User talk:AJCham/Archives/February – October 2009

Welcome!
Hello, AJCham2097, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! Sophus Bie  (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

AfC IRC channel
Hi there! I noticed you've been active lately with the articles for creation project. I wanted to invite you to our public IRC channel at #wikipedia-afc. In there, we field questions from IP submitters and reviewers can help each other out with reviews. Hope you can join! Thanks! GrooveDog (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

License
Than how to dictate that the person attribute to hidden comment by editing this page Thu Ya Win --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 19:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, could you rephrase that? I don't understand what you mean. ∙  AJCham   talk  20:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * NVM. Hey do you want to collaborate with this article: Docklands Light Railway rolling stock. BTW do you have pictures of the British Rail Class 390?

Opposed to restoration of early historic photographs
Thank you for making this edit. I am very opposed to having these early photographs interpreted in this way and would like you to read this discussion before continuing to honor similar requests at Commons. Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Niagara Falls Pictures
I just saw the link to the gallery there. I saw that the Niagara Falls article had a tag saying that it had too many pictures that's why I moved some of them to a new place. But you are right, a media commons gallery is more appropriate. I'll check if all the pictures are there so that they are not lost after the deletion of the Niagara Falls Pictures page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin.vp (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

People Skills
Regarding your help on the almost empty initial page. (Please see below.) I didn't see your second note until after placing the full content on the article page. That did not stop the deletion. Now there is only a template to Wiktionary. What is the procedure now? Thank you, PSY7 (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"helpme: I have the content ready to post except waiting a few hours for the last editor. Can the page stay for 24 hours without content added? --PSY7 (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 *  Make the edit and add a hangon tag, explaining here that the article has been modified since the speedy deletion nomination was made. ∙ AJCham ᵀᴬᴸᴷ 23:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've just realised I misunderstood your question. It seems you're saying that you intend to edit the article tomorrow, and wish for it not to be deleted in the meantime, is that correct? If so, that's not really a valid reason for contesting the speedy deletion. If it is deleted before you edit it you can just recreate the article with the appropriate content when you are ready. There is no real reason to place a temporary holding page without any content. ∙ AJCham ᵀᴬᴸᴷ 23:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)"''
 * Hi PSY7, I've spoken with closedmouth, who added the Wiktionary link. I agree with him that the article was original research, so I'm afraid that I would have to say that the article was indeed unsuitable.  Please don't let this discourage you though; we all have to learn the ropes when we start editing WP. There are some useful links in the Welcome section of your talk page. I'm sure in time you'll make plenty of valuable contributions. Give me a buzz if you need any further help.

Regards, ∙  AJCham  talk  16:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Voting
I logged in to Wikimedia and tried to vote, but was disallowed as perhaps I do not meet the criteria. So I went back to Wikipedia, and clicked on Please vote, put in my choices and it worked. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

COLLABOR8 Article
Hi AJCham,

I note that you requested that this article be deleted under the blatant advertising criteria. This article does not fall into this category for a number of reasons. This is an EU INTERREG sponsored programme that does not and will not seek to sell or otherwise gain financial reward from any source, either the general public or those people/businesses directly involved with the programme. In fact the programme provides funding for training programmes etc to participants.

In addition, there is no "product" on offer - it is simply a programme to encourage businesses to work together with the aim of establishing sustainable, quality tourism related businesses based on a sense of place in the the areas covered by the 9 partners involved in the project.

COLLABOR8 is a concept and the purpose of the article is to highlight the fact that the EU programme exists and to encourage people who are interested to seek more information on it and its aims. The programme has its own website www.collabor8.me and receives extensive coverage on the Interreg website.

As I am a new user of the site I would appreciate any help and assistance you can offer to ensure that this article can comply fully with the sites conditions.SeandeB (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi SeandeB, sorry for the late reply.


 * My understanding of the blatant advertising criteria does not require the the offering of a commercial product, nor the pursuit of financial gain to qualify as advertising, and I still believe your article met the criteria. Furthermore, an item on collabor8's website which reads, " [The article] is part of our PR and Media strategy to spread the news a far and wide as possible," only serves to undermine your claim that this is not the case.


 * I would advise that creating an article where you are personally affiliated with the subject is discouraged. You can refer to the Wikipedia's guidelines regarding conflicts of interest for more details.  A better solution would be to list the article at requested articles, preferably directing other editors to reliable and verifiable, third-party sources which can establish COLLABOR8's notability.  Someone else can then create the article instead, avoiding any conflict of interest issues.


 * Alternatively, if you really would prefer to create the article yourself, familiarise yourself with the guidelines and policies I have linked to (see also Your First Article), and work on the article in userspace - for example you could create the page at user:SeandeB/COLLABOR8. While in this space it will be mostly safe from deletion, and you can have another editor (such as myself) look at it before moving it into live. If you go this route it may be beneficial to declare any conflict of interest you may have openly on your userpage, as if you are perceived as attempting to conceal this information, some Wikipedian's may look upon you less sympathetically.


 * If you need to ask any more questions, there are a few options:
 * Leave me a message here - despite the tardiness of this response, I should be more available in future.
 * Place a template on your userpage, followed by a question, and an editor should be with you shortly.
 * You can access the live help chat by visiting here or here, where you are likely to be able to get instant help 24-7.
 * Doktor Mandrake  16:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Lightworker
Outelligent (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (Chzz has responded) Doktor  Mandrake  17:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder and constant help!! :)
Hello there! Thank you for showing me how to rename my username - I was lost :) I made the request according to your instructions.

Thanks again for all your help and patience :)

Halliburton PR (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (Message was cross-posted here and at User talk:Vana2009 - have replied there.) Doktor  Mandrake  22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello AJCham! I have another question for you :) I remember you've suggested during our IRC conversation that I can contact the WikiProjects at the top of the article page. I've just posted some new suggested edits on the discussion page with more credible resources this time (according to all of your guidance) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Halliburton#Company_Profile_and_Other_Information_-_to_be_updated ... so what is the procedure to contact the WikiProjects folks? Do I contact anyone from the history editorial on the WikiProjects Companies: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Companies&action=history - is it what I need to do?

Thanks again for your help! Hope you had a wondrful week end!

Vana2009 (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You could just leave a note on the Project talk page where any of the editors involved could see it. But, if you want to speak to a particular editor, try looking at WikiProject Companies/Participants. This lists all the people who contribute to the WikiProject, many of whom also give a little overview of their specific interests.  I notice that Ojay123 and Antandrus express an interest in energy companies.  I doubt they would mind if you made a polite request for help on one or the other's talkpage.  Be sure to explain why you are approaching them specifically - some time may have passed since they became involved in the WikiProject, and they may have moved onto other things.  Doktor  Mandrake  15:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks AJCham for your recommendations. I follow your instructions and started contacting one of the person you've mentioned. Did get a response back, but I was suggested back that I could make the edits myself as long as its all NPOV. For now the only critical thing is to clear up the company profile as the headquarter is even incorrect. So, I know I know ... but I could not help it and make the edits myself. They are all credible sources. I really hope that we will get more luck later once we will have more sections to edits. Thanks Again!
 * Vana2009 (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Neville Neil
Hello. You recently added stub templates to Neville Neil yet the assessment on the talk page shows it as Start class. How do we resolve the discrepancy? -Arb. (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article was originally stub tagged on 14 August by Beeblebrox - he tagged it with bio-stub, and I was merely changing it to a more specific stub category. Feel free to remove the tags if you feel that it doesn't qualify as a stub.  I would point out that the article still seems very short, but I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to judge how big the article is likely to become (so cannot apply the Croughton-London rule).  Doktor  Mandrake  20:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. On consideration, stub looks right. -Arb. (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Tabulology
I'm grateful to you for your research - indeed, that is where I got the concept from. The Peter Principle is very widely quoted and highly influential. Even though the work was somewhat tongue in cheek, it was nowhere near a hoax - it was a genuine study of bureaucracy by a cynic and humorist. The term 'tabulology' appears to originate in his work. Other authors have certainly studied table arrangement and so on but have not done it under this term. I've recreated the article as a redirect. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine. BTW, I hope that tagging as "hoax" did not imply any suspicion of malintent.  My only motivation was to have what I regarded as misinformation removed, and I don't doubt the submission was made in good faith.  On reflection, I think "hoax" may have been too strong, in spite of the fact that the deleting admin did not seem to question my assessment.  Doktor  Mandrake  20:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your reply!

Best, Jags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jags4all  (talk • contribs)  19:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Official image of World Expo 88 sunsails official logo
RE: Images_for_upload

Many thanks for your clarification. I had been searching for the image but could not find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanetown  (talk • contribs)  07:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: User talk:Choalberto/Borrador
Thank you very much for your help. Choalberto (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Rabbi Mordechai Machlis
I changed the wording significantly, so it is not covered by their copyright. Notice no sentence is the same.

But I see your point that it is very similar. So even if it is covered by the copyright, I can substantiate my submission because I know the copyright holder of http://www.machlispresents.org/, and have their permission to use that text. How can I submit this proof of permission to you?

Edit: OK, I couldn't think of how I could get to you the copyright permission without e-mail, which I suppose you can claim is fake. So I just completely rewrote it. The text is now my own, which I wrote without even looking at the website you cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 56.0.163.16  (talk • contribs)  19:51, 23 September 2009


 * Actually it is possible to verify copyright permission - either the license can be displayed at the source website, in this case http://www.machlispresents.org/, or the copyright holder can email the Wikimedia Foundation, as detailed at WP:PERMISSION.
 * However, if you have already rewritten the article in your own words I will reopen the submission. Chances are it will be another editor that reviews it, as it is outside my area of experience.  Therefore, I don't wish to comment on the reliability of the sources or notability of the subject at this point.  Doktor  Mandrake  20:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 56.0.163.16  (talk • contribs)  20:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hezekiah Bissell
Thanks! --69.225.5.4 (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Helen Westcott
Thanks, again. And thanks for adding the year of birth categories. I thought of it at the last minute, but got distracted rewriting the little rail engineer stub. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User box
Thanks for the wikipedia channel userbox. --Cubs197 (talk)  21:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! (I know I already said that in IRC, but I just wanted try out my new talkback template!)  Doktor  Mandrake  01:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha ha :) --Cubs197 (talk)  21:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Haskins Medal
Hi. I've substantially developed the stub above. Would you re-visit please, and re-consider your speedy-deletion proposal? Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, two things:
 * I have not tagged the article, the tag was placed there by Hellno2. I only added the template.
 * The article is not tagged for speedy deletion, merely proposed deletion. If you wish to contest this you need only remove the tag within seven days.
 * Regards, Doktor  Mandrake  00:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response. But this rule seems strange. I can remove the tag within "7 days", but not after? Are you sure you don't mean it the other way around - that I can remove the Tag only after 7 days? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. After seven days, if the tag remains, the proposal to delete will be considered uncontested and the article will be deleted. Removing the tag before then is the correct way to contest a proposed deletion.  The proposer then, if they still believe the article should be deleted, may take it to Articles for Deletion to be discussed.   Doktor  Mandrake  01:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. But I created the article. Since I created it - is not the case that I may not remove the Tag? Someone else - like you = must do it? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For speedy deletions and AFDs, that is correct, you should not remove the tag. (In fact doing so repeatedly can get a user blocked).
 * But PRODs are different, and as I said, the correct way to contest it is to remove the tag; see WP:CONTESTED. Of course, it also helps to explain why you are doing so, in the hope that the nominator will accept the explanation, and not take the article to AFD.  Doktor  Mandrake  01:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's very, very nice. But you probably haven't notice - I'm an editor upon whom a WP:Restriction has been place. So I would appreciate it if (a) you removed the Tag yourself, or (b) posted your 100% assurance that I have a right to remove that Tag - because I am being carefully watched by the Restricting editor. If I'm wrong on this, I may be Banned, not you. So please make this statement-of-Tag-removal-advice on my Talk page. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Posted response at Ludvikus's talk page, as requested. Doktor  Mandrake  02:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Fabulous Mr. Fox
Hi DoktorMandrake --

I am the contributor who added information to the "Fabulous Mr. Fox" entry, noting that the directory is under fire for signing the petition to free Roman Polanski.

I see from your edit work that you are a serious contributor and Wiki volunteer, and not a studio rep. Thank you for any guidence you may provide. This was my first post, and I hope I did it right technically. Here's what I wrote:

Two months prior to the film's release, Director Wes Anderson inserted himself into the "Free Roman Polanski" controversy, when he joined 137 other directors, actors and other film industry leaders who signed [2] a widely-circulated petition demanding that the 76-year old director and fugitive child rapist be released from Swiss custody, after his capture days earlier. In 1977, after his confession and a brief incarceration over the drugging, rape and sodomy of a 13-year old girl, Polanski fled the US. He had been living in Paris for 30 years, finally being arrested by the Swiss en route to an international award ceremony in Zurich, infuriating members of the international film community. A number of bloggers and columnists seized upon the resulting petition demanding Polanski's release as an example of what they believe to be an outrageous and twisted sense of entitlement and blatant acceptance of immorality shown by the artists. The petition was notable by its ironic inclusion of Woody Allen, who years earlier had endured scorn and controversy by marrying his 18-year old stepdaughter, and director Anderson, hoping for commercial success as he directs his first childrens' movie. Because of this, some bloggers have gone so far as to call for a boycott of the film, claiming Anderson is far too insensitive to Polanski's horrific crime to be rewarded commercially by parents and their children.

Doktor, this issue simply erupted in the news over the past 24 hours. It's not ranting; the contribution was factual, clearly written, topical, and supported by a solid base of global news, as cited in the reference I provided. Thus I am at a loss as to why you deleted it. Would you be so kind as to help me understand your rules, and the process you followed in taking this action?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jax MN (talk • contribs) 13:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First I would say that the bulk of the submission was irrelevant to the article, which is about the film, not Wes Anderson or Roman Polanski. Also, the submission was largely unsourced - the source provided only supports the claim that the director was a signatory on the petition.  Furthermore, the text seems somewhat POV (eg. "twisted sense of ... immorality" and "horrific crime") - weasel words such as "a number of bloggers" need to be made more specific and cited to reliable sources.
 * However, as I said most of this is irrelevant to this particular article, and the only part that may be worth keeping is that there may be a boycott due to the director's signing of the "Free Roman Polanski" petition - but only if it can be appropriately sourced, reworded, and added in a more suitable part of the article, rather than the lead section.
 * If you have any more questions, feel free to ask on this talk page, or you could chat to me live, here or here. Regards, Doktor  Mandrake  15:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

External links on Honda GY6 Engine
My revision WAS NOT in anyway an advert for any commercial site and was an attempt to provide viewers of the page a further reference to follow. The sites I listed are non profit making and are purely reference based, as there are already "adverts" on this wiki page pointing to the Scootdawg forum and the buggynews forum, are you going to be removing them also?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveatgy6 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * These links have already been removed from the article twice, and I suggest that you discuss them on the article's talk page, where someone has already copied them for discussion. If the links add genuine encyclopaedic value, that is where you should make your case.
 * In future, a descriptive edit summary explaining why you are adding external links can help your cause, and may be less likely to appear as spam. All the best, Doktor  Mandrake  00:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Swati Mia Saini
Non-free content is not available where the engagement of the subject with CNBC is concerned which contributes more than anything else to notability. This why this particular image showing CNBC background is kosher.--History Sleuth (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (Message was cross-posted here and at File talk:Swati Mia Saini.jpg - have replied there, so that the discussion is available for the admin processing the deletion request) — Doktor Mandrake  15:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"Winter Soldiers" is a fraud
I love Wikipedia, but it's very liberal. I inserted info about a book to "winter soldiers", and obviously you had no idea about the book before you reverted the change I made.

Read the second paragraph of the article:

http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.180.159 (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not make assumptions about my motivations. My reversion was in respect to our core policies of neutrality and verifiability, not any political interest.  Doktor  Mandrake  02:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tea Bag (I'm not a vandal!)
Hi Doc, I was attempting to roll back the multiple vandals on the page and got caught in the middle, I would appreciate a retraction. Ooops, I see you already responded to the situation. All well then. Jusda fax  03:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, seems a few of us got caught in the mess there! Happy editing, Doktor  Mandrake  03:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Font faces
Thanks for your comments on the help desk. I'm a little confused; although I am most of the time. At present the raw code for my signature is   Dr Dec  (Talk)   , with the output    Dr Dec  (Talk) <font color="#000099"> <font color="#FF6600">. You mentioned something about using this instead of <font face="Serif" color="#006600">this. Why is that? Wouldn't it make my signature too long if I were to change it in this way? Could you have a go at re-writing my signature using span style, etc, instead of font? I'd be most appreciative. I've tried but I get confused! <font face="Kristen ITC"> <font color="#FF6600"> Dr Dec  <font color="#009999">(Talk) <font color="#000099"> <font color="#FF6600">  15:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Dr Dec - the reason I advised against tags is that they are now deprecated HTML, and have been superseded by CSS styles. I've created 2 CSS versions of your sig below - the first should produce the exact same result as your current sig (and is actually shorter):


 * Dr&amp;nbsp;Dec &amp;nbsp; (Talk) &amp;nbsp;


 * which produces: Dr Dec  (Talk)


 * The second gives the result that I think you were intending:
 * Dr&amp;nbsp;Dec &amp;nbsp; (Talk)


 * resulting in: Dr Dec   (Talk)


 * Is that what you were looking for? <span style="font-family: Fontin, Georgia, serif; font-variant: small-caps;"> Doktor Mandrake  16:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I was looking for. Jolly good work! Dr Dec  (Talk)  16:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help at Gwen Stefani discography. The Rambling Man closed the nomination as not promoted anyway. I'll be renominating soon. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 16:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

AfC
I submitted another AfC that is a major omission from en.wikipedia. If you get the time and can create it, I would appreciate the work. Thanks. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

History and quoting text that contain colorful or puff words
When doing historical research one is allowed to 'copy exactly' if one is only taking parts from the original source material. If one comes across colored words in the source text can these be added to the Wikipedia? For example: [The control wrote violently with abbreviations that Dorr was to fix anything that was wrong.] "Violently" is used here in the primary source. Can you copy the phrase exactly as shown by citing it in the wikipedia as: 'The control wrote violently with abbreviations that Dorr was to fix anything that was wrong.' So that the reader will know the word "violently" is NOT MY word or a puff word but Hall's word used in the primary source and therefore it is protected from deletion. Or must the phrase be written without color or puff as [ The control wrote with abbreviations that Dorr was to fix anything that was wrong] EXCLUDING the word "violently" Personally I think the word "violently" is a proper description about HOW the control wrote. Please reply soon. Kazuba (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I must confess to not quite understanding what is meant by "violent" writing - and I'm not sure whether this is merely descriptive terminology, or if it may carry the author's personal agenda with it. (Sorry, but it is difficult to be precise without a good understanding of the context). It is OK to cite people's opinions - the important thing is that the article itself does not push an opinion. And whilst you can quote short sections verbatim, they must be clearly indicated as quotations, beyond just putting " " around them.
 * If you would like to give me more information regarding where exactly you are looking to add this text, or indeed if you already have, so that I have a better chance of understanding the context, and may be able to advise better on an appropriate style. Regards, <span style="font-family: fontin, serif;"> AJ Cham  02:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. It just occurred to me that my username has changed in between you posting the question and me replying - at the time of your message, I was using the name DoktorMandrake, but have since changed it (back) to AJCham. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. <span style="font-family: fontin, serif;"> AJ  Cham  02:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikiproject AfC!
 Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 08:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback - Fisher 81
I responded on the page for deletion talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisher 81  (talk • contribs)  23:05, 8 October 2009

Responses
I made modifications to People skills and added clarifications to Talk:People skills. Thanks for your concern. PSY7 (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Self-initiation


The article Self-initiation has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Insufficient context.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 00:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Howard (Transcendentalist) New Article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Christopher_Howard_%28Transcendentalist%29

I am doubtful as to the subject's notability - I cannot find much coverage, and sources would be needed to establish if he is. If those can be found, please add them and also address the wording of the article, which is currently non-neutral. If these issues can be addressed, the submission can be reopened.

The following items have been addressed,

1) Sources Added. 2) Wording Corrected —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlizeeForever (talk • contribs) 04:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Chrome 3.0.195.25 Wikipedia.PNG licensing
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chrome 3.0.195.25 Wikipedia.PNG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. - NOTE: This is a new problem, to do with a BSD license. This has nothing to do with the Wikipedia logo, like last time.--Michaelkourlas (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback - Talk:People skills
The OR box should be removed since references have been expanded, updated and clarified. Reader7777a (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded, and added request for comments. <span style="font-family: fontin, serif;"> AJ Cham  21:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of Field Hockey Stars
Hi, I uploaded following pics in wiki commons.


 * Balwant S Saini- British Hockey International.JPG
 * Kuldip_Bhaura-_Olympics_Gold_Medalist.JPG‎

The orginal source, SikhHockeyOlympians.com, granted the permission to upload them on wikipedia so long as source SikhHockeyOlympians.com is credited.

I hope all is right with these uploads. Otherwise, advise as to correct action. Regards, --History Sleuth (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Kuldip Bhaura- Olympics Gold Medalist.JPG
Quite a few problems with this: 1) It was uploaded without a templated license. 2) The Permission stated "Permission = unlimited so long as original source is credited," which is unacceptable. 3) The source provided has a very strong © non-release "The content (content being images, text, sound and video files, programs and scripts) of this website is copyright © sikhhockeyolympians. All rights expressly reserved." So, it fails pretty much all around...   Skier Dude  ( talk ) 00:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. Thanks. I emailed sikhhockeyolympians.com webmaster. He will either upload it himself or send a permission letter to wikipedia. Regards.--History Sleuth (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Linux book
Hi, AJCham

Ref. "The Linux book"

I don't know if one can use the following links?

Links/source:

http://www.digi.no/517021/norsk-linux-bok-gjores-fri http://www.digi.no/67663/norsk-linux-bok-solgt-i-22000-eksemplarer http://www.digi.no/62871/norsk-linux-predikant-erobrer-verden http://www.idg.no/produkter/programvare/linux/article18769.ece http://www.flipkart.com/unix-commands-example-david-elboth/0131039539-low3f9bekw http://www.americanpoems.com/0130327654/The_Linux_Book.php

Download (open source) http://www.linuxbok.no/files/2008-02-27-boken_om_linux-v8.0.odt (9 MB)

I forgot to sign my post (I am making a copy)

--David Mills 13:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddonaldmills (talk • contribs)


 * My ability to evaluate the sources is hampered by my lack of knowledge of Norweigan, but I'll give it a go:
 * flipkart and americanpoems could be used to source basic information (eg. ISBN, publication date etc.), but don't establish notability - they only show that the book exists, not that it is notable.
 * IDG, if I understand correctly, is the book's Norweigan publisher? If so, then it is a primary source - again it can be used to source some basic information, but does not establish notability.
 * digi.no seems to be an adequately reliable source, so should be OK, although I can't evaluate how significant the coverage is. Assuming they have no connection with the author or publisher these should be fine as independent references.
 * The link to a freely distributable copy of the book should be perfectly fine, I believe, but make sure it appears in an External Links section at the end (after the references) rather than in the body text of the article.
 * If my evaluation is correct, then we only have one independent source so far (although they do cover it three times) so one or two other sources would be very handy and assuage any doubts people may have over notability. <span style="font-family: fontin, serif;"> AJ Cham  21:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)