Jump to content

User talk:January/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

RE: Clara Oswald edit

Hi, you said the edit was too soon, I don't understand ow it can be too soon as it's been explicitly confirmed that she will be the 12th Doctor's first companion. This is an encyclopaedia and that was a fact so I don't understand the problem? Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The crucial point there IMO is "will be" as opposed to "is" - even though it's been confirmed that Jenna-Louise Coleman will be in the next series (which is covered in the prose) I don't see how she could be classed as a twelth doctor companion right now, before there are any twelth doctor episodes even filmed. Three different editors have now reverted similar additions so I would suggest a talk page discussion if you still think this should be included. January (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I completely understand your point about future tense and present. Right now though, and as soon as Matt Smith announced he will be leaving, she is affiliated with him. Even is she films no episodes for three years, she is affiliated with the new doctor. I won't go toso much trouble to start a talk page discussion as it's so little but maybe the editors should recheck the definition of affiliate. Thanks for the reply. Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jack Carroll (comedian)

Orlady (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Graham W Phillips

I have to raise my concerns over your edits relating to this subject. They all appear to be negative, in contravention of NPOV. The page appeared to be vandalised today, then your edits resulted in degradation. If you have some agenda against this subject, may I remind you of Wikipedia policy on Conflict of Interest, as found here - [[1]]. Russkiwiki (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't. I was led to the article through the edits of User:UK Crime Guy who wikilinked to it. Prior to this I did not know of him. Please read WP:NOTVANDALISM. I explained the reasons for the edits I made very clearly in the edit summary, both were based on legitimate concerns and neither were in any way derogatory towards the subject. January (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I called by to say Well done at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GrahamWPhillips. At first I took the protests at face value, but I spent some time looking into it and in the end agreed with your case. – Fayenatic London 20:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Saw your comment at the SPI - it was similar for me, the more I looked into it the more I became convinced. January (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

My first edits

January, you have messaged me as a new contributor. Thanks for providing the important information and guidelines. Please note that I have edited pages for What's On magazine Kyiv and also Panorama magazine. There was incorrect and/or out of date information on both of these subjects, the pages had no doubt been created to link to an individual who was the subject of your sockpuppet investigation and subsequent blocking of multiple accounts. I have created this account in my own name, not an alias, I have provided in my account creation my business e-mail address also so my identity can be verified by the community. I have declared following my edits that I am the co-owner of the publishing company responsible for both of these magazines. To avoid any perception of conflict of interest I hope that you will be able to make the time to look at any edits I have made (I opened my account only a couple of hours ago) and if it is felt that any of my changes have breached wiki rules or guidelines in any way I am happy to be corrected by you. Paul Niland (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, your declaring your connection is appreciated. Having had a look at your edits, I would suggest you take a look at Wikipedia's verifiability policy and sourcing guidelines, as I note you haven't been citing sources (although I also noted that the articles were already not in compliance with these guidelines before your edits). January (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The corrections made were the most basic and necessary edits, as I learn more about how wiki works I will certainly be including citations and sources should I add/change/edit wherever possible. Grateful for your acknowledgment that any breaches of guidelines on those two points were historical. Thanks for your time Paul Niland (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Soundboy UK Clothing

hi january,

i recently tried to start a soundboy uk clothing page

i wrote...


Soundboy UK Clothing is the brain child of Marc Da Costa and founded in 2011. Initially the fashion house was created to fund an overseas trip to Africa for his 16 year old daughter. Once the funds were raised to pay for the trip, Marc's daughter quickly lost interest, however, Marc's vision and knowledge of the industry stirred something inside him and he began work.

With only one style of T-shirt available Marc quickly began designing the Origin 1, origin 2, Origin 1 GO Limited Edition, Origin 1 J.A Limited Edition, Origin 2 Reverse and the Don T. With branding at the forefront of his mind these are very loud but timeless Tees.

Being very calculated Marc set his sights on a launch date of 2014. Although already (2013) on sale in some outlets and on-line the plan is to get a natural feel for the industry before the launch.

Marc's team is growing. The introduction of Marc's long term friend Joseph Squire has saw the communication and reach of the brand increase.


if i put a number of references in would that help or should I take my name from the content.

advice is needed at this point.

thanks in adavance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephsquire (talk • contribs) 17:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think there's much that can be done here - even if the article was rewritten to be neutral it sounds like it still wouldn't meet WP:CORP, which is Wikipedia's notability standards for articles about organisations (very few small or recently-launched companies meet these standards, as they are unlikely to have had the required press coverage). It seems this company is not fully launched yet which makes it particularly unlikely. Sorry I couldn't give you better news. January (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Louis L. Carter

Hi, I worked on the article previously.

I updated the article based on the comments and added few additional references to support the article. Here are few references that belong to secondary sites that may be acceptable.

I would like to re-write the article and post using the below references.

Also the following wikipedia articles have mentioned Louis

Any additional feedback would be great! I will only want to whats right!

Thanks in advance!Pilot03 (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Pilot03

Sorry but none of those links are secondary coverage. Articles written by the subject are not secondary sources, the subject’s name in a bibliography or other Wikipedia articles is not coverage, and Amazon bios are usually submitted by the subject or their representatives so are not independent. The last link doesn’t work but I think it's unlikely that a Powerpoint presentation would be a useable source. What would be needed is significant coverage, that is sources that "address the subject directly in detail", this would usually take the form of articles written about him appearing in publications which are completely independent of the subject. January (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Oreet.

I fully appreciate your position. Any twonk who wants to vandalise is a twonk too many in my book. HOWEVER, I've had quite a few run-ins over the past few months with all manner of trouble makers and the like, and it's exhausting. I'd rather remove myself from conflict, however minor it may initially appear. I do support your stance, and if you've sniffed out a sock, more power to you. On this occasion it's just not for me. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm not involved in any conflict either, just keeping a disruptive sockpuppeteer at bay. January (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Article move

Hello, can you move Lake Amtkel to ► Lake Amtkeli? I know that recently I made mistake, but because I couldn't move it anymore (I don't know why). On talk page I wrote sources, so will you help to move ?--g. balaxaZeႫ 08:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I would have to use my admin tools to do that as the redirect at Lake Amtkeli would need to be deleted first (that's why you weren't able to do it). I see from the history that this move has recently been reverted by another editor, so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to do this while it is disputed. I would suggest making a request at WP:RM/CM so that it can be discussed to reach a consensus. January (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I understan that when someone reverting it needs discussion and consesus but that Russian user was reverting because there was no source so now I wrote sources and I think problem of revertings is solved.--g. balaxaZeႫ 09:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
It would still be an improper use of administrator tools for me to restore this disputed move without consensus, so I can only suggest you go through WP:RM. January (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Information icon Hey! I'm Elvey. I wanted to let you know that I undid your your recent contribution to File:Kelly_Thomas_2009_booking_photo_released_by_Fullerton_PD.jpg because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Please familiarize yourself with {{PD-CAGov}}, OK? Elvey (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That is an abuse of the vandalism warning template. I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:NOTVANDALISM. January (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Why? That's* not an accusation of vandalism. Please familiarize yourself with {{PD-CAGov}}, OK? --Elvey (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

* complete source: [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hey! I'm [[User:Elvey|Elvey]]. I wanted to let you know that I undid your [[Special:Contributions/January|your recent contribution]] to [[:File:Kelly_Thomas_2009_booking_photo_released_by_Fullerton_PD.jpg]] because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:Elvey|my talk page]]. Thanks! '' Please familiarize yourself with {{tl|PD-CAGov}}, OK?'' [[User:Elvey|Elvey]] ([[User talk:Elvey|talk]]) 00:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That is {{uw-vandalism1}} and it is insulting to put it on the talk page of a long-term user in good standing. January (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I undid your once- recent contribution] to File:Kelly_Thomas_2009_booking_photo_released_by_Fullerton_PD.jpg because it did not appear constructive. So I did. I wanted to ask you to please familiarize yourself with {{PD-CAGov}}, So I did. If you STILL feel I did so uncivilly, because my comment's similarity to {{uw-vandalism1}} caused you to feel that you were accused of vandalism you have my sympathies. --Elvey (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't just a similarity, you selected that template from the drop-down in Twinkle [2]. That template is for vandalism warnings, you should not be using it for anything else. January (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

January is right, she is not vandalizing. S please assue good faith at him/ her and ask your self questions before reverting or warning January's edits. DDreth ask me questions! 21:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, she's not vandalizing. And I'm right, I didn't accuse January of vandalism, TPS. I told her I felt she made an edit that did not appear constructive. If you think the edit was constructive, we disagree. Over and out. --Elvey (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Check user?

You just semi-protected Bobbi Starr per my request. There are three user names that have been adding the controversial info. Should I put in a check user request for those names? Just looking for suggestions on what/if to do next. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 19:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just opened one myself - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Holmes4212. January (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Great! Thanks! Dismas|(talk) 19:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfair deletion

You deleted my Alyssa Rosales page because you said it was unsourced. But alyssa is my good friend and was sitting right next to me when i created the page. And you said the page was negative because it mainly referenced her sexuality, but thats a matter of opinion because alyssa embraces that. So i think it was wrong to delete my page because alyssa practically wrote it herself. You say its all unsourced info but its from her mouth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigrick6089 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a note I blocked Bigrick indefinably as that article he created was probably one of the worst BLP violations I have ever seen in my many years in the project. I don't care if the content might have been true or approved by Morales or what, but an editor who creates an article on the subject is clearly up to no good in the project as in the end the only person who is going to be hurt is her. Thanks for deleting that article. Secret account 04:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Question

First observation – you made reference to the part about the airline being government owned in your edit summary but the edit also removed a statement about a crash lower down – was that accidental? January (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I see the same editor just reverted you. I understand the concern, particularly in using the same quote twice and there may be a touch of WP:SYNTH in the way the quote is linked to the outcome, but if it escalates into an edit war it wouldn’t get a 3RR exemption. If I was in this situation I’d go to the talk page before reverting again. January (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Jayne Torvill

I edited Jane Torvill's nationality to English from British for these reasons.

1. She is English 2. Scottish and Welsh sportsmen and women are almost invariably described as such on Wikipedia, but it is seemingly a crime to say somebody is English. 3. I clarified that Jane competed for Great Britain with the appropriate internal link to United Kingdom.. 4. English, Scots and Welsh complain about the conflation of English with British, especially by Americans, so ALL Wikipedia articles about British citizens should clarify their nationalities wherever possible. 5. There was nothing inaccurate about my editing so it should not have been reverted.. Foot Slogger (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have replied to you at Talk:Jayne Torvill. January (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have responded at Talk:Jayne Torvill and I do indeed object to you changing my update. It clearly states on the information box that Jane represented Great Britain and I also made that clear in my update. I think that fully complies with Wiki policy regarding nationalities of sports people. Foot Slogger (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Conroy

Yea sorry, I noticed it right after I uploaded it. How do I delete it or do I have to request a delete. - Mainstreammark (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted it. (For future reference you can request deletion of your own uploads if needed by adding {{db-author}} to the page.) January (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Fabo

Hello, I noticed you have helped edit several things on the wikipedia page for Fabo. Is there any way you can change the information in the info box on the right that says he is still signed with Ice Age? Can you change that to Atlantic Records? And is there anyway you can add his official website in the info box, which is www.gikcity.com Thank you, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and am not sure how to do that and if I'm able! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GIKDUP (talk • contribs) 17:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I made those changes, but I've also had to revert yours as you copied a paragraph directly from the source, this is a copyright violation. Please see the first message I left on your talk page. January (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Boney James photo

i have restored the photo. i am the artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barneyjones (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The photo is still nominated for deletion (Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boney James 2013.jpg) and will be deleted in a few days time if the issue is not resolved. Please see Commons:Commons:Permission for details of how to proceed. January (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sheldon School

File permission problem with File:Chippenham Boys High School.jpg

I left the comment under Permission - Evidence: Will be provided on request. I am currently in correspondence with Caroline Fowkes regarding permissions for further images.

I have a question, is there a way to upload this image without it being resized?

Wicks Steve (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You can change the displayed size of the image in the article by adding the size you want in the code (see WP:IMGSIZE), for example to make it slightly bigger:
[[Image:Chippenham Boys High School.jpg|thumb|250px|The view from across the main playground, taken from the drive-in entrance, pre 1975.]]
Was that what you meant? If not let me know. January (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


No, I mean the image size was reduced from 1024px × 768px, which you will see at the source http://www.chippenhamcivicsociety.co.uk/page24.php?view=preview&category=1&image=28 after clicking on the image, to its uploaded size of 700px × 494px.

Wicks Steve (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the software does that, perhaps you somehow downloaded a reduced version from the website before uploading here? If you want to try again, you can overwrite it with the full size version by clicking "Upload a new version of this file" towards the end of the file page. January (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try this

Wicks Steve (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GN-logo accommodating 2.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GN-logo accommodating 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Your email to User: Peminatweb

I am referring to your email to me entitled: "File permission problem with File:Keith Paterson, Age UK's joint Internet Champion for 2012.jpg" I have just sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org as you suggested forwarding them the email that I received from the file creator Keith Paterson allowing his photo to be used freely in Wikipedia. I hope this is acceptable, if not please let me know and I will ask the creator of the file to write to you. In such a case kindly let me know who he is to email the authorization to and also the exact wordings that he has to write for it to be acceptable to you. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peminatweb (talk • contribs) 13:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I don't have access to that e-mail address myself, but a member of the OTRS volunteer team should reply to you shortly (if you don't get a response within a few days you could chase it up at WP:OTRS noticeboard). A suggested wording can be found at Commons:COM:Email templates/Consent. January (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've asked the owner of the photo to send you that standard declaration. There should be no further problem. Thank you. Peminatweb (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Peminatweb

Hi, sorry I have to come back to you. Although the copyright owner has sent an email to Wikipedia allowing full licence to use his photo 4 days ago I still see the remark "This file is missing evidence of permission" there regarding his photo (please see) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Keith_Paterson,_Age_UK%27s_joint_Internet_Champion_for_2012.jpg
Is this normal practice (despite the fact that the deletion deadline is only two days away) or maybe his email was not acceptable? Thanks for enlightening. Peminatweb (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Peminatweb

I'm sure the OTRS team would have advised if the e-mail was not sufficient, so if there's been no response that probably means it hasn't been processed yet. I've removed the deletion template for now to allow more time for processing, if the sender has not received any reply you could ask the volunteers at WP:OTRS noticeboard to check if they've received it. January (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply. I have no vested interest in this so I'll just leave things as they are. Peminatweb (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Peminatweb

File:1929 Ruth Margery Borthwick.jpg

You state an image of the subject's wife does not increase readers' understanding of the subject significantly enough to justify a non-free image. I would argue that an image of the subject does not more-so increase readers' understanding of the subject significantly enough to justify a non-free image.

Either the use of a non-free portrait of an individual in an article is fare use or it isn't, and should not be determined by the title of the page. If it were, then wikipedia guidelines would not permit any use of such portraits other than at the the top of the an article specifically about them. Which is not the case. Graemp (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I follow what you're saying but just to explain the issue with that image, WP:NFCC#8 requires that "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". By topic, we usually mean the subject of the article it is being used in (in other words, the title of the page). Pictures of deceased persons in articles about that person is listed in WP:NFCI as one of the generally accepted uses of non-free images on Wikipedia, but this doesn't cover pictures of other people mentioned in the article such as a spouse. While it doesn't say that non-free images of people can only be used in articles about that person, usage in any other article would need to be justified on a case-by-case basis. There are some instances where fair use has been legitimately claimed in other articles, for example articles about specific crimes can include images of the perpetrators or victims, but I don't know of any other examples of a non-free image of a person's spouse in their biography. January (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be addressing the guidelines for images that are uploaded on the following pretense; "This is an historic photograph or other depiction of a person who is no longer alive. It will be used as the primary means of visual identification of that person in the article about them." When I uploaded the image, I did so under the following pretense; "This is some other kind of non-free work that I believe is legitimate Fair Use. This is a copyrighted work whose use does not fall into any of the classes above. I have read the Wikipedia rules on Non-free content, and I will explain how this file meets all of the criteria set out there." This option exists to address usage on pages that are not specifically about the subject of the image. I would argue that the use of a portrait of a spouse, parent or child when they are mentioned in the article, and where no other image of the individual is available, would constitute fair use. Graemp (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you're referring to the options available in the upload wizard, the actual guidelines/policy are WP:Non-free content and WP:Non-free content criteria. How do you think the image meets WP:NFCC criteria #8? January (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I have just noticed that despite my case to for retention outlined to you above, wikipedia have decided to delete this file. I therefore ask you to raise the case to change the policy to allow such files to be used. My reasoning is as follows; It has been shown that history has under-valued the role played by women in helping to shape the world in which we live. Frequently this has involved simply not referring to women where they played their part. Often, this may have been a part played alongside a husband. Wikipedia should recognise that this happened and support attempts to write women and their role into our history. Wikipedia should recognise that an important step in this process is to allow historical portraits of the wives of notable subjects to appear in their articles.Graemp (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The gender of the person pictured didn't play any part in this, the outcome would have been no different if this was about a biography of a woman and you were trying to justify a non-free image of her husband. If you disagree with the project's approach to non-free content, then you are of course welcome to raise it at the WP:Village pump or WT:Non-free content. However if you intend to continue uploading non-free images I would strongly recommend that you familiarise yourself with WP:Non-free content if you haven't already, rather than relying on the more limited guidance given in the upload wizard. January (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Community Games (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Rugby, Swimming, Sean O'Brien and Athletics

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Bank to the Future

Hi

Sorry I wasnt sure how to include the evidence. I have screen images which prove one of the claims and the accounts recently filed at Companies House proves the other. Is is possible to upload a file and can i just reference to the accounts at CH?

Thanks

Robmb007 (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're basing these claims on an analysis of the company's accounts, that would be original research which would be unacceptable. I would need to know what your screen images are of to give you a proper answer to the first part of your question, but if they are not previously published sources (see WP:V) then again their use would be original research. Also if they're copyrighted uploading them would probably be a copyright violation.
Incidentally I took a more detailed look at the article after I reverted you and discovered it was mostly based on the company's press releases which is unacceptable, so I've now removed most of the material that was there before including the claim you disputed. January (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is information from a primary source unacceptable? Anyway I have found some sources (including his own blog) as reliable sources foe the information I have now put up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmb007 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Interpretations of primary sources are not acceptable because this is original research. Forums and blogs are not reliable sources (see WP:SPS). You are also engaging in original research by interpreting the sources to produce a total of how much training you think this person has had, this is also unacceptable (see WP:SYNTH). January (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please review your comments. One of the sources quoted is an article in The Kernel, an online magazine very similar to the Huffington Post which you have allowed to be used for the original entry. If you had read the blog, which is written by Dixon so must be reliable from my standpoint, then you would see that it contained the dated letter confirming KBCs employment of Dixon. Dixon himslef confirms he left in 2006 therefore my assertion that he had a maximum of four and half months training is a FACT not my assumption. What is the point of your site of we are not allowed to publish the facts? You should also note that the origonal entry states that this person is English and a banker - neither of these assumptions have any evidence. He maybe English but he is certainly not and never has been a banker - that is clearly evidenced by my submission— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmb007 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"If you had read the blog" - I did. It says he accepted a position of trainee financier at KBC and left the company later that year. The source does not say that he has had a maximum of four and a half months training (which assumes he didn't have any training outside this period), you introduced that conclusion. Your other source seems to contradict this: "10 months of corporate finance on the AIM". January (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Dixon bgan his career in finance after his degree at Manchester so in Autumn 2004. He was a tea boy. Then became a broker.Then in August 2006 became a trainee corporate financier (see letter in blog. By the end of 2006 he had left nabking for ever and has never gone back. So he may have recieved training as lots of things before August 2006, but as Peels gave him the job as trainee CF do you not think this is clear evidence that prior to that date he had had no formal training in this particular field? KBC Peel had a numberr of functions - IB, stockbroker, market maker - all requiring quite different training. You have not dealt with the issue of allowing him to call himself a banker - by what argument do you allow this and not allow my evidence that he was only a trainee banker? 5.81.207.100 (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

On second thoughts, if i just put that Simon Dixon worked for KBC Peel as a trainee Corporate financier from mid August 2006 to the end of 2006 and then left Invetsment Banking to set up Benedix, a student banking recruitmant agency which is now closed. - with the references - would that be acceptable? 5.81.207.100 (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

On your first point, your conclusion is based on synthesis so it wouldn't make any difference whether I or editors agreed with you, it would still be unacceptable. I didn't put in his being a banker, if you really want to take that out go ahead. The only source you've presented so far for Benedix is a discussion forum, which is not an acceptable source. January (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is the letter from the employer confirming the dates of employemt synthesis? It proves that he worked for those dates as a trainee at that company - what better proof could there be?. It is also backed up by his own blog. I have taken out banker. 5.81.207.100 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Because you are using this to support a conclusion that he has had a maximum of X months training which is not stated in the source. In your response above you combined elements of his career history to support your argument that "prior to that date he had had no formal training in this particular field". Regardless of whether it’s a valid argument or not, it's synthesis because it is a position which has not been advanced by the sources. January (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Alban Meha - file:photo

why u say that photo was your copyright ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk • contribs) 19:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it was my copyright, I removed it from the article because it was a copyright violation. Please see the notice on your Commons talk page for more information. January (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeking an Unblock, Can You Help?

Hi, I am permanently blocked and looking for a previously uninvolved administrator to consider unblocking. I chose you randomly (decided to try one with username beginning "J" and went to the active administrators list). I also once knew a guy named January, was in the Army with him. This post is block evasion, which some administrators are alarmed by, but I don't have any choice. My talkpage and email function were disabled. Signing my username to an IP edit is the only honest way I have left to me. I edited for years, created several articles, and substantially contributed to many more. It was more than a year ago that "Timotheus Canens" permanently blocked me with a Twinkle button click that pointed to WP:SOCK. He provided no warning, no explanation, and no diffs. I am not going to risk irritating your ears with a lot of "admin abuse" claims, but I think you must agree that a no-warn/no-evidence/no diffs block is clearly abusive on its face.

I never socked. As you can see in my first edit, I cleanstarted for privacy reasons. It was thus authorized by the no-fault "avoid harassment" provisions of WP:CLEANSTART policy. I have always been straightforward and made positive contributions to the encyclopedia. I was aggravated by the unexplained character of the block as well I felt that "sock" impugned my honesty. You can say "well, you should have been more calm and carefully explained your position" and maybe that is true, but really I tried to make a reasoned defense, but got only silence from Timotheus, and then a mass (5 or 6) of WP:AN/ANI dwellers landed on my talkpage, haranguing me and criticizing me and threatening "I will block your talkpage" me. I wasn't ready for that. I wasn't experienced in blocking at the time.

Anyhow, there's a long story after that. If you are willing to learn more and possibly make a decision as to unblocking, I will be happy to try to tell you what you need and would want to know. If you could unblock me merely at my talkpage, that I might make my case better to you, I pledge to be civil, even to those I really believe have wronged me. I think that you are well within your rights to unblock my page and hear me out. Do not automatically swallow the opinions of those that say I should just email WP:BASC (Timotheus is one of merely three there and refuses to recuse) or make use of UTRS (that does a form of computer fingerprinting that I am wary of, plus my case is not based on technical evidence). Give me a fair hearing and allow me to allay any concerns about me. Thank you. PS: I cannot sign my username plainly for technical reasons however I will try to make it legible below.

. C . C .
. o . o .
. l . s .
. t . m .
. o . i .
. n . c .

Sorry, I can't help you. Having looked into your history, this is beyond the point where finding a sympathetic admin would be the answer (and I know I'm far from the first admin you've tried). Your previous unblock was overturned by consensus at AN, you've obviously already had an appeal rejected by BASC. I can't overturn that, I don't think anyone outside Arbcom could. I can't even offer you any advice without repeating what others have already told you. January (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. You're referring to "power" arguments, as opposed to policy ones. I'll keep trying to find an administrator that'll be sympathetic to a policy and evidence-based argument. The "vote him off the island" crowd process just a policy-free power grab by Club AN/ANI. Nihonjoe's unblock was the legitimate move (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Unblock#Unblocking). No offense taken of course, and thanks again for looking, but I say "I didn't do it," and you seem to think that question is immaterial.

. C . C .
. o . o .
. l . s .
. t . m .
. o . i .
. n . c .

PS: And to add one thing. You're mistaken that BASC declining a block appeal creates a status where it's no longer reviewable by any administrator. One of them told me after when I asked "we have no monopoly on block appeals." There's no policy backing the proposition "once BASC turns you down, no one can help you." However it's certainly fair enough for you to weigh its decline in your decision, the point is you aren't bound by it.

  • Alright Colton, nice try. Hint for next time: fewer loaded comments ("an administrator that'll be sympathetic to a policy and evidence-based argument"). Drmies (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you had previously nominated an image by this name uploaded by this user for speedy deletion. [3]

and given that you do not have an edit on the current image where you would have nominated the file [4] it looks like the user has just re uploaded after a deletion.

the image is obviously studio shot and so the claims of self creation are dubious at best, but I was not able to actually find the original on the web. Is your google-foo still better than mine or did it just get deleted previously based on the fact that it is so obviously a studio shot? Thanks!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The first upload was a different image, it was taken from [5]. I agree this second one looks suspicious though, perhaps one for WP:PUF. January (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Shared IP apparently

Hi,

I received a message that you undid an edit about Haslett High School made from my IP address 108.86.33.121. This does appear to be a shared address (DSL) so the intended user may not have received your message. I am not a wiki editor. That's all, thanks, have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.86.33.121 (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Disability insurance page.

Here are my proposed changed to the edit that were removed from the disability insurance page, what do you think?

<copyvio removed>

Sorry but that's still similar enough to the source to be a copyright violation, please see WP:Close paraphrasing for more information. The style of the material (addressing the reader as "you", for example) is also unsuitable for an encylopaedia, please see WP:TONE. January (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, help/suggestions. I have changed the tone (You and Your, changed to "the insured","the insured's". I have also made changes, other than the tone, is this paraphrased enough?

<copyvio removed>

No, you’re still approaching this by copying the source and then modifying it, you need to write in your own words. (Also the source appears to be a blog, see WP:SPS.) January (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Kim-Jong-Un Picture

Why can there not be an image of kim-jong-un? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMatulaak (talk • contribs) 16:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The image you added was a copyright violation, please see the notice on your Commons talk page. January (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Gregory Hague photo

Hi January,

You left a message on my talk page concerning a photo of Gregory D. Hague. I have permission from him to use this photo as a free non-copyrighted image. How do I change the information about the photo? Djhuff (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Djhuff

I would suggest you edit the "Licensing" section and change the tag to the licence the copyright holder has agreed to (see WP:ICT/FL for a list of licence tags), and ask him to send an e-mail to the OTRS team using the suggested wording and e-mail address at WP:CONSENT. January (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Nagma

Question1: What is the problem of wiki's mention of one's Religion when they not only believe in the faith BUT ALSO advocate publicly. while so many videsos are there in public media, social media like below BUT there OFFICIALLY news and organizations post her faith, conversion etc?

Official organization's link: 1. http://www.fawba.org/site/Muslim-Indian-Actress-Nagma-Converts-to-Christianity/subpage6.html 2. http://www.christianmessenger.in/i-take-each-day-as-it-comes-nagma/ 3. http://www.jeevanmarg.com/testimonies/nagma-testimony-of-bollywood-actress/ 4. http://in.christiantoday.com/articles/nagma,nagma.becomes.christian,nagma.christianity,south.india.actress/2692.htm 5. http://samaw.com/actress-nagmas-testimony-is-a-christian-now/676 6. http://cmpaul.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/actress-nagmas-story/ says "In the year 2000, in one such discussion, I said my salvation prayer."

Even though unofficial: Electronic news media, even its a protest the point regarding her religions is obvious: . http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/vhp-threatens-agitation-against-actors-nagma-johnny-lever-31321.html And so many social media: . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2lr9fCOHxE . http://www.yeshutv.com/nagma-indian-film-actresschristian-hindi-testimony-video_efb4291eb.html#.UrU3LrQsw7U . http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080801100649AARZ33u miscellaneous, still the same point emphasis: 7.http://the-israel.blogspot.com/2008/05/popular-actress-nagma-turns-to-jesus.html http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/2013-12-12/Nagma-in-trouble-over-religious-conversion-79244 --Kiran Chitrada 07:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC) 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chitrada (talk • contribs) 07:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
You need to ensure any additions relating to religion are cited to a reliable source in which the subject self-identifies with that religion, and the source you presented at the time was inadequate. The second one on the list above seems suitable. January (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

January: Yes, In an Interview, Nagma self confessed on Christianity and further explains stopped Art of living practices and the christian organizations provided full extract of the interview.ThinkBig 05:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chitrada (talk • contribs)

Another Lawline sock?

Early this morning, following yesterday's blocks of What88 and RobinHood99, User:Luckydan89 appeared on the scene to urge the deletion of the Louis Posner article, using stilted language and clumsy phrasing similar to What88's. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Louis_Joseph_Posner. I'm confident this is another sock. The account has existed since 2008 and appears mainly interested in on-line poker articles; however - the editor did contribute two small edits to Strip Club, which had also been edited by the Lawline socks; the form of the name is familiar (noun+2 digit number); last night's comment at the Posner AfD was within 20 minutes of a question by RobinHood99 about seeking an unblock, and that (4:45 in the morning, thereabouts) is not a common time to be editing; and finally this user's first stab at a User page here reflects the same - Spartan - sensibility as the first efforts of Freedom Fighter, Lawline, What88 and RobinHood. My only hesitation in filing an SPI is that a CU should have turned this up as a sleeper, but didn't. Your thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Those edits to Strip Club were on January 28, 2011, a day after Lawline and his socks were blocked.]]. JohnInDC (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not personally familiar with how the CU tools work, but I think Luckydan was probably active enough that the recent CU would have picked him up. Might be something to ping LFaraone about since he ran the CU. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I think checkuser goes back three months, so Luckydan89 may have been just outside the date range but LFaraone would be able to confirm this. I also found it a bit odd that an account inactive for three months which had never edited project space before arrived at that AFD, on the other hand the account was created in 2008 and I can't think why Lawline would have needed a sock that long ago. January (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Its correct that contributions made before 27 November 2013 wouldn't have shown up in a check. Feel free to file at SPI if you otherwise feel it is supported by behavioural evidence. LFaraone 17:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I can count, I promise. I meant October above :) LFaraone 18:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
SPI filed here. JohnInDC (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll bet $5 that Denver982 is another sock - given the timing, the immediate creation of a stock Lawline User page by an ostensibly virgin editor is enough to convince me - but I suppose the OTRS process will reveal whether this editor's claim of representing Posner is in fact true. And it must be said, this editor seems to write a better sentence. JohnInDC (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

New SPI filed. January (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Another. Hasn't ramped it up yet but I can't see any reason to let it remain unblocked. SPI here. JohnInDC (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I can't even understand why he thinks socking is helping his cause. A simple e-mail to OTRS would probably be far more effective, as several people have tried to tell him. January (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
At this stage I think he's just trying to be annoying. I can't think of another reason to make an essentially null edit on the Talk page of the one editor most likely to make the connection and report the puppetry! JohnInDC (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Files for deletion

Hello January, I noticed your participation in closing some of the file deletion discussions for late December, so I was wondering if you could take a look at one of the old discussions which recently crossed the seven day mark, regarding the first three files related to Brimstone, File:Brimstoneredcarpet.JPG, File:Brimstone & Valentino Autograph Signing.jpg and File:Brimstone.JPG, seems pretty straightforward to me. Thank you very much. Starship.paint (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

FFD is perpetually backlogged these days so in practice discussions rarely get closed when they reach the 7-day mark. It could be a while before this month's discussions get closed. January (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Lawline, Commons

I don't know if it's worth your while to weigh in here but another point of view might speed their understanding. As I say there, I don't really care how things sort out so long as they know what they have on their hands. JohnInDC (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think he's done enough to get himself blocked at Commons at this point but I doubt his deletion requests will succeed, he hasn't presented any evidence that his uploads were copyvios and now that the socking has been pointed out his contributions to the DRs will probably be disregarded. January (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Commons is terra incognita for me anyhow so I'm content just to have added a few facts to the discussion. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I've just seen the latest comments in that discussion, there is agreement that his behaviour there is problematic so you were right to raise it. January (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

NPG heads up

I have just commented on a comment you made on KylieTastic talkpage re the NPG and CC licences.Graemp (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No more discussion on possible image deletions?

Hi January, You have been good enough to intervene, along with KylieTastic and others in discussions relating to image uploads I have made. These interventions have invariably led to constructive resolutions. I have recently encountered further upload problems at the hands of Stefan2 who is now not referring images files to a possible deletion discussion which would enable others to intervene, as you will observe if you check the image links on my talk page. Some of these images should be allowable under fair use and I have amended the file descriptions on three of these files only to see these amendments reverted by Stefan2 and Werieth. Any assistance you could give would be welcome. Graemp (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you’ve received a good answer at User talk:KylieTastic. Just to add to that, I would recommend using {{Non-free use rationale}} or {{Non-free use rationale 2}} as a starting point, or copying across the description page from one of your non-free uploads with the upload wizard and adapting as appropriate. In particular I would suggest specifying what you’ve done to find a free alternative to cover WP:NFCC#1. I think you would need to remove the images from any articles other than the biography of the person pictured, as the biography would be the only article where they are likely to meet WP:NFCC#8. January (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Reginald Haines

You might want to review his existing photographs that have been placed on CommonsGraemp (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I'll look into that. There seem to be two there, I think whether they're OK for Commons or not depends on whether the pre-1923 publication was in the UK or US. January (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Robert Inigo Tasker.jpg

I notice that the above file, which had been uploaded on 10/1/2014 and classified as PD-URAA seems to have avoided the attentions of your colleagues given that its date of creation has correctly been quoted as 29 January 1927 and copyright is being claimed by the NPG. Please let me know if there is a more correct way of raising issues such as this. Graemp 15:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, PD-URAA is invalid on that one and I've nominated this at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 January 26#File:Robert Inigo Tasker.jpg. The usual avenue is to nominate at WP:PUF or WP:FFD as appropriate. January (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content review discussions at ANRFC

Hi January. I noticed that you are experienced FfD closer. Would you consider helping with the backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NFCR discussion needing closure (permanent link) regarding Wikipedia:Non-free content review discussions? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Really glad to see someone working through the old IWM art collection - there's some gems in there! Thanks for adding all these. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! January (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:January/Archive_5&oldid=1143538725"