This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! Some misunderstanding here? I know it's tagged and listed at WP:CP. It's been there for more than 5 days, so I'm now trying to process it. Since it is an outright copy-paste and a classic example of the class "Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving", I nominated it for speedy deletion under criterion G12. I'm happy for you to decline it if you disagree with my assessment, but to decline it because it is tagged as a copyvio seems a little odd. Would you like to reconsider? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Well two more days and it should be deleted. The person tagging the image at WP:CP obviously thought there was something worth saving. Discuss it with him (since he's an admin as well) Ronhjones (Talk) 20:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I did, and mentioned your name. This is just in case you didn't get the ping. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Rebecca Ferdinando
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
23:52, 2 February 2014 Ronhjones (talk | contribs) deleted page Rebecca Ferdinando (Expired PROD, concern was: Fails to meet notability. The main external sources found show that journalists have even stated they do not know who she is. No reliable secondary sources provided.)
Hi,
I tried to visit the page today to add in some more films she is in to find it gone, and a lot of work!
I am a little frustrated about the deleted the page for "Rebecca Ferdinando" saying that "journalists have even stated they do not know who she is" and I can't check the references disputed now, ok not a massively famous however listed in http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3572691/?ref_=nv_sr_2 with 18 film credits to her name, and more to come. Can you please give me some idea of the checks you made on the PROD and tell me how to recover the work deleted, so I can update the queried references.
In the future I will add a monitor tag so I am notified of any questions, as now all the history has been deleted I can't even see who requested the deletion in the first place.
Restored - disputed PRODs are not a problem. The person who tagged it may decide to go to WP:AfD - that's their choice Ronhjones (Talk) 20:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I will look into improving some of the references, however it is a shame an unregistered user can raise a PROD so you have no way to discuss their opinions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.36.209 (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Could you check if the talk page should be restored? According to PROD instigator's edit summary, there may be additional info there. rgds, S. --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I read the talk page and did some Googling. It's, erm, unusual for an IP address with no other contributions to show such a comprehensive grasp of Wikipedia procedures. I'd surmise not so much a duck as a bit fishy - except that an experienced user would probably not overdo the tagging swamping the article - obviously a POV, though.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Probably right, some experience I guess, but not enough - A PROD can always be disputed even if deleted and immediately undeleted. The smarter ones would do a sneaky AfD (often over Xmas...) Ronhjones (Talk) 23:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Your request
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Ron - the picture in question - File:Old Abandoned Lighthouse.jpg - is my photograph, and I own all the rights, but I can't provide the info you're asking for because it will reveal my personal information. I thought the form I filled out during upload was all that was required. Can you please advise? Atsme☯ talk 22:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
1. The source was wrong if it was your photo - you should use {{own}} for any image you take yourself
2. The image is already on the internet, so it has to go as a copyright problem from
If you can get permission to use it here, then the procedure is explained ta WP:DCM Ronhjones (Talk) 23:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll just start over - go ahead and delete the ones with problems. I don't want any of my published pictures going on my user page because it links too closely with personal info. Thanks. Atsme☯ talk 00:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Ronhjones. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This user, whom you blocked for 3 months, is currently operating as various IP socks:
71.200.117.25
2601:0:7980:60F:29EA:EF24:BA59:CCA5
2601:0:7980:60F:A902:4868:30DD:32B5
I reported the first (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Easy4me/Archive and has since gone stale, the second was blocked for a week after the puppetmaster admitted it was him, now his most recent edits are by the last one just today. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Game of dili in Niger 2014.jpg
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the note, Ron. I understand about copyright concerns. The photo was taken by my wife. I cropped a portion of it and she saw what I did and agreed that I could upload it for the Wikipedia article. I doubt she will go through the trouble of writing a letter. Either my word will have to suffice, or we will have to remove the photo, which would be a shame since that article needs a photo. --seberle (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I find no copies on the internet - so there's not a major issue, so why not get her to create an account - MrsSeberle? then login with that name and change "Given to me personally" to [[User:MrsSeberle]] - then I will tidy it up. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Because she has no interest in Wikipedia and is very busy. She will not take time to do anything for Wikipedia, other than give oral assent to me. I'll think about what I might do. --seberle (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I can only explain the system. It can be a bit of a pain at times, but we have treat all users the same. Ronhjones (Talk) 14:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The picture was taken by a friend who originally posted it on Flickr (here). He gave me permission (in person) to edit it and use it wherever I want before sending me the email with the image attached.
What is the appropriate license to give it and what steps do I need to take to reflect that?
If you could reply on my profile's talk page, I'd appreciate it. davidvkimball (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
After he does that, is there any other action required on my part (update the page, license, etc.)? (answer on my profile, too, if you could) davidvkimball(talk) 17:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Let me know, and I will make sure it's all tidied up correctly. Ronhjones (Talk) 17:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It's changed! Thanks for picking up on that. davidvkimball(talk) 22:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
All changed. I've left the {{userspace file}} - that's your decision, mine's on commons, as we have a Category for them there "User page images", but I am active on commons as well. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, sure. Can you put it in the Commons for me? davidvkimball(talk) 23:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
No problem - I have a special tool :-) - Commons will also log the flickr license for future reference, we don't have that template here. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Why did you do this ? Werieth (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It's non-free, it has to be small and low resolution. 300px is a reasonable maximum size for non-free image (on the narrowest dimension), I tend to tag anything over about 350px. The automatic reducing bot will shrink it properly in a day or so. Ronhjones (Talk) 14:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Its labeled as a free file, which is why I asked. Werieth (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, yes. I was obviously having a rather senior moment... doh! Ronhjones (Talk) 19:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Julie Menin
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I resent your unfounded implications. Give me an example and I will tell you how it's absolutely incorrect. Julie Menin, who I have no reason to promote or advertise for, has seen her living biography under attack from vandals. They delete cited and relevant information to her last election cycle, while throwing in irrelevant and poorly sourced material from that same cycle. Even more insidious/egregious, they put these negative attacks farther up on the page, under her "early career" section. I think you should look a little closer at what's going on before flying off the handle with threats.Veritas411 (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Removing negative referenced data and replacing with only positive data is indicative of pure advertising. If you have a problem with the data, you cannot just keep removing it several times as you have done so, you will have to go to dispute resolution Ronhjones (Talk) 20:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
This edit war seems to be on-going after your warning. The above user has not listened to your warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.100.172.20 (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for reaching out to Veritas411. He/She continues to remove my edits even after your warning without going through any dispute resolution. What other steps can I go through to stop him/her from removing cited material? I do not view an article published by the NY Post as poorly sourced.Mrfixingthings — Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Well we could go for blocking, that tends (in my view) to often make things worse. So let's have everybody go to the talk page and get some consensus for the data that should be on the page as per Wikipedia policy. It's been reverted to a "stable" version of BG19bot on 5th March. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Ostriches
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Oi. You've just stopped me adding stuff about ostriches to the Rutland page. Unblock it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.71.92.128 (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please research my name and then write a biography of me yourself from existing data. Your a good writer and would be much appreciated and look forward to an unbiased account from existing media.DavidBoorboor (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Please Google my name
[1]
I have not wrote an article for years, no time to do so.
The subjects for our articles are usually chosen by the editing community rather than by request. If however the entry qualifies under our encyclopedic notability guidelines WP:N, and you can cite reliable, published, 3rd party sources WP:RS, you can suggest the creation of it to our volunteers at WP:RA.
If you have already prepared material for the entry, you can create it yourself if you have an account. Simply type in the title of the entry into the search bar. If no articles with such a title exist, you will be given the option of creating it or requesting it at the page mentioned above. Follow the appropriate link, and you will be greeted with a form allowing you to create the entry.
If you do not have an account, you will need to register one in order to submit new entries. In addition to this, having an account will give you more options and help you keep track of your contributions. You can create an account at Special:UserLogin/signup.
If you do not wish to create an account, you can still help create a new entry. Simply submit the content you have written to WP:AFC where one of our many editors will review the proposed article.
Before editing, we advise you to be mindful that Wikipedia discourages articles written by the subjects themselves or by others close to a subject because of the difficulty in writing objectively about yourself, your family, or your work. See the conflict of interest rules at WP:COI. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Arch Street Meeting House
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Wikipedia incorrectly identifies the "Arch Street Meeting House" as "Arch Street Friends Meeting House". Sorry I don't know how to fix it, but it is clear if you go there, or just zoom in and read the red sign in the photo. One could also read an authoritative source on the subject: Barnes,Gregory. Philadelphia’s Arch Street Meeting House: A Biography, Philadelphia, PA: QuakerPress, 2013 (quakerbooks.org) Can you fix the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.161.12 (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Gooday Ron - I would like to use the following file on en.Wikipedia but moving to Commons is beyond me:
File:TemporadaRiccione 1969WP.JPG or here,
using license {{PD-Italy]] and/or (Upload an image on Commons with the license {{PD-1996 | Italian | January 1, 1996]] only if the image is previous to 1976) whichever is appropriate.
Could you please assist? I can sort some categories afterwards, if you'd like. Thx, Steve--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Moving from it.wiki a doddle... not... Luck there was enough info on the it page to be able to get the license right for commons. It's all yours Ronhjones (Talk) 22:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Grazie! Much appreciated - when I saw the help pages it was daunting. Luckily I found a period magazine citation in the house firstly (when doing something else) so I knew what to Google and the image turned-up. I keep seeing that Mike Hailwood didn't ride between 1967 and his return to racing in 1978 at IoM TT (I was there!), but he rode in 68, 69, 70 and 71 in UK, Europe and US, just not extensively and we want Wikipedia to be correct. The image will go nicely with the prose.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
You were lucky that I've moved images from various foreign wikis in the past and know how to do it in English!
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I had contributed on that page before, I am thinking of remaking it, but I would limit it with the etymology. It will be fine? Ping me if you read. OccultZone (Talk) 11:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I know, however 'qurban' is much more popular term than 'qurbani', qurbani is directly or solely related to sacrifice, while 'qurban' has multiple meanings. OccultZone (Talk) 19:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Nothing to stop it being created - you might want to consider using WP:Afc to start it, as direct creation is possible, but tends to be much harder. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Picture permission
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the comments on the picture I recently uploaded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:City_of_Champions_Day_proclamation_2012.jpg). I guess my understanding is that because this is a document released by a city government that it's already usable for public purposes. Am I wrong in thinking that? Do you need permission from the person who took the picture of the document?
RedRamage (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Only PD tends to be US Federal Gov, US Military, and a couple of US states (Florida, and California - I think). As far as I know there are no cites that give away copyright - you would need to check the web site's terms and conditions for re-use, often one finds "personnel use only" or "non-commercial use" - neither of which is useful for Wikipedia. Note that no statement of re-use or copyright claim will default to "All Rights Reserved". Ronhjones (Talk) 18:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I'm going to try and contact the City of Detroit and see what I can find out, but I strongly suspect that it will take much longer than the week to get a response and get the details settled. Probably makes sense to remove the image for now and then I'll re-upload if/when I get permission. RedRamage (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@RedRamage: Nothing actually gets deleted - it gets removed from the public view. If you get the permission, we can undelete. Do see WP:DCM about what needs to be done. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Castoroides
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hallo. You semiprotected Castoroides in February 2014 with the reason "Persistent vandalism IP vandal hopping". Your edit was the first edit to that article since 11 October 2013, and there is nothing in the log of the article. Mistake or? Christian75 (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Odd... Quite some time ago, and certainly a long time ago in the number of edits! I can't see a reason for it, I just have to assume I had two pages open and hit the protect tab on the wrong page... If so then there's some poor page that maybe should have been protected instead. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was hoping I could get you to change your mind regarding the speedy deletion of this file. You rightfully pointed out that fair use is claimed, and I should have noticed that, but the claim is so patently unwarranted that I think that WP:F9 should apply anyways. Specifically, it's the claim that the file cannot be replaced with a free alternative that doesn't hold up. The image is a screen shot of a table of statistical data that can easily be recreated as a Wikitable. In fact, many articles on football players do just that. (See Per Ciljan Skjelbred#Career statistics for example). Thank you in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
All fair use are copies of copyright works, so we don't never use F9 - because F9 says it's a copy, we know that already as it's been claimed as fair-use. If you think that it's replaceable then {{Di-replaceable fair use}}, is the one to use. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 April 2014
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
File:Ujong Blang Beach of Lhokseumawe City.jpg and File:Pulau Seumadu kota lhokseumawe.jpg,
Please Check Your mail at permissions-en@wikimedia.org
about ownership of the material
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi
i didn't understood, why (yesterday) you haven't found evidence of notability for Michel de Lorgeril : a very well known french researcher... so for this 'bad?' reason, you deleted the page !
Mainly because it's extremely badly written, not one proper in-line reference in the whole article - throwing the odd html link in the middle of the text is not a proper reference. See WP:CITE - look at any good article, you get a small number superscript and a proper list of references generated at the end - editors will view that list to see the quality of publications cited. Pages that fail to follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style have little chance of remaining. If you want it restored to correct all the errors then we can do so. Just let me know Ronhjones (Talk) 20:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Rahulsinghpinaki
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for blocking him - I think it was inevitable and of course I was planning to block him if he didn't respond to me. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
No problem. If he wants to continue editing, he can now explain his reasons for his editing we have observed. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Images
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Ron,
Thanks so much for your help, looks lovely now. Sorry for being a bit thick, I think having my little boys in the background while I was reading the Wikihelp (it's the Easter hols) probably didn't help!
Anyway, I wanted to add a couple more images to give an overview of the work. Do I just place the curser where I want to put the image, then put (for example):
and it'll automatically know it's in Wikipedia Commons and hence put the image there? Or is there some other magic I need to know about and haven't grasped yet? Gosh, it takes some getting used to doesn't it!
But what a great resource Wikipedia is- all that knowledge for my children...
Anyway, thanks again for all your help,hannahlucy100Hannahlucy100 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I saw your message on my talk page. It was my mistake (careless uploading). Can I upload a smaller version of that image file? --Zyma (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
There's a small one there already. Non free must be small and low resolution. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but I think the new version (small version) by me has better quality than the current one. --Zyma (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Non free are not supposed to be high quality - that's the whole point. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
G'day from Oz; I am puzzled as to what is non-free about this image I took that you tagged as such. The image is of a public building at a public airport, where I took my young nephews around for a walk last Saturday afternoon to look at the 'planes. If you used the tag to signal that a reduced-size version is more appropriate, then I can do that over Easter. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, my error, tagged wrong page. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Good-oh, cheers YSSYguy (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
IMADEYOUREADTHIS
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I want a full and understandable reason of WHY my page was deleted please. ~IMadeYouReadThis — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMadeYouReadThis (talk • contribs) 23:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)IMadeYouReadThis (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC) IMadeYouReadThis
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
You tagged File:Helen Lessore, Symposium I, 1974-1977, oil on canvas, Tate.jpg as needing to be reduced in size. I might be able to do that with Windows Photo Live Gallery - but I'm not sure what is needed... it is file size (for instance I know PNGs take a lot of space), pixels, something else?
It says "640 × 495 pixels" = 316,800 pixels (just multiply together) - just leave it we have an automated script that slowly goes round and does the resize to drop it to the desired 100,000 pixels. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Userpage copyvio speedy
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've renominated User:Valoem/Rachel Starr for speedy deletion. I accidentally pasted an incorrect link into my original nom, citing a source which provided only part of the article text, and you appropriately redacted the page rather than deleting. However, the surviving text is also a copyvio, and I've renominated with a more accurate identification of the underlying source. My bad, sorry to waste your time on this. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
Gooday Ron - is there an alternative (quick, easy) for deletion of a redundant redirect page? It seems the original article contained a typo in the title and was changed to a redirect (to a 'new' article having the correct name with content transferred) with no other changes since (2008). It's unlikely anyone would search using the same typo'd search criteria. The PROD help page states not applicable to redirects, but AfD seems inappropriate and too elaborate as it's not an article and not controversial. The original editor is inactive for all of this year and seemingly didn't bother going through the deletion process all those years ago. redirect page here Thanks--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
On second thoughts, how about I try a PROD on the basis that it was originally an article per se which was then 'disguised' as a faux-Redirect by the originator to cover his mistake? (Faux perhaps is a bit more GF than 'false'). Not that I've done a PROD yet and I don't know if there's an automated flag which would prevent a PROD to a page appearing to be a Redirect.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of motor cycles, time I watched Texas Qualifying... Ronhjones (Talk) 21:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Done Much obliged for the advice.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Declined as not recent - I had explained - but recommended submit to RfD which has a massive backlog. It's the online equivalent of "It's (not) a paper generating machine...." as we used to say in QA.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
C'ést la vie. I agree RfD will work - it will take a while. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
C'est dommage...whatever happened to 'be bold' and IAR? Still, all part of the Wiki-education. 8¬) --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I quite like WP:IAR, but it can have the result of toys leaving the pram at high speed... :-) Ronhjones (Talk) 22:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes...I am reminded of a comment on a userpage: "I'm disappointed that some wiki-editors seem to take themselves too seriously...". I do hope I'm not being surveilled or I might get a warning - WP:NOTFORUM! --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Did you misinterpret CSD:F11?
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I did this revert of your edit because F11 says: "If an uploader has specified a license and has named a third party as the source/copyright holder..." However, what has happened is that the uplodder has named THEMSELVES as the copyright holder (writing, ".I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it... "). Furthermore, the metadata on the file supports the claim: "Software used: Aviary for Android 2.3" Seem reasonable? --Elvey (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Can you drop the full protection on Julie Menin? If the edit warring resumes, I think it would be better handled with blocks. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, but do watch out - both accounts were almost WP:SPA, blocks could just cause other accounts to "appear". Ronhjones (Talk) 23:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi.
Basically, this file is now useless. Nothing is distinguishable in it. Could you at least userify a copy its past revision so that I can downsize it myself properly? And seriously, the license attached to this file allows any resolution, so why are you so severe about it as to render it totally useless?
You cannot userfy an image. The licensing box does say However, the use of this screenshot in Wikipedia must comply with Wikipedia Non-free Content Criteria policy.. Any screen shot which is small is not a lot of use for fine detail - and it's also to be low resolution, so very fine detail in a non free image is almost impossible.
I think your best options would be to either
Crop the image to show some relevant sections OR
Ask Microsoft to release the image as a free image OR
The guideline says An original, high resolution image (that can be reasonably scaled down to maintain overall artistic and critical details) may lose some text detail. In such cases, that text should be duplicated on the image description page. Care should be given to the recreation of copyrighted text: while it is appropriate for credits from a movie poster as factual data, such duplication would not be appropriate for an original poem embedded within an image. - Maybe that could be an option.
It's possible that you could have a sightly bigger image, but you would need to get a group of editors to agree with you that a bigger image must be used - see also Wikipedia:Image_resolution#Image_resolution Ronhjones (Talk) 22:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Although it was pretty much an out-of-context speech, I do believe you wrote it in good faith. Only I wish you extended me the curtsey of double-checking because the part in the policy that you did not realize was: "still be useful as identified by their rationale". Anyway, another admin repaired the damage while the file dimension remained at 421 × 237, exactly what everyone wants.
And yes, I cannot userify an image; only an admin can! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I meant there is no facility to userfy an image :-) You can't get an image into userspace. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey there.. I totally meant to upload the photo under the copyright holder release... could you assist in telling me how to change the license? I tried too last night but wasn't exactly sure how to do that..
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you do not hold the copyright, then you need the copyright holder (often the photographer, unless there is a formal written release of copyright) to follow the procedure at WP:DCM Ronhjones (Talk) 23:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 April 2014
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Request to restore my Wiki page "Eric Chiryoku" Wikipeidia
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Admin,
You have deleted my Wikipedia page and i hope you can restore it back as i had done some editing to the text , which is not too "advertising" now. As this is the first time i am doing the Wiki, please pardon me for any violation in regards to the text. I hope you can restore it soon, thank you.
Regards,
Eric Chiryoku
ericchiryoku@creatune.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aheart1971 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
All deletions as "Expired PROD" may be undeleted on request - it just becomes a "disputed PROD". I'll sort it out now - note that the person who added the PROD cannot do it again, but may decide to go for a full deletion discussion instead. New article are best created either at WP:AFC or as a user subpage - that gives more time to get the page to a stable condition. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
G7
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, you have tagged a lot of pics from User:Tc1591 to move them to the commons. This user is blocked for Abusing Flickr for massive license laundering. Most of his Uploads here are screenshots from tv or copyvios. [1] vs. [2], [3] vs. [4] and so on and so on...sd of copyviolation would be a good idea...greetings 2003:51:4826:6200:D115:89B5:17AB:5698 (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to tag them as copyright violations - if they do get moved to commons, they will get a FlickrReview anyway. Commons is much more efficient at checking free images Ronhjones (Talk) 00:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Nairn Transport Co route map
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Ron, you have reduced this one too far. The smallest text on the map is not still visible. Just compare the original and our current version. Could you enlarge it somewhere between the two please? Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It is visible on my monitor. The guideline is 100,000 pixels, and with allowance for more is absolutely necessary and ideally never over 1000 pixels in any dimension. Yours was 2,096,367 pixels, It's now 228,422, if you need to view any text the the browser zoom will make it bigger and readable - the only text I see difficult is "suez canal", but that's a small price to pay to keep an non-free. On a non-free image, one would not expect to be able to read every bit of tiny text. For such an image you would be far better of finding a free map and annotating it - have you checked commons for free images? Ronhjones (Talk) 21:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It was prepared by the firm and shows their route so has significance beyond geography. Also gives the place names in use at that time. I can't agree that the smallest text doesn't need to be readable because if that was correct it would make the image decoration and therefore superfluous. I will try uploading one slightly higher than the current one later. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It has to comply with the non-free image policy. You cannot just upload bigger images. They will be reverted by any number of editors. If you are in contat with the firm then get the image to be a free one. Do not forget that by uploading a non-free image, you are stating that there is no alternative image - that means you must do research to determine that there is no free image possible. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Have you read the article? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it mentions Baghdad, Damascus and Haifa - all easily readable without zooming. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Your revert....
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Ronhjones. With File:The O.C. cast (season 1).jpg, I'd deleted the 3,385 × 4,040 pixel version you put the tag on before I reverted your edit; check the logs. If the guideline says the smaller version is still too big then fine, but it wasn't the same image you tagged and is nowhere near as large as the old one. Regards, Rambo's Revenge(talk) 21:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see - there was nothing in the file table that was bigger - I always follow the instructions in {{Non-free reduced}} and just revdel the image, then the attribution is still in the table, but no file. It's still a bit big though. :-) Ronhjones (Talk) 21:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Ronhjones,
The image you are objecting to came from a secondary source dated Feb. 24, 2014. That image is not the one currently in the article. The one featured as of March 19, 2014 is the original found in Wiki Commons. You may find it in my entry in The Chevalier de Saint-Georges article. It is perfectly all right for you to remove the file dated February 24, 2014 as long as the current one remains in place. Hope this satisfies your legitimate concern. Thank you for your help, Dsteveb (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Ron:
I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I teach part time in journalism at Middle Tennessee State University. Brian Choper, who works in Washington, D.C., (and has authored a book for musicians) asked me through someone I know here in Nashville to update his photo, which is five years old. I took a crack at it, but apparently did it wrong. I tried uploading it using the free-use category, but it didn't work. The photos were taken by Brian's company and are posted on his website. So, they can be accessed by everyone. How should I handle this? I'd like to help Brian if I can.
The chance of being able to have a non-free image of a living person is extremely slim - unless they are 100% unreachable (e.g. in prison). Thus you need to get a free image. Choice is
Take a picture with your camera
Use someone else's photo with permission - goto WP:DCM for more details - the ideal solution is to get the web pages annotated with THIS CC-BY-SA symbol.
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Ronhjones. As the reporting user, I would like to say that I think an indefinite block is a little harsh. It's true that the person has deliberately added false information before, but they have also made many constructive edits to Wikipedia from what I can tell. But as I say, I am not an admin and I do not have the knowledge of what necessitates an indefinite block. Thanks.Hoops gza (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Indefinite is "not forever" - it means that to continue editing the user will have to engage a dialog with an admin to show that they understand why they have been blocked and to confirm that they will not make such edits again. Otherwise there is a real danger that they will just "sit it out" and then resume again. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I see, thank you for the explanation. A lot of IPs like to follow this practice, unfortunately.Hoops gza (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
With an IP - one can never be 100% certain that it's the same person - so we never indef block them (but we will go up to 1 year or so!) Ronhjones (Talk) 23:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Mathew Shoemaker
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is a pro-wrestler actor, he has an IMBD page that matches all of the issues you have listed about not being able to verify. Could you please reinstate the page.
Cannot restore in mainspace as it has no references. So it's been userfied as a draft article under your username at User:Nytebreed/Mathew Shoemaker for you to work on. Do note that IMDB is not a reliable source. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Your message regarding copyrights
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Ronhjones,
thanks for your messages regarding copyrights of images used on en.wikipedia.org/FhGFS. I have answered them on my talk page.
Tobias.goetz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias.goetz (talk • contribs) 16:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I'm still new to the whole wikipedia thing and way behind with reading everything that's crucial to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias.goetz (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, added welcome template with many links. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
jpeg for Wikipedia page Diana W. Bianchi
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for your response to my upload of my image for this page! I believe I've gotten permission from the owners and author of this image to use it on Wikipedia, but, being new to Wikipedia, I perhaps didn't put the correct coding or tag on the jpeg when I uploaded it. Below is the email from the photographer who took the image. Is it acceptable for use in Wikipedia, and what steps should I take in the uploading process to submit it correctly?
"I hereby affirm that Trustees of Tufts College is the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the photographic image:
-Bianchi in front of helix.JPG
I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that Trustees of Tufts College always retains copyright of this work, and retains the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by agents of Trustees of Tufts College.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Permission granted by Alonso Nichols, Assistant Director of Photography, Tufts University Photo."
Thanks kindly,
SydneyraymondSydneyraymond (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
You have to send the permission to the WP:OTRS system. Please read WP:DCM for full information of where to send the info. Once the permission is granted then they will undelete the image for you. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Nairn Transport Company Images
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings,
I noted you have added images to the Nairn Transport Company page on Wikipedia and wonder why do you have just copied them form my website without even asking! Fair Play sound different...
Look at the file history - I just reduced the uploaded file to comply with Non Free Policy. Uploader was the other person in the history - there's no image against it as we can only keep the image in use, so I've removed the large image from view. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Re: Lukejordan02
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Thanks very much, I'll sort through the rest of his edits. Appreciate the help. NiciVampireHeart 23:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
This irritating guy is still editing under an IP contribs – needs blocking. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
IP now blocked, although Lukejordan02 denies all knowledge. I've never been more certain that it's the same guy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
OK, I get that Wikipedia has copyright concerns, certainly. So I found 3 other examples of col miner memorials in the US, all being used, all made after the Bartley Memorial in 1940...So, my question is why arent these images marked? I have linked them in the deletion files discussion page. At this point, I really have zero desire to contribute any data for any memorial here on wikipedia because this would be the 4th discussion which I hope will have some cogent reason for being flagged. JUST IN CASE What about THIS or THIS or THIS. Also, I have done repeated searches HERE and NOTHING.Coal town guy (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - Nominated for deletion - can't find them all myself
Thanks just delete the dam imagesCoal town guy (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
WP link in Anrtho disaster article.
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Ronhjones. I undid an edit of yours but fat fingered my keyboard and submitted it before I could finish my edit summary. I wanted to let you know that I was attempting to say that the wikilink was not acting as a refernce, just providing the parent article within the footnote, similar to linking out to the New York Times in a NYT citation. GraniteSand (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
It's confusing for a user - a user will expect that the main link will take them to the remote on-line reference or to the Special Books page. By jumping to another article - they won't understand what is going on - your choice. P.S. The book could do with an ISBN number Ronhjones (Talk) 22:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
File:BohemianGuitarsBohoSeries.jpg
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
In addition, I have added {{OTRS pending}} to the image description.
Please let me know if there are any additional steps I must take to properly show my consent for Wikipedia to use this image.
Thanks
I've adjusted the page to let the OTRS system time to respond (30 days). Ronhjones (Talk) 00:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
NB - you will need permission from Bohemian Guitars to use an image of their products, unless you can show that the age of the guitars falls into one or more of the PD licenses at WP:ICT/PD - US copyright can get rather difficult Ronhjones (Talk) 00:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 07 May 2014
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A month ago you blocked this user for 48 hours. I just blocked him again indef for the username violation, which was also in evidence when you blocked.
Not getting on your (ahem) case about this (it's hard to when I'm looking at this picture of you smiling with your dog), just letting you know so as to improve your vigilance in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Didn't spot that one - Puthiyathalaimuraitv hardly trips off the tongue Ronhjones (Talk) 19:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Detroit Annie
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Ron - I saw a note from you on my talk page for the Detroit Annie page I'd posted and had shot down due to a strange accusation of having plagiarized myself, despite having carefully rewritten both articles to avoid that - if you want to repost the article with any appropriate modifications or edits that you see fit (notify me of big changes?) that's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniemagic (talk • contribs) 10:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot prove who anyone is, no matter what they say - so all editors are effectively anonymous and could be anyone. If you wish to release web content then the procedure is at WP:DCM Ronhjones (Talk) 19:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete Decorah
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Ronhjones, sorry to trouble you. I would like to have DecorahMom2014Snow deleted. Is this something you can do? Thanks, petrarchan47tc 04:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You tagged this with {{subst:npd}}. Did you notice that it has also been uploaded as Commons:File:Banana screenhouse with a hail trap.JPG with a different copyright tag? If so, why was it only tagged on Wikipedia? I think that it should be tagged on both projects. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Correct - and have done so :-) Ronhjones (Talk) 19:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Cindamuse
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Ron, I rolled back your image-related posts on User:Cindamuse's talk page because the editor is deceased, and her talk page is being preserved as a memorial only. I don't know what can be done about those images or who else you should notify, but I wanted to explain my rollback (as there is no room for an edit summary on a rollback). Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I was running through a large whole batch of images. I suspect they will never get permission now, and will get deleted. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Looking at the target article, Saddle Ridge Hoard, it seems that Cindy did get OTRS permission for the one photo (a close-up) that she actually did use in the article (in the infobox), so the three un-OTRSed ones are probably superfluous anyway. Softlavender (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
responding to your post of today May 13, 1014
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Mr. Jones... I am responding to your email and post which indicates you will remove my photograph on the 19th.
I purchased the photograph and electronic photograph of myself from the photographer who took it and have used it for many occurrences. I read all of the material regarding uploading of photographs several times. To be honest I did not understand it and just chose one of the responses at the time. Please advise how to correct the situation.
Thank you for your assistance.
Gailanne M. Cariddi
North Adams, Massachusetts
gailcariddi@gmail.com
————— — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gail Cariddi (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The copyright always belongs to the photographer - unless you also got a signed release of copyright from him. Buying a photo he took does not transfer the copyright. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Body Mind Intellect-BMI Chart by Swami Chinmayananda.pdf
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Dr. Jones,
Thank you for reviewing the file "Body Mind Intellect-BMI Chart by Swami Chinmayananda.pdf".
I had forwarded the email from the copyright holder to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on March 2nd. The reply stated that "Non-Commercial and No derivatives are not acceptable licenses."
I checked with the copyright holders, and they do not want to release the file under a free license. Thus, it makes sense to delete the file. Please advise what I need to do.
The file will be deleted on the date stated. We cannot host NC and/or ND images. You could try to make it fair-use, but the fair use sizing would make that jpg unreadable - you would have to check it complies under WP:NFCC as well. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Fabrizio Sotti Image
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Ronhjones,
I just wanted to advise that I have resubmitted permissions for the image on Wikipedia that was marked for deletion - Fabrizio Sotti Photograph.jpg) (and may in fact have been deleted). Please note that I have emailed my permissions information to the Permissions Wiki email address: permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Thank you! Hurtinfornewcurtains (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Hurtinfornewcurtains
File:Map of College Hill neighborhood, Greensboro, NC.jpg
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Ron H. Jones,
The document is classified by law as a public record in the state of North Carolina and thus is not subject to copyright. As indicated at the bottom of the map, it was created by a local government agency (Planning Department, City of Greensboro):
Prepared by: Greensboro Department of Planning & Community Development Cartographer: Sovich, J. Draft: October 17, 2013
\\Market\pcd\HCD\NEIGHBORHOOD_PLANNING\College Hill\GIS\College Hill Base Map 10_17_13.mxd
Under North Carolina law, all documents, specifically including maps, produced by local and state agencies are public records. North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 132-1:
§ 132-1. "Public records" defined.
(a) "Public record" or "public records" shall mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data-processing records, artifacts, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions. Agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions shall mean and include every public office, public officer or official (State or local, elected or appointed), institution, board, commission, bureau, council, department, authority or other unit of government of the State or of any county, unit, special district or other political subdivision of government.
(b) The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people. Therefore, it is the policy of this State that the people may obtain copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost unless otherwise specifically provided by law. As used herein, "minimal cost" shall mean the actual cost of reproducing the public record or public information. (1935, c. 265, s. 1; 1975, c. 787, s. 1; 1995, c. 388, s. 1.)
This is the second time this question has been raised. What can I do to indicate to your colleagues that this document is a public record and not subject to copyright?
Thanks for any guidance you can provide.
Darneke (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC) David Arneke
Nowhere does those statements release the copyright for commercial usage. Plenty of places release material for private use, but all free images on Wikipedia can be used for any purpose. I've checked commons (which has much more info) and the only states listed for free images are California, Florida, Minnesota, and Washington state. See commons:Commons:Copyright_tags#US_States_and_Territories. The only way to be sure is to get a discussion going, so that if it's to be a "keep" then that result will be shown on the image talk page. I'll therefore change the "no permission" to a WP:PUF, and let the discussion start. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Request
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Re: File permission problem with File:Bruce Clarke, front row third from the left, with MACV Advisory Team 4 . . . .
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Mr. Jones,
The photo in question is mine. I served with Col. Clarke, as well as Pete Luitweiler and Alfred French (deceased) in Vietnam on Advisory Team 4. It seems silly to write a letter to myself giving me permission to use the photo. Is there another way to do it?
Also, thanks for the correction on the link on the Alan Seeger page. You are right that I did not intend the link to be to the disambiguation page for John Reed. That was sloppy work on my part.
@Sciacchitano: There's a problem. The image has been published elsewhere first - never do that. We cannot confirm who anyone is on Wikipedia - thus if the image is elsewhere - then it could be copied by anyone to Wikipedia, hence we flag it up as "no permission". The easy way out for this one is to add a caption to the image at http://sciacchitano.smugmug.com/Vietnam/MACV-Advisory-Team-4-Quang-Tri/2225217_47ZJwZ#!i=3024926090&k=Wk3Gjj3 which says "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." - otherwise the route for permission is at WP:DCM Ronhjones (Talk) 01:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Unblock on hold
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Ron. An editor you blocked is requesting an unblock at User talk:Samotny Wędrowiec. Your block was indubitably correct (though perhaps the rationale "vandalism only account" was not quite technically correct). However, the editor seems to genuinely accept that what he did was unacceptable, and to be willing to change. I am a great believer in WP:ROPE, and I am inclined to give him another chance. Worst case: he vandalises again and is blocked again, and this time stays blocked. Best case: we gain another good editor. Any opinion? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, well certainly vandalism only for that day (6th Apr) - I was not sure what he was about or even if the account had been compromised - that was a very real possibility. I like WP:ROPE as well - if they go there again, then they are really going to have a hard time to get unblocked again. So feel free to unblock, do mention WP:STICK with regards to the page mentioned (Talk:Poland#Central.2FEastern_edit_war) Ronhjones (Talk) 18:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
request to provide proof from owner of photographs that can be placed in public domain
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Dr. Ron,
I received a couple messages yesterday that Wikipedia wanted proof that the owner of two photographs consented to my using them and to their being placed in the public domain. I obtained an email from the owner and (hopefully) correctly forwarded that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. However, being new to Wikipedia, I am checking with you to ensure that my authorization came through (plus I a just trying to play with some of Wikipedia's bells and whistles).
Since I am not even certain about the signing protocol, I will try the only three I know:
Dr. Daniel Schag
Dschag
Dschag (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
It's OK - you had the important part - the e-mail address from the copyright holder, showing a domain relating to the business. I've processed the permission. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter (actually, also testing here if this is how I should communicate, as a follow up to your note--I got your email so I could have responded that way but those I'd see if the Chat feature performs this function better). Thanks again. Dschag (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
File permission problem for Jude Anthany Joseph.jpg.
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
This image has been forwarded to me by Jude Anthany Joseph itself through email and the email has been send to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on March 28,2014.
Jibin net (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Regards
jibin_net
Removed "no permission" - the OTRS pending gives you 30 days - there can be a backlog Ronhjones (Talk) 00:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 May 2014
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Ron: You deleted User talk:SoBanal,SoBanal on March 25. I ask because this new editor reverted the subcategory deletions I did. See [5]. This editor has done other edits on James Wesley Rawles related articles. (I figure there is COI or perhaps fandom involved.) I wanted to leave a welcome message on the user talk page, but then I saw your deletion. I'm wondering if there is some back-story about this editor. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The user page was (previously not created) tagged by mistake about an an image File:Cover of the Novel Liberators.jpg - I undid the change, hence the deletion - I've put up a welcome menu now, to stop any confusion. As for the rest, you could be right, or it could just be an area (s)he is interested in - it's very difficult, unless they really step out of line. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I have acted upon your concern re File permission problem with File:Heather Smith, Australian Author.jpg
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Ron,
The copyright holder has filled out the form requested and emailed it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
I have also added ((OTRS pending)) (<--with curly brackets) to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there -
Back in December you semiprotected Skin Game (novel) due to an IP continuously (and uncivil-ly) attempting to restore the article off of a redirect. The article is now being developed as the novel is about to be released, so I don't think the article needs to be protected anymore. Could you unprotect it? Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 13:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The photograph of Philly (dog) was taken by me on May 2, 2014 in the afternoon in the Philadelphia History Museum for the purpose of uploading to Wikipedia page. I created the photo and own it and completely grant free use of it on Wikipedia. The Museum allows people to take pictures without restriction. - GustavM
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Reference Warid Congo, I had provided substantial content to the page and you have refused request. SAMI talk 21:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Only the original author can use G7, provided they have added the only substantial content. G7 can never apply for this page. Wikipedia:Csd#g7 Ronhjones (Talk) 21:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The members 2014
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi I got your message about the members pic I do not understand what you have written what I do know is I paid the photographer to take the picture and I can do whatever I want with it including putting it on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.133.141.194 (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The file has had an {{OTRS pending}} on it for over 2 months - nothing seems to have been received there. If you have bought the copyright, and not just the photo (copyright is not automatically transferred if you buy a photo) then you should send a scan of that document to OTRS - see WP:DCM Ronhjones (Talk) 21:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I left a response to you on my talk page. Please respond there. Thanks. AllanVStalkcontribs 21:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll restore the first one, add ticket to third one, and delete last one as F1 - after moving link in article. Thanks for the info Ronhjones (Talk) 19:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Done the F1 - all I can say is photographer is "unknown" and taken mid 1970s. Since it's unknown we can assume there is nothing on the reverse of the image, so maybe {{PD-Pre1978}} would be better. This might be one for a discussion at PUF for the three remaining images. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I wanted to drop you a thank you for your hard work finding files that have been tagged with various OTRS related tags that are still lacking the required information. It is a tireless and thankless job, but I wanted you to know that your good work is preventing many pieces of work being inappropriately hosted here as potential copyright violations. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Ron, I just noticed that you've removed Everything in Between (Matt Wertz album). I created this page and was not notified of the PROD. Can you please restore this, as there is notability which I was not able to defend, and due course wasn't followed by its premature deletion. Thanks. --rm 'w avu 23:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Only the creator gets notified - which they did User talk:Danrock31. Expired PRODs can always be restored as "objected". Do note that once restored, that it's likely that the proposer may well seek to go to WP:AFC if not improved. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Ron, new to Wikipedia in terms of adding content, have to say the adding images and how to express copyright is somewhat confusing. The image of DB with all the Porsches I took myself, its used on his website which I manage. I have updated DB's website with all his Le Mans results and obviously wanted an image that shows him with just some of the cars he raced in terms of being factual. The other image of he with his son is his own image copyright, which was used in his updated biography. In both cases he/I are happy to have teh images freely distributed. There is also a black and white image I want to put up of him in his first ever race in a Lotus. If I can get the first two submissions correctly annotated in terms of copyright, I will know the procedure for the future. Best Patrick Felix7black7 (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The simplest solution is to always upload to Wikipedia first - that shows you have the copyright as it could not have been copied from anywhere else, because there is no system within the Wikipedia pages to prove who you are. Otherwise look at WP:DCM. Personally the easier option is that if you can edit the web pages, then add a CC logo &/or text - example can be got from http://creativecommons.org/choose/results-one?license_code=by-sa&jurisdiction=&version=3.0&lang=en to show the license of that image. Note that this could be done on a new special page (on the same site), just for the Wikipedia permissions - a page of that logo/text and a gallery of the images released - it does not have to be linked from the main site home page (so can be an "orphan" page - so long as the url is used as the permission). Otherwise it will have to be by e-mail to the OTRS team. Hope that makes sense. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 May 2014
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hello
I am calling in regard to your revision revert. To put it short, there is a bare minimum of information that the image must show (otherwise, its existence would be pointless) and as long as that bare minimum is shown, I don't mind if the image is 1x1 in size. The version by Theo's Little Bot is distorted; if you don't see the distortion, please bypass your browser's cache.
Theo's bot is not distorted - do remember that images should not only be less than 100000 pixels but should always be lowresolution - that's fair use. A large sharp image is not fair use. If there is a part of the image that needs to be discussed then that can always be put up as a cropped image. But an image just for an infobox does not need to be that sharp. I'll leave it for now, but you can be sure that someone else, other than me, will end up changing it in the future - they always do find them eventually - I try to get the size right at the upload time, so that the uploader knows what is going on. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, fair use is about how much of the work you use, and whether it affects the commercialisation of the work. In this case, the image largely consists of empty space, hardly visible icons and some uncopyrightable elements. There should be much less than 100,000 pixels of copyrighted material in that file, although the file itself consists of more than 100,000 pixels.
Also, a large portion of the image is text (for example: "Warning: This computer program is protected by copyright laws [...]"). When copying text, it makes little sense to talk about pixel count. Word count makes more sense, so keeping the number of words low is important. There do not seem to be many words on the image.
I do not think that a bot can decide what pixel count to use in all situations. For computer software (other than games), you often need a high pixel count, or else the image is useless. On the other hand, computer icons can often be represented using much fewer pixels than recommended by the bot. As an example, File:Microsoft Expression Web icon.png in the same article was downsized to just 64 × 64 pixels, much less than the bot's 100,000 pixels. In some cases, a human will need to step in to choose a more suitable pixel count. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello again, Ronhjones. There are a couple of misconceptions in your message that I think should be addressed:
First, there is no firm 100,000 pixels mandate. This number appear in WP:NFC which says "There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger." If this condition is met, I don't mind if the image is 1x1 in size. I tried 5 sizes and combination until I settled on this one.
I agree - it's only a rough guideline, which is why I did not change it back a second time. In the fullness of time, we will see if it manages to stay like that. Ronhjones (Talk) 01:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Metropolitan Museum of Art "Open Access for Scholarly Content"
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think it's all been summed up nicely by User:Masem before I viewed it (obviously a different time zone to me). This is not an isolated case, plenty of places release images for non-commercial, sadly we can't use them. You just have to take your own image with your own camera - assuming the object is PD to start with. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Chevalier de Saint-Georges, title page of concertos and Dumouriez
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Ronhjones,
Thanks for putting the two illustrations on Wikicommons. I am all for it. Dsteveb (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Thank you for reviewing my file and recommending to copy it to wikipedia. Unfortunately I am a bit confused about what todo at the moment, because a couple of bigots called Motopark and jameslwoodward are not accepting my logo in wikimedia god knows why. That is why I uploaded it on English Wikipedia. Please see here [[6]] From "File_tagging_File:Logo_of_Paisley_Magic_Circle.svg" for the discussion. The guy finally say I have to change the info and license as the other, but my logo is Public Domain, so I a do not knwo what do to. Shall I modify it like this bigot of Motopark ask ? Or shall I copy it to Wikimedia Commons as I thought I should do being my work Public Domain ? Please advise me because I had enough of those two bigots and to be honest I would like anyone who needs the logo (like a maker of T-shirts and other memorabilia) to use it without having to ask for permission, which is why I made it Public Domain. Thanks a lot for your time, I'll trust your judgement because I am about giving up. Guilleamodeo (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Please, no giving up. There is always help, but you just have to be a bit patient sometimes, as we don't man the pumps 24 hours a day. OK - I'm an admin on commons as well, I re-jigged your image to remove the no permission banner, changed self-CC-zero to self-PD - as your web site does say Public Domain, some do get picky... I've killed your deletion request for now, I'll delete it if you insist. En-wiki one gets deleted as there is a commons version. So only image is now File:Logo of Paisley Magic Circle.svg. I've searched for the image on Google and TinEye - it's not anywhere there, so no-one should say that you have copied it. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much, you made my day. You are 100% right, I should have not let them get into my nerves, but it was so... ...well, who cares now ? Again, thank you for understanding what I was trying to do and make it happen. People like you is who make this thing worthy. :-) Guilleamodeo (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Profile picture of self-help author, entrepreneur and healer DDnard.jpg
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Ronhjones, an email from the copyright owner, DDnard, granting permission to use this image has been sent to permissions at Wikipedia. Gruntfuttock115 (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the no permission banner - to allow OTRS to process. You now have 30 days. Ronhjones (Talk) 01:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Sageworks Deletion
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Ron, hope this finds you well. I just noticed that you've removed Sageworks page. I'd like to object to this deletion, on grounds that the company is notable. Can you please restore this, as there is notability which I would have liked to defend before it's deletion/PROD expiration? Thanks very much. Jackochs13— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackochs13 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Why not? There's not much there, and will there ever be any more? One could all it a WP:BLP1E and redirect it to Numb3rs. The choice is yours... :-) Ronhjones (Talk) 21:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Regarding deletion of image Robert_Livingstone.jpg
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi - I'm not sure what I need to prove that I alone own this photograph. I am the photographer. I am the photographer at GamesBids.com where this photo is located http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/about.html. I also manage that page that is owned by the subject of the photo. It is used elsewhere - Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. - but with my permission. I have granted free use of this photo. I'm not sure what else I can do to prove all that except embed a coded message in the page on the website showing I have control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menscerto (talk • contribs) 00:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Admin's Barnstar
For investigating PRODED articles. OccultZone (Talk) 02:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Good Evening (or Morning),
You recently deleted the following page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthwave ) based on the concern that the "article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources."
I am not a wikipedia expert, but I wish to contest this decision. The article was contributed to by several founding members of the Synthwave musical movement, myself included. I personally coined the term "Synthwave" in 2011 as a means to describe a collective movement of 80-influenced new music for my show, so I am in fact the originator of the term "Synthwave." I believe that makes me a reliable source. I host the first live show and podcast dedicated to the genre, which has completed 106 episodes. Information on my show can be found here ( http://www.projectfridayradio.com ). Additional sources include Andy Synth (Canada) of the Beyond Synth podcast and Marco Maric (Australia) of the Synthwave Sundays podcast, as well as several producer of the genre. In fact, we hosted a collective discussion to determine the direction of the article.
It is my contention that the article should be restored, because the article was written by those that are currently defining the genre, the most reliable source I can possibly imagine.
Lesser-known subgenres of music, even those born in social media, still have existing wikipedia pages
Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seapunk
Change some of the words of the article, and you have the old Synthwave article.
-Jim Govoni (botnit)
---
I want to object to the deletion of this page and revert the process. Please restore the page asap following these guidelines: PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected. The article is marked for at least seven days; if nobody objects, it is considered by an uninvolved admin, who reviews the article and may delete it or may remove the PROD tag. The first objection kills the PROD, and anyone may object as long as the PROD tag is present. Even after it has been deleted, a PRODed article can be restored by anybody through an automated request for undeletion. By the same logic, PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for articles PRODed before or previously discussed on AfD.
We should talk this out. A synthwave musical movement exists and the producers that release music under this banner and genre, have a right to be heard. This is a complete violation of their ability to express themselves and name their work. There is a Facebook group of Synthwave Producers with 1000+ members. Synthwave term yields about 550.000 google results. How is it not established? It's preposterous. This is a defacto term that describes a separate musical genre. I'm no wikipedia expert either, but at any rate, wikipedia PROD procedures demand that this article is restored and there is a consensus about its content. - Alex Karampas
---
I also would like to see the Synthwave page restored, and echo Alex's contentions. Synthwave is a legitimate subgenre of electronica, and is a currently rising genre in the music, movie, and entertainment mainstream. The term "synthwave" is used as a search tag and genre on many popular music websites such as SoundCloud, Bandcamp, and LastFM. e.g. http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Synthwave/ We need to be distinguished on the world's foremost free encyclopedia the same way we already are on the networks and channels we frequent.
- Roburai
---
Let me join with the others in echoing Alex's contentions. The genre is clearly established and quite obviously has a growing following. The deletion of the page seems rather petty, and is directly detrimental to the genre itself. Hotline Miami, Blood Dragon, and now Mad Dogs are all quality video games that have feature predominantly synth wave soundtracks.
- Jack Miff
You didn't all need that much text! :-) As stated anyone can contest a PROD by removing the banner, or by asking for a restore post deletion. It does not need a discussion. Be aware that whoever proposed the deletion will often then use AfD if the PROD fails. It will be restored in a minute. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Done - It will need more reliable sources to remain - an they need to be in-line as well. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Also regarding last post
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Can you please respond to info@gamesbids.com about Robert_Livingstone.jpg? I don't login here much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menscerto (talk • contribs) 00:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Done commons:File:Profile_picture_of_David_V._Kimball,_April_2014.png - it will work just the same as before Ronhjones (Talk) 00:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
![[2]](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-uTE7rMEzrs8/UZojl3dBgpI/AAAAAAAHCSA/ayAs2VzD04E/w1382-h875-no/DSC_7993.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
