Jump to content

User talk:ChipWolf/Archive 2019

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Notice
This page is an archive of past discussions from User talk:ChipWolf

Please 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.

My talk page archives
 • 2019  • 2020  • 2021
 • 2022  • 2023  • 2024

Changes

The changes was from sections i wrote on 2019 Turkish offensive into North East Syria, I changed "Regime" to "SAA" as "Regime" is slang for the Assad regime and does not fully encompass the parties. I also moved Journalist bombing due to the fact that i made a mistake on the timing. Not being on October 31st but 13th of October. Vallee01 (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hey Thank you for your comments. I have added the source and I am a doctor myself from Pakistan :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basitali90 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Durham School shield.png

Thanks for uploading File:Durham School shield.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 22:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Lydia Luce

Hello ChipWolf, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lydia Luce, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: performing at notable events and touring with notable artists indicates significance. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. SoWhy 10:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Zebby Singh

Hello ChipWolf, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Zebby Singh, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: playing the lead role in multiple notable shows indicates significance. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. SoWhy 11:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Elementary school/primary school redirects

Yeah, that one shouldn't be there either, but I'm a bit more meh about it because it's been around for a while. There's this old AFD debate and there's plenty more where that came from. I'd !vote delete in a debate about it but I wouldn't feel like starting my own deletion nom. Graham87 04:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation

the information on the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation is out of date. Even the logo is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cata Gua Ariztia (talk • contribs) 15:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dracevo(dyrracium)

Im native from dracevo and i have book for the village i know everything for dracevo so i have more sources than you Sincerenly Krofnait (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tits vs. titmice

@ChipWolf I don't understand why you reverted my edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tit_%28bird%29&type=revision&diff=930027589&oldid=930027479. All you've provided for explanation is a link to the Manual of Style on the my talk page? Not sure how that is supposed to help?? I'm not going to read through the entire manual to try and figure out whatever mistake I've supposedly made. My edit replaces a usage of the specific term "titmice" (usually used to refer only to a single genus of tits, and this is how the rest of the Wikipedia article uses it), with the more general "tits" (this sentence is referring to the whole family). I said this in my edit description. I have hard time seeing how you could have possibly evaluated my edit in the 1 minute (!!!) between me submitting it and you reverting it? Somatochlora (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Durham School shield.png

⚠
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Durham School shield.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do u mean

Are you mr.beast Rd64e (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Looks like a duck to me @Rd64e: hey buddy. If you could do us all a favour and slow down a little with your changes and review the comments on your talk page, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! - Chip🐺 • #TeamTrees🌳 13:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rd64e

This bloke is clearly a vandal. Is there a way to immediately contact an admin to get him blocked? Dr42 (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done, there’s an open AIV. I wouldn’t personally post any more than the single final warning, it’s just warring. Best thing to do is just keep reverting any obvious vandalism by the user and wait for the request to float up the backlog. Thanks for reaching out! - Chip🐺 • #TeamTrees🌳 13:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Chip🐺 • #TeamTrees🌳 13:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Warning

Please review the edit you reverted [[1]]. You have restored a BLP statement that is unreferenced. This is a SERIOUS policy violation. Please be more careful in the future and please review the BLP policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.249.224.35 (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Looks like a duck to me The change was reverted as you were in violation of WP:3RR, as per the notice I added to your talk page. After I reverted your last change, MelanieN protected the page. As you can see from the page history, Rui Pereira (architect) has suffered from sock and evade over the last few days. Reverting an indefinitely blocked vandal is not edit warring, as per WP:Edit_warring#Exemptions, rule 3. - Chip🐺 • #TeamTrees🌳 15:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of File:Durham School shield.png

The page File:Durham School shield.png has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appeared to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on user's talk page. - Chip🐺 • #TeamTrees🌳 20:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. FWIW, the image at File:Durham School shield.png is almost certainly not public domain. The new logo has a quality sufficient for the permitted infobox and is accompanied by a relevant license/free use rationale. That said, logos probably have a greater chance of survival if uploaded to Commons. On another note entirely, it's a shame that an article on such a prestigious school as Durham is peppered with PoV. Perhaps alumni could get together and bring it up to encyclopedic standards. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
exclamation mark  Hi @Kudpung: the image I uploaded was exactly the same albeit of a higher quality. Really not sure why it needed to be re-uploaded, we could just undelete the original and fix the rationale if I made a mistake. Yeah, I totally agree the article needs some work and it is a shame; however, unrelated to this. - Chip🐺 • #TeamTrees🌳 03:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The quality at the pixel size for an infobox (which is the only place it's allowed to be used) is fine. In fact high quality images for non-free use are discouraged in order to prevent their reuse. I many be an admin, but I certainly could not undelete it without a discussion with the deleting admin. Making a new file, digitally enhancing it from the original used on the school web site, and uploading it with a correct license and free-use rational only took a couple of minutes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course @Kudpung: I understand completely. As I mentioned on JJMC’s talk page, I essentially duplicated the templates from File:Van_Mildert_Coll_Durham_shield.svg, hence my confusion in a speedy deletion without any discussion. I’m not particularly fussy about the image being replaced, I just don’t see the rationale. I am however, somewhat upset about your comment on another talk page stating I should ‘exercise caution’ while alluding to my experience here. - Chip🐺 • #TeamTrees🌳 03:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I believed the discussion there to be about the Durham file which clearly did not conform to policy. Do check out the Durham logo file now to see how the non-free rational and license should be presented - but don't worry, sometimes they delete my files too until I protest loudly ;) That said, unless the uploader of File:Van_Mildert_Coll_Durham_shield.svg really designed and created that heraldic device absolutely from scratch and gave it to he school, they cannot possibly be the copyright holder. If it is based on an existing design or part of an emblem, then it is a derivative work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to harp on this - I'm only trying to help you understand our copyright policies, but checking back, your comment there was: this notice was posted on my talk page as the result of an erroneous deletion of a file - the image in question, File:Durham School shield.png, was not deleted in error. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yeah that was absolutely my position at the time. I’d have preferred a discussion prior to deletion to fix the issue rather than obliterate it. As I see it now; erroneous, perhaps not. Hasty, perhaps. For the purpose of the template talk topic, the statement is extraneous to the point. - Chip🐺 • #TeamTrees🌳 04:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone and uploaded a new version of the logo: File:Durham School Logo.png — I hope this quality will satisfy you. It was nice of Kudpung to go and upload the logo with rationale etc. Please ensure you are assuming good faith and see WP:IMAGERES for more info on sizing Steven (Editor) (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Steven (Editor): I appreciate your input. I absolutely assumed good-faith here, this just seemed like an odd series of events to me. As I say above though, I'm not fussy :) - Chip🐺 • #TeamTrees🌳 15:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Anarchyte (talk | work) 14:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChipWolf/Archive_2019&oldid=931497770"