  4. ^ "How to avoid libel and defamation". BBC. 2013. Retrieved 15 March 2013.
I can see your point on the wider use of the word as you have carefully explained above. From that I even more feel that there is a discord with the blocking guidelines and the {{AIV}} template wording for 4im. Further to that I note there is a full set of defamatory templates from 1 to 4 and 4im -{{Uw-defamatory1}},{{Uw-defamatory2}}, etc., which again throws confusion with the stated AVI text - I feel it has been overshortend to try to make it fit nicely in the page, thus - 4im warnings are appropriate for severe vandalism and defamation only - I am beginning to suspect that the original author actually meant severe vandalism and/or severe defamation only, otherwise what is the point of a whole set of defamation templates? I think when I have a spare minute, I will try to come up with a better text for the User has been inappropriately warned option, which is hopefully more clear.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the wider use of the word." Wider than what? It's been the use of the word in England in the 19th, 20th, and 21st century. It's simply what the word means, and has meant for generations, on both sides of the pond. In short, you gave as a reason not to block your assertion that the template had been used improperly. Because there was no defamation. Which there clearly was. But let's move past that -- defamation is about as bad as it gets when it comes to use of words. Certainly, it is up there. For wikipedia to state -- incorrectly -- that a company is criminal is fairly severe in its impact. As it is for a sysop to not act vigorously to prevent that level of vandalism. Wouldn't you agree that in addition to being manifest defamation, that level of editing is severe vandalism? I would hope that is an easy answer.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Had I been the one vandal fighting (and I've certainly done plenty of that in the past), then I would not have given a 4im to an editor on their second edit, unless it was extreme. As you say it was fairly severe - but not extreme, which is where I believe the use of 4im should be. There are plenty of discussions to show we are losing editors and not gaining enough new ones, the new editors need to be shown that such edits are not allowed and will be reverted - rushing in with one 4im and then a block will certainly drive away some new ones. I appreciate that some new editors just come to disrupt, but some do make mistakes, and once they begin to understand our policies they can and have made good editors. It was obvious that in this case it wasn't true vandalism, but the application of some extreme POV - neither acceptable, but we need to try to warn and teach - and we must realise that we won't win every time. I do believe that 1, 2, 3, 4 warning system has merits in the fact that such editors do realise that every time they make a bad edit it gets reverted and a new warning posted - often by the time of the third warning, they realise there's a talk page for them with messages. I would expect the majority of editors who suddenly gain a 4im warning on the first edit not to have a clue what has happened to their edit - they don't know they have a talk page, they don't have a clue about using the history to find edit summaries, they just see their edit gone and assume that Wikipedia did not save their edit, so they make it again.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Los Aleros

Could you kindly restore this article? I was in the process of adding some sources about this Venezuelan tourist attraction when you deleted it. Thanks. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It was only a WP:PROD, and it had been untouched for the designated period - next time - remove the PROD first - you are quite entitled to do so.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-free image

Hi Ronh. I was wondering if I could persuade you to look at an image request of mine here? It's a non-free image that will get deleted in 7 days if nobody responds to the Request Edit, which is much shorter than the typical response time. CorporateM (Talk) 14:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

File:Rangamma.jpg

Hi Ronhjones,

The photograph of Rangamma's painting by Mrs.Visakha Wijeyeratne was deleted. Yesterday his son Mr. Ravana Wijeyeratne who is the present owner of the painting, informed me that he had written to the Wikimedia.org. granting the copy rights to me to publish the photograph on wikipedia.

Pl. be good enough to check with the Wikimedia & get it published.

Kind regards,

Anuradha

අනුරාධ (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Rangamma.jpg

Hi Ronhjones,

Editor Sphilbrick,has solved the problem in the above file. Sorry for troubling you on this regard.

I will request for your help if I need any assistance in the future.

Kind regards,

Anuradha

අනුරාධ (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No he didn't - it was me! :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

Reply to photo

I replied to your notice at 'Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 March 30'-- ɱ (Talk) 18:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Again I replied.-- ɱ (Talk) 19:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

And again.-- ɱ (Talk) 21:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Images

thank you for that information...How do I provided correct information on photos have found online...such as copyright law and such...please replay on my talk page Plcoopr (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thad Forester

You tagged File:Airman Mark Andrew Forester.jpg with {{subst:npd}}. Did you notice that the uploader's user name is substantially similar to the name listed in the author field? Presumably, the uploader meant "own work" but didn't understand how to select that option in the upload wizard. On the other hand, a different person is credited as author in the EXIF, and the EXIF lists a different licence... --Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I did see that - and if that's the case, he'll get in touch and we can sort if out if possible - OTOH if it's a copyvio, he may lay low.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:BRIXMIS number plate.jpg

Hello Ron. Oh dear, not again. I went through all of this with Stefan2 a couple of months ago, concerning the "Missions prohibited" sign in the same article and which has exactly the same provenance. Please see his talk page, dated 24 January (sorry, I don't know how to link to the actual item). If you want to delete this illustration, go right ahead, but I think it enhances the article and there really is no reason whatsoever to be concerned about the copyright. Peter Farey (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, Stefan2 is quite well known to me, I've added the same template he added.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 13:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Peter Farey (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you please take a moment

You may be watching User talk:Kelly Denis after you blocked them. They are trying, incompetently, to a[peal the block, and seem to be resisting all efforts to help. This may be a language barrier. I'm not sure that they have a cat in hell's chance of being unblocked as it stands at present, but I hope you might assist them to come to an understanding of what they need to do and how this place works. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've mad a comment - not sure if it will do any good. I've also restored the block notice  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
One can only do just so much. They have to walk towards us as well. Thank you for trying. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Kelly Denis

Um... why is Kelly Denis (talk · contribs) a violation of Wikipedia:Username policy. I've been following the activity on this account since it was created. The contribution history suggests quite strongly that "Kelly Denis" is his real name. He even voluntarily nominated his own main space article for speedy deletion as G7, which I deleted and thanked him on his talk page along with an autobiography warning.

We have no policy disallowing real names. Please consider changing the block message template you used. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been following this as well. The template is, I think, the only aspect to reconsider. The block is not. He is determined to spam links to himself. He may always appeal the block if he feels it to be unjustified, but I'd like him to appeal a rationale more rifle targeted that this particular template, please. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I didn't ask you to reconsider the block. I was about to block him myself. But we shouldn't be confusing the newbies with invalid reasons for blocking. {{uw-adblock}} is what I would have used. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I quite happy to change it - if that's what you want - it's neither here nor there. We don't know that it's the person - it's certainly not unknown for real names to be used by fans who white about their favourite person. Only going through OTRS can we be certain that this is a real name used by the subject.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It is truly not a big deal either way. A shot across the bows he needed, and now he has it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken I suspect block evasion by User:Kelly Denis but I do not have the tools to check. The user page was re0deleted, whcuh means it was re-created. I cannot tell by whom it was created, though, not being an admin. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

At least one: User:Ndellis, now indeffed as a block evading sock Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Handy that the IP shown resolves as a static IP address :-) Somehow, I don't think he'll give up, and I doubt if he'll bother to go the correct route and unblock, my guess is more socks. Still BWilkins beat me to my next move, which is to lock up Kelly Denis - he did that, that's why he's now trying to use AfC - so I've protected those pages. Be vigilant!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It is a heady mix, that of ignorance and arrogance. He's been blocked at Commons as well, and the whole slew of self promotional pages removed. If he devoted his energy to making his alleged career notable... Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

re:File permission problem with File:Google Reader logo Galligan.png

I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

Except for, you know, the link to the website of the creator of the file where he writes that he is releasing it under that license. It's probably actually an issue of "I didn't use the right template to identify that link as the source of the license information." It's been a while. ~ LukeShu (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Flickr says "CC BY-NC-SA 2.0" - Sadly, that's not a license that Wikipedia can use  Ronhjones  (Talk) 13:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I know. That's why I cited his website. He originally released it CC BY-NC-SA, but then re-released it CC BY-SA without updating the Flickr. ~ LukeShu (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Why did he do that?!! Why not change the Flickr page, it takes one click of a mouse...! Anyway, that rant aside, I've re-jigged the page - let's leave out the Flickr Page link (less confusion - someone else will do the same otherwise!), instead use the raw link of the image from the blog page, and show the full link to the permission page - it looks more obvious then. Can't say it will please everybody, but it's OK for me now.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Image permission

Hi there. I seem to be having difficulty following the image upload process properly, can you please help? I have uploaded two images (both mine) to be used in my articles but they are both tagged to be deleted and I cannot figure out why. Image 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solacers_by_Arion_Golmakani.jpg Image 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arion_Golmakani.jpg

Could you please what am I doing wrong? Thanks, Farrah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redcpb (talk • contribs) 18:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

1. File:Arion Golmakani.jpg - previously published elsewhere - as all editors are effectively anonymous, we cannot say who you are - there are plenty of people that copy images from all over the web, and we have to delete them (my motto is - always upload to Wikipedia first) - therefore any existence of an earlier image has to viewed as a copyright violation, as there is not way of proving otherwise - except by the choices at WP:DCM. The easiest option here is to make a note on that facebook page that the image is released under "CC-BY-SA 3.0" - and link the permission field to that note.
2. File:Solacers_by_Arion_Golmakani.jpg - Book covers, always copyrighted unless explicitly released. Most (not all) tend to change them to non-free book covers - which I see has been done, and I have just finished that off with a non-free reduce.
Hope that helps  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Permission for Luke Davies pic

Ron, Thanks for your note re permissions for the Luke Davies picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Davies which I put up the other day. I'm quite new to Wikipedia as you must surely have noticed and still learning the rules, so apologies if I have muddled some things up. That image is (c) Luke Davies as you can see here http://vimeo.com/18662057 and I do have Luke's permission to use it. How do I go about recording all that information in Wikipedia? Cheers John Jfknorth (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The procedure(s) are shown at WP:DCM - basically, either make a note on the web page that the image is "CC-BY-SA 3.0", and link the permission field to that text, OR send permission to the Foundation by e-mail - using WP:CONSENT as a typical consent form. Note that the form has to come from whoever is the copyright holder (ideally direct, but forwarded e-mails are allowed when the identify is obvious - by the e-mail address, i.e. not a hotmail). If you are going to do that then change that template on the file page (i.e. the first line in the edit window on File:Luke Davies.jpg) to {{OTRS pending}} - that will give you 30 days to get the permission sorted.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronhjones/Archive_17&oldid=1139332851"