This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Images
Hi Andrew,
I still don't understand, about how to put an image on Wikipedia
if I want to put an image, then I should have a licence right ?
then what about those images on an article, who put them and how. I mean do they have the licence ?
I have nominated The Foreshadowing, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Foreshadowing. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. GtstrickyTalk or C 12:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
See User talk:Howitzer666#The Foreshadowing. I didn't create this article. I speedy deleted it, then userfied it on request. I asked the user to get a second opinion before bringing it live, but I had no control over if and when it was brought back into the main article namespace. -Andrew c[talk] 14:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Andrew, I hope you don't mind asking you the following directly - If you prefer I can ask at the helpdesk either? Anyway -File:Eliphas levi.jpg is another Commons file that states "en wiki" as source, but which is now deleted here. I think the license is very likely (PD-Old) but it'd be nice to have the source perhaps. Could you paste in any info? Thanks and kind regards from Commons, Deadstar (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Done Doesn't look there was much information there. Due to the death date of the person depicted, the PD claim is plausible (but we'd need to know the photographers death date or the original publication date to know for sure). Feel free to contact me personally anytime you need something like this (but I can't guarentee I will respond always in a timely manner :Þ) -Andrew c[talk] 15:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
That's great - Thanks very much! I'll see if I can find out any more about this particular image. I will probably ask you again in future & don't worry about any delay, most of these have been without info for years - a bit longer doesn't matter much :) Deadstar (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for creating this and doing it with such verve. It was frustrating to see it repeatedly sunk; I'm sure that won't be the case again! Seegoon (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks (and thanks for fixing the cats... must of slipped my mind). Although it pales in comparison to Guitar Method. I must say that your work on that article was simply incredible. I was shocked to see such an in depth, well written article on that, of all albums. Kudos. -Andrew c[talk] 19:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
That's great to hear – I wasn't sure if anyone would ever visit it if I'm honest. Beyond that, I was concerned that it might not meet notability! Secretly, though, I like having a little niche on Wikipedia that I can consider myself personally to thank for. Seegoon (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, I've just given Deathwish Inc. a quick cleanup. It could do with a new logo image, though. The label themselves make thesetwo available in their press area. Do you think that combining them into one smaller .png with some transparency would be the way to go? Is that kosher? Seegoon (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, combining the two would be ok I guess. I could do this later tonight.-Andrew c[talk] 01:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
How very efficient you are! That's awesome. Seegoon (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Number of the Beast
Andrew, could you look at Number of the Beast for me? One of Xicsies' additions I don't think you ever commented on, has been re-added. It is referenced off of a webpage for a documentary that aired on British tv. I don't think that comes up to snuff as a RS. Raquell 666 seems to like it, as does the user who initially added it years ago. (Related discussion is in the July 08 thread on Xicsies' talk.) Xicsies has claimed the agreement of these two with him as consensus. Could you please comment on whether or not you find it appropriate? carl bunderson(talk)(contributions) 20:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Point taken, sir. Thank you for directing me to that. RavShimon (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Licensing Issues of Images that I Created
Thanks for making me aware that I was not fully licensed for my images on my article Central Broadcast News. I have sent an email to the link you gave me, placing the images under GFDL. Would you kindly remove the warnings from the affected images? Thanks. -Kw2957[talk]—Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC).
The person who handles the e-mail you sent in will remove the warnings, if the information is verified. -Andrew c[talk] 13:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Categorization
User:Chronicler proposed to me to reorganize categories of books and manuscripts (Категоризация рукописей). They were not always categorized in a good way (e.g. 11th-century books for biblical manuscripts). It is good idea. It will take a lot of time, but we do not have choice. Some work was made, and you can see results here:
Hi, could you check the source/author for me for deleted en: contribution File:El Khiam.jpg, now residing on commons? Thanks & hope you feel better soon. Deadstar (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I added the upload log, but there was simply no more information (El Khiam point, PPNA (schematic)).-Andrew c[talk] 16:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least we know that we're not missing something vital. Thanks once again. Deadstar (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
File:FirstMoviola.jpg
Hi Andrew - hope you had a good Easter. Another one from me. Probably no source mentioned on en: wiki, but at least it's checked. File:FirstMoviola.jpg on Commons states "en: wiki" as the source. Thanks very much. Deadstar (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Andrew. I got your email, re: getting access to the photo submissions queue. Do you have an OTRS account? Raul654 (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have an OTRS account.-Andrew c[talk] 18:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I've approved your request on the OTRS wiki. I don't know how long it usually takes for an OTRS admin to push it through. Raul654 (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks. Those OTRS admins are usually pretty quick.-Andrew c[talk] 18:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Crucifixion Eclipse
Andrew, if you have a moment and you would not mind, perhaps you could offer a third opinion in a dispute on this page, which you have edited before. As I see it, it's about 2 things - (a) whether a reference to one particular article suggesting the crucifixion took place on 3 April 33 represents undue weight in favour of that view; and (b) whether a citation on the issue from a book on the Gospel of Matthew is sufficient because it is only a book about Matthew and only mentions it 'in passing'. (Although from the context it appears to me to cover the issue as a whole and in reasonable detail).
Any contribution from you would be very helpful if you could manage it. Thanks.--Rbreen (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry.
Hey I'm sorry for mis-using the POV tag. I will read up on it. Take care. Designer1993 (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
No problems. Good luck.-Andrew c[talk] 19:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Problem editor (again/still)
Greetings, Andrew c. I notice last month you blocked Vegavairbob (talk·contribs) for excessive image upload abuse and copyvio. I have had to intervene today in his attempts to insert MPOV text into Economy car, and in taking a look at his talk page, it appears he has carried right on with the same violations and abuses starting immediately after his 31-hour block expired. He does not seem interested in understanding how to contribute constructively. What's your recommendation here? Thanks —ScheinwerfermannT·C06:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
As this isn't related to image abuse (and thus my previous block), perhaps it may be better to take it to ANI for other outside opinions. It isn't entirely clear to me what Vegavairbob is doing wrong. Seems like a content dispute? If that is the case, ANI won't help, and you should consider WP:DR. Good luck.-Andrew c[talk] 13:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
PunJABI BY NATURE
WHY DID YOU DELETE THE PUNJABI BY NATURE PAGE?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.228.249 (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"WP:CSD A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion"-Andrew c[talk] 13:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Sanders' Historical Figure of Jesus and Thiessen & Merz's Historical Jesus are really really good. More material than I can digest. Leadwind (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Two queries to Administrator Andrew c
1. I would like to enrich a Wikipedia article with an antique photo of the subject person. However I do not know how to insert it into the existing article. Perhaps you could.
2. The portrait photo concerned first appeared in 1899 in a newspaper in Istanbul (then Constantinople, capital of the long defunct Ottoman Empire). A copy of that newspaper is in Budapest with the national library in Hungary ( the O.Sz.K ). A copy of that photo is in my computer file. Would any copyright infringement apply if that photo is inserted? If so, why and who would be holding any copyright?
I refer specifically to the Hungarian Count Ödön Széchenyi ( Gróf Széchenyi Ödön ) who later in his life founded the Fire Department Services in Constantinople, the Ottoman capital (today Istanbul, Turkey). He was in the service of the Ottoman Empire and had reached Pasha (army general) rank owing to his establishing and successful running of the complex fire service across the nation. Pease advise, thank you.--124.179.233.29 (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)124.179.233.29 (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
If it was published before 1923 (and a 1899 newspaper is clearly before 1923), then the copyright has expired, and the image is in the public domain. I don't see why there would be a problem uploading the image due to copyright. If you need help uploading the image, you should contact WP:IFU, assuming the image is posted somewhere online. If you want to e-mail your photo, please check out WP:YOURPHOTO.You may want to be bold and try uploading the image to the Commons ([1]) yourself. There are instructions on how to do it. The important part is to state the source and original publishing date, and to choose the proper Public Domain license from the drop down list of licensing options. Once the image is uploaded, I can also help insert it in the articles if you want. Hope this helps.-Andrew c[talk] 14:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
History
I noticed that you're a long-time editor of Abortion and related articles, so I was wondering if I could pick your brain about the consensus on calling pregnant women "mothers". TruthIIPower (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
i tried to move the jonathan edwards page according to the vote
will you please make it the primary page? see discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osprey9713 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
If you could please move the Jonathan Edwards (theologian) to be the primary page, I would appreciate it. Although other jonathan edwards have been momentarily popular, such as an athelete, politician and the tv person who talked to the dead, jonathan edwards has been well known for 400years and continues to be well known around the world, not just a fad. according to the discussion it needs to be the primary page. I apologize for not moving the page the correct way. As for the Higher Criticism, the page is a mess, and i made some edits, but did not have time to source things... basically the page represents scholarly sources from 50-100yrs ago, and is not the predominate modern view, and should represent the consensus. It is frustrating that every time I add corrections, that they are deleted in favor of popular knowledge. someone else can add the sources. {{citation}}: Empty citation (help)Osprey9713 (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
"A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: +G11". The letter/number codes are explained fuller at WP:CSD. -Andrew c[talk] 03:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
What program are you using? With Inkscape, it's quite easy. Just go to File>Document properties. And then change the "Custom size". It may help to "select all/ctl-a" before you do this. And you may need to resize the image to add a border around it. -Andrew c[talk] 13:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: "I can't help but think your request for assistance was only trying to team up on the other party, not an honest effort to resolve the dispute."
Then you're not very good at reading, are you? The difference between you and me is thus: Your horribly transparent attempt at an apologetic insult above is founded on nothing, whereas my request for your help (consider me another person who has learned his lesson about wp editors and their "help") was innocent, and if you had merely read the edit history of the document in question (you probably don't have time for that, being such a bigshot and all) you would have been able to answer your own insulting insinuation above and never embarrassed yourself by having made it.
The worst part of your pathetic little insult is that you are implicitly admitting that you have no time to read. There is no other way to read it. Clearly, if you had read, you'd know the other party was npov and I was reverting his edits to an edit *not even my own*.
And teaming up? What is this, are you playing out some fantasy where we're all back in your elementary school playground and finally you're not being bullied, but in charge? Seek help.
And unless you have anything but an apology for your slur of my character above, don't bother replying. If you think it's acceptable to imply a perfect stranger is basically "probably dishonest" on their own fucking talk page, perhaps it's time for you to check out. -Ayeroxor (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't take this the wrong way, but you seriously need to chill. Being "right" or "more NPOV" isn't a justification to violate the 3-revert rule. I think Andrew c is trying to tell you that next time you may well be blocked. Take it as a word to the wise or ignore it - your choice - but I think if you re-read what you've written, you might agree that you're overreacting. MastCellTalk 21:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
How do you update the file without clicking on the "Upload a new version of this file" button. I can see that there is a "Original upload log" section. The "File History" section also only shows a picture, not two. How do you do that? I always have problem when updating images, for example File:West Ham United FC.svg, it has four thumbnails instead of one. I hope that you can help me to solve this thing. Thanks. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 11:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I used "Upload a new version of this file" and then I deleted the old version, and copy and pasted the original upload log in a new section so that you still had credit for the image. Typically, you don't need to delete old revisions, but if the old revision violates WP:NFCC, such as it being too large, then it may be necessary to delete them. And deletion is an admin action, so if you aren't an admin you can request deletion by means of Template:Non-free reduced. -Andrew c[talk] 13:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
File:G c1877kotek.jpg
Hi Andrew - could you do a quick check for a source on the deleted File:G c1877kotek.jpg for the Commons namesake? I've no doubt it's in the PD because of age, but a source besides "en: wiki" would be good. Thanks once again. Deadstar (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no new information was at the deleted file. I added the original upload log thoutgh.-Andrew c[talk] 12:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Dawn Bard also violated Revert Rule
Dawn Bard also make three reverts. Shouldn't she be reported as well?--Minimidgy (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances.
I don't like that Dawn Bard was also contributing to the multiple reverting, but that user did not break 3RR. In situations where you find yourself caught for editing abuse, it isn't helpful to try to point the blame at other parties. Take responsibility for your actions, show remorse, and promise not to do it again. -Andrew c[talk] 12:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Pro-choice
I left you a question on the discussion page. Alec Fischer (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Contraception
Hi, you wrote, "Restore redirect. The technical differences between the terms can be discussed in one article. If someone is looking for information generally on birth control and/or contraception, it should be in one article, and the terms have significant overlap when they aren't being used synonymously."
I responded, "Merely restoring the redirect will delete the content on the page at present. Should the content be added to the original page if there is a redirect?"
I don't oppose restoring the redirect if the content is not lost. If you think that the content should go somwehere else, then I'm open to suggestion. I looked, and nowhere on en-wikipedia was there an entry which even defined contragestion prior to my additions. The individual who nominated the page for deletion contends that I've added self-published or unsourced or nreliably sourced original research and it should just be deleted. I oppose this strongly.
--OckRaz (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Please don't hound me on my talk page regarding comments I made that you disagree with. Please keep the deletion discussion on the deletion discussion page. Thank you. -Andrew c[talk] 14:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
My intent was not to hound. I've never even looked at a delete pg before today so am in unexplored territory. I do have a technical question. What is the policy on dictionaries? Specifically- using http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ Is it really not acceptable as a source of definitions? OckRaz (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- - - - -
Hi, I'm writing about the Etienne-Emile Baulieu 'coined' vs 'promoted' edit. In the article that I cited (Contragestion and other Clinical Applications of RU 486, an Antiprogesterone at the Receptor, Science, New Series, Vol. 245, No. 4924 Sep. 22, 1989) he wrote,
"Contraception is an abbreviation of contra-conception. Contemporary
science has shown that "conception" cannot be thought of as
only fertilization. The continuum of the reproductive process includes
meiosis before fertilization, implantation (a process taking
several days), and several steps necessary for the proper development
of the embryo. Many methods of fertility control are not strictly
"contraception" in the commonest sense of the term (Fig. 5): the
intrauterine device (IUD), hormonal contraception based on progestin
only, postcoital contraception, or a possible antipregnancy
vaccine opposing the activity of hCG. Indeed, postfertilization
interruption is an everyday process that most women have experienced
at some time, even though they may not be aware of it.
Therefore I propose a new word: "contragestion" (a contraction of
contra-gestation), stressing the quite natural aspects of fertility and
the control thereof."
It was right at the end, so you might have missed it. I guess that 'I propose a new word' may not be the same as coining it, but I thought that he was taking credit for it, and other sources I've read have given him credit.
The OED says,
"Birth control effected after fertilization has occurred, either by preventing the implantation of the ovum in the uterine wall or by disrupting gestation at an early stage, causing abortion...
[1971 Rep. Family Planning July 20/1 Once-a-month contraprogestational pill.]
[1973 SEGAL & ATKINSON in H.J. & J.D. Osofsky Abortion Experience xix. 403 The possibility exists..that the contragestational activity of estrogenic compounds may be independent of their general estrogenicity.]
[1985 E.-E. BAULIEU in Baulieu & Segal Antiprogestin Steroid RU486 & Human Fertility Control 2 The term contragestion (for contra-gestation) is proposed to cover all aspects of fertility control interfering with the establishment or continuation of early pregnancy.]
[1987 Contraception XXXV. 426 The dose was lowered in this contragestion study. 1989 Daily Mail 24 Oct. 13/1 Its fundamental action is similar to that of..the IUD or coil, both of which make it impossible for the pregnancy to be sustained. Doctors call this method of fertility control, contragestion.]"
Notice that Baulieu is cited as using the word first (although words which were similar did predate him). If there's call to do so in the future, I'll track down the 1985 article to replace the 1989 one that I used.
Again, please don't hound me with long messages regarding content on my talk page. Please use the article talk page to discuss article content. If you really feel my input is particularly more useful than the other editors watching the talk page, then you can leave me a very brief message pointing me to the central discussion. But as I am watching this article, I will probably see your posts you make to the talk page, so notifying me doesn't seem necessary. Thanks.-Andrew c[talk] 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Andrew - same again please for File:Great Fire of Rome.jpg - a file used extensively, but unfortunately no pedigree at all. Thanks once more. Deadstar (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Done-Andrew c[talk] 01:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
MCQ bit
Thanks for your response at WP:MCQ; I asked the question here, rather than there, because I wasn't aware that Commons had something similar. Even now, searching, I can't find the page; would you please give me a link? Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
List of vegetarians
Hi, I'm having a problem with a disruptive editor who insists on adding unsourced names to the list. User:Ethelh claims that there is no 'rule' that the names have to be sourced and that for me to insist on all names being accompanied by a reference I have to get a 'consensus'. After all the work I don't want to see unsourced names going back on the list so could you make it clear to this editor that everyone on the list has to be accompanied by a reference please. It would be much appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention that issue with these articles is that users Journalist 007 and PRODUCER keep removing the flag and alternative name for Canton 10 (“herceg-bosanska županija”). Thes flag of the county is used by local government and there is no any “alternative” or “official” (imposed from the federal level) –so I believe there should be the flag and coat of arms. The dispute about flag and name should be mentioned in the articles-I do agree. But simple removing-I do not think it is nice.
Regards!
These flags and alternative name was found unconstitutional (for representing one group) by the Bosnian government, stop with your nonsense Croat pov. PRODUCER (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Please do not continue your edit dispute on my talk page. Go to the article's talk page and try to reach an agreement between you. If you need help with the dispute resolution, try one of the methods listed at WP:DR. Please start working together. -Andrew c[talk] 23:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion of Scott Ligertwood page
Hi Andrew -- I've just been reviewing edits to the frequently-vandalised Brooke Fraser page and notice you deleted the page for her fellow Hillsong band member and husband Scott Ligertwood on May 6. I've read your comment on the deletion but the page was a long-standing page which several of us had been curating and I'm surprised you believe it was so bad it deserved speedy deletion. Can you help me understand why please? Since I can't review the page myself any more I can't see if there was any discussion.
(14:49, 6 May 2009 Andrew c (Talk | contribs) deleted "Scott Ligertwood" (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: also, OTRS 2009050610048225, states information is false))Webmink (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The article stated in the first sentence that he was "an Australian musician most known as a guitarist for the Christian worship band Hillsong United", which I've been informed, via OTRS, is entirely false. The only sources in the article were the liner notes, a marriage announcement, and a youtube video. The article consisted of an infobox, a discography, and 3 sentences, one of which is false (and thus making the discography false). If we remove the inaccurate content, we are left with nothing. If you believe you have third party sources that establishes this individual's notability, then feel free to recreate the article using those sources. But as it stands, I cannot recreate the article as it was because of BLP issues most importantly, and notability issues. Hope this explains. Due to the confidential nature of OTRS, I have to be vague in some regards to respect the privacy of others. Thanks for contacting me regarding this matter. You are welcome to contact another OTRS volunteer for review purposes, or bring this matter to deletion review (or just create the article again from scratch if you can write an accurate, sourced article). Good luck to you.-Andrew c[talk] 01:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the rapid explanation. I'm not in a position to check but I believe there have been other OTRS requests surrounding the Brooke Fraser page aimed at causing it to be removed from Wikipedia without good cause, so I'd treat a single complaint surrounding the article with as much scepticism as an unsourced contribution. Since this particular page is somewhat incidental I don't think there's an issue now you've explained. I'd also probably agree over notability if I were a deletionist; I just wish there was a way to leave such explanations on the record for us ordinary mortals! Webmink (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Please note that images which say the uploader created the article can't be tagged with this tag, which says "it is sourced to someone other than the uploader". If you feel someone is trying to pass off an image as their own, you should list it at WP:PUF. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Andrew c. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Tiller
Opps! I really did look. Missed it, sorry! Proxy User (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem at all. -Andrew c[talk] 20:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Abortion terminology
I'd be interested in reading your thoughts about my rationale for using linguistics/etymology (referencing etymological dictionaries) to ensure consistency/neutrality of the terminology. Example of one of my posts:
"Your argument is that we go with actual usage. The problem is that there is no standard medical terminology in actual usage - as evidenced by the wide variation and informality in published medical papers. Actual usage doesn't narrow things down for us. We are left with a pool of scholarly, medical, used words to choose from. To choose from this pool, we need to employ the 'science of language' - linguistics, particularly etymology (Greek for 'the study of true meaning'). There is one standard that has a very strict system of individual terms with no alternatives - scientific classification (which uses Greek/Latin terms) - embryo, homo sapiens, fetus, femina, etc. This is one defined classification scheme we could use. Another (as I mentioned above), are non-scientific terms derived from Latin - prenatal, female, human, male, adult, etc. These classification systems ensure linguistic etymological consistency (ie consistent 'true meaning' of 'language'). Basically, the further removed from the scientific standard, the more colloquial and thus the more connotations and less neutrality, e.g. fetus -> prenatal human -> baby. But if we used words equally removed from the scientific standard, the colloquial level will be the same and we achieve a neutral consistent result in meaning. The issue of neutrality is one solved by linguistics & etymology." Utopial (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Please do not hound me on my talk page about content disputes. Content discussions belong on on article talk pages. Cross posting like this is inappropriate. -Andrew c[talk] 12:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
As I didn't get comments from you in the article talk page, I thought it'd be easier for you if I alerted you to this here directly so that you could then comment on the article talk page. Feel free to remove this section I've added to your talk page and discuss on the article talk page. Utopial (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Please moderate the Regine Velasquez page. So many false claims, there are no citations.
So many users in that page keep on putting false claims about Regine Velasquez' achievements and talent, to the point that they make up fake 'achievements' about her so-called 'reign'. Velasquez is not famous all over the world, she has not sold one million records all over Asia. They keep sensationalizing her page by writing over hyped and false claims such as having a 'palatial house', albums selling over 10X platinum, that Regine rejected the Miss Saigon role, and so much more. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.22.195 (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
No I do not mind
I thought about putting a Baum Stadium image because it is currently in season, and rotating among Baum, Razorback Stadium, and The Bud, but I figured this unencyclopeodic. I do not mind if you call it teamwork at all, thanks for taking the time to issue a compliment in these selfish times. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 01:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Recently, you informed the WikiProject River City about the "Non-free Image use" infringement. I would just like to say that no free alternative can be found as it is the official logo for city. There is no logo that can go in its place. Is there anything that I can do to make it meet the standards for Non-free Imagge use on multiple articles/templates? Andrewmc123 (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
And.. I tihnk "GFDL"-only material is no longer acceptable, isn't it? -- m:drini 15:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
OTRS@eswiki
It'd be really helpful if you create a user page linking to your main page before adding OTRS tags on other wikis, on eswiki several sysops got really confused and puzzled becuase a "new user" was adding tags and didn't know if they were real or fake. -- m:drini 15:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I edited the images again, to try to suffice. Candyo32 (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Image license updates
Re File:Sinclair oil philipsburg.jpg and File:Washoe Theater Marquis.jpg, I've updated the Flickr image permissions. Both are my photos, just didn't think about the fact that my Flickr permissions have the All Rights Reservered default on them; I'll watch out for that in the future. Thanks for the detailed response to my Media Copyright Question!!--Dontexpect (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Julie Benz headshot -- copyvio, flickr uploader doesn't appear to have copyright
So unless a professional photographer is sending stuff to Wikipedia via flickr under an assumed name, I'd say "cbregman" is trying to pull some wool over Wikipedia eyes. There were copyvios in some of the text he tried to the article, too, but those were reverted out. I won't change the image in the article myself, but it really looks to me like the license isn't legit. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I know, by itself, the flickr information seems supicious, but that is why I also added the OTRS ticket number. You can ask another agent to review the situation if you want. I cannot reveal the details, due to privacy, but I can say we do have a clear statement of permission on file. Also, please note the resolution of the image. The file you linked to above is a lower resolution. Meaning, even without the OTRS, the flickr user had access to higher resolution source files that are not available on the web.-Andrew c[talk] 05:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, the editor is the copyright holder of the text in question, so without a permission ticket, it did appear to be a copyvio, when it really wasn't (though the tone, and neutrality of the text clearly was inappropriate and unencyclopedic in nature). -Andrew c[talk] 05:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
A bold proposal
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for ReformSlrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Re: your edit summary here. The IP user who kept saying Scott Ligertwood was not a musician/composer, never claimed to be Ligertwood himself. Scottligertwood (talk·contribs) did edit the page recently, but didn't touch that part. Additionally, Ligertwood has composed several other songs that Hillsong United (band) has performed, but I haven't found a reliable source to back this up. In this short review you can see he's termed a "Hillsong regular", whether that means he is a musician or regular composer, that is hard to tell. This site shows he has co-wrote at least 5 songs, over several CDs, in addition to the song credited to him in the the self-published CD credit reference I provided (which you removed). Its not a big deal to me, and we can leave it like it is now, but I wanted to bring this to your attention. Killiondude (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Image copyright
Please see response on my talk page, and take what action you feel appropriate. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender 21:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa. Yes, I thought the move was so flagrantly obvious that it was appropriate to WP:BOLDly do it. And I didn't change the protection level, it was move-protected before. I'm not going to undo the move unless a discussion on talk suggests substantial opposition and I somewhow doubt a removal of the move protection will work out well. Rd232talk 07:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Textual criticism/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Done Doesn't look there was much information there. Due to the death date of the person depicted, the PD claim is plausible (but we'd need to know the photographers death date or the original publication date to know for sure). Feel free to contact me personally anytime you need something like this (but I can't guarentee I will respond always in a timely manner :Þ) -Andrew c [talk] 15:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Done-Andrew c [talk] 01:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
