User talk:B

I'm largely inactive / 99% retired. There are more important things in life.

If you're an admin looking to ask about a block or delete I made, feel free to reverse it. If we would grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith, we could dispense with some of the drama and long ANI threads. Please don't use the {{talkback}} template - if you have something to say, say it.

If you are asking me to review a situation, please provide links to articles and diffs to the edits in question — I cannot read your mind to figure out what you are talking about.

Nomination of List of family relations in American football for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of family relations in American football is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of family relations in American football (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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)[reply]

Template:Non-free use rationale

When you created {{Non-free use rationale}} back in 2006, you added a number of HTML ids. What purpose do these serve? See Template talk:Non-free use rationale#Markup issues. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thoughts on Portal:American football

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I'm slowly getting around to doing. Buggie111 (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I placed it there so it would be across from where it mentions his UW-Madison playing career. Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyLindgren (talk • contribs) 23:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Anyway, you took care of the move just fine. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WHO-Recognized English Medium Medical Schools (China)

Regarding [1]: 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)[reply]

Okay. I see now. Let me fix it. (I thought I already did.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solved with [2].

Now, all articles contain only:

Template:WHO/MOE-Recognized English Medium Medical Schools (China)

None contain:

I think it's save to delete those last two now. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:FFD Relists

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Worm^TT(talk) 11:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Worm^TT(talk) 08:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image

Can you please provide a rationale for the deletion of Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_February_19#File:The_Legendary_Marvin_Pontiac.jpg? Diego (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

IFD closures

Thanks, that will make it quicker, I wasn't aware of the bot. James086^Talk 09:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

Commented http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GhiathArodaki GhiathArodaki (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --B (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Junta swearing-in ceremony.jpg

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. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --B (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really obliged. All the best. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting request

Hi, I refer here to what you posted in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toronto8793&redirect=no

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 in advance. /Toronto Toronto8793 (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, I will update the image description page accordingly. --B (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The photo is not appropriate under Wikipedia's fair use policy. No fair use photo of a living person will ever be appropriate to use. --B (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, how do people like Kevin Spacey, Matt Damon, Stephen Colbert and other celebrities have photos on their articles? Just curious, want to make sure I understand/don't violate policy. Fcr (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Deletion review for File:Lincoln Bank Tower.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Lincoln Bank Tower.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Davodd (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File undeletion?

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 jheiv ^{talk contribs} 19:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]