Jump to content

User talk:Ronhjones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zingiberal (talk | contribs) at 00:13, 3 April 2017 (requested restoration of Megan Amram). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Thursday
29
August
08:10 UTC
Welcome to Ronhjones' Talk page

on English Wikipedia

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.


Note for other Admins - If you want to change any action I have done, then you may do so without having to wait for a reply from me. Your judgement at the time should be sufficient.
If you came here because your article was deleted as an expired PROD - then check User:Ronhjones/DeletedPROD first
Note: To any interested parties. This is my main account, there are no edits under my old IP address 109.224.128.22 (terminated March 2014); a few minor edits under my even older static IP address 87.127.178.158, my work IP address (but that is shared, and not all the edits there are mine) 193.113.135.87 or 193.113.135.112 I also have User:Ronjones for logging in outside home. Current address is IPv6 - somewhere in the range of 2001:8b0:9f0::/48
All threads on this page will be archived after 14 days of non - activity.

User:MrKIA11/Archive Box

Restoration of Megan Amram

Could Megan Amram be restored, please? I was off Wikipedia for a while, but it's been on my cleanup list for even longer. I don't remember the quality of the page being amazing, but I don't know if it should have been entirely deleted. Thanks. Zingiberal (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:BosnaSWE

Hey. I would like to ask if the Bosnian football player Kerim Memija could finally get his official wikipedia player page? His current page is blocked and can only be created by a admin. This summer he has signed for the Danish football club Vejle and has played his first matches for the new team. Ronhjones (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2017 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BosnaSWE (talk • contribs)

The file I uploaded

I uploaded File:Mercuryturnpike.png to ask a question on the reference desk. Now it is so small it can't be read. I was looking for a way to take the part I was asking about and just use that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a crop (and therefore less reduction needed). See what you think Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that is acceptable for copyright purposes, I'm happy.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 13:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now they're saying it's orphaned. Perhaps I need to either update my question or ask a new one.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please review rationale before tagging non-free images for reduction

On March 21 you tagged the non-free file:Big-Boy-Comic-Book-Composition.png (used in Big Boy restaurants) for image reduction; this occurred the next day. I know AWB is a productive tool and perhaps you also visually judge images. I am frustrated because this tagging occurred without reading the rationale or considering the obvious non-standard image.

While the resolution/filesize might seem larger than reasonable, the graphic is a composition of 8 comic book covers, each of which is smaller than covers used elsewhere. I stated this in the rationale and listed/linked four examples of others for comparison. (The filesize of 0.21M is also reasonable given the 8 covers.) That this is a non-standard image is also visually obvious.

On January 26 you similarly tagged file:Progression of Big Boy logos.png. which is a composition of 8 historic logos. Unlike the comic book covers, I considered this tagging not unreasonable (and later manually resized it to 50%). But your tag caused a bot, also not considering that it was a non-standard image, to over-reduce producing an inferior muddy image. These rule based reductions tend to be arbitrary and unsophisticated. The resizing of the comic book covers also caused an artifact in the layout of the Big Boy Restaurants article. As noted, IMO that image resize was unreasonable and it has been reverted.

Thanks for your many efforts but also your consideration to these issues. — βox73 (৳alk) 08:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC) / fix typo — 08:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Box73: They are all viewed first and tagged later (AWB is useful and quick, but does not show pictures!). It's sometimes hard to guess which ones work well or fail - quite a few I put aside at review time for no reduction, a lot drop into the easy logo / poster / portrait box, there will always be a few which I think will be OK when reduced and then maybe not so. Tagged your two for no more reduction. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And sometime back you did a great job reducing the size of the infobox Big Boy logo which was also appropriate. It was an svg containing a raster image and the raster scaling looked good.
My concern was recognizing the image as a composition of many covers, then not judging it as a single cover. I anticipated this issue and made additional efforts to justify it in the non-free rationale. A future improvement might provide a tag or field noting non-standard images which AWB could read.
Lastly, since you're involved with Wikimedia Commons... Editors are encouraged to submit svgs with text as text but the pngs derived look terrible. (Yes, using common fonts.) Submitting text as outlines eliminates this issue but also the benefit of text as text. IMO, if svg-text is desirable, commons should adjust the conversion process, one option being to use a temporary svg-outline file to create the pngs. What would be a good place to voice this? — βox73 (৳alk) 08:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Box73: Yes, I'm a commons' admin as well. Probably the best place is c:Commons:Village pump Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Benedict

Why did you delete the page on Claire Benedict? She is a notable British actress - see http://www.britishafrocaribbean.com/index.php/media2/24-claire-benedict and https://bbashakespeare.warwick.ac.uk/people/claire-benedict, and particularly notable for portraying the lead character Mma Ramotswe in the continuing radio adaptations of The No 1 Ladies' Detective Agency. Jim Craigie (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Craigie: She may be notable, but the article was bad. We have a rule that a article about a living person needs at least one good reference to back up some of the data shown. With no good references the article was tagged as such, waited 7 days for improvement (nothing happened) and then had to be deleted. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion only 7 days after tagging seems absurdly premature to me, and a simple google "Claire Benedict site:thestage.co.uk" would have shown she was notable. Behaviour like that makes me doubt that Wikipedia is worth my time. AFAIK its not an article I have previously edited, but please restore and I will add some refs to prevent this egregious deletion. Jim Craigie (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Craigie: 7 days is the rule, when the 7 days are up the article appears in the list to delete - Feel free to suggest a policy change at WP:VP. The article must show the nobility with proper text and references. The article was tagged for deletion some 7 days after creation, so the original author would have known about it - they chose not to improve the article. I cannot restore it as an article as it violates WP:BLP - I have to restore it as a Draft - Draft:Claire Benedict Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for restoring. I doubt the original author was aware of your deletion, since this article was first tagged for speedy deletion just 9 minutes after the original author created it in 2014, and only 2 minutes after the original author's last edit, which presumably put the original author off wikipedia for life, since s/he hasn't contributed since. That author had contributed a long (if unstructured) list of Claire Benedict's work which some other editor deleted in response to the speedy deletion trying to create a page for reasonably well known actress Claire Benedict. Novices put off wikipedia by the hostility of deletion zealots.
@Jim Craigie: That tends to be the case when editors create direct. I always tell editors (here and at OTRS), that they should use WP:AfC, otherwise the minute they hit the first save, the page gets added to WP:NPP and dozens of editors swoop in like locusts - and often as not, slap a speedy on it. Personally, I think we should stop novice editors creating direct - most of them think if they do, it will be on Google the next day! - and of course it's not and they have to wait up to 30 days. by which time it's usually gone. Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please crop another file?

I need to use File:Askamy.png to ask a reference desk question.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: OK - by removing the copyright elements (Wikipedia globe) it is now a free file. Please complete the information template I started. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's not different in the way I thought it would be, but there is a difference.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore ISO Master

Kindy restore ISO Master. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mig21 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mig21:  Done Restored as contested PROD. It's a very poor article though, it will need much improving to keep it Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Roker birth date correction

Hello, this is concerning the edit I made to the english Mickey Roker wiki page. Roker's birthday is September 3, 1932. It is correctly listed in his german wiki page:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Roker

And also here:

https://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/birthday.php?pg=247

A previous editor had accidentally switched the month and day (03/09 /1932 - 09/03/1932) so I corrected it. Please let me know how to submit the citation. Thanks.

There were no references to the birthday - it was challenged in an e-mail to the Foundation. With no ref it was removed. The e-mail said it should be September 3, 1932. But we can't use that as a reference. We can't use de-wiki as a ref either. You could use https://musicians.allaboutjazz.com/mickeyroker (linked from you link above) - feel free to add it back with a ref. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Spanswick edit

Hi you reversed the edit i made as you said it was not constructive. But i am confused as i thought all encyclopaedic content should be verifiable and from a neutral point of view; the comments i removed were not verifiable and were personal opinions which goes against the wikipedia guidelines. I was wondering if you would be able to explain your comment that the edit was not constructive? 86.11.60.51 (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference given when that whole statement was added. If you believe that the reference is incorrect - then you have to discuss with the editor who added it, you cannot just keep removing data (that starts edit warring, which is not allowed). If you cannot agree, then WP:DR is the place to go. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2017-13

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • When you edit with the visual editor, you can see a visual diff as well as a wikitext diff when you review your changes. [1]

Problems

  • Special:AllPages was disabled for two days due to some performance issues. It is back, but the filter for redirects is gone as the cause of the performance problem. It still needs to be fixed. [2][3]

Changes this week

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

14:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

A query

Randy Quaid real name

I reopened the discussion, because I found multiple sources where Randall without Randy is his given name. I was suspicious about "Randy Randall" being his given name in the first place, given that Randy is a nickname. It would be like naming someone "Billy William" etc. Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbor to SJ: He has sent in full evidence of his name to OTRS that clearly shows it as "Randy Randall Rudy Quaid", and always complains when it gets changed. However there is no way of showing that document as anything sent to OTRS is private. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do you explain Blue Rasberry's comment from Feb. 2016, "This person's representative wants these names used or not used...", which indicates that the "Randy Randall" form the representative considers "unacceptable"? Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Arbor to SJ: Ask User:Blue Rasberry. There are so many tickets at OTRS - both these ticket:2016081110017195 and ticket:2017032810012844 show the real name in an attached document. Every time the name gets changed, the subject writes in and complains. Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Ronhjones, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I'd appreciate it if you'd pitch in as described at Wikipedia_talk:Files_for_discussion#Category:Non-free_files_with_orphaned_versions_more_than_7_days_old, as I believe your AWB tagging runs to reduce the resolutions of non-free images has been partially responsible for the unusually high number of files needing revisions deleted. ~ Rob13Talk 09:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned .png's

Ronhjones: I uploaded two images, and I am grateful that that one was reduced to screen resolution and reposted in order to not violate restriction on the quality of free postings. Now a Bot has identified the images as not actually appearing in any article and has indicated they will be deleted. I have not had luck contacting an actual person about this so I am posting here. I uploaded two screen images from Star Trek Fan movies specifically to document the name of the Starship and the NCC number associated with that name, for the two Fan series: Starship Exeter and Starship Farragut. I don't think it is worth including those images directly in the Wiki article, but I don't want to post an assignment of NCC number for a web series without having some documentation for that claim. The article is: "Star Trek fan productions". The two images are: USS-Exeter-NCC-1706.png and USS-Farragut-NCC-1647.png. The article only makes reference to the images and does not display them. Is that a legitimate use, or are the only options to either display the images in the article or delete the images from the Wikipedia Commons? I am not aware of any other images already in the Commons that would serve the purpose, and I'm not really sure how to search for such images either. The original source is a video rather than an image, so unless a person goes to the specific frame in the video, the documentation aspect is lost. Also, it's not enough to find an image that indicates that in the "Star Trek Universe" those ships have those NCC numbers. The images really should be pulled from each series individually, as the ones that I posted do. PoqVaUSA (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PoqVaUSA: The images are not on commons - they are on en-Wikipedia, as non-free images have to be. The rules for WP:NFCC are that the images (which should be <100000 pixels) have to used in the article. One non-free image is normally allowed in the infobox (which many article have at the top right), any other non-free images should have some commentary about them in the article - just adding a non-free image to the article, which no mention of why it is there, will fail the policy. Any non-free image that is not used will be found - B-bot is a script that slowly goes through every non-free image in turn, checking that it is used. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. This comment isn't directed at you personally. I'm just trying to figure out how things are supposed to work. So, is there a way to substantiate that the Star Trek Fan movies are using a certain NCC number in association with the name of their Starship, of do the NCC numbers themselves go undocumented or themselves get deleted? It just seams to be counter-productive. The funny thing is that, by their very nature, the people who do the Fan movies don't get paid for what the do, and would probably be very glad to get more circulation for what they do as a labor of love. The Wiki policy seems to be trying to protect their interests without even considering what their interests are. On some level I really don't care what Wikipedia does with the edits. PoqVaUSA (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PoqVaUSA: - Nothing to stop you using the source of the images as a reference - so instead of File:USS-Exeter-NCC-1706.png - you use "http://starshipexeter.com (episode "The Tressaurian Intersection", frame 0:01)" as the source of the data, same for File:USS-Farragut-NCC-1647.png - use "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJKQ1FHQc68 (frame 2:57)". NB:One can normally get YT links in when they are part of a reference (put as stand alone in External Links and they get chopped...) Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago, you blocked User:Mother bear for 31 hours for adding external links to articles. He or she has come off the block and returned to the same editing pattern. Maybe a longer block is in order...? ElKevbo (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo: He obviously has some axe to grind. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New article(s) pasted-in from previous (deleted) version(s) by business owners

Gooday Ron. A new article has been pasted-in from previous (deleted article) editing-pane, breaking the chain of editing history but quoting the 'old' dates when references were added. Be Wiser Insurance was deleted when targeted as a business-promotion, I suspect it was nominated by an IP associated with One-Call, from memory. I did some work on the motorcycle sport sponsorship in the old article.

What to do? Way beyond my Ken. There is no talk page notice relating to re-creating a previously deleted old version, as I got with Talk:Steve Henshaw

The same goes for One Call Insurance also a new article showing no talk page but old-dates on refs - second look, this might be totally new. Insurance-broker wars, eh?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

@Rocknrollmancer: At least the names are the same. If you think they are going to survive, the old history can be easily undeleted, and then the full history shows through. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Second one only has 2 deleted edits and they are not very big in size. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronhjones&oldid=773531052"