Wikipedia

User talk:Ronhjones/Archive 21

< User talk:Ronhjones
Latest comment: 10 years ago by CorporateM in topic Invisalign image
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Encouraging block evasion

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I really don't think that encouraging a blocked editor to evade a block, as you did here, is a good idea. JamesBWatson (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Tiscali will never give anyone a static IP - far too many customers and not enough addresses. The odds are that this is an editor trapped in someone else's vandalism, hence one can easily apply WP:AGF. If he was a competent vandal then he would know that information already.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
If you believe that the balance of evidence supports that view, then the thing to do is to unblock, or perhaps better to explain your reasons to the blocking administrator and suggest unblocking. Perhaps it might also be a good idea to consult the checkuser responsible for the original block. To try to undermine an action taken by another administrator in the way that you have done is not the right way to deal with a disagreement. You may be right in your assessment, and if you had come to me with an explanation of your concerns I would have been very willing to consider them. It would not be the first time I had changed my mind about a block on the basis of reasons put to me by another editor. JamesBWatson (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not that dissimilar to the information I would have given him had he wrote into OTRS - the standard response for a dynamic IP is to explain that A user with a dynamic IP address has a slightly different numeric address each time signing on. This is a very common practice among some ISPs. Over time, a large number of people may have used the same IP address., plus I also suggested to create an account (as I would at OTRS), which would be the better option. I know sometimes that it can be hard to be sure about whether an IP is static or dynamic, but for Ticali in the UK, it's always dynamic.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

IP 99.100.71.36

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

IP 99.100.71.36 went back to the same type of editing at the Young adult (psychology) article that he or she engaged in before being blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deleting my Pages

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why are my pages deleted? Did you even notice that someone blanked some parts of or all of the content of these pages???? MadisonGrundtvig (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

DAB pages must have at least three notable entries - that's why they were deleted.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you very much for page-protecting all those pages!--Mr Fink (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's hope it will show the IP that they're on a hopeless task...!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Artistic Genius

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi! You blocked Artistic Genius (talk · contribs) a month ago. I think it might be time to remove talk page access, as this editor is constantly using the page for test edits. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

IP address

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Gooday Ron - as you predicted, the IP address user (where you semi-protected Tony Egginton article) from this conversation has returned after two weeks' inactivity, this time on another related article, one of just a few the user has been involved in.

Of three edits, I have reverted two with the third being - surprisingly - sensible! Worse, though, is that the talk page at the IP address has been blanked by the user here. As I do not know what, if any, protocols are in place for reverting the page appearance including all of the 2013 warnings and protecting or semi-protecting from deletions if appropriate, I placed as an interim measure a modified [[uw-disruptive1}} template as a new start-point. Could you advise, please?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Technically, for IPs, if there is a longish gap between vandal edits (unless just due to a block), we should apply WP:AGF and assume that the user might be a different one. Due to the narrow range of the subjects edited - I suspect not. But a level 1 was the right thing to do this time. Blanking old warnings is OK - it won't affect the guys checking with anti-vandal software (as blanked warnings can never be deleted). However they did break a fixed rule that IP templates must not be removed, so he's been bumped up to level 2, and the IP template replaced.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that - still a big learning curve for me but getting there...Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The first year is the hardest - it gets easier after that... :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Gooday Ron - IP address user has again blanked the talk page including IP template here. They have made just two recent changes to articles, one being to a celebrity's page with level-1 protection - both edits were soon reverted, so no harm done. It's difficult to AGF, as reading the edit history shows little value in the overall contribution made to Wikipedia and previous similar 'nonsense' edits to (different) celebrity pages, ergo indicative of a pattern from the same individual. Thanks, Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Brooklyn Roebuck - Deleted Page

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Ron! I have no idea how to use Wiki. I have tried!!! I noticed that Brooklyn Roebuck's page has been completely deleted. There are many sources and articles and videos and other pages on Wiki that can be used to help create this page. I understand that the sources were not up to standard but I would hope that the page can be recreated using other sources. Please consider recreating the page. I can be contacted at lroebuck@sixsigmacanada.net. Sincerely, Linda Roebuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.138.46 (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)If the article is restored (see WP:Requests for undeletion) it will likely wind up being deleted again soon at WP:Articles for deletion unless it is improved to the point that the person's notability is no longer in question. Some of the following references may be suitable for use in an article about this person:
In any case, people who are personally or professionally "close" to this person should be very careful editing any article about this person. In particular, they should read WP:Conflict of interest first. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. It won't last unless some one improves it properly or it gets userfied - but that needs someone with an account!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Indef semi

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ron, would you consider changing your indef semi of DevOps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to pending changes? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, managed to get a brief connection to do it. I'll be happy when I get a new ISP...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

deleted articles

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ron, recently you deleted a few articles, due to a misunderstanding and error in procedure these articles included, Minister of Sports (Sri Lanka) and Minister of Finance (Sri Lanka), two that should not have been deleted. Could you please restore them. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

 Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

PROD-deletion after confusing tagging

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The expired-BLPPROD was based on a tag timestamp of February 5, but the tag to have been added on Feb 13. I don't see any edits on Feb 5. I have no objection to the PROD itself, just didn't want someone's vandalism to sneak through. DMacks (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see that - maybe some sneaky vandal or maybe they just copied a banner from another page - we'll never know. I've restored it and adjusted the prod timestamp to the real addition, since the prod reason was quite valid.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Thanks, Ron. That page was left over from when we were considering taking Lucy-Marie/DeFacto to WP:LONGTERM. Ultimately, we did not do it, and the page fell into disuse. I should have blanked it months ago. But I find it suspicious that somebody found it at all - it does not link to much, if anything (a security measure to keep it away from Lucy-Marie/DeFacto), and you have to really know what you are looking for to find it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

And a "new" editor to boot...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
A "new" editor showing an extraordinary knowledge of Wikipedia policy has always been a tell-tale sign of DeFacto. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
It's clear that I'm not a new editor, and I have never claimed to be. I am a long-time editor of good-standing, with a string of FAa and GAs to my name, and with two more GAs in the pipeline. Each time I encounter flagrant anti-Wikipedia content such as that, I create an account to deal with it. This thread and the attitudes displayed make the reasons for that very clear. I have had several such pages speedied over the years, and this is only the second time I have encountered such disgraceful opposition, the other being when I _targeted a similar page created by an administrator. I smell a deep desire for revenge here against another editor, so go ahead, pick a former adversary and pin this as a "sock" account to it, and let Wikipedia policies go take a jump. Still wasted (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
What is confusing is how you found that page it all. It was very deliberately kept separate from other articles because the user who is the subject of it is highly disruptive and would only have caused trouble (and curiously enough, it is *precisely* the kind of trouble you are causing now), so you really had to go looking for it, assuming you knew it existed in the first place. I also suggest you read long term abuse where similar profiles of disruptive editors are kept. This article was intended to go there before the idea was shelved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Let me explain for you. I came across some of your work, and some of your treatment of other editors, back in Novemeber last year, and I was disturbed as to how you got away with it. From previous experience, I know that editors like you often bear grudges, and often record their version of the truth on subpages. So I listed your contributions, went to "subpages" at the bottom, and sure enough, found one such page. As with others I've found elsewhere, I created an account and used it to tag the attack page for speedy deletion. For an undisclosed reason though, the visiting admin didn't agree, and reverted me. Then yesterday I was doing the rounds again, and decided to have a second attempt to remove your hate page, and here we are. That you characterise my actions here as "trouble", makes me even more suspicious about your motives there, and even less confident that your opinions of others are valid. Your account there, that Lucy-Marie is "highly disruptive", for example, is likely a figment of your imagination I would say, and thus ill-founded. The page is nothing more than unsupported speculation and a sad attempt to convince yourself of your own wisdom. Have you read WP:POLEMIC? How do you excuse your restoration of that page now? Still wasted (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Not a valid reason for multiple accounts. Another sock blocked.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it is quite clear that Still wasted is DeFacto or Lucy-Marie by another name. The edit-warring, the aggressive edit summaries and the way he sits on a page are all typical symptoms of DeFacto. Although he clearly has another account out there somewhere - there were no DeFacto socks active in November, and he has recently taken to cultivating several accounts at once, deliberately getting one blocked and then moving to one of his "clean" accounts. He now has over seventy confirmed socks and has likely had another two dozen blocked without anyone making the connection to DeFacto/Lucy-Marie (we never even established whether they were one and the same or separate editors, such was the variety of disruptive behaviors). He is perhaps Wikipedia's most prolific - and most difficult - serial sock puppeteer. There has to be something more that can be done. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Promotion and COI

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Gooday Ron - I hope you have fared OK with the ongoing storms. I mentioned before Xmas that I might need some advice on commercialism; I dealt with that adequately, I think, but another situation has occurred which is beyond me.

I introduced a semi-section covering the Business Improvement District (BID) in the article for the town where I live which has now been changed and largely overwritten, I suspect by the staff at the BID, the usual new-user stuff at an IP address without completing the edit summary here. I had striven to format a balanced view, but it now reads as an exhaustive advert for BID right down to the trivia such as "chewing gum removal" "generic town centre advertising" (?) and "cardboard collection"

They have also deleted two separate correctly-sourced paragraphs on criticism, which is fairly conclusive of their motivation.

Accordingly, I suspect this part-section now fails WP:PROMOTION, WP:NPOV and WP:COI at least, maybe also Primary Sources as all of the citations added are from BID's own website. I haven't checked but I would surmise that much of the description of the BID remit and capabilities is WP:OR, ie. not found elsewhere.

In first instance I alluded to at the top of this message, the contributor had already (before my involvement) had a complete article deleted under G11 (Dec 2013). I know we have to consider WP:AGF and don't bite the newbie - and for my own part WP:NOTOWN, but considering that you recommended standard messages to User talk page I did not know what would be the protocol in this instance, so I just tagged it as {{advert|section]] to make them think about it, if they are monitoring. No changes have been made since and I don't propose to wade through the prose and sources to verify on their behalf and I'm not happy to leave it as-is since much of the new prose I suspect is unacceptable. There's also now some broken markup which I left for the moment.

Once again I haven't checked (as with most things now it's the Law of Diminishing Returns just to understand) but I imagine that whilst theoretically a non-profit organisation, it's also semi-commercial in that there are salaried professionals and employees. If you would be kind enough to have a look over and take appropriate action on any issues you see, I should be obliged. Thanks, --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If you have added valid paragraphs with a reference then there is no reason to remove them and it's just vandalism (Wikipedia:Vandalism#Blanking.2C_illegitimate) without a reason. If they do remove them then they must explain why in the edit summary and possible expand on the talk pages. As they have not done so, I have restored two paragraphs and added a level one warning - level ones are very mild - sadly it's a dynamic IP, they may be a different address tomorrow. Just add them back if they go again.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Storms - no issues here. 230ft above sea level and I can see the sea from the bedroom window. No flooding here unless we get a tsunami of biblical proportions. :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, Ta very much. I have restored another small section with a small ce to clarify and emphasise the chronology, fixed the code-block and sent a polite message to the talk page (without the hidden template) per your lead. I'll keep an eye out as always to see if this prompts any responses.

Two lines of washing out today....Oo-er, missus... 8¬) Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Bounouh location.png

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Ron,

Thank you for your e-mail.

For the above file, I took two file maps available in the public domain and I can provide the references for these. I added the town labels for the towns myself. I then merged the two maps for the two districts. I am happy for the generated file to be available in the public domain. To the best of my knowledge, I have not violated any copyright. However, for the sake of complying with your e-mail, I have deleted the file until I have time to find a way around the compliance.

There was also another notification about the Exhibit picture. I took a picture of the poster but the quality is not adequate for reproduction because of the sun glare. In the interim, I produced the copy and again I have deleted this for the sake of compliance until such a time when I can do something about it.

Best regards,

M'hamed Lakrimi mlakrimi@yahoo.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhamed.lakrimi (talk • contribs) 21:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I had no edits about File:Bounouh location.png - that was a redundant copy of File:Bounouh Location.png - watch the case, only the first letter is not specific.
File:Bounouh Exhibit.png - you say is a "poster" - we don't allow pictures of posters, unless the creator of the poster gives permission - not the person who took a photo of the poster.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for blocking IP 164.58.209.140. This is a repeat offender; the next time that happens, I would block for a much longer time than 31 hours. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank You, Sadly it's a school. Not one in my country though... :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dennis Lewin

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I see that you deleted Dennis Lewin's picture from his Wiki page today due to lack of authorization. On Feb. 18th Dennis Lewin sent an email to permission-en@wikimedia.org giving his permission to use the picure. He also gave permission for me to use any pictures I choose. I have been working with Ruby Murray to try and save his page. I'm wondering why you deleted his picture when he satisfied the request to authorize it. Thanks in advance for your reply Mmcard59 (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Mmcarder59

Thank you Ron for putting Dennis Lewin's picture back up!! I'm think I need a Wikipedia for Dummies manual, lol! I tried to change his profile picture to one that he sent me today via email which I titled Dennis Lewin WCLV. In my effort to do that I have taken both away. My upload was successful and met wiki guidelines. Would you be able to put it on his page for me or at the very least put his old one back on there. We are trying hard to meet Wikipedia requirements so his page is not deleted. Thank you again in advance, I appreciate it Mmcard59 (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

First image was up for deletion, and after 7 days it goes. As you have sent in permission it was restored with an {{OTRS pending}} - there are now 30 days to sort it out. Always use that template if you send permission as OTRS is not that quick. Second image - you must get the whole file name (without the "File:" part). I see the second is also at commons - you need the same OTRS peding template there or it won't touch the sides - if you think deletions are quick here...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Sir! It's all a bit confusing but I am gradually getting the hang of it. You are an enormous help! Thanks again! Mmcard59 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ron... I requested that Dennis Lewin resend his previous email authorizing use of his photos and include the photos in the email as requested. Can you help me out here and detail exactly what is needed to take the notification for possible deletion off of his homepage? I've done some rewording and adding but not sure what else we need to do. Thanks Mmcard59 (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

deleted photo VX (Sport)

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi

I have replaced the photo that I put up originally. it was a guy called Stefan who flagged it for deletion and I responded to his messages immediately << Hi Stefan Thank you for pointing out that there is an apparent permissions conflict on photos that I have posted on the Wikipedia article, namely for the two photos below

File:2013 V2 Youth World Cup Final.jpg

File:TomHildrethOnWayTo2013V2WorldChampionship.jpg

I notice from the alerts that have been posted that you need a written confirmation.

when I posted them I granted permission under the open license as requested and felt that was all in order as I took the photos and I own the photos, however, I had forgotten that when I edited them and posted them in an album on the VX International webpage that I had watermarked the image with the copyright VX International text for VX International to use them.

I can confirm that I took the photos and I own the photos and am happy for the photos to be re-usable under the open license. If, however, the watermark causes confusion I am quite happy to remove them (or for them to be removed) and I can then upload photos without the watermark, however, please note, the photo of Malingha Timothy doesn't have the watermark. Pmhildreth (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC) >>

but got no response.

as far as the watermarked photos go, I have been informed that they will not be removed, however I will replace them as soon as I can with unwatermarked ones to avoid any confusion. the photo of Timothy Malingha was taken by me, was used by me in a video I created and has no watermark and I felt I made that clear in my response to Stefan. I was surprised to get no response. clearly my reply to him was not enough.

Can you tell me what I need to do?

regards

Pmhildreth (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ron

when I undid the photo removal it only replaced the text so I assume the photo had actually been totally deleted. I have therefore re-uploaded the original photo from scratch and in the information provided have noted that the photo has been used in a video and that the video was created and published by me.

I hope this is satisfactory

regards

Pmhildreth (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Just checked the OTRS ticket - no problems now.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

TUSC token 8fd3211ebe04214532d860745d268de2

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 11

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Could you explain why four maps were kept here? This page tells that you get a Wikipedia-only permission if you include the the indicated wikicode. Although the wikicode generates text which states that you may do other things in addition to uploading the maps to Wikipedia, both of the other sections in the FAQ make it clear that the permission doesn't apply to commercial use, invalidating the terms in the {{attribution}} template. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, we need to tweak the source - I'll have a look soon. Commercial use - the site says explicitly to use {{Attribution||[http://www.gcmap.com/ Great Circle Mapper]}} - it cannot be clearer than that.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, this is what it says:

You may use maps generated by the Great Circle Mapper on Wikipedia so long as you

  1. Provide attribution to the Great Circle Mapper
  2. Include a link to this FAQ entry
  3. List the source as the URL used to generate the map, which allows readers to experiment with your map.

For example, the following Wikipedia markup would meet these requirements for a Blue Marble map of SFO-LHR:

That is, if you upload an image with the provided wikicode, you may only use the image on Wikipedia (and only on Wikipedia, and without any right to modify the image), regardless of what text the wikicode outputs. The answers to the questions "May I use the Great Circle Mapper's maps on my web page?" and "May I use the Great Circle Mapper's maps on my commercial site?" make it clear that you can't use the images on any commercial website apart from Wikipedia without permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Ho, Hum - it's not a very good web page is it? OK, Plan 2 - cunning plan :-) - I'll slap an OTRS pending on them in a minute and make a OTRS ticket which I'll send to the site owner for comment.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that the wording is very confusing and unclear. A clarification (through OTRS or whatever) could definitely improve it. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
OTRS is better - a wikipedia.org e-mail address looks better - ticket:2014030110010311  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Prod changes

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The time stamp code you added on PROD templates was not the same as from the CSD templates. It was displaying different and was not transcluding properly. I reverted for that reason.

I'm not sure the reason for this. CSD's are usually handled under a day while Prods are atleast seven days. I personally edit alot of PRODed articles as they are new and usually have errors. There will be very few PRODed articles not touched after a PROD was placed. Bgwhite (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Very odd. I did test it out in {{X7}} - worked just fine. OK, leave it as it is. Just that I found a couple of PRODs in the last two weeks where the editor (an IP) had just obviously copied a prod template from one article to another - hence they both came up as ready to be deleted, but were in fact only tagged the day before. The idea of the addition was to show PRODs that had not been touched for 7 days (I know, not all of them), and save a little time on those ones - but if it won't work... I got most of the code from Template:Db-meta and just wrapped a box around it. C'ést la vie.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I am odd. :) I don't mind you adding the timestamp, just not sure of the need. Bgwhite (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
If it's not transcluding then I'll leave it out for now. Maybe I'll look again when I have a hour or two to spare(!) - sometimes these templates can be awfully fragile...!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Ronhjones. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 23:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Masahiro Kanagawa

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Ron, can you please check the new picture I've uploaded?, and if you can, delete the larger one you tagged?. Thank you. --Japanesehelper (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You can use that OR the old one File:Masahiro Kanagawa.jpg - within 24h of that tag, an automated script always reduces the image size (that has been done).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Photo deletion

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ron,

Recently you deleted a photo due to a misunderstanding and error in procedure. The photo was File:WVU Football Weight Room 2.jpg and the copyright holder of the work recently submitted her approval for the photo. Could you restore the file please?

Thank you, Swcrowemessage 02:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe there are two possible candidates...
I "think" they belong to ticket:2013080510007811, but the e-mail (09/08/2013 04:38) from the OTRS agent was never answered. I can get the ticket owner to re-send it if you want for the recipient to reply to - then they can be restored if the ticket owner approves of the permission - which has not been done yet, as the e-mail was never answered.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi Ron,
That would be great. Could you do the same for image File:WVU Football Uniforms 2013.png?
Thank you again, Swcrowemessage 05:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Re-sent two e-mails - that last one was not easy to find! Lucky the first one had your e-mail address!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Fluor Corp.

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ron. A while back you deleted some images I had uploaded, because I sent in only one OTRS email for multiple images and this created some fuzziness on the backend. I have uploaded about five images for the Fluor Corp. article, where I have a COI and have nominated the page for a GA review. I submitted only a single PDF of a signed consent letter from Fluor for all five images. I was wondering if there was anything I needed to do to make sure everything gets squared away nice and tidy on the backend? CorporateM (Talk) 01:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

OK looking at all the deleted images...
First lot were on en-wiki, now moved to commons - so still OK (added OTRS ticket number where relevant)
Second lot all gone (I deleted ones with (**)

I could not find any ticket for those ones. However if you only put the file name in the PDF then I had no chance. If you sent an e-mail in, you should have had a reply with a ticket number in the subject - that number would help me find it and see if there is any issues. I'll have another search on your real name.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Found you ticket of 5 days ago and processed it - I can see no other ticket in your name that relates to any of the deleted ones.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Yuppers. Sorry, I could have made that easier on you - I don't really know how OTRS works. I have responded with a URL to the fifth image. CorporateM (Talk) 23:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll have a look. If you want to start a new ticket for any delete ones, then do so. Just make sure the file name is is correct, and say the images were on en-wiki, but deleted for now - once we have permission, we can undelete.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually I mis-spoke. The one(s) I mentioned were deleted, I think someone else deleted them and you were the one that told me what was going on (and corrected the one I brought to your attention). They were Honeywell-related. It was over a year ago I think. I didn't mean to bring it back to the forefront, I just knew there are some issues with providing a single consent letter for multiple images. Anyways, thanks for getting them all squared away!! I try not to be, but it is a natural part of my COI role here that I am often impatient. CorporateM (Talk) 00:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Youre a fucking moron

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was the one who made the post and the request you dumb old fuck. Can you even read or are your eyes that bad.

That's not what you said.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Eggbeater Jesus in Huntsville.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If you look at my user page, I am Larry Wilbourn. I took this picture and am the one who uploaded to Wikipedia to be used.

It doesn't work that way - if the image has been published elsewhere before uploading to Wikipedia, then you have to use the process at WP:DCM  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Jean-Claude Duvalier Permission

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

At the end of the article in the link provided, the author or website stated, Content may be reprinted with credit to LiberationNews.org. The picture uploaded was credited to the website as I assume that they own the rights due to their copyright. Isn't this sufficient enough? I included this when I uploaded the photo. Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that statement is insufficient for a Wikipedia use - I'll change the speedy to a WP:PUF for a greater discussion on the statement.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Great thanks. Savvyjack23 (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Expert Opinion on Orphan Drugs page deletion (on 16th Jan)

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ron,

I am the Commissioning Editor for the Expert Opinion journal series and one of my titles is Expert Opinion on Orphan Drugs. This is a journal that was launched in January 2013 and is therefore relatively new and we are currently waiting for MEDLINE approval which will mean the journal will be indexed in the PubMed database.

The page I created in January was deleted on the grounds that it is 'Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG'. Does this mean that I will not be able to create a page for the journal until it is indexed? As Wikipedia is a major source of traffic to our website and drives a lot of people towards our other journal titles, I'm sure you can appreciate that we are keen to create a page for our newest journal to try to increase it's profile.

Please can you let me know what I should do next. Thanks very much, Emma L213.212.70.122 (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to check the two links WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not (as some would think) a publishing house. We only report what has already been published in peer reviewed journals / books / web sites. Thus you need to get good verifiable references from reliable sources in order to be able to have the article stay. You can always ask the editor who nominate the article for deletion on his views User talk:Randykitty. If you had an account, you could have the article back as a draft version for improvement.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Just Loving You

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Having prodded Just Loving You, I've now realised the album charted. Could you restore it and move it to Just Loving You (album)? I'd like to put User:Launchballer/Just Loving You at Just Loving You because I think the song is better known than the album.--Launchballer 13:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

F. G. Natesa Iyer

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

F.G. Natesa Iyer was a famous freedom fighter, Indian National Congress leader, of South India: who pioneered Shakespeare and Tamil theatre - in the years from the beginning of the twentieth century for around fifty years. He has been featured on the covers of famous Indian periodicals around classical music and dance - like Sruti - issue 330 (please see http://sruti.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=316). The Indian Central Government sponsored journal Sangeet natak, also featured him on the cover, with some photographs in the main article(issue Volume XLII, Number 4, 2008).(please see http://sangeetnatak.gov.in/journal/2008%20Vol%20XLII%20No4.pdf). There are some images of him, floating around from the years of the first world war. What needs to be done, to get his images in his wiki article, F.G. Natesa Iyer? Some belong to his family, who have released the images a few decades ago, for public use? Others could be from the theater group he formed Rasika Ranjana Sabha - and could be around hundred years old? Anant (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

For images that are not your own, and cannot be verified as being so old that they are copyright free (ideally pre 1923) - then it can be a struggle. US Copyright Law is not an easy thing to understand - but the servers are in Florida, so that takes precedence. You can have a look at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights - it not easy reading! If you know who owns the copyright and can get permission, then that procedure is at WP:DCM. Since India had 50/60 years copyright, ideally you need something that was out of copyright before URAA - so that is 1940 as a death date of the photographer to make it Public Domain - or publication date if the photographer cannot be known. If later than 1940 and before 1978 then you add 95 years from the date of publication for it to become Public Domain - thus your deleted image, which was around 1950, will be PD after 2045(!) or later.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Image permissions problem

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Ron, I have sent many emails to the permissions email address, with forwards of the permissions of the person depicted and the person holding the camera. Both as emails and as screenshots.

I am the owner of this image and the keeper of the archive.

I am also a new wikipedia editor, and do not fully understand the copyright nuances from the various descriptions. I am taking a WIKISOO class, but my questions have not yet been answered - I imagine they will in the next weeks of the class.

Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

One has. You must make sure to either include the full image file name or the url of the image page - otherwise you are going to struggle. We get too many message of "My image on page X" - it's no good.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-free image of virtual band

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Ronhjones. I wonder if you have any thoughts about File:Gorillaz band photo.jpg, an image I happened upon today. It's a non-free image, and its rationale is incomplete; there is no description, and I don't think it is actually a magazine cover, as the template suggests. I just looked at the url in the rationale, and I didn't see the image there. My thought is that, since Gorillaz is a "virtual band", any image of the band or its members will be a drawing, presumably copyrighted by the artist. That would seem to suggest, to me anyway, that its not replaceable, and it just needs better NFC rationale. Cnilep (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Then again all non-free images are essentially copyrighted - that why we (sadly in my view, but I have to follow the policies) have non-free images. The image is all over the 'net - https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiu-vkPkQAYqukMSPFMdaxpGbE77ldHRmaogr3lPj-_1WgAywb0spgHEbZngGK2GFLQXKfjXGtaa2uVyzEvkYf9wJMT2QISLUR2VmnrhLtufpsbKJ_1X_1uHSHWfM6bt1Dorvy74ZMcXOBGMVSg87PU6w1j4T2JG7B3hvmpUKLhSGWOVjp9r2qad6N6EDyNbeTFtLB_1WCmUr9taVtuURoT-bykzbKTLOUKQZRcnC0H05bM4zwiKF8bwAvl1XQZJaBj5QqKYPQXPK50F4JgD-HfpGbbENb5SM0AtEILNrnYi62Avc0s-rQhd9GLZKp5S7G5fhmv7v6mraQBIJhYemEUcUje2g-qQXoMfNvivho516VKdwygOoHCzLC5oPWBBghdRqpNnWV1HZJGAUbdbz3FTveBedoqOXUmJFSIdlYprA-0pZyw8ColUhHzBv50WgE0mKho6FXOkM4AYnwLD5U1sszeQBqAHeLkZtgZtdRZHeTLK37yiU2ROo6a5kfDhz5XR267F65G1V64J1k0RgDlQF37vp-CRL4j4_1HiEmAlPfPOgIPaST-H7wRmVH_1K76oX73WRucZ1W4-6oqqlFRCeC6J2dNJEe11wxIQJNnMgdZhkCH4Tw7tgm79Ie_1973f6R7H56uXPXeq78ZLZkxFlgMhrq5ZOUCbzx5rRN4_1yRgHzUcBawcY-vlSWC16FuKmpgsJFtj7B-Zw_1MdSdhBOedrdjRPKJPlA_1a50Mr3rChkd9scTSbB6t8ducjBs3DD7J2Qq-52DiyL0tS3ubtb1do8PYvT4xgahcbLmdJQoz5Nqyi2M14KNmPDZaFfO-eXA8IkTySDh6FmEQ1y5DQ23kOIb1bLyBMPx_1oNa8WhpQTRcpCFIIJYjr4fYt9DtSS_12-hjz0SLUrxTzUu-MTApKGyokicMQ743L-EO4yi5NOi4wO7Ae2qlKjP9e_1SmyHAAWqAjFcqaH9ZoUU03zQpfyTR7Ek0XKBD5SM7WVGWyrewo8PCGh5L2v6I_1KPDq35pbtUIk0RzNqT8j5lr87RJnCxK0ThxcukkszLCn7w9nwuUgpsK16z19QP3oqAjTrt6Xtr7UDR6ge8mJUN7QQSWVB-VeJ6vMFjHmiWw7oUFtTmuGZQ8_1fdne7o6RQMqqnNcQhid3kMSMBvc-xtr-TbwsvrV8wUnc4UU7FaNfp3yYdE8ZaW45yRVTowfk4NqnvSef1n4McZ-p5UkoVoDgX_1X3JfWH2Z9CW9NGOH0p1zFpnLoHLyEOkG_1-hk0dTsVe3cpIIwnzpdCLVys9qTRs116PYyOBAQnoStj7Q0hT5gtLoSceKJW80OCyKr069X6fLd7E3HqqkCTK9Dq4p8Ix4ynu4Irl2QhN7AH5Og - (sorry for long link...) So it looks more or less OK - it could do with a bit more info - probably not missing enough to delete it. BTW - it's way too big, and I've added a template to call up the reducing bot.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good; thanks for your help. Cnilep (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Flickr Images

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I changed all the original files on Flickr putting the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Is it possible to stop deleting of all these files please, now that the license is correct? Thank you. Tc1591 (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Will sort them out tonight  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

deleted image

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

01:02, 23 February 2014 Ronhjones (talk | contribs) deleted page File:9781906496708 front cover t1346CET260113 large.jpg (File deleted: F11: No evidence of permission for more than 7 days (TW)) Hi Ron, I am the rights holder of the image mentioned above, if you could reinstate the image then I will add the rights CC DE3.0 attribution. I put together the image for a WikiPedia Book to look at how WikiPedia is representing different types of scholarly publishing. Thanks MrChristian - Beyond the stars (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a book cover with a publisher's name on the front. You will have to use the procedure at WP:DCM  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted image (File:Shi DeRu and Shi DeYang.jpg)

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

I saw that File:Shi DeRu and Shi DeYang.jpg was deleted for being possibly unfree (discussion). I think this is a great loss, since it leaves Template:Chinese martial arts without an image.

I know one of the people in the photo, Shi Deru, since I take currently classes from him. Besides being one of the subjects of the photo, he probably knows who the photographer was.

What would be needed to get sufficient permission for this image to be usable and remain on Wikipedia?

Thank you. --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The uploader was User:InferKNOX. All I can say is that someone tried to send permission to WP:OTRS, the OTRS agent requested more info, but no answer was ever received - I cannot go into details about who sent in the e-mail, and what info was received and/or requested.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Bear with me, I don't know the process of how this works very well.
I've just been CCed on an email by the creator of the image, sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and copied to User:InferKNOX, granting permission for use of the photo. How will the creator or I know when permission for Wikipedia to use the photo is granted? And, once that happens, how can the image and all links to it be restored? --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
OTRS will reply to your e-mail, either stating permission is OK (and they will add the OTRS ticket to the image) or they will ask for more information.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Request to resize image

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You have tagged an image I uploaded several days before: Spiderman Flippy Disk. With this being now reduced to half size by me, the label text is now only about 360x120 pixels, which is less than a screenshot usually is. If thats ok, can you please finish the procedure until end? --Koren (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, the auto bot would have reduced it for you, you did not have to do it yourself. Anything over 400px will usually get a reduce tag.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Permission received

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, File:Photograph of Tony Sargeant.jpg has received permission via OTRS (Ticket:2014021210000161). Are you able to restore the file please? Thanks --Mdann52talk to me! 13:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have a look tonight  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see the ticket has yet to processed to full approval - there's just the one incoming message.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The only reason I have not responded yet is as the file has not been restored - I tend to prefer to ensure everything else is ok before saying it is fine. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
It's been correctly deleted. Any admin will restore once OTRS has been approved (quite a few OTRS agents are admins).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Oscar Pistorius arrives at court first day of his trial.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ron.

First of all it's absolutely fantastic that such a conscientious editor as yourself should be paying any attention to a mere dabbler like myself. Not quite a newbie perhaps, then again you're not quite an administrator and it was only a template anyway, but still very flattering! Thank you.

Whoops, you are an admin! Sorry missed that first time round on your user page modestly buried like that amongst all your other life time achievements. Multiply flattered thus and more, but it does now mean you must respond, Ron. To repeat: why do you, in your capacity and experience as an administrator of Wikipedia, an elected representative of our encyclopaedia that we edit together, think that this non-repeatable historic image can reasonably be expected to be available as a free image? Let's start from there Ron, because I am going to retire from editing Wikipedia if my voice simply isn't heard even by its admins. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think the image I uploaded in good faith can reasonably be expected to available as a free image? Nothing of the sort surely as my defense of the image makes clear

"Oscar Pistorius arriving at the start of his trial is a non-repeatable historic event. Several days later there were no free images to be found on Google or Flickr, as explicitly mentioned in the Fair Use rationale, nor were there ever likely to be given the scrummage around him as he arrived. It is thus totally specious to claim that a free image might reasonably be found. As for the question of text, the aim is to provide for the historical record an image of Pistorius' demeanour as he arrived, which no text can adequately convey and indeed enters NPOV territory (should the text, for example, record he appears to be biting his lip nervously, and so on?)"

Did you doubt my good faith in my rationale when I said I had searched and found none? And did you check for free images yourself? Indeed there aren't any. So what really makes you think one might reasonably appear now?

In the edit description of my upload to the article Trial of Oscar Pistorius I asked that any issue be brought to my Talk page. You didn't really do that with your template did you? That is to say you did not first debate with me the issue of replaceability, rather you made a unilateral judgement of your own about that and then templated me.

If you had gone to my Talk page you would have seen that I have taken the trouble to address at some length my frustration at being templated like this. You will have seen that I, a retiree (more or less) free to indulge a little hobby in a modest sort of way if never on the exalted scale you exercise it, am considering retiring from editing. Becasue I don't have the time for this Ron (I'm not editing Wikipedia full time, imagine). And indeed, if you really can't do what you want to do because one's self-appointed wisers and betters administrators like you won't let you, won't even discuss it, what can be the point? Where's the fun in that? Being patronised all the time? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied at File talk:Oscar Pistorius arrives at court first day of his trial.jpg  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Anyway, as a nominator - I will not be the closing admin, I always leave that for another.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I reply in detail at File_talk:Oscar_Pistorius_arrives_at_court_first_day_of_his_trial.jpg .

WP:NFCI 8b does not insist that the image should depict the event, but rather "significantly aid in illustrating historical events ...". It's been around since at least 27 August 2011 when User:Future Perfect at Sunrise conceded that community consensus was that "object of commentary" is not sine qua non and laid down three principles for a more general application: " they must meet all aspects of WP:NFCC, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance". I paid fastiduous attention to all three criteria. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

But he's not dead - so it's must be replaceable. If found guilty and then locked away where it's impossible to get a photo, then maybe we can go with a fair-use. Anyway, it's been deleted as F7:(Agency image) - agency images do require more critical commentary to remain.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Well no, Ron. It's unique, unrepeatable. He can only arrive at the trial on its first day just once. Even the Greeks knew that and the internet hadn't even be invented in Plato's time for heaven's sake. I think there was real encyclopaedic purpose in providing that image and your objection that it was replaceable simply wasn't valid. As you note it was eventually deleted on an entirely different basis clarified usefully here by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. I dare say you're at one with Sophocles when he wrote "The end justifies any evil", but the only evil done here in reality is by know all (give or take a few NFCCs oh lordy lord) old guard admins lording it over newbies, and the evil done is to the project we edit together. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
But it never actually showed anything besides a side heat shot - everything else was way out of focus - so it does not show the event. It would also (in my opinion) set a very bad precedent - we would then get images like "XX at the first day of of YY", etc., just because it's the first day does not make it a reason to be used as non-free. I suspect his trial date was well advertised, so anyone who wanted to obtain a free image could have done so.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:JDonCapraMD.jpg.

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Recently you removed the file: JDonCapraMD.jpg on 22:37, 1 March 2014 . The original ticket creator was suppose to be contacted (see my talk page) so as to resend the email to the copyright holder so they could settle the copyright terms. I don't know if the copyright holder has received the email yet, but I can investigate. If they had and complied, is there a way this picture can be restored? Thank You so much. Andrewduty (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It did arrive and was not approved - reply was sent. I've asked the OTRS agent handling that ticket to say what else is needed to finish it off.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Andrewduty (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons CFD

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Could you move Commons:Category:Car's insurance either to "Car insurance" or "Automobile insurance"? I nominated it for moving more than two years ago, but there's been absolutely no helpful discussion at the CFD: one person said "you can move it", another made a comment that doesn't address the issue at all, and a third suggested giving it a name that would narrow the scope greatly. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been long enough - do you have a preference? - "Car insurance" looks logical  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
"Car insurance" is definitely more natural for me, but ENGVAR issues mean that I hesitate to prefer en-us usage for a worldwide topic, especially as there aren't any parent or child categories that would suggest an international name. Is "car insurance" more common in places like Essex? This is one of those few situations in which a supervote by the closing admin will be welcomed, rather than being derided. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm in UK - it's most certainly "Car insurance" here. I think we'll go with that.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  Done Yuk! - I'd forgotten what a PITA moving a commons category is... C'ést la vie, lucky there weren't many files. :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"Astronomical unit"

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear RonHJones

"Astronomical unit" article as it stands right now reads as follows:

1 astronomical unit = 149597870700 metres (exactly) ≈ 92.955807 million miles ≈ 4.8481368 millionths of a parsec ≈ 15.812507 millionths of a light-year

Whereas it should read thus:

1 astronomical unit = 149597870700 metres (exactly) ≈ 92.955807 million miles ≈ 15.812507 millionths of a light-year ≈ 4.8481368 millionths of a parsec

Parsec = 3.26 light-years and the distances are listed according to the order of their magnitude, therefore, even though this point may seem minor, I would like to see this change upheld.

Thank you very much

Sincerely yours

Murodurus — Preceding unsigned comment added by MURODURUS (talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to change it - I only edited it because someone got their maths totally wrong and had 15.812507 millionths of a parsec  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratnesh_Kumar

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The wiki page in Subject above was deleted by your due to G12. I myself created and maintain that page http://home.eng.iastate.edu/~rkumar/index_right.html. So am I not able to copy its contents in a wiki page? Ratneshsudha (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ronjonees, if i have entered in a wrong way , apologies for that and if you can, please suggest me the procedure--Rajachinababu (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)File:Sri Rajah Vatsavi Venkata Surya Narayana Jagapathi Raj Bahadur.jpg,--Rajachinababu (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Tuni Page--Rajachinababu (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)awaiting for your reply

Hi ronjones,you have deleted--Rajachinababu (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)(File:Sri Rajah Vatsavi Venkata Surya Narayana Jagapathi Raj Bahadur.jpg,), this pic from Tuni Page--Rajachinababu (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC) , saying some photosoped copy ..but i being last heir of the king , no further copyright is required, if u want any proof for that i will provide you ,

  1. You are unable to use text from an existing web page unless the procedures at WP:DCM are followed. There is no way within the Wikipedia pages to prove your identity.
  2. There was a discussion about File:Sri Rajah Vatsavi Venkata Surya Narayana Jagapathi Raj Bahadur.jpg at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_February_22#File:Sri_Rajah_Vatsavi_Venkata_Surya_Narayana_Jagapathi_Raj_Bahadur.jpg - it's obviously an image that is a composite - so we need to know the source and date of each part of the image and the date of the final construction. If you can supply all that information, then we can consider restoration. You may alternatively use the same WP:DCM process for the image, if you are sure that you hold the copyright.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hope that helps.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Packaging artwork...

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Went back over some tags because you PUF-ed something..:

Care to review this contributors uploads?:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Samotny_W%C4%99drowiec

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like more PUFs then!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Halloween Photographs

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You deleted File:Halloween Costumes.jpg and File:Halloween Costumes.jpg and File:Vigil of All Hallows, St. George's Episcopal Church (2010).jpg even though I sent OTRS the licensing information for these photographs. It seems like you also deleted other files I uploaded and you later realized that you made a mistake, such as this one - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3AHalloween+Scripture+Candy.jpg Could you please bring back the photographs you deleted? Maodhóg (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There are no outstanding messages with your e-mail address now.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Logo image

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Ron. Thanks for the note. I went back in after finding the correct template, which for some reason isn't one of the pulldown-menu options. Please let me know if that works. The image is part of a series at Wikipedia Common, Category:Spicy Mystery Stories. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You find them all at Wikipedia:ICT/ALL too many for any pull down menu!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File:A.d.Tramontana V10.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The OTRS tag does not contain any ticket number but a link to a different file information page. Please check. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Done - all "Tramontana" were a nightmare! Same bug as the Halloween images above, so never got actioned.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I apologise

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, sorry for the vandalism on the Bob Dylan page. It was my friend using my account to play a joke on me! 208 years old is impossible! Do I have permission to make a small edit on the Snoop Dogg page? --Woodywyatt (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

So long as it's a good edit. Don't let anyone use your account - someone will end up blocking it!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Favor

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Could you take a look at this file [1] and see if its compliant? The photo appears on this website: [2] Also, the description for the photo is a copy vio picked up from this newspaper [3] PS Long time, no see, hope you are healthy and happy! Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Same photo without a doubt - even the bits of debris are there. Earlier date than commons upload (15 January 2013 16:23:44). Tagged as copyvio (commons does not usually mind that the remote web site is a smaller image, it's the date that counts  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Three images uploaded by same person, all a bit suspect, all tagged - probably works for the school, but that is not the way to do it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

File:New Zealand Passport.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why was this deleted? This image should be in the public domain. by  cody 23:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Why should it? It's a new design - most former UK dependencies still apply Crown Copyright. In NZ The term is 100 years  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ducati

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry but I don't understand the revert. Did you see the Qatar entry list? All Ducatis are listed as factory option entries. –Gpmat (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - edit undone. After seeing the edit, I went through all the recent news articles at motogp.com (and the videos _ I have a pass) plus the official FIM site, and they all have failed me! I've added that ref to the article - it does help give some official slant to the change. It would be nice if the FIM were to update the official open/factory list...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

American Skyship Images

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ron,

I was the Engineering Coordinator for American Skyship Industries, Inc., I commissioned the artwork, and the company no longer exists, nor does its parent.

To my knowledge, the work was never actually copyrighted, so the opportunity to do so no longer exists for the organization since it no longer exists; hence my poorly chosen words to describe that.

At the very least it should be a "fair use", since these were promotional materials we handed out to the media with full rights to publish granted...

What do you suggest?

Cheers, Cronkurleigh (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Choices...
  1. Fair use - if you can satisfy WP:NFCC - will need a WP:FURG and a non free license.
  2. If you are sure there was no copyright claimed - and the date is in a band that could be that then {{PD-US-1989}} is the license that is needed.
If you change it then let me know and I will kill the deletion pages.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The whole thing is kind of funny since I was the guy who commissioned the artwork, and that will be a part of the page... Cheers, Cronkurleigh (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ron.

Meanwhile, newbie that I am, as I sort that out, have a gander at my sandbox if you're interested; I'm just trying to document an important (relative to the subject matter) but under-documented bit of Anglo-American airship history.

Many thanks and cheers, Cronkurleigh (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, please do have a gander at my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cronkurleigh/sandbox to see what I'm up to. Just trying to contribute, and learning my way on the go.

Cheers, Cronkurleigh (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Well you may well be able to go non-free - I rarely get involved with non-free images - it's a bit of grey area to be sure that all the criteria are covered - e.g. how involved does "critical commentary" need to be, often it's just an opinion as to if the criteria are satisfied. There are plenty of editors who like to dabble in non-free, we all have our strengths.
Anyway, I have been searching - I failed to find anything at http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First which is for 1978 onwards (but not necessary after WP:URAA - but your images are 1983, which puts them in that time slice - so I'm going to change the images to {{PD-US-1989}}, which will say "This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published in the U.S. between 1978 and March 1, 1989, and a substantial number of authorized copies were distributed to the public without a copyright notice, and where the copyright was not later registered" - I cannot guarantee that someone else won't come along and say it's wrong, but we can only try.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Ronhjones. You have new messages at Loriendrew's talk page.
Message added 02:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Input on discussion Vanna Bonta

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article was deleted and the reasons stated are repeating false info and personal bias posted by vandals in a 2007 article that was deleted. Talk:Vanna Bonta IMC.esq (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

 
Hello, Ronhjones. You have new messages at IMC.esq's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:VoronezhEncounter.jpeg

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Isn't this a straight F9? The uploader took it from a website, didn't make any claim of fair use, and mistakenly announced it was a public domain artwork under the belief that "public domain" meant "picture that can be found in public in several places". --McGeddon (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

If he had claimed it as "own work" then F9 - but he has not chosen to hide the fact where it comes from, he just (at the present time) does not have the permission - thus a F11 fits the bill better. He has a week to get permission from the owner.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
His only attempts to make F9's "credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license" are to say "it's public domain" (admitting on his talk page that he doesn't know what public domain means) and to fill in the "Permission" line of the Summary box with the flat URL of the page he found it on, whose only copyright statement is an unambiguous "© 2013 American Monsters All Rights Reserved" at the bottom. Neither of these assertions seems credible enough to require patient clarification. --McGeddon (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Whichever way you look at it it's still "no permission"...
  • We know where it comes from
  • We know the remote site does not give permission
We wait for permission. May not come - but occasionally it does! The ball is in the uploader's court  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure. But if it's both "no permission" and "blatant F9 copyvio", we can also speedy it. (The uploader's court is already full of dustily ignored balls, as he's been uploading various UFO images from americanmonsters.com and DeviantArt for a few weeks now, with arbitrary maybe-this-will-stick guesses at fair use or public domain, all of them incorrect - I don't think we're going to get a surprise affidavit from the original 1980s UFO witness at this point.) --McGeddon (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
But on that basis, then you could tag all F11's with an F9 - that's why F11 was created (much later than F9) as images were being deleted too soon. I always used to do F9 for these years ago, and it was always changed to F11, so join the club! At least he's not put an {{OTRS pending}} on it, then we'd have to give him 30 days!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I can see F11 does good work where an image is credited vaguely and we're not able to determine whether it originated from a copyrighted source. But in this case, the permission link provided was for a website which explicitly said "© 2013 All Rights Reserved". This is beyond "no evidence of permission" and out the other side into "evidence of prohibition"! --McGeddon (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dupdet back up

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ronhjones, just letting you know the Duplication Detector tool is back up. I just had to run "webservice start". I'm not sure why but this seems to be required now. Dcoetzee 09:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. It's such a useful tool, it's missed when it's down.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Et in Arcadia Ego Sum, Kunsthaus Hamburg 1991. Performance artwork by PINK de Thierry.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago28 comments2 people in discussion

Could you explain why you removed the "no permission" template from this file and some other files? The file has been tagged as "OTRS pending" since August, and the file was therefore tagged with "no permission" since it took too long time for the uploader to provide any permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It has an OTRS pending - that can take up to a month and is hardly ever done in 7 days. Once a month has expired then they will drop into Category:Items with unconfirmed permission received by OTRS for over 30 days or Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission for over 30 days, which I will also be sorting out soon (as I can check the OTRS status before deletion)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
And once they have ended up in the 30 day category, someone tags it with {{subst:npd}} for deletion, which is what happened in this and numerous other cases. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree - that's why I'm in there now, and deleting, otherwise we just play runaround.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll get the soon - at the moment I'm on Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_November_21#OTRS_pending_since_September, which are nice and easy - check OTRS, then delete... (well most of them I suspect!)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I could easily create similar PUF sections for files from October and later months, if you would like. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good - then give it 7 days and remind me to attack them!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Also check the long overdue sections in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 15 with files from July and August. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Will do There's quite a few there! Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_November_21#OTRS_pending_since_September done what I can for now.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
There is also Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 27 with quite a few long overdue {{OTRS received}} files. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Done that one - a fair load of deletes.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 26 may also be of interest: lots of long overdue {{OTRS received}} files. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
OK I'll add that to the list - tomorrow will be starting on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 15, and I supect answering all the "where has my image gone..." messages. If only the OTRS search engine was better and quicker...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission for over 30 days - empty
Category:Items with unconfirmed permission received by OTRS for over 30 days - one awaiting reply.
I think I have run out of old OTRS not approved images.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Upcoming (not yet one week old):
I have added some further files to that page. Now I need to add lots of {{puf}} tags and notify lots of uploaders. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Remind me when the week is up :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Lots of files now listed at WP:PUF. I will wait with the rest until tomorrow as it is getting late. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Just to remind you: The files listed in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 February 23 become a week old in about 20 minutes. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Slowly wading my way through them! For those without a ticket number, I have to be sure that there is no OTRS message, so that's 3-4 searches at OTRS (file name, url, username, article - url is not the same as file name as spaces change to underscores!). Away this week-end - so may finish Sun night or Monday night  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • An update: PUF for 23 February still has some overdue files. PUF for 26 February has lots of them.
PUF for today has some files from January which you can check and potentially delete next week.
Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission for over 30 days contains files. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Tomorrow - rather exhausted, spent two days on boat fender making course, rather aching hands! Looks like an early night...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Done what I can at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 February 23 - couple of tickets have just arrived and need dealing with, hence the couple of blue links left.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
What about Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 February 26 and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 March 8? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly some of these has uncovered a bug in the OTRS system - we are finding that a search for a just a url fails to find any message. I'm hoping the bug will be fixed soon, if not, I shall have to be extra careful on what I think is or is not in OTRS.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

President of Ireland image

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't see that there was ever any notice that this image was up for deletion. Maybe that was because there was a redirect. The article still referenced the redirect and not the moved name. Could that make the difference? Is there an external link or source so I can see if anything can be done to rescue it? Was it the image at the top of this webpage or more likely this one? ww2censor (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the last edit...
{{di-no fair use rationale|date=13 January 2014}}
It was originally posted as a free image, however sometime later that was changed to non-free image, because it had then acquired a {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, as the image is still in copyright in the US until at least 2033 due to copyright restoration following URAA. Then as a non-free image - it had no WP:FURG and was tagged accordingly in January - I think it was left a bit longer in the hope that someone would fill it in, but nothing was added. The uploader was notified about the deletion request at User_talk:Jtdirl. If you want it restored to add a correct FUR and a correct non-free license Wikipedia:ICT/ALL#Non-free_content - then let me know.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Samantha Dubois.jpg Tpick1 (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ron,

Thank you for your message.

I have posted in full the reasons why the image should be retained.

The photographer has been credited on the image page and in the article itself.

I do not know how a radio presenter who many people did know what she looked like, could be reprsented by text!

If this photo is removed are you intending to post an alternative?

Please explain how this photo could be retained?

Thank You

tpick1 Tpick1 (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice removed. User:Ww2censor has helped you out - the key factor is "Replaceability" - he has annotated it to show she is deceased, so it's not a problem now, as that shows it's not replaceable. We don't have fair use of living people.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Norman Birkett

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You recently deleted File:Norman Birkett.jpg. I believe that this image can be used on wikipedia. Indeed it has been used on the german language version of wikipedia since 2004. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Richter_Birkett.jpg Please therefore re-instate the image. Thank you. Graemp (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

See answer below on President of Ireland image - this is the data from Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights that shows the problem.

The duration of the restored copyright is "the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted in the United States if the work never entered the public domain": 95 years from the date of publication for works published between 1923 and 1977, and 70 years from the death of the author for works published in 1978 or later.

Image published in 1929 - so will be out of copyright in 2025. My offer to restore for someone to add a proper WP:FURG and Wikipedia:ICT/ALL#Non-free_content license stands for this one as well.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Wikisocialwork

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Ron, this user has put up a userpage that contains the content from User:Courcelles. This includes userboxes and categories indicating the user is an admin, oversighter, ARB, and checkuser. Can you atleast delete the userpage? This user with one edit isn't an admin, checkuser, or oversighter, and he's not Courcelles, and didn't write those FAs and GAs. It's likely a sock of someone that Courcelles blocked. I would've told him, but he hasn't edited in a while. INeverCry 21:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is quite clear - The user must have been given enough warnings to stop their disruptive behavior. - I see none. You can always put the user page up for speedy deletion as G3.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm I fucking newb that you give me the newb treatment? I've got 30000 log actions here. I point out a new user impersonating an admin, and you shoo me off with some policy shit. Why do I even bother? INeverCry 21:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It's a new user - I have nothing else to show anything different. If you think it's a sock, you know we have a page for them to be reported, and it's not WP:AIV - since you have not bothered to tag it for deletion, I have  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Open Proxy Restriction

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, my access to Persian Wiki has been limited by Vituzzu . I live in Iran and I have to use a VPN connection to have a fair access to free net. And the reason for my restriction is "Open proxy" policies on Wiki. I contacted Vittuzu and he did NOT answer me. I want to participate in writing articles on Persian wiki again. What should I do? Bbadree (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Try the Persian Help e-mail info-fa@wikimedia.org. I have no admin powers on fa-wiki  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ron, I noticed your reduced size tag on the logo of the organization AFCA Supportersclub, and I was curious as to what you mean exactly? The size of the image needs to be smaller? It is already smaller then the clubs logo, or not sure if I understood that correctly. Feel free to comment on my talk page and I will try to fulfill your request in regards to the logo. Unless of course you want to take it upon yourself, I am perfectly fine with that as well. Thanks again for the help. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC))

Replied  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greg Bird (baseball)

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for deleting the article, but I was kind of wanting to have the re-direct deleted so that I could start it from scratch without the re-direct the history. I believe the player meets WP:GNG and no longer needs to be re-directed.--Yankees10 23:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I assumed you just wanted your old stuff cleared out.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I'll admit its a pretty odd request.--Yankees10 00:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you do what you did to Bird with Derek Law?--Yankees10 23:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

  Done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks--Yankees10 23:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

How about C. J. Edwards? There are other edits there but I added about 99% of it.--Yankees10 22:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Bit too much other stuff for a G7 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C._J._Edwards&diff=599838232&oldid=565397865  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough.--Yankees10 22:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted file Oleg Postnov's portrait at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oleg_Postnov,_portrait.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Postnov

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, you deleted a file, Oleg Postnov's portrait from oleg postnov wiki. I had the photographer=copyright owner send the email to wiki permitting use, and I repeatedly emailed everybody on wiki I knew to alert them to that fact. I pasted a copy of the photographer's email again. It shows the time it came in. The photo is attached to the email. Please advise what more I can do to prove to you that everybody is OK with the photo being on wiki.

From: Константин Дьячков Subject: Photo for the article about Oleg Postnov Date: March 20, 2014 2:58:04 AM EDT To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org, aylward@aylwardfamilylaw.com, Oleg Postnov <oleg_postnov@mail.ru>


I hereby affirm that I, Konstantin Dyachkov, am the creator and the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of photo portrait of Oleg Postnov (which is attached here for identification) I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Konstantin Dyachkov www.konstantindyachkov.com www.noga-art.com www.parsuna.org the copyright holder 20.03.2014

ZCB135 (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've now found the ticket (we do. sadly. have a search bug in OTRS - which is why I did'nt find it before) - I've temporarily restored it until the ticket can be processed  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your RfA support

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. I wish I could've swayed them. Looking forward to working with you again in the future. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Better luck next time - For a while I thought you were getting a late rush of support, which almost managed to do it. It's of a bit of a week's mental drain though! Lucky once was enough for me (Mine was bombing out at once stage, but I did get a large late rush of support...!).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User: 68.5.244.183

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Ron, Could I please bring to your attention the current record of the above user, which you have previously blocked for a short period. It appears that this unregistered IP "editor" is still engaged in vandalism and unsourced edits. I would be grateful for you action/advice. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

  Done - do have a check at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.5.244.183 - at any line marked (current), in case it needs undoing.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to Envy book cover picture

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for your help with the image File:NothingToEnvyAlternativeCover1.jpg I uploaded of the Granta (British) publishing's cover of the book Nothing To Envy. It seems to say that an automated bot will adjust the size of the image after 24 hours, so will that be alright? And everything will be ok? I can resize it if necessary, I'm just not very familiar with the process. Thank you DavidBoudreau (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You can do it yourself - or just let the bot get round to it - there's no rush. The bot will make a size that will be approved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Invisalign image

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

An editor agreed here that this non-free image I just uploaded would be much better than this one in the Treatment process section of the article here.

The logistics of using non-free images while following WP:COI are a bit challenging, since I can't include copyrighted images in my user-space draft and the image will usually be deleted for non-use faster than a Request Edit is answered. So I thought I would see if you were comfortable putting it in, since you have in the past responded fast enough before the image gets cleared out. CorporateM (Talk) 13:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see File:Irina Slutsky dental procedure.jpg shows not a lot, but a bright blue light - it looks like a good case to use a different image.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I like blue, but not dentists chairs ;-)
I can put the image in if you insist I do it, but currently WP:COI requires that I ask someone else to actually make the edit. CorporateM (Talk) 02:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
OK  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for being a pain in your rear and thanks! CorporateM (Talk) 19:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronhjones/Archive_21&oldid=1144720108"
  NODES
3d 1
camera 1
chat 2
Community 2
HOME 3
Idea 7
idea 7
Interesting 1
Intern 6
languages 2
mac 3
Note 14
OOP 2
os 151
server 1
text 13
Verify 1
web 18