This is an archive of past discussions with User:B. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, regarding your removal of "Webiscite", it is NOT a copyright infringement as I have given full free license to wikimedia and I disagree that it is advertisement. It is an original phenomenon and the website does not have to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcguy (talk • contribs)
Please see WP:CORP for Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion of such articles. This article clearly doesn't meet those requirements. If you wish to appeal, you are welcome to open a request at WP:DRV, but, in my opinion, you are unlikely to get a different result. --B (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Lazur Stadium
This one is the same I posted it too:[1]
I put that second photo to prove that these set of photos were originally uploaded on trivago.ru.--Oleola (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I followed your advice and unchecked the automatic "mark edits as minor" box. This is the first unchecked edit in 4 days, about. Thanks. --Kenatipospeak!06:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
On another subject, did you read Bobby Jindal's book? I looked for it at my Costco but I don't think they stocked it. Is it worth picking up? --Kenatipospeak!06:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
You should pick up Mitt Romney's book. Before he rewrites (er, "updates") it again. :P On a more serious note - since positive reinforcement is in such short supply around here, I just wanted to say that I'm continually impressed and humbled by your integrity as an editor here. Hope things are going well, and keep up the good work. MastCellTalk05:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
We often find ourselves espousing opposing viewpoints (as can be seen from userboxes)... However, I just wanted to write a note and tell you that I very much appreciate that your edits are generally quite npov and the fact that you seek consensus on talk pages before adding stuff to articles. Although we disagree, I have to say that you are in a completely separate category in my mind than other editors who share your views that I have come in contact with. Thank you for your integrity. WMOPlease leave me a wb if you reply19:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Second, the lacrosse video is an OFFICIAL video put out by the athletic department of UVA. Dom Starsia, notes that Howie was not in school last semester and is in school now. Additionally, he says that he has personal and academic issues. He also notes that Howie is no longer a part of the program. Here is the additional back up for his removal form the team etc: http://www.virginiasports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=17800&ATCLID=205087511.
What else is wrong with the posting? It is documented. These items are true. Please respond.
There are multiple concerns, only one of which you have addressed. Obviously, the nbc29 link you gave here addresses one of the many problems with this text, but I still don't think it's appropriate for the following reasons:
This article is about Howie, Sr. It should have no more than at most a sentence or two about each kid, if that. If the kids themselves are notable (which they are probably not other than Chris), you can create an article on them. But this isn't a forum for writing about Howie's kids.
You have a lengthy dissertation in there on Howie Jr's performance. Claims like the one about his "basic knowledge of the game" that need to be reliably sourced, as does the thing about his family connection. Again, this is way too much information for an article that isn't even about him, but in order for it to even be considered for inclusion, it all needs to be well-sourced.
The virginiasports.com link you gave says nothing other than "Howie Long won't be with the team this season." That's hardly a source for this. The Youtube video you gave, assuming it's authentic, only says "personal academic issues". That could mean any number of things, like he has a lot of tough classes this semester. Your claims about what it means are completely unsourced.
The nbc29 link does adequately source that Kyle Long was arrested for DUI. Nothing there sources the claim about his academics. This is still wholly inappropriate to include. Several years ago, the son of Al Gore had similar criminal issues and it was decided by overwhelming consensus that it had no business being included in the former VP's article.
Lastly, you claim on Commons that you hold the copyright to the photo that you uploaded. Is this, in fact, your photo, meaning you physically clicked the button on the camera?
Wikipedia is not a place for fighting the college rivalry wars or for writing attack articles about people you don't like. If you want to learn about our core content policies, I suggest reading WP:5P and WP:NPOV. You should also be aware that repeatedly reverting for reasons other than removing vandalism or BLP violations is considered edit warring and is prohibited. In particular, the three-revert rule calls for users who revert for reasons other than removing vandalism or BLP violations more than 3 times in a 24-hour period to be blocked. --B (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect:
1. The NBC29 link does pertain to Howie, Sr. under the family section. It is fair to note this. There is nothing in the terms that say otherwise. They are not minors. This is freedom of speech and is adequately sourced as you noted. He was convicted of a DUI and he was arrested. Additionally, he does attend Saddleback College.
2. Hardly a source for this? Virginiasports.com is a direct and official website of the University of Virginia. It is fair to say he is not the team, when it says "he won't be with the team this season" and when Head Coach Dom Starsia notes that he is re-enrolled in school and he is off the team for personal and academic reasons. He's the head coach, its the official video for UVA athletics. Its not a knock off. That is fair game. Additionally, here is an article stating that Kyle "fell behind academically" from a local newspaper: http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2009/jan/08/kyle_long_to_leave_florida_state-ar-76158/. Who is to say it is inappropriate? Do you erase the part about Ted Kennedy's accident on the bridge because it is inappropriate? I mean where do you draw the line. This is confirmed and sourced information.
3. Yes, I have the copyright to that photo.
4. This isn't a college rivalry. It is an addition to the family section of Howie Sr.'s biography. I agree that the information needs to be sourced and I have provided the sources for the information. You can also check the Virginia Sports statistics that note that Howie played at the end of 4 games. I will erase the other content, but the rest I feel meets the terms of use. Vasports (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Very little of what your addition says has any relationship to what the sources say. As for appropriateness, Ted Kennedy is himself a notable figure with an article. If Howie Long, Jr. or Kyle Long were notable and if they had articles, then their situations would be appropriate to cover there. We don't cover Ted Kennedy's transgressions in JFK's article. If you think that any portion of your changes are appropriate, you are welcome to pursue them at the BLP noticeboard. If you readd it without reliable sourcing for EVERY SINGLE CLAIM you make, you will be blocked. --B (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I will readd the items that I have actual sources. Are they approved? I have provided the sources. Multiple sources have been listed since both of your reviews. Vasports (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi B. I've no problem at all with your modification of the heading. But, WP:Merge says: "Many times, a hybrid discussion/straw poll is used, though remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. If that is used, normally !votes (a preference to support or oppose an action with an additional comment; not necessarily a pure "vote") are formatted...." That's where I got the word "vote" from. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I have cropped the image. My cleanup tools really didn't improve it much, but just cropping it helps in the article. --B (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It's using the more recently uploaded one. If you have a photo (or any other image), that you're going to resize/crop/whatever, it is much better to resize it to something that is either exactly the size you are going to display or a multiple of it (eg, an image 600 pixels wide and you're displaying it at half size). The reason for that is that every time you resize an image, you lose some amount of quality and if you resize it to something that's not an even multiple, you lose more quality. So you only want to do it once. When I originally cropped it and then Wikipedia was resizing the cropped version to be 300 pixels wide, it looked a bit off. So I re-cropped it at 450 pixels wide and it looks a bit better. --B (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help with the block; every blocked user thinks they've been done wrong, and it has so much more impact coming from someone other than the blockee. Out of curiosity, I see the discussion at the blocker's talk page, but not one at ANI ("Permission was given at ANI and at the blocking admin's talk page to reverse the block"). Is there any action appropriate against the blocker (I suppose an apology is out of the question)? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I would not suggest pursuing the issue with the blocking admin. People make mistakes. Making an issue of it is only likely to cause problems rather than to prevent them. I would file this in the category of "count your blessings and move on with life". --B (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay. And I will count you and the others who pitched in as among my blessings today. Thanks again. :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Oops
Thanks for that correction - once again, I start typing, think about something different, and then come back and think "That would sound better phrased this way" while forgetting the content I was originally trying to paraphrase. I need to stop doing that! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Given the nature of the campaign, it is of my belief that it has gained tremendous media attention given that it was only founded in October 2010. Having just done a review of other pages of a similar nature I feel that GRIN Campaign has more references than a great deal of other commonly accepted as notable pages. For example, Gay-straight alliance a group of organizations established in 1988 have less notable media references, most of which are referrals to the printed media. It seems from my perspective, that GRIN Campaign need not be deleted, but just have the references embedded into the relevant sections and anyone with references from the printed media in the UK press needs to add them. RockClaudiaGB (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It is of my belief that the article was not published intentionally with a COI, although I appreciate that not all the references listed are creditable, I fully read all the documents on what constitutes a critical/notable media source and would not have published the article if I believed that it was not compliant, this is a fault on my behalf. Upon researching this issue I believe it to be much bigger than just the article in question, while exploring the List of LGBT rights organizations I realized that GRIN Campaign has many more creditable articles and references than a large majority of the articles that are in this list. Queer Youth Network for instance has only one, which is only a mild reference to the name, the rest are article published directly by the organization and Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association did not appear to have any, the list continues... The Trevor Project which is an incredibly well established organization has very few references one of which with the same news site as http://sdgln.com/causes/2010/12/24/respect-protest-anti-bullying-beyond-united-states
I believe that the issue is not as much with the GRIN Campaign article but more with the lack of 'notable' publicity that most LGBT organizations get. I appreciate your point of view as a clearly very distinguished administrator, however, I feel we are dealing here with an issue of sociology more than COI. If the GRIN Campaign article is up for deletion, so should over 50 other LGBT organizations. This completely contradicts COI as I feel that removing this amount of information would not benefit the wikipedia community but stunt it's growth as a liberal and impartial place for information.
You need to put "grin campaign" in quotes - otherwise, you are finding every result that uses the word grin or campaign. When you put them in quotes, the results are considerably smaller. In any event, to answer your question, the answer is that you need to demonstrate that your organization meets the notability guideline for organizations and companies. Please note that the vast majority of organizations and companies in the world are NOT "notable" according to this guideline. This is not a value judgment - it is only a statement that they don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Also, please note that it is not necessary to appeal to me being an administrator - administrators have no special authority in deletion discussions. --B (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining that. The vast majority of the news coverage that GRIN Campaign has gained is from secondary sources completely independent of the campaign, and thus agrees with the notability rules, and in respect to the scale of the campaign, it has gained extensive coverage locally, some nationally and a lot in the US -thus globally. I have added a few more references to the article. When searching "grin campaign" 2,470 results did show up, the vast majority of which are relevant, including some in Chinese and Scots Gaelic, farther proving the international point. http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22GRIN+Campaign%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=O8FqTY_ZDcu48gPdo6jyBw#q=%22GRIN+Campaign%22&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=ivns&ei=j8FqTc7CPIOYhQeSsoH0Dg&start=0&sa=N&fp=f5e5ebba4844eba0 If you still feel the organization is not notable there is little I can do other than say that I know there will be many more articles published in the coming weeks, some of which should hopefully count as a reliable source in you opinion, and that the campaign is fairly new and therefore gaining notability over time, if you still do not deem it notable by Wikipedia's standards I hope you will shortly. What if the page is deleted now but in three weeks has gained a collection of more "notable" sources? It is of my believe that there must be at least three reliable independent secondary sources already, thus warranting an article. RockClaudiaGB (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey. Are UserB and B is the same person here? Or I just read you talking to yourself? Will UserB be expecting his ID in MS Wiki? Yosri (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't bother with credit, but bother more on people using my work, without returning anything to the society. GFDL alone seems not acceptable, as Wiki now require dual licensing (whatever it's mean). I'm still trying to understand all the terms and conditions. It's also bother me that the foundation failed to communicate clearly on their new policy to other project. This is the case the hind side does not know what the front side is doing. Yosri (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Uh
Kind odd having to do this, asking an admin a second time to do a partial self-revert so that they are no longer breaking 1RR and using a misleading edit summary. When you made your second revert to Jerusalem yesterday, you not only reverted the edit by the banned user, but you also reverted over this edit by me. If you had only reverted the edits of the banned user you would have gone back to this version by User:Seb az86556. So, does this need to go further, or are you going to fix your mistake? Passionless-Talk23:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
do you honestly believe a burrito bowl is infact a burrito? this is based upon pure fact and not a bias'd opinion. then again the credibility of this site has been questionable for quite some time now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beached Bumm (talk • contribs) 23:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: "What I do think, though, is that Arbcom needs to stop bringing sua sponte cases except where privacy is involved." Did you look at the RFC?[3] Privacy was invoked dozens of times. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
They may invoke it, but if the reasons for his desysopping are all on-wiki (as opposed to checkuser abuse, engaging in outing that has subsequently been oversighted, etc), it's not a legitimate reason. --B (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, that makes your concern clearer. Well, Rod has the option of an open process and might be about to take it, for better or worse. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Re "In the real-world justice system, we have a prosecution, defense, and then an impartial judge and jury" Leaving aside the usual mis-identification of Wikipedia DR with a legal proceeding, the system you're describing is (I believe) unique to medieval England and its descendants (including the US). I liked the movie Z, about a judicial investigation set in Greece. I gather that the legal system shown in the film (the judge is an investigator) is typical of most parts of the world not deriving from the Anglo-Saxon system. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
That article mentions him (you?) only in passing and does NOT say that he is related to the other person named Lochhead. For someone to be notable, there needs to be multiple non-trivial reliable sources about them (not merely ones that mention them). --B (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
GAR
I have started a GAR for Virginia Tech massacre. Before I start it, I noticed that you only made one edit to it. Now I have two questions. Why and would you be ready to fix that problems I may address? GamerPro64 (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
What is "it"? I have 78 edits to Virginia Tech massacre if [4] is correct and most of the photos therein are either ones I took or ones I obtained. To the second question, yes, to the extent that I am able. To the first question, why what? --B (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey B, have you've done anything about the dead links in the article? If you're inactive right now, I'll close the review. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The Virginia one at least has more lanes and a longer span. If the bridge fans come out and overrule me, so be it, but I bet the Oregon one could be merged into the article about the nearest community if necessary. I think it's only of local significance because it doesn't carry a state highway like the VA one, just a local road. I don't suppose there's a "notability of bridges" guideline somewhere. Valfontis (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The Hodges Ferry Bridge is not a state highway. It's a numbered state route, but it's 35 mph ... on one side is residential and on the other side is a business district. --B (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Martin Coleman (American Football)
Hi, my article was deleted by you and I think this was a mistake. I filled out a request to reinstate it but I'm unsure if i'm doing it right. Please check the links provided and see what I am talking about. Thanks so much for your time.
Martin Coleman was in a member of the Pittsburgh Panthers Football team starting in the Spring of 2005. The link below is to the Official University of Pittsburgh Athletic Dept list of Athletes for the 2006 season.
http://www.pittsburghpanthers.com/genrel/091506aac.html
In the official newspaper of the University of Pittsburgh: The Pitt Chronicles. On April 29, 2007 Martin Coleman was one of few Football players at Pitt to receive the "Blue Award" for his high GPA
http://www.chronicle.pitt.edu/?p=158}}
Wikipedia is not the place to perpetuate inside jokes. In the .000001% chance he's not a hoax, he doesn't remotely pass our notability criteria. --B (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I assure this is not an inside joke. I provided evidence and from reading the criteria and notability criteria and it applies. Please read it and reconsider. 12:21, 12 March 2011 (ET)
Please do not edit my comments. I have no interest in debating this with you. If you are absolutely bent on wasting everyone's time, you can take it to WP:DRV. --B (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The image is of a state government text book and comes under the same category as the constitution, acts of law, rulings of the court, etc. and these can be used provided they are produced as is and is in accordance with the Indian copyright act. ImperiumCaelestis
A three-dimensional photograph is a copyrightable "creative work", even if the object it depicts is out of copyright. For example, my grandmother's old KJV Bible is out of copyright. If I take a 3-D photo of it, my photo is copyrightable. If I take a 2-D scan of its contents, or even of its cover, that 2-D scan is not copyrightable. So even if you are correct that the contents of this book are not copyrighted, the photo is. But also, I believe that, based on that copyright tag, only the text of laws, regulations, and other similar things are free from copyright. Creative works of the government (photos, etc) are still copyrighted. The template links to http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/handbook.html, which very clearly says "In the case of a government work, government shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein." --B (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks indeed for deleting the hang on tag from the File:Naqsh.jpg image. The deletion can be contested on the following grounds:
Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.
One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.
Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
Keep in mind that to qualify under our non-free content criteria, the image must meet all of them, not just some of them. Specifically in the case of the photo of the book, File:Konkanitextbook.png, there is a second problem - even if using a scan from the book itself would constitute fair use, when you use a three-dimensional photograph of the book, that photograph is considered to be a derivative work - a creative expression in and of itself. The photographer has rights and there is no fair use defense for using that photograph. That said, for any of it, for it to be fair use, it would all have to be irreplaceable, meaning that it would be impossible to create or find a free equivalent. For example, if you are writing an article about Star Trek, there could never be a free equivalent to a screenshot from a TV show or movie. If there exists anyone who can write this language, then a free equivalent can be created - someone who writes it could be asked to create a sample of its alphabet or a short paragraph equivalent to lorem ipsum or some such thing. --B (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
My predicament is that I stay 600 km from the place which this language is spoken in and we don't have relatives there. I stay in Bombay. Konkani is the official language of the state of Goa which is 600km south of Bombay. My native place is Mangalore, Karnataka which is another 800km south of Goa, where Konkani is not recognised; so we are an unrecognised linguistic minority. My ancestors fled from Goa to Mangalore when the lusitanisation of Goa began in the 1600's. The only remnant of our Goan heritage is the Konkani language, which was nearly annihilated by the Portuguese conquistadors. This text book is part of a recent undertaking by the state Govt. of Goa to revive Konkani and hence it is a proud moment for us all. I tried looking on the internet for a suitable image but this was the only image I could find. This image is critical to convey the idea behind the article.ImperiumCaelestis 23:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I realize that there are challenges that I couldn't even pretend to understand, but please understand that the general preference for Wikipedia is to not use any image at all rather than to use one under an iffy fair use claim. You said earlier that you are a member of a historical preservation organization. If your organization has anything that it owns the copyright to and it would like to release under a permissive license, please see WP:COPYREQ and WP:CONSENT for instructions. That might be a way, if your organization is interested, that some sort of content demonstrating this language could be used. --B (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I have restored it. I have no interest in taking it to AFD - I deleted it because it was an expired PROD, not because I have an opinion on it. --B (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Image:Platypus.gif
It's an image I created myself; I drew it freehand and scanned it into my computer, about 5 years ago. I lost the original file years ago so I don't even have it any more. --Son (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Michael Kantor (ice hockey)
Concerning your faulty reason removing the prod from Michael Kantor (ice hockey) - the first prod was a BLPPROD which is removed with the addition of even a single reference. A BLPPROD does not disallow the same article from a facing a conventional PROD. In this case the issue is moot, as it has now been nominated for AfD, but please keep this in mind for future articles facing the same situation. Onthegogo (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thanks for looking at those speedy delete requests. I didn't know about the recent creation rule. Ill get those resubmitted. --Kumioko (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm stuffing my general disdain for them and pulling for them as the underdog. Their fans are incredibly obnoxious and their school makes JMU look like a strong academic institution by comparison. --B (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I think in Virginia, you're either with 'em or against 'em. VCU Medical school could find the cure for cancer, male pattern baldness, and make children listen to their parents, and B will probably just say Va Tech grads did most of the work. :) OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions03:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi B, I'm a member of WikiProject Olympics, Multi-sport events, Sport,etc in nutshell I'm mostly active on Sport related articles. Since last few weeks I'm concentrating towards MSEs like Asian Games and Commonwealth Games; for this I'm creating new articles, working on them for FLC, GAC and FAC, categorizing them with new categories, working with files on Commons, created a new portal for Asian Games and operating it, etc. My point is, as I have interest in Asian and Commonwealth Games, I wanted to make a portal for Commonwealth Games also, but I found one and shocked to see that it doesn't have a single edit since July 9, 2008, then I found that it was nominated for MfD and some user who endorsed for keeping it said " It would wake up when the next Games come along", but now it has been seven months [since, last 2010 Commonwealth Games finished] and still no one cares of this portal. So I've made up my mind to resurrect it, for that I want a fresh start and want to create it from base. So I'm wondering if you could delete it so that I may create a new one and work on it, because it would be very difficult for me to work on existing one, please let me know what you think on this, thanks. — Bill william comptonTalk20:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Unilaterally deleting it when it has already failed MFD would not be appropriate. --B (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
A MfD was failed because there wasn't any consensus and now the reason [which was given during the MfD] for retaining it, is also not applicable. If you can't delete it, then please tell me some other way so that I can make a new one. I just need a namespace — "Portal:Commonwealth Games", which is right now acquired by this one. If I start making one on my user space then would you somehow manage to move or relocate instead of present one? because, unless it would always be in same present state and nobody would ever care of it, thanks. — Bill william comptonTalk09:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you deleted the article on Paul Pogba for the reason: (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content).I don't know if the previous article covered the controversy regarding his transfer from Le Havre to Manchester United or not, but if not, I'd like to offer that as the reasoning for the subjects significance.
The controversy was widely reported in the press, for example on the BBC, in The Guardianand Sky Sports News amongst others. Whilst an article for a football player of his standing should generally speaking be deleted, as he doesn't qualify under the appearances ruling, I'd argue that the transfer received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and as such it would qualify as an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diluted Dante (talk • contribs) 20:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I ran it by Magog the Ogre. He agrees. I see no reason to create another drama-filled ANI thread that goes nowhere. So, consider yourself blessed with the "standard offer":
No earlier than six months from the ANI thread (18 November 2011), you can create a new account.
Stay out of trouble with that account. If it becomes obvious who you are, then you have done something wrong. Contribute peaceably and try contributing in areas where you don't have strong opinions.
Further socking (meaning creating more than this one account) or creating any accounts prior to 18 November 2011 will result in the reinstatement of your block/ban/whatever we call it now.
No discussion is necessary when an image meets a condition in the criteria for speedy deletion. Criterion F7 says, "Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of WP:NFCC; and may be deleted immediately." There was no commentary of any sort on this image — it was used only in the infobox for the article and not mentioned elsewhere. --B (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. If i remember correctly than there has been some kind of discussion about that in the past. I am not an administrator so could you please email me the necessary information so that i can find this out. (image link, fair use rational and the talk page if there were comments) I have worked on the rational before and i might could have further improved on it, including adding commentary or fixing other problems if i would have known in advance. I just think that this image or a similar image of the crime scene adds value to the article. IQinn (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Previously, on October 6, 2010, Selket had added this template:
{{Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale|date=2010-10-06|concern=Not uniquely historical, no critical commentary of image, [[NFC#UULP]] 5 and 7.}}
You removed it the same day without discussion or comment on the image page. On November 10, Swarm added this template:
{{di-replaceable fair use|old image=no|date=11 November 2010}}
You left this reply the same day:
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed|1) A non free image can be created as the crime scene has changed since 2006. 2) No image could be reasonably found or created because of ongoing civil war and security situation in Iraq. 3) No free equivalent image is available, known of or could be created that would adequately give the same information and details on one of the most shocking war crimes of the war in Iraq. 4) No text could be adequately covered this alone. It is the inside look at the crime scene with hundreds of details. No text could ever cover all the information adequately alone. 5) Most of our user do not have enough background knowledge and information on live in Iraq so that text alone can not give them an adequately impression, view or understanding. [[User:Iqinn|IQinn]] ([[User talk:Iqinn|talk]]) 10:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)}}
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{Rk}}
== Summary ==
{{Non-free use rationale
|Article = Mahmudiyah killings
|Description = Mahmoudiya rape & murder scene (2006). "Hussein Mohammed points to the floor where he found the body of Abeer - July 6th, 2006 - Ali Al-Mahmouri/Associated Press"
|Source = http://www.expose-the-war-profiteers.org/DOD/iraq_II/mahmudiya.htm
|Portion = entire
|Low_resolution = yes
|Purpose = to illustrate the crime scene where Abeer Hamza al-Janabi was raped and murdered
|Replaceability = no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
|other_information =
}}
== Licensing ==
{{Non-free historic image}}
An important thing to understand about our image use policy is that there are no "magic words" that can be uttered or "correct rationales" that it can be written that will make some classes of image acceptable to use. An AP image from the relatively recent past that is not the subject of sourced commentary is not appropriate to use and no amount of writing rationales will change that. There is no fair use defense for using such an image without paying royalties - if we want to legally use the image, we need to pay the AP royalties to do so. That's why it's a criterion for speedy deletion. --B (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank's for posting the information and you may also notice that WP is a big place and there are other people who have other opinion on the interpretation of the fair use rules, policies and deletion of files than yourself. With the enacting of the DMCA there is greater freedom to create valuable content especially for educational purpose. I would have just preferred that you would have started a FFD discussion as Magog the Ogre suggested so the deletion could have been based on community consensus. Did you actually someone put a speedy deletion tag on image and you deleted it so that there were at least 2 people who took part in the process? We may should think over to change the procedures. In my opinion there was not that strong urgency for deletion that would not have allowed for a deletion debate in the relevant forum.
I saw there is a video about the crime that shows the crime scene. Would a screen shot from the video that shows the crime scene be allowed to use under our rules? Thanks for your time. IQinn (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
A video screenshot may not be speedyable under our rules, but it still is not an appropriate exercise in fair use. If you were providing critical commentary about the video itself, then it's an appropriate use ... but using a video simply because it happens to depict what you want it to depict is not. In the real world (not Wikipedia) people pay royalties to use photos of subjects like this. Wikipedia doesn't pay royalties but just because we refuse to pay royalties doesn't give us the right to steal the image and use it for free. As for a speedy deletion tag on the image, no, nobody placed one, nor is that a required piece of the process. An image that meets the criteria for speedy deletion is subject to deletion at any time by any admin. The fact that a different admin chose not to delete it (for an unrelated reason) changes nothing. Had you left the original template in place, it would have been deleted as soon as it was reviewed, but Magog the Ogre was considering only the "replaceable" template. --B (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Using images under fair use is not stealing but instead promoted by the DMCA. It seems to me that you do not get my point. There seems to be no problem to add a few sentence "critical commentary" to the article about the crime scene that is shown in the image that has been deleted. Would that fix the problem? IQinn (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Critical commentary about the crime scene is not the same as critical commentary about the photo. If you were using that photo to comment on the photographer's skill or in a story about photos taken in war zones, then it's a legitimate case of fair use. But just because it happens to depict what you want to show and Wikipedia doesn't feel like paying royalties is not. --B (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
What is this? Keep voting until you get it the way you want? This is one of the many problems with Wikipedia. The most natural names are "pro-life movement" and "pro-choice movement". Those are the names that the movements use for themselves and they're the names that people with no agenda use. Repeatedly revoting and mediating until the articles are named "baby murder supporters" and "hateful conservatives who oppose a woman's God-given right to choose" is a waste of everyone's time. --B (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. No set of names is going to please everyone, and "pro-choice"/"pro-life" at least have the advantages of being widely used, reliable-source-approved, easily understood self-descriptions. MastCellTalk21:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I like your Republican primaries userbox, although I might put Cain and Ron Paul in the "handing Obama another 4 years" category myself. :) MastCellTalk19:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
You sure about Herman Cain, MastCell? I think he would still probably lose, but besides Romney and maybe Pawlenty, I think he's the only one with a remote shot of winning a general election against Obama. NW(Talk)19:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know much about Cain, although I don't think he's actually said much of substance yet either (granted, it's early). I don't think you can both pander to the Tea Party and be successful in a nationwide general election. Cain seems to have chosen the former path. Personally, I think the Republican candidate with the best chance of beating Obama is unquestionably Jon Huntsman. Unquestionably. He could be President. But he'll never make it out of the primaries, given that he has (among other crazy ideas) expressed acceptance of the scientific understanding of climate change and suggested that health care might be a human right rather than a privilege. MastCellTalk20:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Huntsman is just another liberal Republican. If we want someone who is going to cut the budget and get spending under control so that we don't become the next Greece, Huntsman isn't it. I think that Ron Paul or Herman Cain are good choices from the standpoint of they would be what Obama painted himself as four years ago - someone who would bring a brand new way of doing things to Washington DC. I think Ron Paul is a bit nuts when he talks about doing away with the federal reserve, but the good outweighs the bad. We need someone who is going to be disruptive to the inside the beltway of doing things. Huntsman is exactly the opposite of what we need - just another politician who will do whatever he has to 'do to be elected and be beholden to the special interests. --B (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
B, did you ever try this out? I would be interested in what you would pick. It's probably rather different from what I would choose, but perhaps not. Not all options are represented, of course, but many of the mainstream ones are represented in some way. NW(Talk)16:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Say yes to every spending cut on the list (except eliminating earmarks - it's ridiculous that congress shouldn't direct spending - that's their job), don't eliminate the health insurance tax break unless there's going to be offsetting tax credits, eliminate the payroll tax ceiling (really, what I would do is eliminate virtually all individual deductions save for mortgage interest and charitable giving (which would each be a half-deduction). If you make $1 million, you pay whatever the tax rate is - you don't deduct random amounts of it for arbitrary things. I would cut the rate on both long term capital gains and short term capital gains (maybe 10% for long-term gains and 15% for short-term gains). Quit having the payroll tax as a separate line item. Right now, it provides a way of socking it to the middle class by means of confusion - if you're in the middle class, your effective tax rate might be 30% or something (payroll tax + your share of FICA + whatever your so-called effective rate is). If you make $1 billion, your rate isn't that much more because you max out on the payroll tax at around $100K. --B (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: Huntsman, I see your point. But isn't Romney just another liberal Republican (posing every 4 years, rather unconvincingly, as a conservative Republican)? And just as much part of the system and willing to do whatever it takes to be elected as Huntsman? And Pawlenty strikes me as Romney Lite.
I agree that the payroll tax ceiling is crazy. My income has varied substantially throughout my career, and I've found that (with exceptions) the more money I made, the lower percentage of my income I paid in taxes, in large part because of the payroll tax ceiling. MastCellTalk01:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Romney's business sense impresses me. Normally, I am big on social issues, but right now, economy is job #1. Whether Romney believes in his heart that abortion is wrong or simply does what he needs to, the effect is the same - he will sign any pro-life bills that pass - so I am content with him. Were it any other election, I might be searching for someone more conservative, but we're in real danger of falling into the abyss economically so we can't afford to have a pro-life purity test right now. I do find it a little funny that Romney is being tarred as the liberal candidate this time around ... in 2008, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Laura Ingraham all endorsed Romney.[6] How has he turned from conservative hero against the progressive John McCain into liberal villain in just three and a half years? In the 2000 election, I voted for Alan Keyes (and I was very close to writing him in or leaving it blank for the general election - I never liked Bush). In 2008, I voted for Huckabee. This time, I'm undecided ... probably slightly leaning towards Ron Paul if I had to pick today from the four, but it's early. --B (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Romney has changed so much as the party has changed underneath him. The Republican Party's epicenter has moved dramatically to the right since 2008. Romney (and Pawlenty) are grappling with this shift, which has turned their 2008 qualifications into 2012 liabilities. MastCellTalk01:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to rename the two abortion articles to completely new names, namely 'Opposition to legalized abortion' and 'Support for legalized abortion'. The idea, which is located at the Mediation Cabal, is currently open for opinions. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I have restored the image, removed the fictional license, and set the applicable deletion timers (no fair use tag, no fair use rationale, not used in any article). When you resolve an issue (e.g., adding the image to an article), please remove the applicable timer. --B (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your review, in order to avoid such deletions in future,
I would like to know reasons for this deletion, what went wrong? How I can improve??
Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which discusses the criteria for inclusion for articles about organizations and companies. Your article needs to demonstrate that this topic is considered notable. The vast majority of organizations and companies on the planet are NOT appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia - only those considered notable. Has there been non-trivial news media coverage about this organization? If not, it is most likely not an appropriate topic. --B (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, so I should consider Newspaper coverage (notable national newspaper coverage) as reference too. Thanks for quick clarification..I will find such reference's BEFORE creating "NEW" articles.
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
My opinion is I'm tired of the ridiculous arguments. It's been !voted on and decided on 100 times in the last six months. --B (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
As am I. This attempt to resolve the situation appears to be different, as it is being handled by a mediator with no connection to the articles. I know that I, for one, will "topic ban" myself (for my own personal sanity) if this does not work. I can't blame you for staying away, but might you give it just one more look? HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Bible Prophecy Isiah 7:14
Do you read and understand Hebrew? I can only assume not since you have deleted my amendments.
There is simply no legitimate dispute over the meaning of the Hebrew word "Alma". The word is correctly rendered (in English) as "young woman". As with the other "controversial" aspects of the Christian translation in this verse, a simple glance at the Hebrew shows that the correct translation is "behold the young woman is pregnant and will give birth to a son and she will call his name Emmanuel". It is not biased to highlight what is correct and incorrect, unless you wish to assert that it is reasonable to translate words to mean whatever you want them to mean. (Philosophystephen (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC))
In the Septuagint (translated by people who spoke Hebrew), the word used unquestionably means "virgin". A proper course of action is to explain the controversy and leave it to the reader to decide. There are plenty of reliable sources on the subject - this book, which I found in 30 seconds of googling, does a good job of it. --B (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry there is a distinction between facts and opinions. In any case, how is the average reader who neither reads nor understands Hebrew supposed to draw a meaningful conclusion without further detail? Leaving the two translations without further explanation is essentially misleading because an uninformed reader may mistakenly believe that the two translations have equal validity. Misleading readers isn't really what an encyclopedia is about.
Honestly, I am puzzled as to why you were able to tell me about the relevance of the Septuagint in forming the Christian translation but thought removing my amendment a more appropriate course of action than adding a sentence or two which sheds light on the Christian translation of this verse. Perhaps you are not always happy for readers to draw their own conclusions?
In any case, your point about the Septuagint is not valid (or relevant in some respects). Firstly, the Septuagint in its current form is a Christian document so its unsurprising to find that it agrees with Matthew's gospel. Secondly, the word parthenos can mean both 'virgin' and 'young woman'. For example, the Septuagint uses the word parthenos when translating Genesis 34 in reference to Dinah after she has been raped. How exactly is this unquestionable? Finally, this only relates to the issue of how to translate the word 'alma' it doesn't explain the dropping of the definite article or changing the word "she will call" to "they will call". (Philosophystephen (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC))
I'm not interested (or, frankly, able) in arguing linguistics with you. I can only point to the relevant policies and guidelines. If you add content to articles, add a reference that verifies your claim. Keep it neutral. --B (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Seems ur a stuburn bunch of people who are rather more interested by rules then to take the opportunity to learn from other peoples' knowledge and experience. Pitty. But hey here we go for some arguments... the reason I do this lies not in the fact that this situation (and article) was so worldshocking, but to me and i am sure to mst off the other passengers a board it was an experience which we will not easy forget... no wonder if you think about the fact we landed on double speed and the knowledge that if the plane should have lost momentum we would have crashed (to my impression, but that is only an impression both engines were not functioning 1/2 minute before landing. In relation to the former the high speed made sense to me as the plane was piloted with steep descent just with reason to keep momentum so we could get to the runway. My impression that both engines were out lies also in the logic we made a stalled landing as there was no engine power to lift the nose) The reason I know the names of the pilots is easy. Short after take of the commander talks to the passengers telling who they are and giving a description of route, time, weather etc. - second me, my husband and a Steward in business (called Henry) have been helping all the time with the evacuation. After we jumped the emergency chutes first emergency exit at left (evacuation of business class passengers went very fast and smoothly), we ran to the middle emergency chute to catch people at the end of the chute so it could be fastly cleared when other passengers jumped and to avoid people to be hurt by falling on high speed on the tarmac. Passengers were directed to the end of the grassfield (about 300 m further) on the left side of the plane. After a (long) time buses came to pick us up. Me and my husband were still with two people of the crew (we helped with) talking about the happenings so I asked confirmation of the names of the pilots to them with the request to forward us their gratitude and compliments. They didnt do anything more then their job and damn a hell of good job. Taking into account the situation they saved lives as circumstances were there we could have crashed. So again here is your source... not from copy and paste articles, nor hearsay but first source. And then I think to myself, who do you think u are to undo every time my adding on a mediaforum which is free ?. Who are you to judge what is important or what can be written in an article ?. I am sure it wouldnt bounce in ur head one microsecond to delete the name of Capt Sully from the article of US Airways Flight 1549.Well these australian guys bringing our plane to save landing were not less
Gimme a reply on ann.higuet@refaco.nl I will send u even pictures which were taken right after evacuation and proof I was on that flight.
Open your mind and dont stay stuck in your own lil world.
Kind regards
Ann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.83.32.101 (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC) --Caprichasma (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
The edit war on Cathay Pacific Flight 780 has carried on. Your edit has been reverted. you can view the case here. The user who reverted this is the same as the IP user. They left this on my talk page. You said if they revert again to open the case up i am not sure how to.
Hi sorry to pester. The user who you blocked seems to like ranting at me on my talk page. Is there anything we do about this please? If it carries on is it possible to stop them from posting on my talk page please? I really don't want to get into a conflict. Thanks--JetBlast (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you referring to the message from three days ago? It doesn't look like the user has edited since then, so there's nothing really for me to do in the way of blocking them again. Obviously, if the user returns and resumes causing problems, I can block them for a longer period of time. About the only thing I can do right now, if you would like, is I could semi-protect your talk page for some period of time (like two weeks), which would prevent any IP user or new user from leaving you a message for the duration of the protection. --B (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I think there was a misunderstanding
I posted a clarification on the talk page of the RfC. I think you misunderstood me. I did not find it strange at all that you linked to the RfA. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 8#File:Caylee anthony.jpg - Sometimes I despair for the wiki, in the end it will be its success that destroys it - and the weakness of its guidelines and policy - ten users that like something has the ability to void all guidelines. I hope the admin closing that discussion shows some understanding of the comments there. That is as clear a case of non fair use failure as I have seen here. Off2riorob (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep. Too many of our processes are subject to the tyranny of the majority of people who show up. RFAs, ban discussions, content debates, and xFD discussions can all be swayed by whoever yells the loudest, regardless of what policy reasons might exist for a particular course of action. At least one problem, specifically with FFD, is that we have at least three unique classes of images debated there. The vast majority of images nominated there fall into the category of "crap to delete" - orphaned images of little encyclopedic value. The second class is images for which there is an editorial reason to delete them - for example, free images of remarkably poor quality or charts that are alleged to show incorrect data. The third class is images for which there is a policy reason to delete - mostly ones that violate the fair use policy. FFD works very well with the first category for the most part. But a lot of users who don't "get it" confuse the second and third category. Maybe the solution is to split off fair use review into a brand new process and leave FFD for free files. That would enable images where there is an actual controversy to be seen by more users who understand the policies and be less dominated by a vocal group who does not. --B (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems we are in total agreement as to the issues. Interesting suggestion for a solution. One of the worst results of such situations is that editors that do understand/care about compliance with guidelines and policy are driven away/give up when they see a few results from I like it, keep discussions. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I have noticed that you have uploaded a lot of images and would like to take a minute to ask you a few questions about them. I notice that you have stated that you are the author/copyright holder of these images. Do you mean by this, that in each case, you, personally, clicked the button on the camera that took the picture? Merely scanning in the work of another or clipping an article from the newspaper does not give you the right to redistribute it. Also, for things like File:2005 Robert-Wickens-email-Christian-Boudon .jpg or File:1988 New-Racing-Concept 20.jpg, the copyright belongs to whoever wrote the letter, not to the person in physical possession of it. Do you have the permission of the individuals who wrote the letters to upload them here? I notice that File:2009 Boudon-Mertins-Atlantic .jpg was previously published at http://www.kartmag.fr/apprendre-la-course-automobile-avec-christian-boudon/ . As a matter of policy, Wikipedia must have a statement of permission on file in order to keep any image that was previously published elsewhere. This is for your protection - it prevents someone from falsely claiming to "donate" your photos to Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information. The short version is that if you could send a letter to permissions-en@wikimedia.org with a letter similar to Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries (1) telling who you are and, if applicable, who you are working for, (2) affirming that you are the copyright holder (or, if working for an organization that owns the copyright, affirming that they are the copyright holder and you have legal authority to speak on their behalf), and (3) stating that you agree to the terms of the license you have chosen, it would be appreciated. I realize that this may be very confusing, but again, please understand that it is because Wikipedia respects intellectual property and copyright and wants to ensure that your rights are protected by preventing someone from falsely submitting your intellectual property here. Thank you and please feel free to contact me with any questions you have. --B (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Sirs.
Regarding the matter below on the copyright, I can affirm that YES I have all the required authorizations for those pictures or documents.
The pictures and documents are from the special archives of Mr. Boudon Christian, and were taken by him, me or by his family, (mother, father, wife, daughter)
- The Robert Wickens email was sent by Wickens to Christian Boudon as an acknowledgement with right to use it the way he wanted and Christian Boudon gave it to me as a part of his archives with the right to publish.
- The New Racing document was written by Christian Boudon when he was the owner of this company, and he gave it to me as a part of his archives with the right to publish.
- The 2009 Boudon-Mertins-Atlantic was taken by Boudon’s wife in Laguna Seca after Mertins race and Christian Boudon gave it to me as a part of his archives with the right to publish. He used this picture in other different articles but this picture is his.
Thank you very much for taking care of those legal matters, I might make mistakes but for now I keep it under the rules and advices of Wikipedia.
I am waiting to hear from you soon .Jp..baudrand (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply on my talk page. If you can send a letter similar to the one suggested at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries to permissions-en@wikimedia.org affirming that you have the legal rights you mentioned, that permission will be kept on file and someone with m:OTRS access will "tag" the image pages with a note letting Wikipedia administrators know that the copyright has been verified. Thanks. --B (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I had to finish off something and step away from my computer. Thanks for letting me know about the bot; I confess that I kind of appreciate the olden days when you had to do everything by hand :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)14:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
About " Also, for things like File:2005 Robert-Wickens-email-Christian-Boudon .jpg or File:1988 New-Racing-Concept 20.jpg, the copyright belongs to whoever wrote the letter " I couldn't be more explicit in my email to OTRS. I am presently working at Mr. Boudon office and have the original email from Robert Wickens saved in his external hard disk...about the New Racing Concept letter, Mr. Christian Boudon is named in the second paragraphe, second line as the owner that would be glad to receive customers...that cannot be more explicit...
If those documents cannot be copyright can you please delete them from the Web as the Formula One driver Robert Wickens is named in clear words and that the New Racin Concept document contains the official numbers of the New Racing Company that could be used by others, thank you in advance.
Regarding " I notice that File:2009 Boudon-Mertins-Atlantic .jpg was previously published " yes it was because Mr. Boudon sent that picture to help an article in a French magazine...I made it clear Mr. Boudon gave me the rights to publish his material in my email to OTRS...again, if the copyright cannot be established can you please delete this picture from the web?
I don't have access to the OTRS emails. If you have emailed them, then you should either receive a reply asking followup questions or one of the OTRS volunteers will tag the images with {{OTRS}} to indicate that the permission has been received. --B (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ksnow. When you copy an image like File:Wappen Brand Laaben.gif from another Wikipedia, you need to say who actually created the image. At de:Datei:Wappen Brand Laaben.gif, there is lots of information about this image that isn't mentioned here. With some of the images you uploaded, there are copies of similar versions at Wikimedia Commons already and so it's easier to just delete them. What I am asking for your permission to do is to delete the ones that are either unused or where there is a similar image at Commons, rather than going through the pro forma steps of nominating them for deletion and flooding your talk page with hundreds of deletion notices. --B (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
What I am asking is what a complete attribution looks like. I would rather fix them than have them deleted. Ksnow (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Kasnow
You can use the template {{Information}}. But there are two separate issues: (1) some of your uploads have already been moved to Commons. Images at Commons do not need to also be stored locally. They can/should be deleted, but there is a pro forma process for doing so. What I am asking for permission to do is to dispense with that pro forma process and simply delete these. There's no point in wasting time updating attribution information for these since that information is correct at Commons and as soon as I delete the local copy, the Commons version will show through. (2) Some of your uploads are not at Commons. One of two things needs to happen here - either (a) copy the relevant information from the page that you got it from or (b) move the other version to Commons. If you will give me permission to do so, I will take care of problem #1 without slamming your talk page with hundreds of notifications. Then you can take care of problem #2 with the rest of your uploads. --B (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Just read your comment - excellent analogy. Unfortunately it will probably be accepted just by pure community support (almost 10:1 in favor), but I think it is a mistake - Stewards suffice. Anyway, nice to see someone else who does not like the idea and can state it quite well. :) ToaNidhiki0522:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok
so if the image of Caylee didn't meet NFCC 8, why does this one? They both serve the same purpose, to show a victim. And just for the record, I'm not trying to sound bitter or that I'm harping on the outcome of the FfD, just wonder why the two images served the same encyclopedic purpose yet the one was deleted after you nom'd it. chris†ianrocker9006:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Who says it does? Also, let's remember that when I nominated the Caylee Anthony picture, the article was about the trial, not about Caylee Anthony. --B (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Yet mid FfD it switched back to being about Caylee and you didn't withdraw it. The article was about Caylee when I uploaded it and was about her when the FfD ended. *sigh* Now I do sound like I'm harping on it, and I apologize. chris†ianrocker9019:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to reply to your questions in my RFA later, but I have responded to the issues you mentioned on my talk page. I probably screwed the second one up though, as I have next to no knowledge of image copyright. I had to look up WP:NFCC just to answer your question, and will have to do so again when I answer the RFA questions.... Oh well, cheers anyway! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, no worries. I fully understand that Wikipedia's image policies are confusing and, in some cases, counterintuitive. I think that the most important thing is not that every admin becomes an expert in copyright law (which would exclude most of us), but, rather, the purpose of the exercise is simply to demonstrate an understanding that sometimes, though there are images that we would like to use under a claim of fair use, we intentionally limit ourselves on order to promote free content. --B (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you kindly
Thank you for your support
Thank you for your question and support at my RfA. Fair use is one of those issue that I've only barely touched on WP thus far, and one I will thoroughly research before ever taking admin actions with. I sincerely hope to live up to your and the community's expectations. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I should like to point you to User talk:Haymaker#Proposed interaction restrictions between you and User:Roscelese where you have been named as a possible candidate for the position of one third of an admin triumvirate. The requirements are basically to ensure the enforcement of the ban, advise the parties as required, and contribute such comments as desired in any "admin discussion" - and, um, agree to any consensus arising. If this is the sort of thing that does not have you recoiling in horror, I should be grateful for a response at User talk:Haymaker. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I was editing the last three World War II sites to finish the Category:World War II sites, however, Manxruler believes they are unneccessary. Yes, edit categories not subcategorized can go for more many pages for a category page, although, I am hoping he would keep his patience, about me and for many other new users, since he has never completed to delete Santo Tomas Internment Camp. I hope I can, freely, continue to do last edits for the World War II sites, before anything unusual sprinkles out. --Corusant (yadyadyada) 18:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Umm, I have no idea what this is pertaining to. If there is something you want me to look at, please provide diffs, but I would suggest (1) attempting to resolve it with the editor directly followed by (2) seek dispute resolution or, if there is an immediate need to resolve, (2a) bring the issue to an appropriate noticeboard such as WP:ANI. --B (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I really like the "Autumn colors" photo you uploaded and just added it to the tech article. More info in your wiki email.PumpkinSkytalk18:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
List of richest American politicians
Good call removing the rankings. It might be a good idea to update some of the numbers using this. I'd do so myself but I don't have much time today. Hot Stop12:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Question
I'm really curious to hear your views on the upcoming Presidential election. But at the same time, I'm usually relatively hesitant to discuss politics on Wikipedia, and asking someone about their political views is always sort of a personal question - the sort that I often decline to respond to myself. So no pressure, but I'm curious about your thoughts, if you feel like this is a comfortable venue in which to discuss them (if not, then no worries). Either way, hope things are going well. Cheers. MastCellTalk19:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Romney wasn't my first choice for a candidate (although once we got down to Romney, Newt, Santorum, Perry, and Bachmann, there was no question Romney was the best of those ... and, well, honestly, the only sane one of those). I would have liked Bobby Jindal, Mitch Daniels, or Tim Pawlenty more than Romney. But, Jindal and Daniels didn't run and Pawlenty never developed a following, so it is what it is. I think Romney is a "no nonsense" kind of guy with a lot of business acumen - and I'd kinda like to see him have a chance to take a hatchet to the budget. I'm not one of those Republicans who says heck no we can't have taxes ever, but I think that before coming to us and asking for more money, the government needs to trim out the absurdly wasteful spending. There's a way of doing things that just has to change - if you've ever worked for the government or done any government contracting, you know that there's an attitude of "we have money left on this year's budget so we have to spend it" and there's a lot of bureaucrats who have no interest in being good stewards of taxpayer money because it's not their money they're spending. We need someone who is going to fundamentally change that attitude. I have no idea if Romney is that person, but I sure know that Obama isn't. Our debt has been run up so high that this crappy economy is actually a blessing right now - if interest rates start to climb, then our borrowing costs will go through the roof and, just like the guy who got an adjustable rate mortgage, we're going to spend every dime just paying interest on the debt. It actually costs us less to finance the debt right now than it did when Clinton was President, even though our debt is a whole lot higher. But it's not going to be that way forever and if we keep pretending that it is, we're in for some real trouble in about five years. I have no idea if Romney will make the tough choices that are necessary and make real cuts to the budget, but I know Obama won't. --B (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
That's not bad... are you running for office yourself?
I was surprised (as I think a lot of people were) by the weakness of the Republican field this year. I think that for all the talk about Obama's vulnerability, a lot of potential GOP candidates calculated that he's still a formidable politician (and an incumbent), and the Democratic ranks are pretty thin behind him - so they have much better odds in 2016. I suspect you'll see all of those people - Daniels, Jindal, Pawlenty, Chris Christie - throw their hats in the ring in 2016. They're keeping their powder dry, which of course left the 2012 field with a bunch of frankly somewhat risible characters. Romney was probably the only credible candidate among them.
I don't doubt Romney's business acumen, but I also don't see that business acumen is necessarily all that relevant for a President. Presiding over the national economy is just very different from running a business, and I think it's dangerous to conflate the two. The most highly qualified business leader to become President in the last 100 years was Herbert Hoover, and he drew all the wrong conclusions from his meteoric success in the corporate world. If you're a household, or a business, facing a major deficit, then of course it makes sense to cut spending as a primary approach. But those are open systems, where money will continue to come in from outside your household or business. If you cut spending at the national level in a recession, you take money out of circulation in a (relatively) closed system, which isn't going to help you get out of the recession. Admittedly, I'm not an economist, but that principle (articulated more effectively by economists like Paul Krugman) makes sense to me.
The problem is that the Republican base demands zero tax increases as absolute dogma. Right now, the dominant Republican economic proposal seems to be to cut billions in spending aimed at the poorest and most vulnerable Americans, while refusing to raise taxes by a cent on the wealthy. Are we really that kind of country? I can accept the conservative idea that we need to cut spending, but it seems utterly lacking in any sort of political or moral courage to exempt the Pentagon from those budget cuts, for example, and to ask the most vulnerable to bear virtually the entire burden.
Besides which, if there's one lesson from the Great Depression, it's that we can't simply cut our way out of this recession. And that's the problem with Romney. It would take someone with substantial political courage to stand up to the more extreme wing of the Republican Party and its unrealistic demands for massive spending cuts with zero revenue increase. I think we both know that political courage is not exactly Romney's forte.
I'm not sure I share your low opinion of Obama's economic policies - the auto bailout is probably the most prominent example of an instance where he acted against essentially universal Republican opposition with an incredibly positive result. Of course he could have done better, but I'm willing to cut him some slack because - in my view - he inherited an economy whose fundamentals had essentially been destroyed by a combination of external factors (the worldwide recession) and incredibly inept domestic policy. I don't think the economy would be better today if Obama had cut spending more aggressively, although of course that's my personal conjecture. I think he's done OK, within the constraints of a Congress determined to delay or block his every policy initiative.
I guess for me the main issues in this election aren't even economic, though. I work in a scientific field, and I don't see how anyone who values science as a human endeavor can vote for a party that seems to revel in anti-intellectualism and to view science as a suspicious, partisan left-wing enterprise. I can totally understand having different ideas about a public-policy response to climate change, but I can't understand the effort to demolish the scientific understanding of reality upon which any sane public policy would be based. And it's not just cast as a scientific disagreement - it seemed like the Republican presidential candidates were competing to see who could attribute the most nefarious and conspiratorial motivations to the scientific community. That's not even getting into the efforts to undermine the teaching of evolutionary biology, or the efforts to compel physicians to lie to their patients about the health risks of induced abortion. And it's not even getting into social issues more generally.
But sorry, I've said enough, and I appreciate your thoughtful and direct response. You're a very articulate and compelling exponent of your viewpoint, which is why I was interested in your thoughts on the election. Hope things are going well for you - it's always good to see your name pop up on my watchlist. :) Cheers. MastCellTalk16:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Bejnar (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't remember why I would have added them, but I'm going out on a limb and guessing that there were probably IDs in whatever I was copying it from and I just assumed that it was a standard practice to include them. I was strictly a C++ guy back then and didn't really know web standards so I doubt I even knew what HTML IDs were. (Obviously, I do know what they are now and if I were creating the template today, I wouldn't add IDs just for the sake of adding them.) --B (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey, just saw you were the guy who created Portal:American football back during the Neolithic Age. I was wondering what you think about its new look, which I created in 2011-12 after practically everything on that page fell into disuse. I've been meaning to ask you this for some time, just didn't know who you were (as in, I didn't know who created the portal). Buggie111 (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks fine ... I always liked the dated things better, but if nobody is able to maintain it, we can't really do those. The one thing I do notice is that a few of the selections are coming up as red links ... they either need to have everything filled in or be hidden until they are filled in. --B (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind that where the infobox appears relative to the article text depends on your monitor size or if you are reading on a mobile device. And having two pictures in there makes it really huge. --B (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Reading comprehension
Apparently, both you and I fail at it. The first time I read the disambig page, I saw that there were multiple films named Thief. So I moved the film page. It was only after review of the relevant Wikdiata entry, followed by review of the disambig page, that I realized that there was only actually one film named Thief. The rest all had a "The " prepended to them... Naturally, this was after I had edited the redirect. Oops.
Regarding [11]: I'm confused. That template links to nothing. I don't know why What links here says that. Please tell me which articles still contain that template. Thank you kindly, and sorry for the trouble. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
{{MOE-Recognized English Medium Medical Schools (China)}} contains a lot of history. It is arguable that it needs to be retained for purposes of attribution since you have merged its contents into another page. But even if it doesn't need to be retained (it may not need to be if it doesn't rise to the level of being a creative work), we can't just delete it under the guise of being a misnamed redirect - that rule is for if you move an article called "Appple" to "Apple", not for when you merge "Apple sauce" into "Apple". As for {{WHO-Recognized English Medium Medical Schools (China)}}, what links here still shows a lot of inbound links (albeit not transclusions). Maybe the view or edit button on the new template is pointing to the wrong place? --B (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Let's just leave it as is. It was a bit of an odd one, as it was combining two templates into one. I was worried about using a redirect for a navbox, and thought it messy having 4 old names hanging around and redirecting to the current name. So, the rightly-named template is now in each article to bypass the redirect. Considering the history, you are right to avoid deletion on any or all of these. They're not in use, but as they area cheap and contain histories, sure, leave them. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I have a question for you. I work a little in the image space, and there have been a few images recently, that have needed more discussion. Sometimes various admins relist them on newer pages to attempt to generate a better consensus. Are these relists admin only? Or can a non-involved experienced editor relist a stale discussion? Thanks in advance for your response. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know of any policy one way or the other. As long as it's done correctly and not to excess, I wouldn't see any harm in it, but that's just my personal opinion. --B (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your speedy response. It just seems like there has not been very many active admins working FFD recently, and I want to help out in ant non-admin way I can. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Shirt58 RfA
Hi B, I noted you recently opposed Shirt58's RfA in part due to his non-answering of questions. Shirt58 has now explained that this was in part due to a car accident and has since answered some questions. I was wondering if you might come back to the RfA page and take another look. WormTT(talk) 11:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Can I just thank you for coming back to the RfA? I do appreciate the time you took on writing that comment and you raised some very valid points. Hopefully Shirt58 will take them into account for his future editing, whether or not he passes. WormTT(talk) 08:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
As ТимофейЛееСуда argued based on NFCC#8, the text of the article was sufficient to communicate the information. Under NFCC#8, we only use non-free images where the reader's understanding would be impaired by the lack of one. This is the case with something like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or Kent State shootings where their respective iconic photos are inextricably linked with these events. I read the discussion and read the relevant portion of the article and didn't see how that was the case here. The selection of this image is arbitrary and decorative - not something that enhances a reader's understanding. It was even miscaptioned ("The Legendary Marvin Pontiac") so that someone casually scrolling through the article would think that it was a serious photo. --B (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi B. The discussion on the File:Junta swearing-in ceremony.jpg has died down. As I no longer care that much about this rather protracted affair I would request if you have the time to close the discussion and delete the file. Thank you again for all your help. Take care. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις21:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course I am ready to delete the image if any infringement has occur from my part. On the other hand, in the website (http://ferradanoli.wordpress.com/miguel/) from which the image has been taken to be posted elsewhere in the internet, it is given "Photos below are of my private collection, and I post them here for public domain (copyright exempted)".
If in spite of the above explanation you'd insist that I will have to remove the file, please indicate where exactly should I place the tag that you indicated.
Sorry to bother but it is the first time I am dealing with uploading of photos in Wikipedia.
---
I thank you so much for fixing the image description and attribution. And for pointing out the right procedure, which I am now aware of.
Thanks/.T8793
Toronto8793 (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism on Dana Brunetti
Actually, none of the 'jokey' references were intentional (I wrote this in notepad and pasted it). I did some quick revisions inline, then after your reversion realized I left them in when I put it in wikipedia. I took all the jokey references out, and doublechecked them all.
I'm not 100% sure why the photo got a speedydelete request, but I went ahead and found another one and explained the fair use rationale. If I could make one small request, please be careful if you make any other edits; it took some time to find the references and other pieces to make it more complete.
I have a few other edits for the 'Digital Media' section that would be pretty interesting, but need to do them later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcr (talk • contribs) 22:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
If you click on the photos in those articles, you will see that they were taken by someone who released their photo under an acceptable license - either releasing all rights to it or publishing it under a free content license such as the GFDL or an acceptable Creative Commons license. --B (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not even sure this is possible, but I'm looking to undelete a file that was deleted because it was orphaned. I'm not sure whether it was specified in the file permissions, but we have permission to use this logo. My guess is that I forgot to include the permissions when I originally uploaded, which caused it to be removed from the article per NFCC and later deleted. If you could restore it, if that's possible, I'd appreciate it and be able to correct any permissions issue to prevent this going forward. Thanks jheivtalkcontribs19:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi jheiv, I have undeleted the requested file and reset the timer to today (you can remove the template when you add it to an article) ... though from looking at the image, I don't see that this image is appropriate for fair use in Sean Plott if that's where you are planning to use it. We generally use logos in an article about the organization itself, but not in an article about someone who founded or works for the organization. --B (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks B, the logo was sent to me along with the standard press packet after I requested a better bio to improve the article last year. I originally tagged it with Template:Non-free_promotional, but it was later removed. I do think it helps the reader understand Sean Plott, the article I had added it to and was thinking about re-adding it to, but I could see that being debatable. Do you think the Non-free promotional tag would help ensure it's stay, or do you think it's doomed nonetheless? Thanks jheivtalkcontribs15:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's a logo, not a promotional image, so the {{Non-free promotional}} template is definitely not right. The issue isn't finding the right hoop to jump through - the issue is whether or not the logo is necessary for the reader's understanding of the topic. If the article is about the organization itself, then our theory behind having a logo is it helps the user know what company the article is about ("oh, THAT Microsoft"). Whether this logic is good, bad, or indifferent, it's a harder argument to make when the article isn't about the entity itself and, as you say, it's likely doomed regardless. --B (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight. In that case, I won't bother re-adding it and taking up peoples' time (as I already have yours). It's (obviously) your call if you want to go ahead and re-delete or just let it expire, but I won't re-add it to the article so it'll remain orphaned. Thanks again for the explanation. jheivtalkcontribs18:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The tone of voice is beside the point, I think my arguments here are well laid-out. My point is that old logos are OK for WP articles - as I say, BBC and NBC are cases in point where there are full separate articles. Even without a separate article - e.g. the LA Clippers have all 3 of their logos in their article, and I could list a myriad of other articles here that have all of their old logos within the article text. I do believe galleries should be acceptable, especially as there is not so much to say about these particular 3 logos as to actually have an entire explanatory section on them, when the Vivacom article is, for the minute, clearly short - hence why I opted for the gallery view.
But did Stefan2 need to just a) delete them from the article and b.) nominate them for deletion from Wikipedia itself? Clearly not. He could have merely interspersed them as thumbnails along the right-hand side of the article, say, or asked me to do so. Right? I did initially think of that myself, but, entirely stylistically I thought gallery view looked better. I'm all for proposing it as a policy that galleries should be acceptable, precisely because in certain articles they appear better stylistically. But the logos themselves are part of the company history and all WP company articles do try to include all their past logos, where they can. BigSteve (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with figuring out which category my image needed to be in. I'd never done this before and I honestly wouldn't have been able to save the image without you.
Konstantinos (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome - glad to help. Our image policies and practices can be very confusing. --B (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if you've noticed this, but a user apparently started a discussion about you and me without telling us at WP:VPP#Historical logos. Also, there was apparently a short discussion about the same thing at WT:NFC. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the help regarding image permissions. I've never contributed an image before. I have sent the requested statement to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. --Mmhnto (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
See what? There's nothing about The Twilight Zone on the page you gave a link to.
Here's the whole story: On March 20, AldezD erroneously requested deletion of an image, I guess thinking that this article was about the original series. Then, Stefan2 makes an off-topic and irrelevant comment, evidently also thinking that the article was about the original series (which is why I changed the title to The Twilight Zone (franchise)). Then, after explaining it to AldezD, he moved it from the infobox to the section about the 1985 series. Which led me to say, "Issue resolved," which was the last thing said in the discussion, until all of a sudden you remove the image without being involved in the discussion. So, again, where is the violation? --Musdan77 (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what was irrelevant about Stefan2's comment. It seemed perfectly clear and relevant to me. Wikipedia only permits images to be used under a claim of fair use if they significantly increase the reader's understanding of a topic and their omission would be detrimental to that understanding (WP:NFCC#8). The reason that Wikipedia accepts any logos under a claim of fair use at all is under the theory that they help the reader to identify the subject of the article ("oh, that Microsoft"). This is highly questionable logic, but it is our current practice nonetheless. "Historic logos" or "alternate logos" have been a matter of some question in various debates on IFD and elsewhere. In other words, the question is, if you have one Twilight Zone logo, do you really need a second one in order to tell what the Twilight Zone franchise is? Different IFD discussions have answered this question in different ways. However, since you have asked nicely, I have relisted the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_March_28#File:The_Twilight_Zone_1985.jpg so that a clearer consensus may be obtained on whether the updated use is acceptable under our rules. Please feel free to opine there. --B (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Got an opinion about this file? I think it looks as if it might be a screenshot from a TV broadcast, but I'm not sure. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Dubious, but considering that it was uploaded less than an hour ago by a brand new user, I think asking him and politely informing him of our image policies is a better alternative than guessing. I have posted a message on his talk page. --B (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Liam Watson
What exactly is inappropriate about a manager sharing a hug with his chairman after winning the league? Narom (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Nothing whatsoever. What was inappropriate — and what I changed in this edit — was having that image in the infobox for a biography with no context given to the reader. The reader, just from looking at that picture would not have had a clue which of those two people the article was about or what was going on. Are they father and son? Are they brothers? Are they a married couple? Pictures where there is something going on need context, not to just be dropped into an infobox. I moved the photo down to the appropriate spot chronologically and gave it a caption that helps the picture make sense. Sure, an alternative would be to leave the photo in the infobox but add a caption there, but infobox photos really should just be the person. By leaving the spot blank, there's more of a chance that someone will be motivated to donate a freely licensed photo. --B (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Makes sense, for some reason I thought it may have been deemed offensive :S. Tiredness should stay away from wikipedia. ta! Narom (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Quadrant count ratio
Wow, sorry about the Quadrant count ratio deletion. I've been up too long today and thought I was placing the deletion notice on the old draft in my userspace. Definitely not my intention to delete the actual article. How embarrassing. Douglas Whitaker (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violations cannot be posted to Wikipedia and you don't have email turned on, so I can't email it to you. --B (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, B. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 01:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I said exactly what I meant to say. If you're reading that into what I said, then you're looking for something to be offended at. --B (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Have you seen m:Single User Login finalisation announcement? It seems that the Wikimedia Foundation has decided that you and I won't have to keep maintaining separate accounts for Commons after the end of this month and that the Wikimedia Foundation forcibly will rename all conflicting accounts, presumably making lots of users upset. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow. I had not seen that - thanks for pointing it out. I'm certainly thrilled, but I can't imagine that the Commons user:B (who was an active user on :de as de:User:Balû as recently as November of last year) would be too happy. I wish they would provide some kind of capability for merging accounts ... like if I could get my Commons:User:UserB contributions merged into my (what will be newly created) Commons:User:B account. --B (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
A lot of people will probably be upset. de:User:Stefan2 was active as recently as August last year. I asked on Meta and it sounded as if stewards will be able to rename and attach my Commons:User:Stefan4 account to my Stefan2 SUL account. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I made a similar request at meta and COM:BN, so I guess I'll see what they say. I thought the current system was fine - keep it as is for legacy accounts but going forward require user names to be unique. There's obviously a maintenance hassle with having to maintain hundreds of different user databases, but the hassle of countless many Wikipedians suddenly not being able to log in because their account was renamed without them knowing would seem to be even worse. I'd think it would make more sense to do it in an orderly fashion ... maybe auto-rename only those accounts who have no non-deleted edits in the last two years ... then handle active users on a case-by-case basis. --B (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that the chosen method is awfully disruptive for lots of users. I don't want to be the messenger here - the German user might think that I am the user who decided that he must rename. I won't do anything until the WMF has acted. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a very good point too. And at least in your case, you know what's going on so if he were to complain to you, you'd at least be prepared for it. But there's probably hoards of less active users who will be affected. One of them has 100 edits on their wiki and one has 101 on their's. So the account with 101 "wins" but neither one of them has a clue what is going on. The one with 100 screams why did you rename me, but 101 has no earthly idea what he is talking about. Incidentally, the German guy who has B on Commons has had it since before I did. In 2007, there was a "single letter name" craze on Wikipedia and a gold rush to usurp them while they were available. But Commons B has had his name since July 2005 - before I even joined Wikipedia. Seeing it from his perspective, he'd certainly have a legitimate beef, but it is what it is. --B (talk)
Do you have an opinion about this? A user removed three discussions from yesterday's page and they weren't restored until today. Should the discussions be relisted in case someone missed them? Please reply in that section on my talk page so that this discussion isn't split up more than necessary. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Journal_of_Physical_Chemistry_B.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Jpcbfk_big_031804.jpg){kind=link}
