User talk:LGA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome[edit]

Hello, LGA, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or Insert-signature.png or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! I am One of Many (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Speedy deletion declined: Josh Levine[edit]

Hello LightGreenApple. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Josh Levine, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jordan Barker (magician)[edit]

Hi LightGreenApple! I am writing to ask you to reconsider your proposal for the deletion on the page Jordan Barker (magician). The show 'officially amazing' in which the record is being showcased, will not be broadcast until late March, and the Guinness world record database is not updating the main page for highest throw of a playing card, until the show has been aired nationally.

I wrote to Guinness about this and received this response -


Guinness World Records-Tracking Id:48894‏

Thank you for your enquiry. In order for the records we have filmed for our new TV show to have the biggest impact, we hold back the records from appearing on the website until the show airs. Once the TV show goes out, your record will be visible online. Congratulations once again on your Guinness World Records achievement.

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY DIRECTLY TO THIS EMAIL AS THIS COMES FROM AN UNMONITORED EMAIL ADDRESS.

You can contact us and make an enquiry via: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/register/login.aspx by logging in on the website, and selecting your claim ID number.

There you can click on ‘Make an Enquiry’ or to find more information about the record breaking process whether that is: having an Adjudicator present at your record attempt, how to request the use of the Guinness World Records logo for your event, ordering extra certificates or application review time.

Yours sincerely, Tom Ibison Guinness World Records


I'd like to point out that magician and card thrower, Rick Smith, Jr. has a wikipedia article focused on his world record achievement for the furthest throw of a playing card. I believe this therefore follows similar interest to Jordan Barker (magician) page as they follow similar causes in the public's interest.

I hope you take this into account when reviewing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorpeparkdude (talkcontribs) 22:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Karri Koira[edit]

Accompanying music videos are usually mentioned in music related articles. The artist doesn't only have "one song chart", but also an album in the top 10 of the album chart. And just because you find the subject unnotable, doesn't mean everyone else will. Tagging for tagging's sake can also be seen disruptive sometimes. Widr (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Best Use of one's time[edit]

Hi LGA - I've actually enjoyed our discussion re deleting the portrait of Quaytman. I'm fairly unfamiliar with the image policies, and now understand the frustration shared by many veteran editors. US Law really does permit much much more use of copyright materials than Wikimedia has proposed. Their intention seems to be to steer well clear of any potential controversy, which does sound like a good strategy in the early development of an underfunded group. It's up to individuals to enforce, just like the US jury system - which actually entitles individual juries to tell the law to go to hell. Our situation is a judgement call - there are thousands of examples that have gone unnoticed with no impact - so I won't discuss it here. I'm not sure how new of an editor you are, but when I started, I also focused on following policy and finding minor infractions to correct. It was a good way to learn. Now I regret many of the AfDs I launched, like Ambulance_(Blur_song) which was ratified, then I decided to not implement! (I was MJH). Since that time I have found it much more gratifying to create new articles, or substantially improve them - actually adding to the resource. There are plenty of cops walking the beat, so I have abandoned that, except in the case of vandalism, or well intentioned people damaging articles with a WP:POV. You seem like an intelligent person, so I ask the rhetorical question - what's the best use of your time?--Nixie9 16:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Highways Agency.svg[edit]

Hello, file Highways Agency.svg is non-free / non-public domain - the image is covered by Crown Copyright in the United Kingdom. It is therefore non-free in the US, too.

Additionally, image size should follow WP:MOSIM.

Regards, kashmiri 23:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that is not the case, in the US (where the wikipedia servers are located) the logo is not covered by copyright as the US has a higher standard of originality than other countries (and probably the United Kingdom) see WP:PD#Fonts, so the logo is free to use. LightGreenApple talk to me 23:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, this is not a font or logo with unknown copyright status whose "threshold of originality" needs to be ascertained. The HA logo is expressly covered by Crown Copyright, being a work of Her Majesty's Government. It is published on US-based Wikipedia in compliace with international treaties related to copyright. "Anything published in other countries and copyrighted there, is typically also copyrighted in the United States" (WP:Non-free content#In general). kashmiri 23:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It is a logo consisting of the letters HA and the words Highways agency, it is exactly the sort of logo that is detailed in Threshold of originality and if you read the text of both {{pd-textlogo}} and {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. I have taged the file with {{Wrong-license}}. LightGreenApple talk to me 23:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Your argument would be valid with logos/images whose copyright stems from the "threshold of originality" concept. The HA logo has nothing to do with "threshold of originality" - in the UK, US or elsewhere. Rather, its protection stems from the fact that this is work of the UK Government. In other words, even if it were a single letter, it would receive cover of the Crown Copyright. If you are still not convinced, I don't actually mind asking for opinion of other editors. kashmiri 00:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I see nothing that allows for Crown Copyright to extend to the US, copyright in the US is governed by US law, and a court would be bound by the prior ruling not to grant the United Kingdom government protection where no such protection would exist if the same works were created by a US citizen. Feel free to ask away. LightGreenApple talk to me
It is not up to a court to grant copyright protection: the work is already protected in the United States by the provision of the Berne Convention to which the United States is a signatory (and which is thus binding on US courts). kashmiri 11:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ok to put it another way a US court would not grant damages to the United Kingdom government for any claimed breach due to the US standard of threshold of originality and would rule the logo is not copyrightable and thus is public domain. LightGreenApple talk to me 20:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Mug shots[edit]

Hello.

I added my rationale at File talk:Gustavogonzalezcastro.jpg. Cheers. ComputerJA (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Organization Islamic Cooperation Summit[edit]

It's a free image from the Egypt Presidential Spokesman here.... https://www.facebook.com/egpres.sm/posts/211789675627448

Official Egyptian President page https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.470934606295795.109342.377633175625939&type=1 --elbarck (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I worked in journalism for 10 years, we always considered any image, statement or video released from an official Spokesman as an official explicit release of publishing :).... It would be weird to ask the Spokesman for his Permission for publishing :).... DUDE HE'S THE OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN :)

If Reuters published that image it'd say released from the Egyptian presidency as CBS NEWS did in this link with an image in the same album I put your link to you :) CBS NEWS titled the image with "AP Photo/Egyptian Presidency" http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57568313/islamic-summit-backs-syria-dialogue/

The same Yahoo News did here (AP Photo/Egyptian Presidency) http://news.yahoo.com/islamic-summit-urges-dialogue-syria-121723036.html/ --elbarck (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Ziade Palace.jpg[edit]

Hello please reconsider your tag to the above mentioned file

Fair use tag added as requested.

best regards. Eli+ 21:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Darwin Bowls Club[edit]

Hello LightGreenApple. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Darwin Bowls Club, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit]

Are you sure about the idea of transferring this to Commons? I ask because while I do understand the bit about "consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes", that doesn't mean that the logo is not subject to copyright. It seems to me the legal issues around this are not entirely clear. Anyway, I just thought I'd mention that. I'm not a copyright expert by any measure. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As the logo of a US company that only "consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes" is is not eligible for copyright protection as it fails the Threshold of originality test. LightGreenApple talk to me 19:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

SUL[edit]

Confirmation that I wish to userp fr:User:LGA on fr.wp. LGA (was LightGreenApple) talk to me 00:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done LGA is now available for usurpation on fr:wikipedia. Chaoborus (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Princess Ileana[edit]

I really haven't a clue what all this is about.

My mother died in 2004; I have her albums. From these I scanned Christmas cards with photographs that Princess Ileana (who also is now dead) had sent to my mother.

I had never heard of the Princess, but found the wikipedia article, to which I added the scans. My reason for doing so is to make these pictures available to anyone interested - "to add to the sum of human knowledge".

If you are so petty as to want to delete them, then I REALLY don't care.

Such "censorship" action reflects on you, not on me.

RobinClay (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "censorship" and the accusation of "censorship" can been seen as offensive, you should not make it.
In this case the image you uploaded was not yours, you had a print of a photograph than was sent to your mother presumably in December 1937, however the copyright to the original photograph still belongs to either the person who took it (or their descendants) or more likely the descendants of the Princess (it being a work for hire) that copyright will likely not expire until about 70 years after the photographers death (or maybe longer). So unless you can show you have the correct permissions to uploaded it, or can make a fair use claim for its use you can not uploaded it to WP. LGA (was LightGreenApple) talk to me 01:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

David Kada[edit]

I found some newspaper articles about David Kada, so I removed the speedy and prod that you added. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 00:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Learn to tag things for deletion better[edit]

Not willing to consider discussing this anymore as it is not going anywhere

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice all the deletion tags you're making that're getting rejected?

Robot Combat League will air in about a week on a major television network, as the article made explicit. Perfect Red Cube (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well no actually they are not, on the other hand your article got deleted, perhaps you should learn to demonstrate significance of events. LGA talk to me 00:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes they are, there's at least two on this page. And what "event" was it talking about? Its a show. Within a week the article will be back up. Tell me: why do television shows on major networks not deserve pages?
Also, my point wasn't that all your requests get rejected, but that this one was misguided - so the deletion doesn't have anything to do with being shot in the foot. Within a week the article will be back up. You've pointlessly had it deleted only for it to come back.Perfect Red Cube (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Two out of about 200 images and articles I have tagged in the last month. As for your article why not work on it in your sandbox until such time that it meets the requirements ? LGA talk to me 00:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
And you tag things recklessly. You didn't answer the question, tell me: in what way were the requirements not met? Something being viewed by hundreds of thousands of people on a major network doesn't meet them? Perfect Red Cube (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not tag things recklessly (recommend you read WP:NPA), the article you created did not explain why the TV show was significant and should be recorded in an encyclopedia, fix that and it won't be deleted. On that note I think we are finished discussing this. LGA talk to me 00:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How do you expect a TV show article to establish how significant the subject matter is?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When there's pages for Brickleberry and The Secret Circle pretty much anything seems to be deemed "significant" if it gets broadcast. Perfect Red Cube (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAP does not help your argument, find some reliable sources that are independent of the subject use them to show and demonstrate why the TV show is notable. Also consider that this is an encyclopedia and just because some event or tv show happened does not mean it should have an article. LGA talk to me 01:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I did and they were cited in the article - do a search for "Robot Combat League", plenty of news organizations, TV sites, etc. talk about it. And where do you keep getting this stuff about an event? Nobody's talking about an event. Every single that gets even mildly spoken of merits an article Perfect Red Cube (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The article was not sourced to any reliable sources. Now reaching WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Please rather than wasting your and my time here you have a go at creating the article at Articles for creation. LGA talk to me 01:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


Hastily trying to delete things without getting them verified[edit]

It most certainly did cite reliable sources - does the SyFy network itself's website saying the show will premier next week not count as a reliable source? Then what possibly could? I'm beginning to doubt you even read it. And why are you following what I'm doing on other pages? Its creepy Perfect Red Cube (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disambiguation link notification for February 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Berners Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Chambers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply File:Gutmann brothers.jpg[edit]

Unfortunately I don't know who is the author of the photo or where it was taken, in the book it only says it was taken around 1880. Hope it helps, cheers --Bbrezic (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad I could help. Book was published in 2012. Best regards --Bbrezic (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I also presume that this photo is out of copyright, especially if year the 1880(as it is written in the book) is correct and if we look at the Croatian Copyright Act of 1991.

{{PD-Croatia}}

Best regards --Bbrezic (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue is the part that requires it to be published before 1949, can that be shown ? LGA talkedits 20:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Rupe Tomay Bholabo Na.jpg[edit]

How right you are. I normally see this tag applied to local images when the whole thing is gone, e.g. you can't see any of it. Partial corruption wasn't at all in mind. If this were a free image, I'd not delete it because we could crop out the bad chunks, but since it's a nonfree image whose contents presumably all must be present for it to be useful, there's no point in keeping it. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh look[edit]

Robot Combat League Told ya. You were only delaying the inevitable Perfect Red Cube (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ace of Spades[edit]

The Ace image is being used in the Card Sharks article and is used to show their version of the Ace of spades. –BuickCenturyDriver 16:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

it seems you removed that image from the article to have it deleted, why are you trying to have them removed after I put a fair use rationale on each one? –BuickCenturyDriver 23:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
There was no FUR for use on that article. LGA talkedits 23:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The file page does have a FUR, you might have overlooked it. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
For use on Ace of Spades and not for use on Card Sharks. LGA talkedits 23:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I fixed it. the image is for Card Sharks, not Ace of spades. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So you have, however use on that article would still not meet WP:NFCC#8 IMO. LGA talkedits 00:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

My images[edit]

To answer your question regarding the images I uploaded:

BuickCenturyDriver 07:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Source[edit]

I don't disbelieve you. In fact I very much believe you. Given you give specific years, I assume you have a source for your claim at ITN that NK has announced an end to the ceasefire before? Can you give that here or at the nomination? Thanks! μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I got it from the body of the linked article which in turn sources it to yonhapnews.co.kr. LGA talkedits 02:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, excellent. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, LGA. You have new messages at Sphilbrick's talk page.
Message added SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nicolas Maduro[edit]

He is not, currently bus driver, he is a politician for many years, as deputy chairman of the congress, chancellor and Vice President--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Guy Boutilier 2.jpg[edit]

Hi LGA. I have removed the speedy deletion tag from the file, since it's got an OTRS pending tag on it. The problem with leaving the speedy tag on is that it leaves the file languishing in one of our daily maintenance categories, which means extra work for admins who work those queues. The OTRS backlogs can be as long as a month, so if no acceptable email is received, the file might not be deleted for some time. Hence the speedy tag can and should come off. Best, -- Dianna (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Kellylee Evans jpg[edit]

Hi LGA. I had a permission pending tag on the Kellylee Evans image and Kellylee herself assured me that the photographer sent the permissions via the correct Wiki forms. Please tell me what has happened and how I can get that picture up. Thanks, PC.Paradise coyote (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Hope Hospitals, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbkmurali (talkcontribs) 04:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL - go to WP:ANI and ask one to block me. LGA talkedits 06:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Evaristo-ortega-zarate.jpg[edit]

Hi, my rationale for keeping the image is found in the article's talkpage and in the description. Many thanks, ComputerJA () 07:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Shashank Manohar[edit]

Please explain the addition of the phrase "to enable sham enquiries." or remove it. LGA talkedits 06:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Niranjandeshmukh: I have added a link to what I have published. Have a look. 29-Jul-2013 11:49 AM (IST)

Miami hostage standoff[edit]

Given you voted at the now closed Miami hostage standoff article. you may wish to comment at the discussion for Hialeah shooting where it has been redirected. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; but already have - see here. LGA talkedits 00:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, see you were snuck in there up at the top... :) μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Letter to Russia with krokozyabry.jpg[edit]

Just asking you (along with all other participants) to check back at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 28; after voting on this image deletion discussion, I proposed an image crop with the goal of satisfying the objections of the delete voters. Would you please return to the discussion and comment on my proposal? Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Notability of shin kwangho[edit]

Hello! Can you review the article again since I added more citation and more text? Shin KwangHo. Thank you! (Pastelchu (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC))

2008 Spain Pilatus PC-6 crash[edit]

I'm afraid the article was proposed for deletion in August 2008 and that was removed. Articles cannot be proposed for deletion twice (as the challenge means the deletion cannot be uncontroversial, and prod is only for uncontroversial deletion). You can go to AFD. Fences&Windows 20:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Beyonce Mrs Carter Montreal.png[edit]

The CC BY 2.0 license allows me to adapt the work doesn't it? —JennKR | 23:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

not if the person licensing the image does not own it in the first place; the copyright notice on it should be a very big red flag. LGA talkedits 23:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Socks and newbies[edit]

Well, you have to admit George behaves like a newbie. An angry, bull-headed, IDHT newbie. I don't think a pre-existent user could have resisted posting on the Peter D Matthews AfD. Bishonen | talk 12:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC).

P.S. I stand corrected — he just did post there. In a very n00b way, though. Bishonen | talk 12:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC).
some of his behaviour looks like how an existing editor trying to look like a newbie might act . LGA talkedits 20:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
He'd have to be a really good actor. I don't think George is a sock, but it sounds like a good idea to ask Checkuser if Bilda1 is a sock of George. Bishonen | talk 23:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC).

Leonard C. Chabert Strength and Conditioning Facility[edit]

I am saying this respectfully, but you are going on the offensive regarding some pages for Nicholls State University. You asked that additional references be supplied for the building. When added you decide as an individual not during a discussion to redirect the page. I don't know if you're familiar with college sports, but Nicholls State is the highest level of college sports. Wikipedia always states they would like contributors to add to topics and that is what is being done. I ask that you please undo the redirect to the page. talk 18:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC).

Atchafalaya Golf Course at Idlewild[edit]

A tag has been placed on Atchafalaya Golf Course at Idlewild, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

As with all my articles, I try to expand on topics already on the site. This is my interest with Nicholls State University. The pages contained minimal information and were largely uninformative. Since Nicholls State competes at the highest level in intercollegiate sports, I expanded the articles to be more informative for the readers of Wikipedia and to fit the level at which they compete. Nothing more. My article about the Atchafalaya Golf Course at Idlewild was written to inform the readers about the home golf course for Nicholls State University. I have no financial involvement or interest in expanding membership at the golf course. I have never been to the course or knew of its existence until researching Nicholls State University. If you feel the article was written in such a way that it promotes unambiguous advertising, please help change the article so that it meets what you determine to be acceptable. This article would fall under many categories that would enhance the experience of Wikipedia readers. talk 9:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC).

I think you need to do some reading to understand what WP is. I would recommend the following pages as a start :
* What Wikipedia is not
* Notability
and one final page on conflict of interest. As a rule Uni gyms, golf courses etc are not sutiable subjects for their own articles, they should be covered in an article on sport in general at the uni as long as the information is covered in reliable sources that are independent of the uni, its students or staff. LGA talkedits 20:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Rangers[edit]

If you do I will remove it again and add over 40 references from the three match reports included in every match. It's not original research because the refs back this up there is no calculations or research required as the individual sources that are already in the article contain everything. . You could also add a soccerbase reference for every player but once again that would be totally over referenced. I'm sorry but there is only one section that needs referenced the rest do not and it still has the tag. Blethering Scot 11:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

On top of that you were overzealous and added a tag to one section that had three points and a reference for all three. Be careful what you actually tag rather than tag bombing for the sake of it. Blethering Scot 11:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Not going to happen mate. It's not OR as no original research. I'm sorry but you are deliberately being overzealous. Article meets GNG and the sections are referenced. You can tag as ref improve if you believe needs more or which you are wrong as having original research but you can't tag as unreferenced as that is not the case. These templates were made for WP:Footy so go and take your moans there but do not add unreferenced as its an incorrect tag. Blethering Scot 11:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
On top of that you would only need one tag at the top of section not one for every subsection within the section. Its over tagging.Blethering Scot 12:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
You are the disruptive one not me. They are entirely verifiable and links to where can be sourced. You in knowing this mass tagging using a clearly wrong tag is disruptive editing. Me removing wrong tag and telling you it's wrong is not disruptive. You have been advised why tag is incorrect and told if will be removed. You could add two other tags but not unreferenced. It's entirely ok to source a section using sources in another section. Use refimprove or the incorrect OR tag but not unreferenced. And even then only on the top section not on every subsection of that one section. It's you that's been disruptive not me. Blethering Scot 13:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I will report you for vandalism if you attempt that. You have been told that those sections are sourced. It's clear that they are you maybe unhappy with quality of sourcing but you can't remove on grounds of unreferenced or WP:BLP as sources are included. . If you are unhappy with level then they should be tagged as refimprove. With regards to the one with dob you are clearly blind as I left this tag and told you I left this tag. You are one of the most disruptive editors I have come across and have no prove that's these unsourced because they are referenced three times each. Blethering Scot 13:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
If you remove the sections which are referenced to reports within match section you are 100% a vandal as it is referenced. I'm not opposing you removing the BLP data in other table which isn't sourced and the tag remains on. Eithier way you are not a constructive editor as you threaten to remove content that is referenced and use wrong tags. It's been clearly explained to you that's its referenced but you are to low minded to use the correct tags. Eithier way don't post on my talk page. I don't speak to editors with an attitude like yours. Blethering Scot 20
49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:TPO[edit]

LGA; you are overstepping your rights as a Wikipedia user. I suggest you refresh your memory on the Pillars of Wikipedia. Both in reverting my talk page where inappropriate comments were made and again inside the Marc Y. Chenevert article I was assigned to review where I simply had not put in my OTRS ticket and was going to modify it when I had time. I appreciate you attempting to keep others in check, but if you post again on my page or revert another of my edits, I will take action. Sbirch (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No I am not and, I will post when you are being disruptive, feel free to take whatever action you want. LGA talkedits 05:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you are very confused. Wiki relies on editors with no connection to develop stories. I have no connection and the copyrights were appropriately assigned by the author. Until you PROVE good faith has been violated, the reversion of articles is disruptive. Wiki copyrights also has no policy of removal until a copyright is violated. None has occurred here, so you have clearly violated Wiki Pillars and [WP:DE| vandalism]]. I would also like to know why LGA was a clean start, are you attempting to sockpuppet us all? I will ask you one last time to please leave the Marc Y. Chenevert article alone and cease the disruptive editing. Sbirch (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Marc Y._Chenevert". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 11:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Changes to MC-VA[edit]

Hi, I'm wondering what changes have to be made to this page? Am I correct in thinking the inclusion of social media links is a drawback? Also, shall I reword the way the article is written to make it sound less like a promotional piece?

Mark C Scotland (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi LGA, I was wondering if you could possibly talk to Mark C Scotland and explain your issues with the article MC-VA. I am currently answering an OTRS ticket on the matter; however, as you are the original tagger, you are more well equipped to answer questions about the tags you placed than I am. Thanks, FastLizard4 (talkcontribs) 02:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yarn Yoshi[edit]

Oh, I didn't realise that that result was still in place, given there was content on the page for some time, my bad for not doing that... Maybe the article will get content when Nintendo finally reveal more about the game! Thanks, DarkToonLinkHeyaah! 07:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Since the article has no more sources than when the AfD closed best leave it there. LGA talkedits 07:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree, since even if we gathered more sources, they wouldn't really have any more info anyway. WP:TOOSOON, I guess. DarkToonLinkHeyaah! 07:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Famous Painter Hamidur Rahman listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Famous Painter Hamidur Rahman. Since you had some involvement with the Famous Painter Hamidur Rahman redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). LGA talkedits 08:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Q on change on File:Lorella e ombrello.jpg[edit]

Given the language in di-missing-permission: "Unless a link to a webpage with an explicit permission is provided, or an email from the copyright owner is sent or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, the image will be deleted after (date)", and that the uploader did comply with the OTRS sending, I think it's appropriate to remove this tag. Yes, OTRS may find the permission insufficient or the like, at which point deletion may occur, but given how slow OTRS has been working compared to the 7 day deletion images here, I don't believe we need to wait for OTRS affirmation before removing the missing-permission tag, especially working on good faith. --MASEM (t) 21:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Also to note that CSD#F11 says "Files tagged with OTRS pending for more than 30 days may also be speedily deleted under this criterion.", clearing indicating that we don't need to wait for OTRS permission within the first 30 days of uploading. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed that the ORTS system is being abused, either by tagging OTRS pending as the file is uploaded or after it gets tagged and then you get to use the file until someone realises no e-mail was ever sent, I had two files not so long ago that had been in use with OTRS pending for over 5 months. I will post on the ORTS board about these two. LGA talkedits 09:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
It's good to check there, but again, I put out that we have a way that deals with abuse while assuming good faith, that being the 30 day F11 removal allowance. (The uploader, who was also the subject of the artist, had said she did this over at MCQ). --MASEM (t) 15:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


Sourceyou could not find for information on the page Shivam Patil[edit]

Request for comment[edit]

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin[edit]

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Notable passenger jetliner crashes and notability[edit]

Hi! I found this tag. I have removed it as precedent has shown that fatal passenger jetliner crashes have always been ruled notable in AFD. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not the case; they needs to demonstrate the lasting effect with sources, I have reverted your removal. LGA talkedits 22:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
On Wikipedia is there is something called precedent. Fatal commercial jetliner crashes always lead to lasting effects from aviation authorities due to airworthiness directives and other such things. They get high publicity and people demand changes from governments. Can you name me an AFD of a fatal jetliner crash which was deleted due to lack of notability? Why bother trying to do more work to prove something you already know the answer to? Anyway, if you don't believe me, I started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Fatal_commercial_jetliner_crash_article_tagged_for_notability_due_to_no_demonstration_of_.22lasting_effect.22 to get further comment. I'll notify the projects of El Salvador, Honduras, and Central America to get a broader participation. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
In case you wonder "why isn't WhisperToMe just trying to improve the article?" The first thing is that I haven't found evidence the Salvadoran authorities have published a final report which would lead to airworthiness directives etc. (I only see an interim report), but nonetheless such a report is an inevitability. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

TACA Flight 390[edit]

I took the notability tags off since I agreed with Whisper. FYI, a notable person died on the flight- Harry Brautigam. If someone notable dies in a aviation accident, the accident is Notable. There was recently this AFD[1]. If you disagree, nominate Flight 390 for deletion....William 23:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hi - I replied to your comment here User talk:Mcld#February_2014 - I request clarification please.--mcld (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Monuments' descriptions[edit]

Hello LGA. You recently reverted my edits in several articles about Baku monuments. But I asked HJ Mitchell about topic ban and he answered that topic ban wasn't considered to cover Azerbaijan topics in general—just topics related to the conflict with Armenia and similar geopolitical/ethnic disputes. Also he said that he don't see a problem with the other edits (adding descriptions of monuments), as long as the subjects aren't connected to the conflict with Armenia. So could you return my edits as they don't have anything with my topic ban. They are about monuments, which don't have any conflicts. --Interfase (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi LGA. HJ Mitchell vacated my topic ban. So I returned my edits in the articles about monuments. I think there shouldn't be any problem now. --Interfase (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Image deletion[edit]

Hello, LGA. The copyright holder has provided written permission for the fair-use of this image. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine then. I'll get her to contact ORTS and confirm that permission has been given for the use of the image.
Going through the fair-use rationales,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content

1, no free equivalent, this image has been selected by the copyright holder for the specific purpose of public release and use. 2, respect for commercial opportunities, again, this image has been chosen by the copyright holder for this use. 3, minimal usage. One picture on her page qualifies. 4, previous publication. Again, her organization has published this image previously and it has been used in other secondary sources. 5, content. meets content standards. 6, media specific policy. Meets media specific policy. 7, one article minimum. Qualifies. 8, contextual significance. Qualifies. 9, restrictions on location - uses only in the article. Qualifies. 10, image description identifies the source of the picture.

In short, this picture meets all 10 requirements. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If released under CC/by/SA will you withdraw the nomination? Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I have asked her to do so. Can you withdraw the nomination until she can respond? Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
No, I understand. I'm trying to do this the right way, (acquiring permission beforehand), etc. I though that requesting permission for free use would be sufficient to clear the hurdles of image use. :( Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Stephanie Gray has contacted Wikipedia already per releasing this image as CC by SA for use to the project. There is no Copyvio justification for nominating it for deletion, and especially not for nominating it for a speedy. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanx[edit]

thanx but i had resolved the problemMajid MM'S (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Haiwei Dong[edit]

Re your message: I'm glad that Bbb23 deleted and salted the article before I got the opportunity to respond back to you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


Regarding evidence of permission[edit]

Sir, you have reported that file : Ali_Arshad_Mir.jpg has been missing evidence of permission. An email regarding the permission has been already sent to wikipedia (permissions-en@wikimedia.org) by the copyright owner(me) itself , mentioning and allowing the use of the file. Can I request you not to delete the file , because i do not find any lack of evidence, the file has been first time released on the internet(not on any other website or blog) and this is one of very few photos that we have for our hon'able father (older times there used to be less cameras in our country), the photo here is original work and has given the right information regarding the photographer as well as the owner both being the same in this case). I would be highly thankful to you if i am able to meet upto the level of copyright procedure of wikipedia and this file is allowed on website,however it will be very disappointing if the file is deleted. Thank you sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgefanno1 (talkcontribs) 06:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Like a Prayer (album)[edit]

Just a heads up that you are getting dangerously close to WP:3RR for changing the image on the article. Please don't edit-war over something that can and should be discussed on the article's talk page. If you continue to revert, you may be blocked for your actions. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, I am fully aware of WP:3RR, as you can see this edit and from the edit sums I have been communicating my issue and indeed my last edit made just the point that the change needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. LGA talkedits 21:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not accusing you of edit warring, I'm simply saying that your close. Its very easy to get wrapped up in situations like this when you feel passionately, and I can understand where you are coming from on the cover deal. I've found myself in similar situations, and I just want to make sure you stay cool. -- TLSuda (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It would appear that the IP is not interested in talking on the talk page, as you point out I am not able to make any changes and have left a note on the IP's page. LGA talkedits 02:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Steve Leeds[edit]

University of Waterloo Stratford Campus Page[edit]

Hello LGA. I have noticed that you have removed several images on the aforementioned page. All of the images are licensed correctly and pertain to the topic at hand and the sections where they reside. So I am declining your deletions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KobieTale (talkcontribs) 12:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Asking for time[edit]

Hello LGA. I added ten small images this weekend, which you tagged for deletion with the standard six day window. They are listed here.

I see you do an enormous amount of editing, and seem to often provide helpful dialog, and not just bite the newbies. Where I am somewhat new at all this is with images. I've made many responsible, NPV text improvements myself, without complaint by anyone. Yet my efforts to add images got walloped within minutes of my posting. Why? --It seems my copyright tag hasn't yet followed up with a release from the original image author.

My request is this. I need more time to get these releases. I'm dealing with non-lawyers, who don't understand it's no big deal to release a 20k JPG for public use, when they already freely sent me that same image for Wikipedia usage WITHOUT the release. I have to explain this, and get their attention, and this is with people who have day jobs, busy families, and little time to deal with this kind of thing.

To support this request, these images are not going to be controversial. Rather, when I finally do get the attention of the copyright owners who sent me the files, those image owners will be pleased that their small photos are used in my article listing the fraternity chapter buildings where they will be among a representative sampling for visual interest. As the holder of one of these images myself, which I just released to Wikipedia in small format, by design, I uploaded some very small, non-commercially viable versions of these files, so I cannot imagine anyone will object to their use. Several are already used on website pages for each individual fraternity chapter, or have been published in the fraternity's magazine. Perhaps citing this would allow usage? I await your advice. But again, if pressed to contact the owners for permission I need time to work this out, and six days is too short. Is there a tag I can insert, to ask the very zealous copyright editors to back off for a month or two? Regards, Jax MN (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but there is not much can be done to delay the process, however once you have got the owners to send the e-mails to OTRS if you come back here (or go to the OTRS notice board) then they can very easily be un-deleted if the permissions checkout. LGA talkedits 02:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
For these images, I see that a single release is acceptable (two for text). For simple, non-commercially viable photos like mine, which is suggested, GFDL or CC-by-sa-3.0? Also, the executive director of my organization is willing to grant such licenses, as they have published these photos previously. Can he do a blanket release for a set of these? Or must he write a specific response e-mail for each one? Jax MN (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe a single release listing all the images will be accepted. LGA talkedits 20:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

University of Waterloo Stratford Campus[edit]

LGA, I noticed that you have removed images that were on the page that were correctly licensed. In one case you replaced an image on the exterior of the campus with the seal of the University of Waterloo; something that in not acceptable because the University of Waterloo is a completely separate entity that the University of Waterloo Stratford Campus. It would be akin to using the UCLA logo on a page for the University of California Northridge. For that reason, I will be replacing the seal that you placed on the page with a licensed image. Thank you. Stuartzs (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

LGA, I am growing increasingly frustrated by your repeated allegations on my talk page which incidentally are untrue - and I am actually considering discontinuing my wikipedia contributions because of this. Your attacks against me border on harassment and I believe constitute bad faith. I have addressed my concerns about all this with your higher ups. I will not go into the details specifically on your talk page because I do not believe this is the right forum. I will address the specific matters concerning the U of W Stratford page on my talk page.Stuartzs (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 ICC[edit]

Oh I am thinking why I was the one to be blamed for the unsourced information. Just ask Matej1234, the one who added the information initially. I'm just doing my previous own work. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 14:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I know this mistake since you leave a message to me. However it is not so fair when I am reverting an old work when I get it unintentionally when the person who made this initial edit gets nothing. Well. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 19:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: AfC Helper Script access[edit]

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)