This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ramaksoud2000. 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.
Hello, Ramaksoud2000. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
I have just received a citation on one of my recently created pages for something that doesn't make sense and has nothing against the guidelines. I feel personally disrespected for not having "something of importance" to share. I would like to contact you to see what I can do to get it up. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B123rad (talk • contribs) 08:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, first off, have you seen any of the other hacking groups on here or hacking group list. I really feel apriciated when I am the one out of the crowd. It is called a bio, and tells about their life. Then it clearly states that it is a group of good. Do you see any other group say anymore detail than that? First post and I get flagged because you don't like it. B123rad (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@B123rad: If there are other articles like that, please let know which ones. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 08:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Can You edit my Page And Correct It Please i saw all the pages that you have contributed and they all are nice to see.
please consider this message and help me.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.72.10 (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
10:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.72.10 (talk)
No you cannot publish your personal pages here. Please try to make useful pages and articles.→SeniorStar (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey,
I saw you nominated me for deletion on my article for not having references, I just added some and was wondering maybe you can help and contribute to fix it instead of deleting the page.
Thanks,
Zach —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZachDavis (talk • contribs) 02:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@ZachDavis: Before nominating your article for deletion, I of course tried to find sources. Unfortunately, no third-party sources that cover your company exist, so your company is not considered notable enough for an article. Please review WP:ORGCRITE for more detail on notability guidelines for companies. Also, please review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 02:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I edited the article once again and added some third-party sources. I hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZachDavis (talk • contribs) 03:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@ZachDavis: Links to your product are not "third-party sources." Please review WP:GNG. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 03:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Most are not to my product where the information can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZachDavis (talk • contribs) 03:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@ZachDavis: The other links are to your company's website, the Alexa traffic ranking for your company's website, and your company's website archived by archive.org. These are not third-party sources that cover your company in-depth. Please re-review WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRITE. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 03:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I have addressed your concerns and await your response. --Cossomoios (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I am an employee of <theborn korea>. Modification is under way at the request of the 'Paik Jong-won'.
In addition, Paik Jong-won wants to mark his first name as 'Paik'.
If you need confirmation, please email. Thank you. dango@theborn.co.kr
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimdango (talk • contribs) 02:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Kimdango: Wikipedia uses the name that is most commonly used by third-party sources. Please see WP:COMMONNAME. Currently, all the sources use Baek Jong-won. Please provide sources that reflect another name. Also, the Korean Wikipedia uses Baek Jong-won. The Korean Wikipedia may be able to better explain and they are in a better position to judge. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 02:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ramaksoud2000: Thanks for the kind answer. by the way, all franchisees in theborn Korea currently use 'Paik'. <paik's coffee>, <paik's pan>, <paik's bibim>. Because Paik Jong-won's name represents the franchise's brand, It is necessary to use 'Paik'.
@Kimdango: I see. I have also now found some sources referencing him with Paik. Since the articles conflict, and I do not know Korean, I will trust you. I will change the pages to what you were trying to do. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 02:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
He wasn't hit found, he ordered his troops to leave him where he was with a pistol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B11E:8ACB:836:CB88:A873:2D3D (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you please clarify what you are referring to? Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 02:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I really want to thank you for your help to return my information in the article Humans of New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M7mood16 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello Ramaksoud2000. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. -- samtartalk or stalk 18:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that this photo should be deleted. In addition to having personal permission from the photographer and his client, Lila Azam Zanganeh, I have also cited the photographer's name on the article: Marcelo Correa. I am happy to provide more proof of Mr. Correa's copyright, but do not see why it is necessary, particularly when his client's website states that the images can be used provided that his copyright is listed: Photos of Lila Azam Zanganeh. Please take this information into account or provide me with additional steps I can take. Thanks!
Hi! Thank you for approving and moving my article on Gene Keyes to live status. I noted it has a C Rating, but I really have no idea what I can do to increase its rating to a B or A level. I did as thorough research as I could and included many footnotes to substantiate the article. In any event, I am open to any specific advice you may have.
@Marco den Ouden: Hi there! First, thank you for submitting such a great article to AfC. Don't concern yourself too much with the ratings though. I gave it a C, but it could easily be a B, now that I look back at it, so I went ahead and changed it to B. However, outside of the "good article" and "featured article" ratings, the ratings don't mean much. The only ratings that pass an actual review are the "good article", "A", and "featured article" ratings. So thank you again for that article! Unfortunately, I don't feel comfortable enough in my abilities to give you a fine critique, other than recommending that you make sure your article complies with the very lengthy Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 08:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there. The mugshot I uploaded, taken Nov. 1, 2016, by the Flowood Police Department, was widely distributed, probably to every paper in the state. Clearly that agency's intent was to maximize distribution. It appeared in a number of larger papers and blogs that I checked. I checked the MS copyright law, and it is extremely liberal. Very few things are exceptions to their blanket open records act. The exceptions are mainly for health and employee records, for instance. The state statues, all sections of which I read, does not indicate any restriction.
The Public Records Act MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972 CHAPTER 61. PUBLIC RECORDS
Section 25-61-1. Short Title
Section 25-61-2. Policy
Section 25-61-3. Definitions
Section 25-61-5. Public Access to Records; Denials
Section 25-61-7. Fees Incident to Providing Records
Section 25-61-9. Records Furnished by Third Parties
Section 25-61-10. Use of Sensitive Software
Section 25-61-11. Exempted or Privileged Records
Section 25-61-12. Personal Information of Law Enforcement or Court Personnel and Officers; Exemption from Public Records Act; Exception
Section 25-61-13. Proceedings to Compel Public Access
Section 25-61-15. Penalty
Section 25-61-17. Construction; Legislative Proceedings and Public Access
Section 25-61-19. Posting of Legislative Updates on Websites; State Agencies and Departments
I checked with the National Association of State Legislatures as well and their guidelines do not show any restrictions on works by MS agencies, save for graphs or charts that might be copyrighted. I called the Mississippi Center for Freedom of Information at the University of Mississippi, and was referred to the person with specific knowledge of this who said there are no restrictions on mugshots. Here's their mission statement:
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CENTER
It being essential to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government and to the maintenance of a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner, and that citizens be advised of and be aware of the performance of public officials and the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the State of Mississippi that the formation and determination of public policy is public business and shall be conducted at open meetings except as otherwise provided herein.
They said the state's law on copyright by MS agencies is among the most liberal in the U.S. If someone seeks public records info the only charge for responses are where it would take time to search for documents and a cost to produce a new document, not to access an existing one. This of course was not the case here. The photo was posted in a press release and I copied the image from one of the papers that ran it. I wrote to the City of Flowood's Police Department and expect they'll answer me that it is not a copyrighted image. If they respond differently, I'll let you know immediately. Does this work? Activist (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Activist: Open records laws are seperate from copyright. Mississippi does not give up its copyright on government works. In fact, Mississippi has even sued people for publishing its laws in violation of copyright, which may not even be allowed. But it's clear the state reserves its copyrights. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 14:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your research, but I read through it all. This is a extremely unique case that you've located. The state had a contract with Lexis/Nexis to produce an annotated state code with an unusual provision. It was solely at the initiative of the vendor that the state attempted to enforce a copyright whose creation only existed because of the unusual terms of the for-profit contract to which it had agreed, not because it was conventional state policy. That contract only existed because the state used it to reduce what would otherwise have been the costs of its own production of the work. The state of course, would not be charging for access to the annotated version of the statutes, but Lexis/Nexis would be doing so. We have only become of aware of it because "Malamud" contested the legitimacy of its application. In the case of the Epps mugshot, there would be no such additional expenditure in production, as referred to in the state ORA statute, because they've made it widely available for no cost reproduction. I'm still hoping to hear back from the Flowood Police Department, but I'm not at all persuaded, at this point, that the mugshot is copyright protected, in particular because of the unequivocal opinion I obtained from the state's Freedom of Information center. If I don't hear by Monday, I'll write to them again and send my inquiry to the chief of police this time. I want to get their opinion in writing, rather than simply a verbal confirmation of an absence of a copyright status, over the phone. I'll paste that, if received, into the uploaded file, if possible. Thanks for your patience, as well as your zeal in protecting the interests of Wikipedia. It just occurred to me that I can get an alternate mugshot from the feds, since his plea was entered 20 months ago, but he has not yet been sentenced. I obtained the mugshots for the "Kids for Cash" judges seven years ago, in such a manner, and just uploaded them to Wikipedia this month. Activist (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The expenditure of a copyright holder in producing a work has no bearing on the ability to copyright it, but the details of that case were not the main point. By default, every single person or entity that produces any work in the United States gains copyright protection for that work. Absent specific statutory releases, such as this for the U.S. government, or specific state court decisions that declare all works by government agencies in that state to be free of copyright, then the copyright holder themselves must explicitly relase it. In this case, the Flowood Police Department must explicitly renounce all rights to the mugshot, or release it under a free license. Thank you for contacting them to ask them to release it. I hope that they do, or that you find a federal mugshot. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 17:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience. I just got exactly what we've been looking for. The copy I received has the Flowood P.D. emblem on the correspondence. I've been up all night so need to get some sleep but I'll follow your instructions when I wake up:
In response to your inquiry regarding released photos from our department, no the photo you referred to is not copyrighted And (sic) is considered public record. In addition, any material or information released from this department to media and the general public is public record. Should you have additional questions or concerns, please feel to contact us.
2101 Airport Road, Suite B
Flowood, MS 39232
O-(601) 932-5400
F- (601) 420-3390
On 12/8/16, 7:16 AM, "drupaladmin@usnx.com on behalf of (Activist) <drupaladmin@usnx.com on behalf of (Activist)> wrote:
>Submitted on Thursday, December 8, 2016 - 7:16am Activist (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I see that you are referring to this warning. Please do not vandalize articles by adding inappropriate humor. This is a serious project. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 04:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I was wondering if you would be willing to share your input here on these files at FFD. Thank you! Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear Team Member,
Being humble, I request you to please help me know how come the article and its content is not notable. Would request you to read the article completely once for the humble concerns. I know there are scenarios where the products of a company are really notable within their most interactive systems. Here too, the same issue exists where the products are widely popular on social medias. In respect of intellectual rights, its a general practice where none allows the copy and redistribute of contents. Hence, even being notable, you will find least articles out on their social media platforms.
Would request you to help and guide and further consider the request once again. I really want to learn from you, but this is something very important in which I seek your utmost support. And yes indeed, no other website can provide such level of notability which WIKIPEDIA itself can provide. Being true, want to hear back from you positively.
Best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauravbhardwaj (talk • contribs) 20:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
For a subject to be notable, it must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Before declining the article, I tried to find such sources, but failed. Also, if you are affiliated with the company, please the guidelines at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not the place to make something notable. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 20:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing listMediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
.
The article MV Lady Mary Joy 3 has sources from ship-listing websites like Marinetraffic and Vessel Finder. Like other reviewed pages such as MV Trisha Kerstin 2 which has passed in Wikipidia lately, it has the same web sources. Please review the article thoroughly. Bumbl_loid 07:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand that it exists, and you can be assured that I reviewed both sources in the article. I'm concerned that it isn't notable enough to merit its own article. The two ship listing websites are merely a list of every ship in the world. However, I understand the community may not agree with me, and that's why I proposed a redirect at AfD, instead of redirecting it myself to the shipping company's article. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 07:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
But why propose such if a similar article I've made passed and reviewed? If the listing was verified then? There are a lot of ship articles that is has no references at all yet was considered and this with such credible sources (even it was a listing) will nominated for deletion? Hope you'll reconsider to remove the AfD tag. Bumbl_loid 07:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Again, there is no allegation that the sources are not credible or that the ship does not exist. Please do not take this personally. I appreciate the many contributions you have made. However, I have a concern that this specific subject may not warrant its own article. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 07:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
No allegation that the sources are not credible. But you said in the AfD that it need sources from ship listings in the world. Weird. Its either you just want to delete a good article or just to add a records of your deleted articles. Bumbl_loid 08:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
You misinterpreted my statement. I said that it only has ship listings as sources. I'm concerned that the ship hasn't been the subject of significant coverage, as described at WP:GNG. Also, there is no "record" of deleted articles. We are all here to improve Wikipedia. You appear to have taken this personally, and that was not the intention at all. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 08:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Look, check these articles MF Vladimir Nazor and MV Aratika, it even has no sources or the sources are not credible enough. Its not that I'm taking this personally but I see what you did was totally unfair. Bumbl_loid 08:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I have not seen those articles before, and depending on what happens in this AfD, I may take took a look at them. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 08:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
New edits has made for the said article. Please check. Bumbl_loid 09:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I missed that incident in my first Google search. I will withdraw the nomination. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 09:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thanks as well. Bumbl_loid 09:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
the section of law pertaining to the USMMA Congressional Board of Visitors was amended several years ago. I just added the updated law, and you reverted it back to its previous out of date information. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KPStore (talk • contribs) 12:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there. You replaced the section's contents with an external link, which usually isn't allowed in the body of articles. See WP:ELPOINTS. Thank you for trying to update it though. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 17:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a better place to post this so I am putting it here.
It does appear that this file should be deleted. My assumption that an art work in a public place can be copied and distributed without restriction appears to be wrong. Sorry.
I wonder how Google is able to publish unedited street views.
No worries. It's complicated. Thank you for coming here. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 04:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Please read and try to understand Wikipedia:Privacy policy. You should never reveal the actual name of an author who uses a nick name. Maintaining anonymity is one of the highest privileges of Wikipedians, and this should never be compromised. Therefore, the box in the article says Cryptically "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." and is not as blunt and open as your wording, although it actually means the same. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
You identify yourself on your user page with an image of yourself. That same image is used in the autobiography, and that image description, as well as the bio, both of which you created, contain your real name. If you don't want to be identified, then don't self-identify. Or are you talking about just not identifying you in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephan Kallee? You can't pick and choose where you wish to identify on Wikipedia, especially if you just want your arguments to hold more weight in discussions. Please see WP:OUTING. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 06:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and the more appropriate link to WP:OUTING. I conclude that we both must proceed with sensitivity and caution on this case. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
Please could you explain to me what I need to do to avoid your deletions as my File:5 Heads Humbert Wolfe + Padgett .JPG was completely my copyright but was speedily deleted on the grounds that it wasn't.
Many thanks
Anthony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.44.14 (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Anthony. The image was previously published on the Internet, so please fill out this interactive form. This will generate a statement, allowing your image to be redistributed, that you must send to the e-mail given. It is important that the e-mail comes from an e-mail address associated with the place where it was previously published on the Internet to verify that you created the image. If you're interested in learning more about the process, you can visit Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 19:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I saw your message about the photo of A.M.W. Stirling. That was eight years ago, and things were looser then about permission, but as I recall, I had emailed the De Morgan Foundation for permission, which they granted with attribution. I'm not sure a formal template even existed at the time to verify the obtaining of permission.
I've not been involved with the day-to-day business of Wikipedia for a couple of years, and sadly lack the time to immerse myself in reviewing procedures. I don't know whether there are folks currently devoted to preserving content who might want to obtain permission from the Foundation. Thanks, Cynwolfe (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your note. I checked and WP:PERMISSION has existed for a while, but it's certainly not a problem. I will e-mail the Foundation. Take care, Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 18:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Cynwolfe, to update, I contacted the Foundation that day, and they said they would look into it with their copyright lawyers, but I have not received a final response. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 03:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I thought about a G5 on that but I didn't want to add it until the SPI closed. Meters (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe it's necessary when it's so obvious, but it doesn't really matter. It would be deleted under the other two criteria anyway. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 05:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I almost added it myself. Meters (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear,
Please list the problems found in 'WaSSIP Badulla' page for improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasumohan (talk • contribs) 10:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@Rasumohan: A major issue is that it is filled with WP:Copyright violations. Another issue is that the topic may not be notable enough for its own article. Please read the general notability guideline at WP:GNG. Subjects of articles must have significant coverage in multiple independent sources. I don't see evidence of that for this article. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 14:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Suresh (1928-1979) was a notable actor of Bollywood, who acted as a Hero in several films in 1940s and 1950s and as a supporting artiste in major films later on. He produced his own film also. I am still editing his page for filmography.
Vkjoshi123 (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Vkjoshi123. I was unable to find significant coverage of Suresh in multiple reliable sources to establish that he meets the general notability guideline. Also, I was unable to establish that the films he appeared in met the general notability guideline so that Suresh would be considered notable under WP:NACTOR. If you are able to find significant coverage of him in multiple reliable sources, that would be great. Just add them to the article and reply back here. Thanks, Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 07:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Vkjoshi123, to establish notability, the sources must be secondary sources independent of the subject. That means that merely linking to films to prove that he acted in them does not establish notability. He must have significant coverage in secondary sources. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 08:05, 23 December
2016 (UTC)
@Ramaksoud2000
What further proof is required when his films, with citation, approved by the Censor Board of India have been given as evidence. You can watch his name in the Title Role as hero and producer. After all he was of a generation when, there were few actors of his caliber and he died early in 1979.
Vkjoshi123 (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Vkjoshi123, nobody is alleging that his article is a hoax. Rather, he may not meet the general notability guideline. Please click on that blue link. There must be significant coverage of him in reliable secondary sources. I was unable to find some, but if you can, that would be great. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 08:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your comment on Yobot's page: Subst date does not work inside references. It is very rare that some adds it though. That's why AnomieBot added a date inside the template instead of fixing it. The Yobot followed and reacted differently on the same error. Thanks for the heads up. A rare problem though. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why the bot should ever perform an edit solely bypassing a template redirect, no matter what is in the template. But it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 05:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Because it failed to fix the actual error. The same way AnomieBot failed to fix the actual error and introduced a duplicated parameter. We detect those within short time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Most fo the bypassing redirect functionality has been removed. A small art stays as vital for AWB to operate till we find a better solution. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
About your other question on the navbox: Rich Farmbrough created the old naming and then renamed it himself. I contacted him off-wiki so that we delete the old name afte we orphan it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see an exception to WP:COSMETICBOT that allows for off-wiki requests. Also, you simply cannot run unapproved bots from your account. The specific task, whether it is a one-time task or continuous, must be approved and run on a separate account. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 05:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
What? You posted something on my talk page but I'm confused as to what it means Leggomygreggo8 (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Leggomygreggo8. You uploaded a picture of a living person under a claim of fair use. However, pictures of living people are not accepted under this claim, because free images could be reasonably created. See WP:NFC#UUI #1. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 06:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Dcw2003 (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your work. I received e-mail permission from the group that markets the book, The Nazis Next Door to use their cover page photo of Eric Lichtblau. Cover Page photos, which are used broadly for marketing and publicity of books, are almost always acceptable for use by Wikipedia, particularly with permission. If this explanation is not adequate, please let me know.
Thank-you,
dcw2003
Thank you for reviewing and approving my new article on Charles Sanford Olmsted. It was really an expansion of a Stub with a misspelled title to a full article with a new correct title. Getting a new title is much more involved that merely editing an article. Vejlefjord (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the moving-a-page info. I have already taken care of the misspelled title by redirecting Charles Sanford Olmstead to Charles Sanford Olmsted. Vejlefjord (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Ramaksoud2000. You are right the image was orphaned for sometime plus a new version and better version had been uploaded. I deleted the image. Wishing you a Happy New Year. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, you have inappropriately deleted File:A Dolf Combination of Darts and Golf Game Scoring.ogg. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonbook99 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Jasonbook99, I have no greater ability to delete files than you do. The file was deleted by an administrator for lack of evidence of permission. The file is from this Youtube video, which has a copyright notice on it. There is no evidence that the copyright holder as agreed to license it under a free license. If you are the copyright holder, then please follow the instructions on your talk page. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 05:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
The file is updated on YouTube, thank you.
Thank you! It will now remain on Commons where you uploaded it. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 05:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I just made another entry for the Dry Creek Airport that you had previously deleted. The new entry is almost identical to another airport that is published in Wike - Spruce Creek Airport.
Many of our new neighbors that move into the area are often surprised to find there is an airport next their new home. More information about the neighborhood is a helpful thing.
Thanks,
mike meadows —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemeadows (talk • contribs) 19:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:Mikemeadows. I don't recall the exact text of the previous version of the article, but it was deleted by an administrator because they felt that the article existed solely to promote a business, and that the article did not indicate the importance of the business. This new version doesn't seem to have those same issues, although it contains promotional language. I have removed the promotional language from this article and the other article. I will leave some information on your talk page to help you better navigate Wikipedia. Thank you, Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 20:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I noticed you removed a sockpuppet's edits. I understand it is the right thing to remove sockpuppet's edits but that edit wasn't violating anything. I'm not a sockpuppet and I made edits to the festival section by adding many festivals that weren't included last month. I'm not sure who the sockpuppet is but I don't think it's necessary to delete that since it wasn't only the sockpuppet's edits, I made constructive edits to that section too. According to the guidelines of Wikipedia it says, "it isn't necessary or desirable to try to revert every single article edit the sock puppet has ever made" and I don't think it's necessary to delete that information since it's informative. (110.148.150.170 (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC))
I removed the entire section because it was created by the sockpuppet, and edits by others were minimal. If you want to keep it, feel free. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 23:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand, thanks. (101.160.4.5 (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC))
I am the Global Head of Marketing, Alliances and Corp Strategy for Finacle EdgeVerve. You reverted out the changes to our copyrighted material. Finacle is owned by EdgeVerve and it is a legally seperate entity from Infosys. I would ask that you please do not change anything from this user name. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finacleuser (talk • contribs) 10:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
And I would ask for you to please take your spam elsewhere. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 13:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
If you would like to update the article to reflect new ownership, then please limit yourself to that. Do not add in promotional material User:Finacleuser. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 13:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you've done a number of relists at FFD lately. Just wanted to point out the admin instructions for FFD, particularly that at FFD, a nomination to delete with no subsequent contributions results in a delete, not a relist. This helps keep the backlog under control as FFDs do not usually receive a lot of participation, so would otherwise just get relisted over and over. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I am well aware. Is there a specific relist that you thought should have just been deleted instead? Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 13:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ramaksoud2000Bot 2 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 03:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.
I've been thinking about additional image related reports that your bot might be able to generate and I think I have come up with another one. A list of fair use images that are being used on more than one article. Generally these are fair use violations but they would have to be checked to verify that the FURs are there and valid. You could use Category:All non-free media as a starting point. Would this be possible? --Majora (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Starting with that category would probably produce too many images. I think what I will do is start with a small subcategory to see the percentage of fair use violations and decide whether to continue with a larger category. Thanks. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 22:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
That works with me. Hopefully it isn't too many. Else we have a much larger problem than I anticipated (which would be a large problem). --Majora (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Currency probably wasn't a great idea to start with since having those on more than one page seems much more likely. Perhaps Category:Non-free logos would be a better option? --Majora (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The foreign copyright discussion should not have been closed by you. Per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure procedure: Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins. Second, the consensus is not strictly determined by the number of votes. Per WP:RFCEND: The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome. When closing, a summary of the arguments should be given (see Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus) and "arguments that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" should be discarded (Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus). AHeneen (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I am well aware of those links. Closing my own proposal due to a clear lack of consensus and the necessary participation required for a major change like this is more than allowed. I should give you some links to read, regarding consensus and rule-following, but I can't be bothered now. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 22:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No, as the policies mentioned explain, closing requires an uninvolved editor. The person proposing the RfC can withdraw it, but can't close it. Also, the explanation given is that "[t]here is no consensus to host content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S.". However, the current policy is that such content is allowed on a case-by-case basis and so the closing statement indicates that the policy has been changed, when in fact a lack of consensus about a policy should require keeping the status quo.
Also, adding to my earlier comment, there are problems with the outcome. As already mentioned, per WP:RFCEND: The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome and "arguments that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" should be discarded (Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus). Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." When closing, a summary of the arguments should be given (see Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus) and "arguments that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" should be discarded (Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus).
First, most of the oppose votes raised the issue of the images possibly being subject to copyright in the future if the country of origin joins the Berne Convention, but did not respond to comments that templates could be made for those individual countries therefore allowing easy deletion of such images when a country joins the Berne Convention. Second, many raised the issue of the reusability of the content outside the US; however, as mentioned in the general discussion section, this is logically fallacious because 1) the images are free of copyright in most Berne Convention member states (currently 174 of the roughly 200 sovereign states) since copyright is based on reciprocity and countries like Iran and Somalia aren't party to significant other copyright treaties, 2) copyright exceptions (fair use & fair dealing) vary considerably from country to country, and 3) such a policy is inconsistent with other policies on WP, like allowing images of architecture that is not copyrighted in the US because of a freedom of panorama exception (which vary few countries' copyright laws have) or allowing works that are copyrighted in the country of origin but not the US (eg. some countries' copyright length is life+100 years). AHeneen (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
This is my response to your identical comment. You are not correct in your assessment of the consensus. If you believe you are, then please appeal the close through the proper channels instead of reversing it unilaterally. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 03:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I see that you went to AN three days ago (without notifying me), but nobody responded. I think that should show you that nothing wrong happened here. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 03:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ramaksoud2000,
A HUGE backlog
We now have 805 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.
Hitting 17,000 soon
The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.
Second set of eyes
Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.
Abuse
This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and
This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.
Coordinator election
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.
Good day. Regarding my recent insertion of images onto the CFB North Bay page, that were deleted, you cited, "I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license." I made it abundantly clear in the uploading and in the credit lines that these images (a) belong to the subject--22 Wing/Canadian Forces Base North Bay--and that (b) I, an officer on this base, uploaded the images with the Base Commander's permission. That is I uploaded the images on behalf of their owner, with his full permission. I expect that you are probably not Canadian nor are familiar with how permissions work with respect to images belonging to units of the Canadian Armed Forces, so I understand your confusion in this matter. (a) The images come from the air base's archives. (b) The Wing Heritage Officer on each Royal Canadian Air Force base is the Base Commander's representative of its history and heritage to the media and the public. (c) To carry out his or her mandate, each Wing Heritage Officer is permitted by the Base Commander to use images from their archives, towards telling the history and heritage of the base. For example, this year is the 75th anniversary of the Royal Air Force setting up its Trans-Atlantic Training Unit at North Bay; the Second World War flying school taught Allied airmen from as far away as Australia the tricks of trans-Atlantic flying and how to deal with emergencies that crop up along the way. My office shall be employing a host of images from the base archives on-line, in standard media, and in public displays to commemorate the school and its accomplishments. If you want proof of who I am and what I have asserted, Google Captain Doug Newman North Bay. If you wish you can also e-mail the air base for confirmation, or e-mail me raymond.newman@forces.gc.ca. In the meantime, reinstate the images please. They are our images provided by us.
If you have any further concerns please contact me to discuss before you delete or alter anything. I shall do everything I can to placate these concerns to your satisfaction. Thank you. Yours respectfully, Doug Newman, Captain, 22 Wing/Canadian Forces Base North Bay
22WHERO (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
User:22WHERO, thank you for contacting me. Please e-mail permissions-en@wikimedia.org with the information you have provided from your work e-mail. Please also include links to all the deleted files. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 23:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I've been working through the {{ShadowsCommons}} collection, thanks for the new bot task! But I got a little casual and accidentally deleted a local one that was tagged {{KeepLocal}}. I wonder if the bot can be taught to ignore ones with that tag? Or else add a parameter {{ShadowsCommons|KeepLocal=yes}} to give a different visible message? DMacks (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Images tagged with ShadowCommons should generally be renamed locally, and a KeepLocal tag shouldn't prevent renaming a different file. I see that you are referring to File:Mu-metal cable.svg. Unfortunately, the bot cannot recognize files that are technically different from Commons files, but visually indistinguishable, and the bot sometimes tags images with ShadowCommons when they should be deleted under F8, if there is no KeepLocal tag. The keeplocal paramter of ShadowsCommons only transcludes {{KeepLocal}}, which would be redundant. I did not anticipate this specific situation, and I can't think of an easy solution at the moment to make sure that files like Mu-metal cable.svg aren't tagged with ShadowsCommons, so I will exclude all KeepLocal files until I do. Thanks! Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 18:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.
Still a MASSIVE backlog
We now have 805 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced. If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.
Dear Rama,
I have got the permission to use Raj Mamodia image from them and forwarded that email on permissions-en@wikimedia.org, kindly check.
I have another question, I have created a content while back but its still not indexed on google. Here is a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raj_Mamodia. Can you please guide me how can i make this indexed on google?
Thank you for sending in the permission. I have reviewed your page, which will allow it to be indexed now. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 19:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
The community is encouraged to carefully review the lists of items in AWB's "general fixes" and the Checkwiki project's list of errors to determine whether these items are truly uncontroversial maintenance changes. A suggested approach would be classifying existing fixes as cosmetic or non-cosmetic and thereby identifying fixes that should be ineligible to be applied alone. The groups who currently invest their efforts in maintaining these lists are encouraged to improve their change management practices by soliciting broader community input into the value of adding proposed new items to the lists, and specifically to make their proposals accessible to members of the community who are not bot operators or whose interests are non-technical.
The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to clarify the nature of "cosmetic" edits and to reevaluate community consensus about the utility and scope of restrictions on such edits. Technical feedback may be provided at phab:T11790 or phab:T127173. The committee notes that an RfC on this topic is currently under development.
While the Arbitration Committee has no direct authority over the volunteer developers of open-source tools, we encourage the AWB developers to carefully consider feedback gathered in this case in order to use technical means to avoid problematic edits more effectively.
Magioladitis is restricted from making any semi-automated edits which do not affect the rendered visual output of a page. This restriction does not apply to edits which address issues related to accessibility guidelines. Further, Magioladitis may seek consensus to perform a specific type of semi-automated edit that would normally fall under this restriction at the administrators' noticeboard. Any uninvolved administrator may close such a discussion with consensus to perform a specific type of semi-automated edit. All discussions should be logged on the case page, regardless of outcome.
Magioladitis is reminded that performing the same or similar series of edits in an automated fashion using a bot and in a semi-automated fashion on his main account is acceptable only as long as as long as no objections have been raised in either casethe edits are not contentious. Should Yobot be stopped or blocked for a series of edits, Magioladitis may not perform the same pattern of edits via semi-automated tools from his main account where this might reasonably be perceived as evading the block. In this circumstance, Magioladitis (like any other editor) should await discussion and consensus as to whether or not the edits are permissible and useful, and resume making such edits through any account only if and when the consensus is favorable.
Magioladitis is restricted from unblocking their own bot when it has been blocked by another administrator. After discussion with the blocking administrator and/or on the bot owners' noticeboard, the blocking administrator or an uninvolved administrator may unblock the bot.
For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 23:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
