User talk:Ronhjones/Archive 6

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

Contents

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

LA Neighborhoods

Looks good. If any were missed, that's on me Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing...could you close the discussion at Panorama City as either "no consensus to move" or "move to Panorama City, Los Angeles per Talk:Los Angeles?
 Done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please help!

Thank you for helping me on Ornella. It helped a lot. Could you please do the same thing on Writing Stories. I am scared that it won't be good enough. Thanks in advance. Queenofluckbp91 (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ornella was easy to fix, DAB pages often are. This one I can see sinking rapidly, It's going to fail mainly because of WP:NOTGUIDE - Wikipedia does not have "how to" type articles. It would be more in place at wikiHow.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Prees-branch.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Prees-branch.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Comment added on Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_May_5#File:Prees-branch.png  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Shelby House

Thanks for moving Shelby House (Botkins, Ohio). Unfortunately another editor came along a few hours later and put it back, along with a cut & paste revert of the dab page. I've had problems with this editor before, so am not sure what, if anything, should be done. Station1 (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've put it all back.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Station1 (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

requested move fix

Hi Ronhjones. Your closing of the requested move that now shows at Talk:Shelby House, which was at Talk:Shelby House (Botkins, Ohio) i think, was incorrect in my view. The first comment, opposing, there, should have prevailed. I also believe there was nothing posted at the disambiguation page affected, which you have moved to Shelby House (disambiguation). There is a proper way to propose requested moves which affecting multiple pages. Could you please restore the original locations of articles? If you wish you could open a new requested move, properly, perhaps, or ask the original proposer to do so.

I did fix the situation by moves which you have now reverted. I was first intending to request a RM fix of the page history, but decided it wasn't worth the bother as there was not a lot of history of edits besides my own, that was left separated. Sorry anyhow if that has confused matters. --doncram (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A requested move is not a vote. The admin has to weigh up all the arguments and put his own weighting on them, based on their relevance. The oppose vote was soley based on the fact that a DAB page existed, not on if the page would be a primary topic. It is often normal to change a DAB page to have (disambiguation) added when a principal name is needed. The other arguments citing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRECISION were correctly indicated. There is no other page that could possibly be the primary page, as the rest are red links and do not count (Thomas Shelby House is already an Article page, so that is also excluded). The requetsed move had been in place for the well more than correct length of time, as it was resisted once, so I see no immediate need to revert. I would suggest if you now oppose the move, then start a new move request, although I would suspect that the original contributors to the move will oppose it. Should someone start a new article which is as or more important than the current one, then that would also be a time for a change of name  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for swapping the equitorium and equatorium pages. All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thx

Thanx for unblocking me :) This block may be a mistake caused by some proxy, I guess.Unsonique (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Some pages linked by google show it was an open proxy once, maybe it was an error at your ISPs.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:StateAbbr

Thanks for performing the requested edit. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hope it is working OK  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

deletion of Roadside Heritage Inyovision (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to understand why Roadside Heritage is set for deletion. After reading the related policies and make changes I am still unsure what exactly is unacceptable. There are many other Articles on Wikipedia that seem to be of far less compliance but are still in existence. I sincerely want to make sure this and other future Articles are in full compliance with policy in both the spirit and letter of that policy. Please help me. Thank you for your efforts in making wikipedia truly organic.

Inyovision (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Ted Williams

Sadly there are other Articles which should not be here either, times are changing, what may have slipped though once, will not again, I would expect those old Articles to slowly get caught up in the net as editors review them. The Roadside Heritage page is up for deletion as not notable, one needs to find good reliable sources to establish notability to ensure that the page can remain. This is probably one of the more difficult parts of Wikipedia policy to understand and get correct. Currently, you have a single reference to an obscure publication, which cannot be read on the web (or if it can, the reference is not formatted to show that). It might have been better to have kept it all as one article ESICE Eastern Sierra Institute for Collaborative Education, with distinct sub headings, as articles can always be split if they get too big - but I also note that the references for ESICE Eastern Sierra Institute for Collaborative Education are also a bit lean, and that might also get proposed for AfD. Note if the article gets deleted, one can always ask for it to be userfied, where it would be possible to further try to improve the Article, before trying to move it back to Article space.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

65.93.87.34

yea bud, it wasn't me, okay...


user talk:65.93.87.34 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit Jump to: navigation, search [edit] April 2010

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Wheel has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.87.34 (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not you as a person, but it was your address. If you decide not to log in, but just use an IP address then you are at the mercy of all those users who have used your address before you - you may even find yourself blocked for no (apparent) reason. The choice to have an account (and thereby get no messages that are not for yourself) or not is your choice.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

school ip

hey, there have been a few edits coming from this ip, this is our school's, so I dunno, you could just block it so stupid kids wont edit it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.33.230.130 (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Self requested blocks are not allowed, especially from a shared system - See WP:SELFBLOCK. Two more bad edits will get a block anyway - possibly 31 hours, but depends on the edits and the admin. Now the warning level is at No.3, then the anti-vandal software will prioritise any edits for checking, even if the warnings are blanked.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

This is an academic IP address. My "vandalism" was showing students how unstable Wikipedia information is by nature. I intended, as I always have in the past, to undo my edits after I was done with my lesson. I will not be able to teach this part of the lesson to my students for the rest of the semester if my account remains blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark lamoureux (talkcontribs) 14:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(driveby) Sounds like a good block then. Wiki gets more stable with such blocks...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Berean Hunter, it sure does. Anyway, in answer to OP, Wikipedia was not designed to be "played with". It was designed to be an encyclopaedia. The sandbox(es) are there for all to play and show the Wikipedia functions and problems. There are plenty of editors who can see a new edit and revert it faster than the original editor can get the edit page back up again. Even if you do, there is still a notice template that you could still acquire {{Uw-selfrevert}} for such actions. Besides that, I haven't a clue as to which IP address you refer to - I've blocked too many. If you want to have it unblocked then I suggest you put up an {{unblock}} template on the talk page, as per the block notice instruction, and an admin will consider your case.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


It's not an "encyclopedia," an encyclopedia has editors. Wikipedia is a digital commons; it will never be "stable," nor should it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.179.105 (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has editors, about 12 million of them. Stable is not important, some pages will be stable and some will change with events. What is not acceptable is adding knowingly incorrect data.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

12 million people can ensure the correctness of NOTHING. If there's a hegemony of censorship, it's not an open-source information source, it's a particularly specious fallacy subject to the same old information politics as any other information source, Only in this instance, the information isn't controlled by those with credentials, only those with power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark lamoureux (talkcontribs) 13:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you were banned for providing false information proves you wrong, doesn't it? Darktangent (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Those with the power have been approved by the community. If we didn't have vandal fighters, then we might as well shut up shop, turn off the lights and go home. There would be no Wikipedia - an average of at least 15 pages are vandalised each minute - how long would it take to vandalise so many pages that no one ever used it seriously again without vandal fighters continuously reverting bad edits.? Not that long.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Help Request from Ggaddar

{{helpme}}Hi, can you please help me. I am still trying to figure out all the Wikipedia science. :) I am writing an article about the doctor. There are not too many resources as there is no more country, he used to live in USSR. The system is so corrupt that they have lost and stolen his medals and can not provide much since many people of his era have died. What proof do I need to insure that my article which is right now only a draft does not eventually get deleted. The whole reference thing is scary to me because I will need some tutorial on it.

Also my picture file names are a mess, I want to rename them so that they could be in order but can not find that option here. What can I do to rename my images file names?

Thank You.

User name: Ggaddar (Ggaddar (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)).

Note, cancelled out the 'helpme' - I'll answer that on the users own talk page.  Chzz  ►  16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Boyce Avenue

Hey, was just wondering why you deleted the Boyce Avenue page. I'm not the one who put it up so I'm not sure what was there, but you mentioned information from Myspace. Wouldn't Myspace be considered public domain? I wouldn't think anyone could claim copyright on something they posted on Myspace/Facebook/Twitter/Blogger.

This page definitely needs to be created since the band has been featured on Youtube and has signed with a major record label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darktangent (talkcontribs) 04:24, 19 May 2010

Wikipedia can only use web content when it is explicit that the copyright has been waived, and waived to a correct degree - like CC-BY-SA or Public domain. Copyright is automatically granted to the author when anyone writes something, unless there is a notice to the contrary (like Wikipedia) - Myspace/Facebook/Twitter/Blogger have no notices, in fact most of them add a copyright notice to the bottom of each web page. If a site has no CC-BY-SA or PD emblem or page then it is unlikely that it will be allowed in Wikipedia, except by following the OTRS route at donating copyright materials  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Well it's good to know that what I post on Blogger can't be used without legal ramifications. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darktangent (talkcontribs) 04:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Guardian temperament

Why did you revert the edit? Do you know about Keirsey Temperament Theory? Extraverted and Introverted are concepts abandoned by my father (David Keirsey). He uses Expressive and Attentive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.178.19 (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If I'm wrong then please change it back. I was looking from a point of the Myers-Briggs types where the Article "was" agreeing with the classes shown i.e. ISTJ and ISFJ being Introvert and ESTJ and ESFJ being extrovert, your edit appeared not be be in agreement with that.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, his student Linda Berens wants to "add" to his theory, clevering citing her own work, which is a rephrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.178.19 (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: 172.129.216.233

I was trying to figure out what happened there myself. I figured initially that I had somehow edit conflicted on the block itself and that you blocked the IP at the same time. Strange. Mine must simply have not gone through for some reason, as I left the message after attempting to block the IP. Thanks for catching that! Resolute 22:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

History of North Korea

Thanks for the reply did you see that sentence in question "ostensibly a popular front but in reality dominated by the Communists" The whole article is reflective of significant bias, but I don't know if the person knew what those words meant. How can something be have the appearance of being popular but not in reality? Is geniune 'popularity' an illusion? No logic whatsoever. He may have meant to say 'people 'assumed' the front to be popular when in fact the reality was otherwise, but I doubt that's true, or that there would be any source to verify that.

The sentence is just misleading if it means anything. Was is a popular front or not? Seems like a very basic fundamental question. Can the article not even assert wheter the movement was popular or not? How much more cental can a question get? The whole article smacks of censorship and intellectual dishonesty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.78.109 (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with something - you have a choice...
  1. Change it yourself, but ideally have some references to back up your edits.
  2. Start a discussion on the Article's talk page - that's what they are for.
  3. As this Article is part of a project, you can also discuss any issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea
Adding comments to the Article is not allowed, and will normally be quickly reverted.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Editing?

I received a notice through Wikipedia from you about having done some editing on the page "Ollie P. Roberts." I am sorry if you were led to believe that I edited that page, but I have not and never have done so. Below is a copy of what I received:

User talk:206.41.235.99 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to:navigation, search [edit] July 2009

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Ollie P. Roberts has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. — Sebastian 06:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for any inconvenience this may cause, but I reiterate that I have not edited this page.

Sincerely, Constant Reader 206.41.235.99 (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes you did - or to be exact your IP address did - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/206.41.235.99. If you have to use an IP address then you can be at the mercy of the previous user, there is nothing we can do, if you do not want to create an account.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Square Peg

Sorry, I could have done that but I was trying to do three things at once, including writing my first article in a long time, so I thought it better for a second pair of eyes. Grateful for the assistance. – B.hoteptalk• 22:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong in getting a second opinion.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Ron. – B.hoteptalk• 22:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Prithviraj Chauhan

This is regarding your moving Prithviraj IIIPrithvi Raj Chauhan, based on my request. I was doubtful whether to request moving it to Prithvi Raj Chauhan or Prithviraj Chauhan which i indicated in my request. I see that another user supported "Prithviraj Chauhan" and on googling i find this name to be much more common. I therefore request you to move it to "Prithviraj Chauhan" . I presume a discussion is not needed since this isn't controversial. Thank You for your time. Arjuncodename024 11:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, no problem, all done.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you!

Ronhjones - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  22:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Your deletion of my file

Re: your deletion of jpg file DJ Ola, not that it really matters any more, but where shall I email you the proof that a) I took the picture you deleted and added the text to it b) The subject of the picture has allowed to make it public domain and c) It is up on the wsg website because I let them use it, because I write for them.? Fiedorczuk (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not delete it, I only tagged it. Anyway, don't e-mail me, I cannot do anything with it. Please read WP:DCM - the copyright holder has to e-mail Wikipedia from an address related to the domain that the picture is on - alternatively (and much easier) edit the web page to show an appropriate creative commons license box, and remove any copyright notices. See http://creativecommons.org/ for getting the code for a license box - it needs to be "Public Domain", or "CC-BY" or "CC-BY-SA" to be on Wikipedia (CC-BY-NC-ND, CC-BY-NC-SA, CC-BY-NC, and CC-BY-ND are not acceptable)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ronhjones. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
Message added 19:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Somone asked you a question Acather96 (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

FrescoBot was not breaking links

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ronhjones. You have new messages at Basilicofresco's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Basilicofresco (msg) 23:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nebraska Big Ten

ESPN reports that they are moving to the Big Ten away from the Big 12.

Thank you. 82.40.61.30 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not formally announced yet.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Big 12 Conference - forgive me

Please remove my warning please. Thank you. Oh yeah and here's my link. http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1092612 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.46.221 (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You cannot say there are 11 members, only to have a table showing 12.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

José Quitongo

Please refrain from judging my edits as 'unconstructive' without evidence to support your assertions.

He was not born in 1794, no matter what you say, keep adding that and I will block you.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please cite your source for that.82.40.61.30 (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. I don't need a source to remove it, you need a source to add it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He told me that's when he was born. I think he knows a bit more about his year of birth than you do. 82.40.61.30 (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So he's 216 years old, better go and tell the Guinness book of records, no use here.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

ramdas.jpg

I m the licensed holder of the photo ramdas.jpg Pls restore this photo. Ilovemuppets (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)ilovemuppets

There is no way you can prove that to me. You must follow the rules at WP:DCM to formally donate the copyright.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Crown Vetch

The reason I put a paragraph in the Wikipedia article on Crown Vetch is my personal experience with this plant. Perhaps from a UK perspective, it should not be regarded as a vicious invasive--but it certainly should be from the US perspective. The article as it stands is weak in its warnings, and gives little idea of what a landowner might be in for if he plants this stuff.

Furthermore, the article as it stands may contain a misstatement of fact--"Its deep, tenacious roots and thick, fern-like leaves provide excellent erosion control where it is used as a ground cover." I have read on several websites that actually it does not do very well at erosion control--the erosion just continues under the leaf canopy.

I have no burden to build my life about a crusade against crown vetch--I have built too much of my life already around exterminating this pest. Nor will I trouble you further with alterations to the article, which I presume you would remove anyway.

Donald RhoadsDhrhoads (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've no doubt you mean well, and it's a horrible plant. However Wikipedia is based on policies, and a user's personal knowledge (however good) is just not allowed - note Wikipedia:No original research. If you can find some press story or similar about it's properties then that can be added. You could add your concerns on the talk page (which is the standard message I left you), and request that others help you to find a suitable reference.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I can find several articles from university sources about this stuff.

I'm a little puzzled about this policy, which on one level seems to make sense, but on another doesn't. Is it saying that an opinion article can be used as a basis for an addition to Wikipedia, even if it's obviously wild, but knowledge that I have is verboten?

There's a "stub" article in Wikipedia about my brother, James Berton Rhoads, who was the fifth Archivist of the United States. Suppose I decide to act on the invitation, and expand that stub. Could I say that he was born on 17 September 1926 because I happen to know that he is exactly 9 years older than I and I was born on 17 September 1937? Could I mention that he now lives near Kansas City, and that his wife died a few years back (I can find the date), or am I forbidden to say those things because it is I who know them, and I may not be able to cite a published source? Dhrhoads (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Don Rhoads

I understand your problem. However everything is (or should be) based on verifiable data from reliable sources - there may be old(er) articles for which the current policies have not "caught up", but they will get trimmed in the end. I may add that articles of living persons are even more critally viewed - I often see data added, such as "he is now dating X" - which as they are unreferened, are quickly reverted.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Please overlook the mental dyslexia I just exhibited--that should have been 17 September 1928--at least I didn't try to tell you he was born in 1726!!! I guess birth dates and death dates are quite verifiable, if one wants to bother with birth and death certificates, and they're not very likely to be challenged in this case anyway.

I did read the policy on BLP which seems quite sound. I did wonder about an article about Hans-Jorgen Holman, which did not seem very objective--even for the admirable man he was (I knew him fairly well). It also contains a couple errors of fact, and completely omits mention of his first wife Ellie, who died and was buried at sea on what was to be a farewell journey back to the old country. Perhaps sometime I will try to fix that one up a bit. In fairness, the BLP policy might not have applied to this article, as I'm fairly confident it was written after his death.

My only previous go at editing or adding to a Wikipedia article was to add to the list of World Concert Halls--I knew about the ones in central and southern Indiana, also one in Berrien Springs, Michigan--none of which were previously listed. But I did go to sources to discover seating capacities, organizations using the halls, etc.

Dhrhoads (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Don Rhoads

I'm sure you will get used to the policies in the end, and the policies are all written by other editors by consensus - not just admins and are still being adjusted - they are living document. For most newcomers, it's quite a steep learning curve to grasp all the essential parts, which they often don't realise, ending up with large reversions and page deletions. We often say to newcomers to start with small edits and work up, so many virtually start with page creations, which are doomed to failure. Once someone dies then the BLP policy is not needed (one can't libel the dead - not where I live anyway.)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

speedy deletion???

I work for the Idaho National Laboratory. We are 100% funded by the United States Department of Energy. There for we are a federally funded company. So any of the groundbreaking technologies that I add to Wikipedia, fall into the public domain. They're property of the federal government. My content uses the same licence as the government photos I upload. If I am wrong, please enlighten me. You can also hang on a second before you get crazy and delete EVERYTHING.

Crm1003 (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

We have to go on what is published on the web page, not on the say so of any editor - we have no way of validating your claims on who you are. There are plenty of "Copyright © 2010 Idaho National Laboratory" at the bottom of the web pages, therefore we cannot have a copy. If you wish to get the page material donated then there is a full set of rules at donating copyright materials. In addition you should not really be writing about subjects that you have a serious conflict of interest, such articles are likely to get either severely edited by other users or tagged for deletion as spam.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

So let me understand so I don't keep banging my head agaist the wall. As long as it says copyright INL 2010, you can't accept anything. However if I re write my content, will I be able to post that and not get everything deleted? Oh and who doesn't have a conflict of interest writing on Wikipedia??? People write about the things they know and like. I don't want some clueless hack writing about architechture when they don't know a thing about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crm1003 (talkcontribs) 21:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct. If the Article is written so there is no match to the sentences of the web page, then there is no copyright violation (note just changing one or two words does not count as a re-write). As for the WP:COI issue, I did not write the policy, it was made by a consensus of editors - i did not say you could not write it, just that it's discouraged. It is suggested (by not compulsory), that you disclose any COI on the article talk page, it will show that you are trying to honest and open. I agree that people write about things thay like and know, that's why all Wikipedia data should be verifiable from reliable sources, those policies help stop any original research.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
P.S. If you do work there then get them to replace all the "Copyright © 2010 Idaho National Laboratory" notices with a standard "public domain" or suitable "creative commons" license, and I'll restore the pages  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

GridCars deletion

Username: winstonejordaan Page that was deleted : GridCars Dear Mr Jones, I value you comment that this was advertising, we are a new electric car development company, that will be pioneering a new way of thinking about Mobility. My decision to add this to Wiki was driver by a need to inform people about what we are doing, and to define the meaning of what GridCars will represent. I admit that we have only limited info published at this time, but we are still trying to fully formulate the ideas. I do believe that once the group of us involved have had the time to edit the article (myself, I am not good at writing, but I am a Engineer, and understand the technology) it will be the same as Optimal Energy or indeed Ford, with the only difference that we will be representing a philosophical change in thinking.

We are in no position to advertise, as the first commercial cars will only be in the market in 2013, and before we even start selling, people will have to understand the advantages of commuter cars.

I would like another chance to improve on the article of GridCars, and make it a encyclopedia type entry, it really is not my intention to advertise, but to inform and define.

Thanks Winstone Winstonejordaan (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Can you please reply to my email as well : winstone@gridcars.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winstonejordaan (talkcontribs) 20:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've userfied it for you at User:Winstonejordaan/GridCars, you can move it or have it moved to Article space when finished. Please note conflict of interest and neutral point of view - it's very hard to follow these policies when you are quite involved. I've added an underconstruction template to the top, in theory it could still be proposed for deletion, but most editors are more tolerant to pages in user space.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you, I will try to make it more acceptable, can I call on you for a review in a week or 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winstonejordaan (talkcontribs) 20:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just drop me a note.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Stone and Holt Weeks Foundation

Hi, You recently deleted a page called The Stone and Holt Weeks Foundation due to copywright infringement. I was wondering if you could undelete the page because I have permission of the people who created the foundation page (stone and holts parents) to create the wikipedia page. If you have any issues with this please email stoneandholtweeksfoundation@gmail.com. Thank you. Caroline Lacey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolacey (talkcontribs) 20:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. We cannot validate any claims you make - we don't know who you are or what status you might hold, you are just a user name. We therefore don't do anything, you have to do it all yourself. Please read WP:DCM - the copyright holder has to e-mail Wikipedia from an e-mail address related to the domain that the web content is on - alternatively (and much easier) edit the web page to show an appropriate creative commons license box, and remove any copyright notices. See http://creativecommons.org/ for getting the code for a license box - it needs to be "Public Domain", or "CC-BY" or "CC-BY-SA" to be on Wikipedia (CC-BY-NC-ND, CC-BY-NC-SA, CC-BY-NC, and CC-BY-ND are not acceptable). If you can get the web page changed or obtain an OTRS ticket then I or another admin can restore the page, not before.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Rationale?

You made this edit but didn't really explain why this was removed. Can you explain? I am watching this page, so please reply here.Timneu22 · talk 21:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The text is a copyright violation, it cannot stay on Wikipedia - hence the summary "rem CSD and rem copyvio", once the copyright violation was removed then the CSD tag is not valid any more. Had the whole page been a copyvio, then I would have deleted it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Still looks copyvio to me. — Timneu22 · talk 21:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Restoring the blatant copyvio text doesn't help...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
My fault. Unintended — Timneu22 · talk 22:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

CopyClean Barnstar.png The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
For mopping up so many of my tagged articles yesterday, and for keeping an eye out for more copyright violations almost every day. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Well appreciated.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Coord

Thanks for making the edit I requested. --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work on the code. I'm still on a learning curve with that.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for doing the rename to Parable of the Rich Fool. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yodel Australia

Hello Ronhjones, A little while ago, you deleted my article on Yodel Australia for "Not enough context to identify article's subject". This was my first attempt at writing an article and I was unaware of all the rules and requirements in writing an article. Since then I have re-written the article, with some help of other Wikipedia users and would like to request you to please review it once again. The article has been written to be unbiased, well-sourced and provide genuine information about Yodel. Currently the updated article is on my user page User:Natkolk/Yodel_Australia. Could you please review, and let me know what you think. I am happy to perform the appropriate changes. Yours sincerely Natkolk (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.160.99 (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

access to deleted page

A page a was working on last week for my employer was deleted due to copyright problems, the page was for Jonathan Torgovnik. i understand why it was deleted and what i have to change, but im hoping to recover my draft so that i can re-use some of what i wrote that was okay to use and the links that i had included in it. please let me know if this is possible.

thank you, nschilit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nschilit (talkcontribs) 15:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We cannot allow any copyright material to be seen on Wikipedia. E-mail me if you want to have the draft by alternative means that does not compromise Wikipedia's copyright policy.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


Ok, I understand. I started over and so far have only included a section of the page i want to create and i have also included references for everything, but it was still deleted. can you please let me know what i did wrong this time? Thanks! nschilit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nschilit (talkcontribs) 18:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Mercury in vaccines

It is a fact that vaccines contain murcury. I was editing the spelling when this was deleted from murcury exposure. wikipedia is best when it has a large amount of information an people need to know the turths about what thir being injected with. a relibal source is the wiki page about vaccines and/or the one about the persevitive compound which has references I linked them. as i can see from your page all you do is delete info why dont you be helpful and add an revise info if there is no refences then do resurch an go find some maby you will lean somthing. i donno why im playing games like this; just this is important(dont take this bad i get kind of adament).fist off what is it what is it dosent work like that yes links go to page page has references if you dont use links you dont care anyways. it the same thing like is best because its just where did this come from oh i can go to it wow magic. really though people are not all dumb and if they are its because of thir vaccines, this is a real issue I dont have time to find references for vaccines causing autism because the real info is denounced and ignored but it dosnt take a lab to see vaccines with murcury started at the same time as autisium and is increasing with increasing number of vaccines. no hard feeling this is improtant if you have time to delete articals why dont you get sources if you have a problem with them of lack of so we all can have easy to accsess information and we can all contribute there is no right and wrong way just stages of evolution unless it is simply destroyed! I dont have time today for sourcing because I am at work. agin no hard feelings, unless you are just an ego concerned about rules, orders, right and wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.98.238 (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If you know so much about it, then you can provide the reliable source that will be required to keep that text in place.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't work like that. You add the text, and the references have to be added at the same time  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The policies are there for very good reasons, therefore there is no need not to follow them. If we did not enforce the policies then I can most certainly assure you that there would be no Wikipedia - the unreferenced data that would be added would more than overwhelm the good data many, many times - and people would just stop looking here. As for saying that autism increased at the same time that mercury use increased - I'm afraid that fails clearly under WP:SYNTHESIS, in fact the UK had a different theory - that the autism increase also coincided with the change to a single MMR vaccine, rather than three separate ones, and a lot of parents have been paying for three separate vaccines, rather than the free single one - see MMR_vaccine#Claims_about_autism.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Florida State University College of Communication and Information

Hi Ron

You deleted some info I posted on the FSU College of Communication & Information page ...

How do I get the info to appear since its legitimate info and I work at the College?

THanks


randeree

ebe@cci.fsu.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.73.79 (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't immediately. The content was deleted for
  1. Copyright violation and
  2. Advertising
Because of the copyvio, it cannot be restores until the material has been formally donated (or the web page tagged with a correct creative commons license) - the full instructions are at donating copyright materials. We have no other way of validating that donation.
Also the content was written like an advertisement, this is also not allowed - please have a look at WP:ADVERT.
As you work there, then it is essential that you read up on conflict of interest, neutral point of view at least. It is extremely difficult to write about one's organisation without violating these policies.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible sock

I sw That you reverted an edit on the fetch page from Anakiniman. I had in question yesterday while looking at his contribs. He lookedlike a sock so I added him to a current case That I did for another user that I did not think that was a sock and one more as well. I thought I would just have them check this person out as well. The case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FetchFan21. Checker Fred (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

WHY DID U DO THAT? THAT WAS A GOOD ONE!

THE SEE ALSO SECTION WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FUEL ECONOMY IN AUTOMOBILES ARTICLE! WHY DID U REVERT IT? THAT WAS RUDE! I WAS TRYING TO FIX IT!!! 98.177.155.42 (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Because "the proportion of driving on high-speed roadways varies from" does not make sense - you can't drive on "Road Traffic Safety" - the original "proportion of driving on high speed roadways varies" works, you can drive on Motorway.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fisk University

I understand fully your concern about my edit. I am, as you can probably tell, a casual user and not fully aware of the citation procedure, however, my source is the official website of the Fisk University Memorial Chapel. I will be attending Fisk this fall and I assure you that my edit was made in good faith and with respect for my alma mater. That said, as you are clearly a more expert user, would you mind making the proper changes and citations to the effect of showing that Fisk does in fact have a motto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.46.135 (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you care to copy the web page address here (with the data you want to add), I will add it for you to show how it's done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fisk motto

Gladly- http://www.fiskmemorialchapel.com/Welcome/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.46.135 (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about a peculiar warning

I'm puzzled over this warning that you left at User talk:Anakiniman. The link that Anakiniman added to FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman was not a spam link. It was in fact the official website of the article's subject. It appears that he was attempting to use it as reference for the change of start date for the last season that aired. The start date of the last season was a point of contention. At the time, September 11, 2009 was supported by a citation added by a sock of User:Simulation12.[1] I confirmed the date and expanded the citation with the correct date,[2] but the sock argued that September 14 was the real start date as September 11 was just a "sneak peek",[3] even though he added nothing in support of that claim. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The link given (http://www.pbskids.org/fetch/) was inline and tagged to the date "September 11, 2009" - nowhere on that web page can I see that date. It may well be on a sub page, but I'm not going to look through the whole site to find it. Wikipedia data has to be verifiable, and in this case it was not. Therefore the only purpose the link was serving was to just to link to another site - hence I tagged it as a spam link.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Since it's the official website of the subject it can't be tagged as a spam link though. The very first entry on the article's talk page explains why that link was used. Sure, he should have cited properly but the guy only has 25 edits to his name and people with a lot more experience here make that mistake. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I can assure you that there are plenty of Articles that have had spam links removed which link to "an official website" - there is already an official website link in the Infobox, it didn't need adding again. It was also a revert of a experienced editor who removed the link applied by an IP address, thus that also suggests that the IP has logged in to do the revert, to try to give it more credibility, and he also knows how to undo edits - not the guise of a novice editor. Whatever it was, it just didn't look right - there was some underlying plot, and now he's been tagged as a sockpuppet, it looks like that was correct.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
"it didn't need adding again" - It was added as a reference so, although the url was incorrect, it was an appropriate use and I don't think it's assuming good faith to treat the addition as you have. As for the sockpuppet tagging, if you look at the SPI, and the previous SPI that I've linked to, you'll see that there are concerns by multiple editors that the person who tagged him is a sock himself, despite some rather confusing CU results. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe - I'm not sure about the SPI - that's for others to decide. But it was not just an addition. It was a revert of an existing vandal fighter's removal, which immediately bring concerns as to why it was reverted - hence I checked the reference, saw that the web page had no such data, and reverted back. Whether or not it was spam / vandalism / OR / POV is a grey area, and I just decided to go for the spam message.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a follow-up, the user who tagged this editor as a sockpuppet has been blocked as a sockpuppet himself. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

request for remove of protection status in "Lapithas" article

Hello Mr Jones. Thank you for your advice on editing the article of "Lapithas". I am new to Wikipedia and i didn't know the basic rules about editing articles. That's why i tried to move the content of the "Lapithas Mountains" page into a new one with the name "Lapithas" using cut/paste. I didn't know that this is not permited neither that i can move the article under a new name. The issue about the "Lapithas Mountains" article and also the reason why i tried to put in a new name is that the information provided by the title is incorrect. I live in Greece, in the area of Zacharo which is close to Lapithas and i know very well that Lapithas is one small mountain which is only 773m high, not a mountain range. So, I would like to kindly request you to remove the protection status that you put on the "Lapithas" article, and also to move the page titled "Lapithas Mountains" into a new one with the title "Lapithas mountain" which is more correct. You can also make the "Lapithas" page redirect to the new page. I have plenty of material about this mountain and its history and i would like to contribute to an article which should, however, have the correct title.

Thank you --Huskarl2000 (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Since not all users might agree, I would suggest that you follow the process in requested moves, this will allow all users to comment and arrive at a consensus. Copy the following to the Talk:Lapithas Mountains page...
{{subst:move|Lapithas}} reason for change. ~~~~
and change the "reason for change" to whatever explanation you care to make and save the page. A bot will list the page at requested moves within 30 mins. It will stay there a week for readers to comment, and then an admin will decide if the community wants to change the name, and if so, he will do the move for you.
If that doesn't make too much sense, or you want me to install the move template then just leave me a message.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed your user page wo/editing it

Hi, Ron. My real name is David; Jack Merridew is from Lord of the Flies. It's a joke.

I just fixed 6 coding issues on your user page by fixing things that you were transcluding onto it: {{Adminbars/bar percent}} and {{MOSCHEM}}. A thanks, as you're doing work for me. Pleased to have met you. The fixes, of course, apply to anyone else using these. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

deleted "Quantum Relativistic Imaginizations" ‎

Prasanna mujumdar (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC), 21:55, 4 July 2010 Ronhjones (talk | contribs) deleted "Quantum Relativistic Imaginizations" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://indianalternativemedicine.blogspot.com/2010/03/quantum-relativistic-imaginization.html)

HI,

This is my blog from where I have written article and taken contents, the contents I have created are free for usage by anyone. They have been published by me to many news sources as open content

Pls help to undelete thje content, I am planning to create whole new set of articles which talk about same content

prasanna mujumdar

We have absolutely no way of checking that you are the owner of the blog site, as far as we can see there is a web site with content that has implicit copyright, and a Wikipedia page that has the same content. Thus all we can do is delete the Wikipedia page. To use web content you will now have to follow the instructions at donating copyright materials where you either e-mail a special Wikipedia address from an e-mail address that is clearly linked to the web content (might be hard with a blog) or you edit the web content to show that the material can be copied by showing a suitable creative commons or public domain license.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Question re moves

Regarding your closure of the move discussion at Talk:Tommy McAvoy, Baron McAvoy. I agree there was no consensus, and the page should not be moved - but surely this should mean it should go back to its title before the dispute arose? If we're going to allow anyone to come along and rename a page, and then force others to gain a consensus in order to move it back, then doesn't it defeat the very object of "maintaining the status quo until there is consensus to change it"? And also encourages move warring and unilateral action, while "punishing" the side that stopped warring and took the matter to discussion?--Kotniski (talk) 06:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The move discussion was only for the indicated move (Tommy McAvoy, Baron McAvoy → Tommy McAvoy) - it cannot apply to any previous moves. If you see a unilateral move that you think was not right, then you can always revert that yourself, with a note that any move should be discussed first. If there is then a danger with "wild" editors moving pages against consensus, then one can ask for it to be move protected.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's basically what happened. An editor moved the page from A to B; another editor moved it back to A; the first editor then again moved it to B. (I wouldn't call either of them "wild"; the first editor was genuinely convinced he was upholding "the rules".) At this point the second editor stopped warring and started a move discussion, which is what the first editor should have done. So given that the move discussion led to no consensus, am I now justified in moving the page back to A (the status quo, where it should have been sitting all the time)? And in fact, shouldn't the move discussion be relisted somehow? (There was hardly any participation.)--Kotniski (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I think asking for a relisting is a reasonable request in the circumstances, it's not difficult, just my one edit to undo, and then set up the relisting. SO it will now run for a further week.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks, hopefully some kind of decision will be reached this time.--Kotniski (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

EDXL Sharp

Could you please undelete this article? We have received OTRS permission for it which I can add as soon as it is restored. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged the article's talk page as you requested there. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
And the page is live again.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

William Sherwood page

You have deleted my page on William Sherwood, even though I explained in the notes that it was my own page to give Wikipedia.

I find the instructions for putting one's own copyright material on Wikipedia quite incomprehensible. I tried to upload a photograph of my own some weeks ago, and that was immediately deleted too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie (Oxford) (talkcontribs) 20:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You must understand that anyone can create a username and claim that they hold the copyright. We have no magic validation system - we do not know who the users are, there so so many false claims about copyright that we have to assume that all are false. Once you have data on the web and then put it on Wikipeadia later, then someone will always find the match and tag it for deletion. The whole point is that material on Wikipedia virtually has no copyright, and other people can take whatever is on Wikipedia's site and put it on their own site without asking - all they usually need to do is to add a (usually very small!) attribution to their page. Thus to put the data on here, you have to give up most of the copyright. The best page to read is donating copyright materials, and (in my opinion) the easiest way to do it is to add a CC-BY-SA license box to your original web page (you can get the box code from Creative Commons - you must allow "Commercial use" and "Modifications" - share alike is OK) .  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this. I may get around to doing this: I can understand why it has to be done. Wikipedia is very clever to spot copyright infringements so quickly, but people need a bit longer before you pull the page away. Stephanie (Oxford) (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Too many lawyers sharpening their pencils to leave it up. Once it gets seen and verified, then the only action is delete. If you can get the permission sorted, or add a license to the web page, then any admin can restore the page (they are never truly deleted).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ronhjones. You have new messages at Robinjey1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Norwegian University yadda yadda

I finally found the original source. Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Typical, just when I thought I'd saved it. c'ést la vie...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Heh, thanks! Obviously, the article would need to be completely rewritten anyway, so.. Ironholds (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Stirlina and copyrighted uploads

This editor continues to upload copyrighted content. In his prior uploads, based on content on the image description pages, he is apparently conducting a school project. Myself and others have attempted to communicate with him about the copyright violations but he refuses to communicate. Instead, he plows ahead and uploads another copyright violation. 22:04, you deleted File:Jhallwinter.jpg. 22:30, he uploads it again. This time, he didn't even cite the source or lay a license on it. I placed two different warnings on his talk page regarding the possibility of his being blocked; User_talk:Stirlina#STOP_UPLOADING_IMAGES and User_talk:Stirlina#Warning. He's ignored those too, and continues uploading copyright violations. I think a block is in order. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, you are quite right. I was toying with the idea, anyway. I've given him a 1 week with a specific warning - he ignores that at his peril.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :)

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Thanks for blocking me, soiling my block log and all :) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what went wrong there. I saw the action by InsideReverseOut to your page, and went to block for indefinite, and somehow your page then appeared post block, so I had to revert. I must have click (or misclicked) a wrong link somewhere... I'll try not to do it again!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

brent republic

hello did you delete the brent republic i am not brent but im his friend we are young and we really wanted are country on wikipedia it is a fake country and is made to please 9-11 year olds for a war of countries in school we hoped you allow us to keep this page and hope you can bring back are page, pidia or what ever you call it thanks, your friends at republic of brent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.148.111 (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a hoax, it's not allowed.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

hello i am from brent republic i know it is a hoax is there anyway we can recover the info on the page because it was wrote by my friend for the enjoyment of wars in the school playground and we want to put it on a website do you know any good site editors?

thx, your friends at republic of brent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.148.111 (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

where abouts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.148.111 (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

E-mail me at ...removed address..., and I'll mail it back. (E-mail address only valid 24h)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

sent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.148.111 (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

replied  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

On Approved Credit

Why would you remove my edit to the "OAC" page? "On Approved Credit" is sometimes abbreviated as OAC -- I just saw it on a rental application and came online to find out what it stood for. I was surprised to see that Wiki didn't have it listed, so I added it. Why remove it? 76.21.41.87 (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no page "On Approved Credit", Disambiguation pages have to link to a Wikipedia page, thay cannot hold content - WP:MOSDAB.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

An edit i didn't make

Hi, I received a message that i did an edit on the White page. However, I have never edited anything on Wikipedia. Is it possible because i'm on someone else's internet? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.129.176 (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

IP addreses are often re-used (dynamic addressing). The only way to avoid such messages is to create an account, then when you log in, you only get messages for yourself.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A1 tag

Hi Ron, Sorry to trouble you, but I think I ought to bring your attention to my oppose at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare. I've used an article you deleted as an example. ϢereSpielChequers 22:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. I think that page was doomed for deletion one way or another, but as you correctly point out, he was a bit quick off the mark.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Miley Cyrus - Party In The USA.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Miley Cyrus - Party In The USA.ogg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

So you deleted my page...

Hello Ron,

You had deleted a page of mine about NextStep ReUse. I am an employee of that organization and was told to create the page. I attempted to provide reference to the website where the information was taken from, but apparently didn't do it correctly. I had emailed Wikipedia about what I needed to do to keep the page one, and then you deleted it. How do I get the page back up?

03:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Lauren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenshort (talkcontribs)

Where do I start...
  1. User's are strongly discouraged from creating pages about something that they have a conflict of interest in - it's not totally against policy (but I can see it going that way, and many editors do treat such pages as if they should have never been created). This is because one of the core policies, is that one has to adhere to a neutral point of view, and when created by someone with an interest, it rarely ever gets one. If you muct re-create it, then always declare your interest on the Article talk page - other editors will appreciate honesty - they then may re-word the whole Article, that's Wikipedia life - no ones owns any page, once created, anyone can re-phrase, add bits, etc. (so long as the data is correctly referenced, and is not vandalism). If the page gets a promotional tone, then it's very likely to speedily deleted as SPAM - note that the page headers are always set to be "no follow", so they don't influence one's search engine rating anyway.
  2. You cannot use any material from the web, unless explicit permission is given - nearly everyone puts up a copyright notice on the web page e.g. "Copyright © 2002–2010 NextStep Recycling. All rights reserved." To use copyright material then the rules on donating copyright materials must be followed. Personally I think it's easiest to remove all copyright notices and put up a CC-BY-SA notice - look at the box on the left pane of http://www.crhf.org.uk/, that shows any data on that page is free to copy and use for any purpose, so long as they cite the original page. The box html code is available from http://www.creativecommons.org - note only CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA are allowed, any attempt to add non commercial or non derivative is not allowed on Wikipedia.
You have no welcome template with policy links, so I will add one to your talk page. Hopefully it will help you prevent further problems. I cannot put the page back unless the copyright material is donated, I can send you a copy by e-mail of you e-mail me by the link on this page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Cannon Cadets

Could you please undelete this article? We have received OTRS permission for it which I can add as soon as it is restored. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Article and talk pages restored, CSD tags removed, OTRS pending tag on talk page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I've now added the appropriate permission tag. Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violator

Greetings. I saw that you tagged several images that were uploaded by Conk 9 (talk · contribs) for deletion. As you can see from that user's talk page warnings (as well as previously blanked warnings), the user is a persistent copyright violator. I wanted to let an administrator know, since this user seems to persist in uploading images with false licenses.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to feel that he may have reformed. When I find a copyvio picture, I often look at a user's contributions and check other pictures - often a pattern emerges. It this case all his bad uploads were done in 2007 (and some had got missed, which I tagged). The user then stopped editing for 2 years, and came back in 2009, so far as I can see now, he is keeping to the policy, and only uploading files that he has taken - all the newer ones have full EXIF camera data attached (unlike the earlier ones deleted) - that's no definitive guarantee that's it's not a copyvio, but I can't find a match on the web either (and with EXIF data - it's easier to do a Google Images search and use the image size to reduce the number of images shown). So while his 2009 onwards pictures are OK, I'll leave it at that. Should I start finding a match (and he's now on my radar) then action can be taken. In case you wonder why I tag and not delete - it's just that I don't like being the judge and jury, a second opinion never hurts to check one hasn't make a mistake, and tagging with twinkle puts the warning message on the talk page for me. If you find copyvios in his latest pictures, then please let me know.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • You may be correct - however they are all in the same town as his other photos, so one has to assume that he could physically take them, until I find a match, one has to assume good faith. If they are copyright violations then a match will be found in due course, Google image searches are getting many more pictures these-days - although sometimes too many hits - it helps when the violator doesn't change the image size ;-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There's a new one that was just uploaded now (File:Orfdestinations2010.JPG). It is a clear derivative of File:Norfolkairportmap.png, but it was uploaded with a false claim of PD-Self and without any reference to the source file. I updated the license to be correct. I think it's fair to say that this uploader continues to thumb his nose at the copyright policy. Please advise me on the next step I should take. Thank you.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have identified a number of other copyright problems with this user. I have listed them at the talk page.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:convert broken

Your recent edit may have broken template:convert. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Someone_broke_template:convert. For example {{convert|0|F}} generates {{#ifeq:|on|<span style="display:none">{{padleft:{{FORMATNUM:0|R}}|16|0}}</span>}}{{convert/{{#if:1|F}}|{{FORMATNUM:0|R}}|{{#ifeq:{{#expr:0*0}}|0|0}}|||||r={{#ifeq:{{{sp}}}|us|er|re}}|d=LoffAoffDbSoff|s=}}.

Looks like someone else fixed the problem in Template:Ordomag. Always a problem, you do one change, check a few pages that have the template - all seems well, but there's often one rogue use that goes belly up.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Chenglei.jpg

You protected the above name as the inappropriate image was being continually uploaded. I would ask that you either block the uploader or leave the image name open so that we can easily montior when the user attempts to upload the image again. Thanks for your consideration. Active Banana ( bananaphone 00:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking that myself...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've unprotected it, and you may watch it for changes, and I've given a 1 month block - hopefully (s)he will now stop their disruptive behaviour.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of Whu4

Hello Ronhjones. Whu4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, WGFinley (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A month right out of the box with no prior offenses seems a bit strong, could you comment? --WGFinley (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied on User:WHu4 Talk page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom Perriello

What are you referring to?!?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.208.121 (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Referring to removing a large chunk of referenced data from Tom Perriello  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Name Request

I don't get what was wrong with my name changes.

User:FTP1690 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangers GSTQ (talkcontribs) 03:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Omar Barghouti

Dear Ronhjones,

I am Omar Barghouti. I see that you've cancelled the edit I had made on my entry on Wiki. As a "living person" who is being written about, I think I can well assess the accuracy of the information or misinformation about my life, education, career, etc., contributed by others.

Some of the text written about me was either inaccurate, entirely false or highly negatively selective. In my edit I made sure to include the most accurate information about myself.

I hope you shall take this into consideration before cancelling my edits about myself in the future.

Thanks, Omar Barghouti omar.barghouti2@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar.barghouti2 (talkcontribs) 21:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone, just anyone could create a Wikipedia account with your user name. We have no way of tying an account with a person, so we treat all users the same. If you have a problem with a page then please see WP:BLPHELP.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, even if you are Omar Barghouti (which we have no way of knowing) you still need to follow wikipedia rules when editing this article. That means you need to provide sources for the information you insert, and gain consensus on the talk page for removing sourced information.
I suggest you undo your last edit and use the talk page. You are currently engaged in an edit war which may result in you being blocked and not able to edit at all. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy High School Page

Hi Ron Glad you undid my last revision ... a moronic reference to Lee Harvey Oswald. I only did it to draw attention to the equally moronic reference to a visit by British Fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley, which is continually added by some silly person. The Oswalds are an old Kirkcaldy landowning family ... I assure you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.252.149 (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, but you could have just reverted the page, rather than "fogging the issue". I've sorted it now.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy High School

R Thanks for sorting this - I got fed up of reverting the page after the vandal kept inserting the Oswald Mosley comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.252.149 (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Stuart Broad

The players call him Malfoy, no need to hand out a 'warning'! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.133.162 (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Quote a source, and there won't be a problem.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dani Wilde

I don't understand "sign your messageClaip (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)", so my contact details are:

I noticed that there was a page about Dani Wilde that you deleted in April. I was wondering why? She has just released her second album on Ruf Records (well, it is available on download from Amazon and the CD is imminent) and as such meets the criteria which I read for inclusion. I was going to create a page for her based on the information from her web site and that of Ruf records when I discovered one had already been created (and deleted). There are a small number (2) of references to her on other web pages, and I feel that people should be able to follow links to find out more about this young & talented artist.

[N.B. I do not know Dani Wilde and the only contact I have had with her was a single exchange of e-mails, similarly I have no contact with Ruf Records).

Cliff.

Claip (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)"Sign you posts" refers to using either four ~ or the "signature" box to identify your user account to the comment that you make. see WP:SIGNATURE Active Banana ( bananaphone 15:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The "Dani Wilde" article was deleted because it was a blatent copy of another web site - here is the data "This article may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement of http://www.thetunnelsbristol.co.uk/events/dani-wilde-and-will-harmonica-wilde-tickets-7-advance/."  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Beef mince

That crap about the contents of American hamburger meat is a damned lie. Delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.125.203 (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Then produce some references to disprove the ones cited.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment about a test on my user page

Hiyo! I saw on my userpage User_talk:TonyHagale that you said "my test" worked. I was using Twinkle to revert a long string of changes that an anonymous user was adding to the article that looked quite a bit like gibberish. I don't really understand what you mean by "my test", as I thought that I had properly reverted the changes on the live site. Is there possibly a feature of Twinkle that I'm not aware of that drops certain rollbacks into a testing state? Thanks! TonyHagale (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Tight (album) and 72.177.53.86

I saw you re-blocked 72.177.53.86 (talk), but this mght not be vandalism. Not sure if this is a reliable source, but this page appears to support the edits that keep getting reverted. This IP editor has also communicated on the article's talk page. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing is a matter of debate, but the last name of Jimmy Urine likely contributes to this too. Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the user should be unblocked. –CWenger (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 Done with a message to use WP:RS  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Chocolate

I resent Hershey's Chocolate being compared to vomit. I'm sure that that is impossible for you to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.125.203 (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That section has been there for over 6 months and no one else has complained, in fact the author goes out of his way not to offend by adding "I hope nobody is insulted". Talk pages are not normally edited out, except in extreme cases, and this is not extreme. I don't see why "that is impossible for you to understand" - I've been to the USA and tasted their chocolate. I don't link it to any particular smell/taste, I personally just don't like it - like most people over here - it's far too fatty and sweet, but it's made for a warmer climate.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

For reverting vandalism on my user page! This message is belated, bear with me... Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, always happy to help.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the unblock. Could you possibly restore my userpage from before the block? --Uga Man (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
One more thing. I accidentally edited my userpage using my IP, could you possibly delete the revision? --Uga Man (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for reverting vandalism on my page Vrenator (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Thanks.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Iron Ore

the ip adress that made the edit to iorn ore is the ip of a school HOUGHT U MIGHT WANT TO KNOW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.20.226 (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I supposed to be surprised...?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please cease and desist. You have been asked to take your concerns to the talk page twice. 94.193.35.68 (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You cannot say that data with citing a reliable source  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it to be a commonly known fact and therefore not in need of citation. If you disagree please explain.

This discussion should have taken place on the talk page rather than your immediately engaging in an edit-war and sending threats of bans and unfounded accusations of vandalism. 94.193.35.68 (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss about the article - that's what the talk page is for. I'm currently reverting vandalism with Huggle, the messages you see are what Huggle sends out - i.e "Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources", which is also echoed in the last edit summary.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As you offer no defence of your stance on the edit, do you concede it was legitimate? If so, I will reinstate it.

Furthermore, if you concede it was legitimate, it cannot be vandalism, and I invite you to apologise for false accusations made both by your own account and the bot you operate. 94.193.35.68 (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No. I said the edit had no verifiable and reliable sources. Therefore it cannot stay. Reliable sources and verifiabily are core Wikipedia policies and have to be followed.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Then I invite you to delete all other unattributed sentences on the article, including those that are commonly known or obvious. If you do not then I will feel compelled to implement wikipedia policy by doing so myself.

Furthermore, adding an unattributed statement in good faith is not vandalism. Wikipedia requires that you assume good faith. Your conduct here has failed to meet that standard. 94.193.35.68 (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Lovinwiki10

excuse me but stop vandalizing everything i do —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovinwiki10 (talkcontribs) 00:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That's life. You vandalise and I revert and then block...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)