This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hello Stabila711, here is something close to option#E ,[1] which is a (compact && user-sortable) horizontally-oriented table of textual factoids, with a (compact but not quite hover-overlay-compact) gallery below. I will work on upgrading it to option#F (gallery to the right), and then to option#G (staggered gallery to the right with easy correlation between names and pics without the need for captions). Also, ping User:Spartan7W and User:William S. Saturn in case they want to peek at this alternative layout as well. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Voila, option#F,[2] which is pretty close to what I actually think we should do (roughly). Note that table-sorting is totally borked by using the gallery-tag inside the wiki-table. This can be corrected via some alternative layout tricks, but for the moment I've just disabled click-to-sort. Now I will see if I can manage to get option#G up and running, and then circle back for criticism. Note that I do not actually support option#E personally, any more than I support the layout of Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016#Candidates_featured_in_major_polls. But these are viable options, and should be mentioned, if we really want consensus. Otherwise we'll just be back here in a month, or more likely, in a couple days. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
There are a couple variants of this layout-style, which I guess can be called option#G_double_barrel,[3] and my original idea which is option#G_all_on_the_right.[4] The main advantage of option#G, either flavor, is compactness. You don't need captions on the photos, although hover-click would be a nice bonus; I didn't try to implement that though. You also don't need a separate gallery, which saves space. And, although the textual-info is relatively compact, and the pics are lined up with the textual-info, you don't need to have vertical column orientation (like option#C) and you don't need to have excess whitespace (like option#D and like the dem-list or the potus-list). I'm not sure I actually *like* option#G, either variant, but it is a viable option methinks, and may satisfy some folks who desire easy-to-correlate pics but are against excess whitespace. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Stabila711, can you please move your new bangvote downwards? Also ping User:Writegeist, same request. Here is what we have now:
about-to-get-confusing and already non-internally-self-consistent bangvote section we have right now
- Vote: Option C Spartan7W § 00:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Vote: Option C --Stabila711 (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Change Vote: Option F --Stabila711 (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option C.--Ariostos (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option C--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option C--NextUSprez (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option C CloudKade11 (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option C Nations United (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option C David O. Johnson (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option C --Rollins83 (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option C ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option B (Original) Tarc (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option B (Original) --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option B (Original) Writegeist (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Or F (second choice) Writegeist (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Something with rectangular photos Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The above votes were submitted prior to the inclusion of options D, E, F, G
Please make a *brief* bangvote, under the layout-options, and the overall-preferences. You may bangvote in as few or as many as you wish. Please bangvote (Strong/Weak) Support, Neutral, and (Strong/Weak) Oppose. You may also vote Support with changes if for instance you like option X (hypothetical) but would only support option X with circle-pics, when the rough draft uses square-pics. Please keep rationales BRIEF, if you need more space, add a subsection and link to that subsection from your summarized rationale here in this bangvote section. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- prefer layout-option A == table, candidates in vertical columns, textual info cell-centered, gallery underneath, circle-pics, one-word hover-captions, refs in own row.
- prefer layout-option B == list, candidates in horizontal sentences, textual info left-bulleted, gallery underneath, square-pics, full captions, refs at end of sentences. (Status quo, used in most articles now.)
- prefer layout-option C == table, candidates in vertical columns, textual info cell-centered, row of one-per-cell pics, circle-pics, no dedicated captions, refs in own row.
- prefer layout-option D == table, candidates in horizontal rows, textual info left-justified, gallery underneath, square-pics (or circle), one-word captions (or hover), refs in own column (or inlined).
- prefer layout-option E == table, candidates in horizontal rows, textual info left-justified, gallery to the right, square-pics (or circle), one-word hover-captions, refs in own column (or inlined).
- prefer layout-option F == table, candidates in vertical columns, textual info cell-centered, row of one-per-cell pics, square-pics, no dedicated captions, refs inlined.
- prefer layout-option G == table, candidates in horizontal rows, textual info left-justified, staggered double-barreled gallery, square-pics (or circle), no dedicated captions (or hover), refs in own column (or inlined).
- overall preference, regardless of other decisions: circle pics, square pics, either circle-or-square, no pics whatsoever?
- overall preference, regardless of other decisions: list-style bulleted-sentences, vertical-style candidate-in-a-table-column, horizontal-style candidate-in-a-table-row, two of the above, three of the above?
- overall preference, regardless of other decisions: full captions, one-word captions, hover-captions, prefer no dedicated captions?
- overall preference, regardless of other decisions: refs should be inlined aka closely attached to info they back up, refs should be in own row/column/region aka visually out of the way?
- overall preference, regardless of other decisions: should err on the side of mobile compatibility / accessibility / ease of editing , or should err on the side of maximizing visual aesthetics while retaining 99.4% compat/access/ease?
Here is what I think will give us a proper assessment of what people support and oppose: (I've move your bangvote and Writegeist's bangvote below the HR, and added my own tentative multi-vote as an example of what I mean.)
new votes below the HR-tag, and feel free to multi-vote, this is not a POTUS election
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- UNLESS YOU NEED TO MODIFY IT. :-) These bangvotes were submitted prior to the inclusion of options D, E, F, etc. Unless striking your own bangvote to re-vote below the line, or similar, leave these as-is.
- Vote: Option C Spartan7W § 00:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Vote: Option C --Stabila711 (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)(( see new bangvote(s) below the thin line, please. ))- Vote: Option C.--Ariostos (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option C--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option C--NextUSprez (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option C CloudKade11 (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option C Nations United (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option C David O. Johnson (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option C --Rollins83 (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option C ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option B (Original) Tarc (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Option B (Original) --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Vote: Something with rectangular photos Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.The above bangvotes were submitted prior to the inclusion of options D, E, F, etc.
Please add new bangvotes, made on or after August 14th, below the line.
Please make a *brief* bangvote, under the layout-options, and the overall-preferences. You may bangvote in as few or as many as you wish. Please bangvote (Strong/Weak) Support, Neutral, and (Strong/Weak) Oppose. You may also vote Support with changes if for instance you like option X (hypothetical) but would only support option X with circle-pics, when the rough draft uses square-pics. Please keep rationales BRIEF, if you need more space, add a subsection and link to that subsection from your summarized rationale here in this bangvote section. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- prefer layout-option A == table, candidates in vertical columns, textual info cell-centered, gallery underneath, circle-pics, one-word hover-captions, refs in own row.
- Oppose due to non-sortable candidates-in-a-vertical-column layout, excess whitespace due to pic-in-a-single-cell decision, and difficult to upgrade circle-pics (an NPOV issue -- we need to make it easy to swap bad pics). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- prefer layout-option B == list, candidates in horizontal sentences, textual info left-bulleted, gallery underneath, square-pics, full captions, refs at end of sentences. (Status quo, used in most articles now.)
- Support, original layout. one-liner rationale for why, please? Writegeist (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Weak Support as reasonably-readable, very-easily-editable, traditional layout. Excess whitespace in pics portion; would help if the gallery-section were changed to use one-word-captions, not repetitive ten-word-captions. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- prefer layout-option C == table, candidates in vertical columns, textual info cell-centered, row of one-per-cell pics, circle-pics, no dedicated captions, refs in own row.
- Oppose due to non-sortable candidates-in-a-vertical-column layout, excess whitespace due to pic-in-a-single-cell decision, and difficult to upgrade circle-pics (an NPOV issue -- we need to make it easy to swap bad pics). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- prefer layout-option D == table, candidates in horizontal rows, textual info left-justified, gallery underneath, square-pics (or circle), one-word captions (or hover), refs in own column (or inlined).
- Support as reasonably-readable, reasonably-editable, reasonably-compact layout. Excess whitespace in pics portion fixed. Change from list-style to horizontal-table-style means factiods can be sorted (e.g. how many guvs?). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- prefer layout-option E == table, candidates in horizontal rows, textual info left-justified, gallery to the right, square-pics (or circle), one-word hover-captions, refs in own column (or inlined).
- Weak Support as reasonably-readable, somewhat-reasonably-editable, extremely-compact layout. Change from list-style to horizontal-table-style means factiods can be sorted (e.g. how many guvs?), although the rough-draft wiki-text here does not actually implement such sorting right now (it is possible and not especially difficult to implement however). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- prefer layout-option F == table, candidates in vertical columns, textual info cell-centered, row of one-per-cell pics, square-pics, no dedicated captions, refs inlined.
- Support (Change Vote from Option C), one-liner rationale for why, please? --Stabila711 (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- comment, is this your first support-choice? Or is is now the *only* choice for you, and you oppose option#C with extreme vehemence? Or maybe, you have strong support for option#F, and have changed to weak support for option#C? Also, what are your positions on circle-vs-square (see stuff below). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support, (second choice after option C). one-liner rationale for why, please? Writegeist (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose due to non-sortable candidates-in-a-vertical-column layout, excess whitespace due to pic-in-a-single-cell decision. Square-pics are an improvement over circle-pics in option#C. Need <br /> before refs, since cell-centered text is being used. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- prefer layout-option G == table, candidates in horizontal rows, textual info left-justified, staggered double-barreled gallery, square-pics (or circle), no dedicated captions (or hover), refs in own column (or inlined).
- Support as very-readable, kinda-reasonably-editable, very-compact layout. Direct visual link correlates textual info to corresponding photo, like opt#C and opt#F, but in significantly less screen-space. Also unlike opt#F and opt#C, horizontal-table-style means factiods can be sorted (e.g. how many guvs?), although the rough-draft wiki-text here does not actually implement such sorting right now (it is possible and not super-difficult to implement however). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- overall preference, regardless of other decisions: circle pics, square pics, either circle-or-square, no pics whatsoever?
- Strongly Support Square and Weakly Oppose Circle, square-pics are easier to edit short-term (often need to swap in a new photo for NPOV reasons), and as more likely to attract new editors long-term (hassle of circle-style is a "slight" barrier... but we cannot afford to erect more wiki-policy & wiki-consensus barriers). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- overall preference, regardless of other decisions: list-style bulleted-sentences, vertical-style candidate-in-a-table-column, horizontal-style candidate-in-a-table-row, two of the above, three of the above?
- Strongly Support horizontal-table and Weakly Support bulleted-list and Oppose vertical-table, horizontal-table has built-in support for click-to-sort (vertical-table does not), bulleted-list is simplest to edit for beginners (almost no wiki-syntax), and "minor" but worth mentioning, vertical-table usually means cell-centered text which is recurringly-annoying e.g. adding inline refs "messes up" the aesthetics. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- overall preference, regardless of other decisions: full captions, one-word captions, hover-captions, prefer no dedicated captions?
- Depends on layout-choice, but full captions are generally bad as repetitively verbose, and hover-captions are generally not-so-good as undiscoverable by non-tech-savvy readership. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- overall preference, regardless of other decisions: refs should be inlined aka closely attached to info they back up, refs should be in own row/column/region aka visually out of the way?
- Strongly Support inlined refs per WP:V, and per the corollary, that unless we habitually inline refs directly on the factoid they back up, reliably-sourced material will be deleted as allegedly-'unsourced' ... merely because the source was an inch to the right or whatever. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- overall preference, regardless of other decisions: should err on the side of mobile compatibility / accessibility / ease of editing , or should err on the side of maximizing visual aesthetics while retaining 99.4% compat/access/ease?
- Strongly Support 100% compat/access/ease per "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" ... that said, support as much aesthetic beauty as we can manage, without ever infringing on five nines compat/access/ease goal. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
My original plan, is that I was going to let User:spartan7W and yourself and User:William S. Saturn make the first sets of multi-bangvotes, since you folks were here working on this first, but it seems I misjudged how easy people would find the new multi-bangvote-friendly-layout. :-) Spartan7W was reluctant to have the "old" bangvotes in favor of option#C eliminated, which I can certainly understand, but I'd like the "old" bangvotes of B-vs-C to be separated from the post-August-13th bangvotes (and change-of-bangvotes). In particular, I really don't want to have people thinking they can only vote support for a single option. This is not a presidential primary first past the post Vote, this is more like WP:ARBCOM election BangVote, where you can mark "support" under as many or as few choices as you actually support. Does this make sense?
If so, can you help me get the bangvote section organized, so that newcomers understand they can support multiple options, if they wish? In other words, if you agree with the direction I'm trying to go here, please add the discussion-top and discussion-bottom tags around the 'old' bangvotes, too late for that, request withdrawn, others still valid move your own 'new' bangvote to the multivote area, and if you like, add your additional commentary on the various options (whether you support/oppose/neutral/whatever). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Kinda-kludge-driven, but sortable, with last-in-office-date.[5]
About the same amount of screen-real-estate as the rough-draft-with-sorting-disabled-at-the-moment.[6]
Both of these, obviously, need way less screen-real-estate than option#F or other v-table designs with row-of-pics (one pic per cell). There is an option, to disassociate the pics from the one-per-cell style, and build option#J or something, which is a v-table for the text-info, with a gallery-to-the-right (or option#K with a staggered-double-row-barreled-gallery). I've not built such a thing, because I don't want an unsortable v-table, but I can help you build one or both if you think they might be valuable/viable options.
p.s. Option#G 'seems' to use more screen-real-estate than option#E, but really does not; I just haven't figured out how to make the option#G imagesizes smaller! ;-)
p.p.s. I don't know what that WP:Co-op thing is, must be new, but I know that JethroBT is a human (not a bot despite the username), and worth your time hanging out with, if you wish. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I know what I'm talking about if you look for ballot access for the Libertarian party you will see they are the only third party with all fifty states and DC. The reference link that I got was from the official Libertarian website,so I think my source is valid enough. By the way in addition to taking out my edits my took out another at least another 35 electoral votes from your same edit, what I am wondering is why would you do that take away from an article that's already wrong in the first place. ---- Prussian Empire 1914
I really don't care what ONE website says about ballot access I take information only from official websites (GOP),(DNC),&(LNC). Most other websites don't agree with your reasoning & citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prussian Empire 1914 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
some good fully-independent editorially-controlled WP:RS refs, covering the whole backstory
|
---|
References
|
Hi Stabila711,
Thank you for your concern. However, According to Wikipedia:Notability (sports): athletes are presumed notable if they have appeared in one game as either a player or head coach in the original American Basketball Association, Asociación de Clubs de Baloncesto, Euroleague, National Basketball Association, National Basketball League (Australia), National Basketball League (United States), Serie A, Women's National Basketball Association, or a similar major professional sports league. WNBA.com is for sure a reliable source and is listed as an external link, which some editors may consider it as a reference. You are correct that a source should be added and it was.Robert4565 (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Just a note to remind you that when multiple edits are made to a page, only the summary from the most recent one shows up in the watchlist for those who are watching an article. You recently undid an IP user's changes to United States presidential election, 2016 and the second reversion was listed as being for the "same reason as last undo". So when the change showed up in my watch list, all I saw was that it was being reverted for the same reason, but that reason wasn't in my watch list. No harm done here, but it could be annoying for those who are watching for vandalism on these sensitive political pages and cannot see that the edit was correcting vandalism. As a side note, you should try Twinkle. With it, you can revert multiple successive changes by simply clicking on "restore this version" and you only need to enter the explanation one time. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 09:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Realized a few days ago, but have only just caught up with my open tabs... when you asked about copying from one wikipedia page to another, I forgot to mention this bit. You can be 100% at liberty to copy all wikipedia material, from wikipedia-page to wikipedia-page, and even from wikipedia-page to off-wikipedia websites. However, you have to follow the CC-BY-SA license when you do so, which specifically says that #1) you cannot change the license to something other than CCBYSA3 and also #2) that you have to provide credit aka attribution in the form of a backlink URL or similar (CCBYSA3).
In practice, that just means that when you copy from wikipedia-page to wikipedia-page, you should leave an edit-summary like "this content is copied from http://URL_GOES_HERE" , or similar. I've added appropriate edit-summaries to the following pages,[26][27][28] so we are now all square -- or circular maybe depending on your aesthetic preferences -- with the WP:COPYVIO police. ;-) Thanks, talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for this (Eduardo Franco noticeboard), i thought, they had to remove the redirect, but apparently I can do. thanks --The Silver (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Bot running now, but thanks for volunteering! —Steve Summit (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Srbernadette (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Thanks
Hi!
Not going to appeal or do anything about it (too much on my plate at the moment) but this was not an especially good close, IMO. A number of users other than Curly Turkey had been talking about an indefinite block for Cebr1979 for disruptive behaviour unrelated to Curly Turkey's talk page, and CT's stating once a mere eleven minutes before your close that he would be content with an informal promise to stay off his talk page didn't negate all the other issues. I don't need another needless fight in a topic area I'm not even interested in at the moment, so I'm just going to pretend I was never involved in this whole affair, but please try to be a bit more careful when closing long and complicated discussions in the future.
And sorry if this seems aggressive. I don't mean it to be. It's just friendly advice.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
...on my recent unblock request. I promise I won't make you end up looking foolish. See you around the project. Useitorloseit (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
You Change The CBC website Harrysmith21 (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC) |
Thanks Stabila. That is good advice for my students. I have made a conscious decision to use my real name, maybe because I'm an academic. However, students should consider this. I am passing along your advice. J.R. Council (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey Stabila711. I just dropped by after seeing your ping to an IP at the help desk. It might very well have been just force of habit, but if you're not aware, the echo notification system does not work for IP addresses. Since I'm here, I also noticed you've been marking posts as resolved. You'll notice that is rarely done at the help desk, and there has been past discussion and a consensus not to do so there, or generally to use other graphic indicators like ((not done))
and the like. Doesn't it suck when someone's reason to talk to you is in some sense a complaint? For that I apologize, and also wanted to say that I think you've been doing a good job in giving advice there, especially for a new user. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stabila, seeing Lessig has a wikipedia for his campaign and is very well known, i see no reason why he cannot be up in the picture candidates, as opposed to someone like Jeff Boss who is barely known. IF there was a section for in-betweeners, he should be there but for now I believe he should be included in the picture candidates, being a possible debater and all. If he shouldn't be, Jim GIlmore for the Republicans shouldn't be either.
Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by KittyHawk2015 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey Stabila! I've added new images of Bernie Sanders on the 2016 elections talk page. I was wondering what are your thoughts on them. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I emailed the Lincoln Chafee 2016 website if I could use an image that is displayed on the home page and they granted permission to use! Your thoughts on the talk page? This is great! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I think I found THE Bernie Sanders image! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
If i made changes i will be show in all the webpages or in only my pc...??
Shubham sanware (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
@Shubham sanware: Any changes made to an article will show to everyone, not just you. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I fixed the DNC candidates page for you, although I don't think it classifies as an edit war because he is clearly in the wrong, and it is disruptive editing. Spartan7W § 20:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Since no one is looking at the candidate images section, can I just include the best looking ones? Look at the Simple English page. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lee Tae-yong is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Tae-yong until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey, the activity on the remodeling subpage has tapered off, but I'm not sure a clear consensus has been reached, slash can be ascertained. If you have a minute, can you please give your 'ranked choice' votes on the available options, here below? If you don't wish to mess with it, per WP:CHOICE, no problemo of course. Here are the choices, for convenience:
If by coincidence you happen to prefer Option A the most, and Option H the least, you could just change the asterisks '*' over into hashmarks '#' which will number the choices in order. If you prefer them in some other order, you can cut-and-paste the lines into your preferred ordering, or just manually type the 1,2,3,etc numerals onto the appropriate lines by hand. You don't have to give numbers to all of them, if you don't wish, but please at least assign a number to "option B" which is the wiki-traditional way the page is ordered. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Please restore your REVERT at Denali. See Talk:Denali#Precise metric elevation. Yours aye, Buaidh 03:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I have worked on GPS geodesy projects for the National Science Foundation. The accuracy of this elevation measurement is approximately ±100 millimeters or ±4 inches. It is appropriate to include tenths of a meter to avoid rounding errors, e.g.:* The number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context (The response rates were 41.0 and 47.4 percent, respectively, not 41 and 47.4 percent), unless different precisions are actually intended.
@Buaidh: I have no problem with you putting it back. I have a problem with one number being a whole number and one displaying the tenths place. List of mountain peaks of North America does it right. Is there an issue with it displaying like that? 20,310.0 ft (6190.5 m) is the proper way to display it so it follows the MOS. The way you originally put it in was 20,310 ft (6190.5 m). That goes against the manual of style. That is why I reverted it. I have no problem displaying the .5 on the meters side as long as the feet side also displays the tenths place like in the list of mountain peaks of North America. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I've been watching you for some time now as the Stabila711 account. And I wonder: When you make new registered accounts, do you ever hope that the latest one will be the last one? Or do you just think of these accounts as temporary because they will eventually be reported by me or by someone else? It's a bit of both, right? Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the Republican candidate name sorter. I did it with the Democratic candidates, now that I know how.
The coffee can be decaf, if it's getting late. Tagus 03:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Forensic anthropology you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The article Forensic anthropology you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Forensic anthropology for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
Way to figure out the endorsements solution on Endorsements for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 00:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC) |
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The article Forensic anthropology you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Forensic anthropology for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I did not appreciate your castigation of my desire to clear the record on a website about my business I did not ask to be created. I have only asked that I be allowed to confront the person who keeps putting up untrue information. You say I 'claim' to be someone. Use the links you have in your own Wikipedia page and you will see clearly I am the owner and don't claim to be someone. My three children went through school with their teachers saying Wikipedia is worthless. I have fought against that and even contributed to it. But I learn that people hide in the shadows and post statements they know to be false. I have even see in your dialog castigating me that the Horse person still says she will go on doing what she wants. What do you want me to do.
You say its taken down and when you go to Google what do you see. The same bogus ownership information. And now you are saying my conduct is despicable?!
If you don't live in this world (like me), how do people go about getting fair treatment and if not, how do they get the page taken down altogether.
I would appreciate an answer to this question. Thank you.107.107.56.151 (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear User Stabila711
I left a note there at the Nova Talk page saying:
Is this now correct?
I enter here this answer sign, can I then edit the page?
|ans=Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hoping that I can proceed to edit the page. Is this ok?
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for your contributions on help desk. I often see you there. You are very helpful. All the best Supdiop (T🔹C) 01:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC) |
Oops. I should have done that. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
|
Good evening Stabila,
Yes, I would like to request the Undeletion of my father's Draft: Oswaldo Oropeza El Compositor de Latin América.
Please let me know if it is possible.
Thanks,
Nancy Carolina Oropeza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caribana10 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello Stabilia,
Please let me know why my entry was deleted (I'm new to Wikipedia and appreciate any detailed comments.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew Kopf (talk • contribs) 22:20, October 21, 2015 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
For you unselfish way of lending a technical hand to other editors for the good of the 5M pic project. You are a true Wikipedian! w.carter-Talk 08:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Forensic chemistry you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The article Forensic chemistry you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Forensic chemistry for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stabila, thank you for your help at Wikipedia talk:Donated artwork. I tried to put some order in the conversation there and messed with your post. Please feel free to change as appropriate. Also, I added a new section Wikipedia talk:Donated artwork#What should the button do? and only realized later that part of the message under your example should be included there, as well. Since your idea was earlier than mine, please don't hesitate to insert it at the beginning of that section. I just didn't want to chop up another message of yours. — Sebastian 18:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
My name. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The Detective Barnstar | ||
Thanks for all your work on forensics topics, including bring forensic anthropology and forensic chemistry to GA status. Feel free to drop me a note if you want help or a peer review on your next project. delldot ∇. 16:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC) |
Hello, Stabila711. Forensic chemistry, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 02:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC) |
The article Forensic chemistry you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Forensic chemistry for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The Invisible Barnstar | ||
I know your logos didn't get picked, but you were instrumental in contributing to the logo discussion in the early stages. Without you, it's hard to imagine the discussion really taking off as far as it did. In the spirit of the milestone, thank you for your contributions, and keep doing what you do! Mz7 (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC) |
The Special Barnstar | |
I just wanted to thank you for your contributions and submissions to the 5 million article logo vote. You were absolutely instrumental in getting the vote off the ground and I think it’s fair to say that the overwhelming majority of the ensuing logo submissions were inspired or influenced by your submissions. Thank you again for all of your help. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC) |
Stabila: Thank you 4 your response; but, I don't see that this is a "conflict of interest" Unlike some of the references already listed which are crassly commercial, my website http://www.spankingfit.com/ is strictly nonprofit& non-commercial. As I explain in my "About Us" section which you are welcome 2 read, I use interaction with my readers solely for purposes of enhancing my research.Thank you very much. I look forward 2 your reply. Dr. Garrett Doctor Garrett Fit (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Dear Stabila: Thank you 4 your response; but, I don't see that this is a "conflict of interest" Unlike some of the references already listed which are crassly commercial, my website http://www.spankingfit.com/ is strictly nonprofit& non-commercial. As I explain in my "About Us" section which you are welcome 2 read, I use interaction with my readers solely for purposes of enhancing my research.Thank you very much. I look forward 2 your reply. Dr. Garrett — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Garrett Fit (talk • contribs) 05:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear Stabila: Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that wiki ref. pages reg. such major commercial outfits as "Women's Health" have been constructed by "volunteers" & not by persons affiliated with those cos.? Is that correct? Thank you for your assistance.GarrettDoctor Garrett Fit (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this better? Wikipedia is the one making the claim that they are presenting a "list of health & fitness magazines". "Spanking FIT!" is such an online mag with scientifically superior content to any of those included and belongs on any serious list. Their articles are rarely written by scientific experts such as myself, and in most cases, are tawdry & commercialistic. Moreover, by including such pubs as "Women's Health", and not mine, I am feeling discriminated against. By the way, I forgot 2 ask what your role with Wikipedia is? GarrettDoctor Garrett Fit (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Who is your supervisor? I wish to communicate with her. Garrett Doctor Garrett Fit (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much Stabila for your detailed reply and $4 explaining wikipedia 2 me. I will forward the info to my readers & students. By the way, where is your donors list? I did not C it in your donate link. Thx. Garrett Doctor Garrett Fit (talk) 06:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
On 12 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Forensic chemistry, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a forensic chemist can assist in the identification of unknown materials found at a crime scene? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Forensic chemistry. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Black Lives. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Zpeopleheart (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Black Lives Matter. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Zpeopleheart (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
How to remove page semi-protection against vandalism on pages Vrutci and Lake Vrutci. Do you make it for me. Parkirovskieng (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
See Template talk:Religion topics
VirgoRetti (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)VirgoRetti
Stabila711, I apologize for the minor edit changes. I now understand that I need to "propose changes" and submit "verification" as research,forensics and articles are published. Thank you for your help.OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 06:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 06:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with my archiving thing. Looks like you like caffeine, so here's a cup of joe. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 06:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC) |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knanaya
I have edited 59.88.210.249 claim for clarity, if it seems valid with general apprehensions mentioned before by Knanaya community members and respects User:Cuchullain requirement of Swiderski theory, kindly do take required procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.42.219 (talk) 06:14, December 4, 2015 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
For helping on IRC. Pine✉ 07:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC) |
Hi, just a note regarding Talk:Osama_bin_Laden#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_13_December_2015: looks like when templates get vandalized, the vandalized version may show up to visitors from cache, while logged-in users see the fixed version. So when there are complaints about "clear vandalism" that cannot be seen, it can be useful to check with private browsing mode. A Wikipedia:Purge fixes such cache issues easily. --Petteri Aimonen (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stabila711,
I'm a pretty new Wikipedia contributor, but am trying to come up to speed here out of necessity. The articles prior to my edits appear incomplete, and based solely on the bad press. Since those references were valid references, my edits endeavor to preserve those while providing a more complete accounting of the reference. I am associated with the organization and would like to ask your assistance in guiding me to getting some protection of this page so that it can be factually accurate and useful to the community. I would be most grateful Davcoz (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I am associated with the organizationis a conflict of interest with that article. If you are associated with them you have a conflict of interest. In any case, your request will be evaluated by an administrator. In the meantime, I must insist that you do not edit that page directly. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
So, at least in theory, the MediaWiki engine could be made to automatically display the appropriate icon on all protected pages, but how much work that would entail, and whether it's worth doing it, is another matter? Guy Harris (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Adds protection template automatically if page is semi-protected, inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. --><noinclude>((#ifeq:((PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit))|autoconfirmed|((pp|small=yes))))((Pp-move-indef))</noinclude>
For your helpful participation on IRC. Pine✉ 21:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC) |
@Majora: yes that was indeed what I wanted to do, thank you for your changes.. Xray~Vision158 22:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. |
I apologize that I didn't respond until now. There is no excuse for that. I also realize that whatever I say here will likely not change whatever will happen to me, but I still feel it necessary to write this, just so that I may try to make you understand my actions. It does honestly frustrate me to be told that I should hold off on new page patrol until I've made 500 mainspace edits. I think I made that much clear through my actions, although I did make a deliberate effort to follow these instructions yesterday by making more than 120 mainspace edits, but eventually stopped out of a personal sense of futility. I fail to see how a number like that could ever make a difference between understanding the rules and guidelines of the new pages section and not doing so. Furthermore, it frustrated me when you, a user who only has roughly two months more experience than I do, took authority over me when it seemed to me that you were in no position to do so(again, I am trying to explain the motivations for my actions). Most importantly, I did not trust that only ONE actual citation of my misconduct in the new pages section was really enough evidence that I was more a boon than an aid, and not the other way around, as I believe. I realize that my proceeding against your wishes and admonishment is your reason for taking such harsh action, but I beg you to consider; you gave no warning of the consequences if I did not stop; you only waited till I had ignored one message instead of taking the time to post two. I can give you my word(which is something which I never gave to Kolbasz)that I will avoid the new pages section for whatever term you see fit, if you can explain to me, without any vagaries, why I should avoid it. I believe now that it is possible to avoid administrator intervention, and if I ever break my promise you clearly have every right to proverbially sic the dogs on me. I await your response and thank you for your consideration. --"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" -Aeneid, Book I, Line 203 (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Touche, you're right on that one. :) --Monochrome_Monitor 11:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm a little tentative to ask you about this, as I feel I might be overreacting a bit, but I decided that it would be best to ask anyway. Can users see if their pages have been reviewed? I ask because an hour ago, I posted the page Freehold Secondary and haven't received any notifications since. I realize that I shouldn't be worried about this, but I couldn't help but wonder, and would very much appreciate my page being reviewed. Thanks. --"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" -(Aeneid, Book I, Line 203) User:Thalassaxeno 01:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Your recently undo my edit at this page according to the WP:ARBPIA3. I understand the wish to keep those articels reliable and neutral but in this case I'm almost the only one who updates them consistently and give sources to any edit (for example at the article of 2015 almost a half of the text written by me...). I hope for some flexibility that allow me to keep update this article even though the rule. Thank you, Gunrpks (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The primary campaign has already started. Almost half the states have already finalized who's on the ballot. Rocky de la Fuente is on the ballot in ten states and will probably be in at least 20. It would be nice to get some help.66.108.159.118 (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't a mistake I made. The links are to make creation of primary pages quick and easy. If you look at the 2012 pages that's how they're done.65.88.88.71 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Whoops. That's what comes from working in the wee small hours ! |
Uamaol has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
This is for helping find what I need. Happy New Year :) Uamaol (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add ((subst:Cookie)) to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with ((subst:munch))!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Majora. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! Sn1per (t)(c) 03:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Majora. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I would like the page to be deleted immediately i did the wrong thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obinnaonye (talk • contribs) 05:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, Thank you. Obinna Onyemaobi (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
--Marvel Hero (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
You dope, I sent a POTSTICKER! | |
Thank you so much for your help with my first article, your input was invaluable. Potguru (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC) |
Hi Majora. I recently posted another page on a New Jersey railroad line, which was promptly tagged for linkrot. While, after reading up on it a little, I'm fairly sure that I understand what this term means, and that the patroller who tagged my page was justified in doing so, I think I need help learning how to fit Wikipedia's guidelines regarding this particular issue. I'd really appreciate advice. --"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" -(Aeneid, Book I, Line 203) User:Thalassaxeno 02:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
<ref>http://www.prrths.com/newprr_files/Hagley/PRR1832.pdf</ref>[1]
you could do
<ref>((cite web | title=A General Chronology of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company Its Predecessors and Successors and Its Historical Context. | last=Baer | first=Christopher | date=June 2015 | accessdate=January 21, 2016 | url=http://www.prrths.com/newprr_files/Hagley/PRR1832.pdf))</ref>[2]
That way, if the link ever "rots" and becomes unusable the name of the document, the author, and the date it was written is still there which could allow someone to salvage it. --Majora (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
References
Based on your participation in an AfD for United States presidential election, 2020, you may be interested in this AfD. (This neutrally worded notification is being provided to every editor who registered a !vote in the aforementioned RfC, regardless of direction of their vote, and is therefore done in compliance with WP:CANVASSING and WP:VOTESTACKING.) LavaBaron (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at St. Camillus Centre (the center apparently founded by Juliana Manele/Sister Juliana Manele)? It seems that most of St. Camillus Centre article should be deleted (and only a stub left) since it's just not written in the way Wikipedia articles should be written, and is written like an advertisement. 64.134.64.190 (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I meant to press preview and I hit save instead. Thanks for catching it. --Giant Bernard (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't mean to vandalize the 2016 Election page, I was trying to make one edit and I tried to undo it and it just became worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.75.119 (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Musdan77 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The image in question is the official imagery used by the UNO Athletics department. The original imagery of Lafitte the Alligator was removed due to retirement of the mascot and it is no longer the official mascot of New Orleans Privateer Athletics. The image was replaced with the official imagery of New Orleans Privateer Athletics. Furthermore, the image was used in the UNO Athletics section on the UNO Wikipedia page that subsequently contains a link to the New Orleans Privateers Athletics page which also contains the image. Since the image is the official image of the New Orleans Privateers Athletics Department, a department subsequently associated with the University of New Orleans, and by being placed in the Athletics section of the University of New Orleans Wikipedia page that contains a hyperlink to the New Orleans Privateer Athletics page which contains similar imagery the image is being used in a fashion and manner previously approved the idea this is a copyright infringement rests on weak foundation.
Please retract you objection and/or comment about the images usage and restore the image to the University of New Orleans Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaltz112 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the lesson in copyright law. What is you affiliation with Wikipedia, University of New Orleans, and New Orleans Privateer Athletics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaltz112 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Understood. In this instance the only thing I am guilty of is editing a page while begin affiliated with the organization. I am not employed with New Orleans Privateer Athletics. However, I do volunteer with them in various aspects and this alone my be the "conflict of interest" you speak of. If it is my sincerest apologies, as I am new to all this I was unaware of such a policy. I will be mindful of it in the future. I will request for the image to be restored. I thank you for the link to do so. Previously you mentioned "Commons only accepted 'free' use images. Logos are 'copyrighted' and 'cannot' be uploaded to Commons". I have to be in disagreement with you on this issue largely because the exact logo of issue in this correspondence is has been successfully uploaded to Wikipedia. I noted this in my original request to you. This is of no concern however as I will include a consent of use letter when I make the request to restore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaltz112 (talk • contribs) 20:46, February 25, 2016 (UTC)
Hi
This proust1129. I am lab manager in Dr. Varmus lab in Weill Cornell Medicine. Dr. Varmus authorized me to edit his wiki page. The photo you tagged for speedy deletion is actually a free license photo. It was taken by Matthew Septimus in Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. I did not have the information until now. I will upload with copyright information and add it to Dr. Varmus's page.
Thank you, Proust1129 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proust1129 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora,
I'm not all to familiar with all the procedures on enwiki, however the file File:Karla Rothstein, 2014.jpg which had a fair use rationale, and which you nominated for deletion as you believed the rationale was incorrect/did not apply has now been released under cc-by-sa-4.0 via OTRS. Seeing that I wanted to ask you whether you wanted to remove the tag?
Greetings, Basvb (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
With regard to Karla's photo, I have been granted permission by the photographer and the subject to upload this image. The Permissions department at the Wikimedia Foundation is aware of the exchange (via email) and has sanctioned this upload. There is no free equivalent of her portrait. She is a very prominent architect and I simply cannot take her photo myself as an untrained photographer. Mlynch345 (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlynch345 (talk • contribs)
Hi there
I seem to be confused on why the image for Rahul Nath is not being allowed The photo is a headshot of the individual and we want this on his page. Are we using the wrong explanation? Please let us know what we need to put on the description so that the photo can be retained and not deleted Thanks in advance Blakeksm (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora, I received a message from you regarding deleting the above referenced file due to a copyright issue. I want to let you know that a letter was sent to Wikipedia from the copyright holder granting permission for this file to be used according to Wikipedia standards, and licensing. There is a reference number for this subject matter in the letter the copyright holder received from Wikipedia. In addition, the letter stated it may take some time to process because a small amount of volunteers work in this department. I don't think it's prudent to publish the reference number publicly, but if you think it's OK, or require further information, let me know. Please do not take the image down while this is pending in the Wikipedia/media permissions department. Thank you. Magdalamar (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Magdalamar (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora, Yes, I am referencing the photo, File:Lotti Golden- Riverside Park, NYC, 1981.jpg. Do I put ((OTRS pending)) on the image page: File:Lotti Golden- Riverside Park, NYC, 1981.jpg or somewhere else? I assume it's the image page, and I will attempt to edit the page. Thank you for your help offer, that is very kind. If I run into trouble, I will let you know! Magdalamar (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Majora, should I include the ticket number? Magdalamar (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
((OTRS pending|year=2016|month=03|day=XX))
(replacing XX with the day you sent the email in). The date is so the pending permissions notification gets categorized in the correct category for tracking and maintenance purposes. --Majora (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)@Majora: Thank you so much for your patience and assistance! Magdalamar (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I have full permission from the owner of the photograph to use it on Wikipedia. I thought I had expressed that in the context. Please explain what you would like me to do now. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC))
Deletion of Michelle de Bruin Wolf Image. I took the photograph - how to I associate it with me as author then? Blellum (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I have the image in my Lightroom library, and am adding metadata to it there. I'll have a go uploading it the way you point out. If I get stuck I'll shout. Thanks Blellum (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, uploaded to Commons, re-added to page, and email sent. Fingers crossed :) Blellum (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, i received a message from yourself stating that you removed the picture Eijaz Khan. I was authorized by Eijaz to update the picture on his profile on Wikipedia. I am Admin of his Facebook Group and Page and have been giving approval by the man himself to do this. I have to completely change everything on it as requested by him. What is the point of having Wikipedia profiles if people who actually work for the celeb in question are not allowed to update it. Somebody keeps adding a spouse and that is always allowed to stay but when the actual truth gets added, it always gets removed. I request that this problem gets sorted out and that the only two people allowed to update his profile is me and him.
Yours Sincerely
Sana Khan (Personal Assistant to Eijaz Khan ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetsana157 (talk • contribs) 10:42, April 4, 2016
((paid|employer=Eijaz Khan))
on it. This is non-negotiable and must be done for you to be in compliance with our Terms of Use.Second, since you have a conflict of interest you should not be editing that page directly at all. Please use the article's talk page located here: Talk:Eijaz Khan. If you need something changed on the page you can submit an edit request by using the ((edit request)) template. Third, all material on Wikipedia needs to be sourced to reliable, third-party, independent sources. That is how Wikipedia works. For more information on what a reliable source is please see WP:RS.
Next, if you actually read the notice that was posted on your talk page you would see that all we need is proof that the image is licensed under something that we can use. All free use images, which is what the picture was licensed under, need to be able to be used and modified by any one at any time for any purpose including commercial use. This is all explained in the notice I left on your talk page. The person that owns the copyright, which is the photographer, needs to fill out the form located here and email it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Please include a link to the image in the email. Once you do, you need to place ((OTRS pending)) on the image to let people know the proof has been sent. You have until the 8th to do that after which the photo is subject to deletion.
Finally, your last request is simply not going to happen. You are on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You, nor Eijaz, own anything on that page. Nor do you have any extra right to stop other people from editing it. For our policy on this matter please see WP:Ownership of content. This is a collaborative project and pages here are open to be edited by anyone.
If you have further questions about this or any of the above, including what is needed on the image, please feel free to let me know and I will be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Why is that picture flagged for copyright violation. The picture is public available and therefore public. The artist provided the picture in question after me requesting such. Based on what did you flagged the picture for deletion. This seems a random choice and is not fact based. Please remove the flag immediately. Thank you Borismatt (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The picture is handedoing over by the owner. No problem. I will ask the artist owner to provide proof. The picture is public available on g+ for everyone to use. In this case your assumption is wrong because I can use and place the picture where ever I want. Nevertheless I don't get it how you come to such a conclusion but I use the form to comply... Borismatt (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |