User talk:Andrew c/archive14

requesting a serious favor
Hey. I have a favor to ask of you and it is a very big one - I hope you will say yes, but I don't expect you to do this all at once. I have radically rewritten and expanded an article and I would like you to reviw my work and edit it to improve the structure and clarity. That is the basic request. I am turning to you because of your experience with the topic of Jesus, which is controversial in part because scholarly research is so little known or understood by the general public (i.e. many other Wikipedians), because you understand academic reseach, and are committed to our core policies. And write well.

here is the context ...

Over the years the Culture article turned into a big mess. There was a GA and two users - serious and good faith editors but from their comments not experts in this field - made several comments. A couple of weeks ago I did a major overhaul, although my method was conservative: I deleted all fringe theories and tangents/material covered in other articles, deleted the many redundancies, and reorganized what was left so that different points of view are clearly identified.

Since that time I have begun work on expanding the article. My main principal was that culture is an object of scholarly research, and this article should reflect the actual mainstream scholarship on culture. I felt it needed to provide an account of all significant points of view, from notable sources, and also provide some general context to understand the different points of view.

I am limited in my expertise ... for example, I am not a linguist, and the relationship between language and culture is an important field of research. I am not an archeologist, although they are experts in material culture. I am not a biological anthropologist, although they are experts in the evolution of culture and primate "cultures" (there is a debate). I left notes for Wikipedians who seem to have expertise in these fields and so far none have worked on the article. I know enough to lay out the essentials in the archeology and material culture section, and spent a week researching primatology and human evolution and have done what I can. Language and culture is a big gap.

In academe, there are two disciplines that make "culture" their explicit object of study: anthropology and cultural studies. I know a lot about anthropology, and much less about cultural studies, so the section on cultural studies is still woefully underdeveloped.

(There are subfields of cultural history and cultural geography but if you talk to historians and geographers you will discover that these subfields are very vaguely defined and undeveloped and they rely on anthropology for most of their theories about "culture" as such ... be that as it may, I tried to identify Wikipedians who are cultural geographers or cultural historians to invite them to contribute, so far no luck.)

For a variety of historical reasons, anthropology is most developed in the United States, Great Britan, and France (although there have been notable Anglophone anthropologists from South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia). But anthropology took different form in each country. "Cultural Anthropology" is specifically American - the British practice what they call "social anthropology" because society is their object of study, not culture. When French and British anthropologists talk about culture, they generally start off quoting American "cultural anthropologists."

There are two problems I am immediately concerned with: Some people involved in the last GA review have taken strong issue with many of my changes. I think they are very well-intentioned. I think they just do not have a sense of the actual debates among scholars, or what are the significant views and notable sources on "culture." For example, one of them has been highly critical of my work being "American centric." I have tried to explain why the article appears American centric - many of the prominent names are scholars who were born in or moved to the United States. But as I said this is because "cultural anthropology" is specifically American, and when scholars in other countries want to debate "culture" they turn to American sources - not universally, but generally. (The US also just has more - the American Anthropological Association has over 6,000 members, which just swamps the entire European Association of Social Anthropologists.) - that said, I tried very hard in the article to explain trans-atlantic influences and connections. I am apparently not communicating this effectively. Also, this same user seems not to understand the nature of scholarly research; s/he claims my revision is too "academic" but wants to add views from psychology and psychiatry which are academic disciplines (which generally derive their concept of culture from anthropology). I have no problem with adding other views, but this editor wants to delete much content because it is too "academic."

Second - and here is where I really need the favor (the above is all essential context): I wrote a LOT over a short period of time. It needs editing, for clarity, among other things. I am turning to you because I know you respect serious scholarship and fully appreciate the importance and usefulness of our core policies in guiding us in content. And you are a good editor. I am asking you to check my work - I do not mean to check all my references (please trust me there!) but to look at the article, a little bit at a time, and help me edit it, the language, the organization, help me make it a better-written article that still does justice to a scholarly topic, one that is as lively as say the research on Jesus (and is just as often misunderstood by people who do not have a strong education in the area). My hope is that if you go over a section at a time, every once in a while, over time you can help make strategic but significant improvements. Thanks,


 * I've given the first two sections some copy editing, but I haven't really found much time to do much more. Sorry. Are you still having issues with editors disagreeing on article scope?-Andrew c [talk] 01:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want a good thumbnail sketch on anthropology there are some source materials I can recommend. Trigger, Bruce G (1989) A History of Archaeological Thought Cambridge University Press is a define must read.  A more relevant article for this particular problem is Naroll, R (1973) A Handbook in Method in Cultural Anthropology Chapter 39 (pgs 215-260) Columbia University Press which suggested throwing out the term "culture" (because the defintion was such a mess) and replacing it with "Cult-unit"--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
DFS454 (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design protection
I noticed you were just on the Talk:Intelligent design page a short while ago. If you have a few extra moments, could you kindly implement Crucio's edit request at Talk:Intelligent design? Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Taken care of!-Andrew c [talk] 16:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Authors of the Bible
Didn't know there was such a page. It's bound to need work. Thanks for giving me the word. I'm flattered. When I first started on WP 2+ years ago, you seemed like about the savviest editor, so it's nice to have you ask for some help. Plus, I do have Harris and Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Leadwind (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, however, I edit WP as a distraction from my duties, editing wherever I'm led, so I can't promise that I'll do much on any particular page. Leadwind (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've answered every request for a citation that I can. Maybe some day I'll go over the big table and square it to Harris, but that sort of editing is a grind, so maybe not. If there are spots I missed that you'd like Harris's take on, let me know, and feel free to ask for reference support on other pages. I've shelled out for the books, so I might as well use them. Leadwind (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing pictures
Hi there! I've seen you removing pictures from articles and just wanted to ask you if there's a chance to fix the FURs instead. Otherwise it doubles the work, you understand?-- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  01:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No need of deletion of Pritesh Gupta
There is absolutely no need of deletion of that Page Pritesh Gupta why don't you get that !. Please understand my thing, No offense to you.

Best Regards

--Pritesh.gupta (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nativity of Jesus
Andrew, would you mind commenting on a content dispute at Nativity of Jesus. It concerns a table comparing the accounts of Matthew and Luke. There are concerns over the use of primary sources, OR, novel synthesis, lack of explanation/context which would be afforded by prose, and even its necessity, given the section "The nativity as myth". The table can be seen at this version of the page: at section 1.3, "The narratives compared". Discussion on the issue can be found at Talk:Nativity of Jesus, in the threads "The two narratives compared", "The two narratives compared, part 2", and at "Task List (January 15, 2009)". Your input on the issue would be greatly appreciated, as very few persons have commented on it. Thanks Andrew. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Graphic lab
FYI.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wildfire
I see you are active on Media copyright questions and seem to have a clear understanding of media policy. If you get a minute, would you mind commenting on a media question I had regarding a USDA Forest Service technical report? I see you're quite busy in real life, so feel free to comment when you're free. Thanks, Mr Bell  ( talk ) 00:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on that page. I don't know for sure, which is why I had been avoiding your question. -Andrew c [talk] 01:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

hamitic
Thank you for contacting me about the editing made on the hamitic page. I believe that Wikipedia is meant to give insights on topics with FACTS and sources and not personal opinions. That is exactly what I’m doing, but one specific editor keeps on changing and reverting it to poor written and un sourced article, which does not provide the history on the topic but just jump around from one thing to another. I don't feel people should be bullied into accepting someone’s opinion on a topic or what someone wants to see written especially since it is not backed up with anything. The editing you speak of was about a heading titled something like "the use after napoleon". Well what about before napoleon or the history on why the hypothesis was invented in the 1st place. I understand that I cannot make any edits within 24 hours yet the other editor can and keep on reverting the article back to poor written page of opinions. Is that what wiki is about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfXY (talk • contribs) 02:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Boy do I feel dumb
re "It's basically been the only edit activity on this article for the last couple days. Here is one diff. But I believe there have been 3 reverts on each side...-Andrew c [talk] 18:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC) " -- I didn't even think to look at the edit summary. Can I plead that I had a bad brain cramp? :) &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's totally fine! If you must know, I honestly was assuming it was just laziness ;)-Andrew c [talk] 21:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For your incisive comment. I appreciate your taking time to look into this matter. If you do ever see me even come close to abusing the tools, please let me know. --John (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I basically have the same thing to say as the person above did: Thank You for notifying me of the standard wikipedia information on my talk page. I didn't know that overlinking was such a big problem and didn't know to use the four tildes. Before, I tried to type it myself. Thank you so much. --15lsoucy (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

FfD to delete Time cover image
Hi. As you were involved in some of the recent discussion and debate about the images in the article on Intelligent design, I thought you might like to know a separate proceeding was brought to remove the Time image by outright deletion from the wiki. It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_12#Time_evolution_wars.jpg. If you are at all interested in the issue, it would be reasonable to post a "keep" or a "delete" at that page. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert rule
My edits were also reverted three times, by 151.190.254.108. Does he also receive a warning / ban?

(cur) (prev) 15:35, 17 February 2009 Wilson Delgado (Talk | contribs) (27,002 bytes) (Undid revision 271351790 by 151.190.254.108 (talk) See talk page history for justifications) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:20, 17 February 2009 151.190.254.108 (Talk) (26,193 bytes) (Undid revision 271349311 by Wilson Delgado (talk) Vandal chose revert war rather than source citation. See talk.) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:06, 17 February 2009 Wilson Delgado (Talk | contribs) (27,002 bytes) (Undid revision 271348536 by 151.190.254.108 (talk) references do show range of current usage) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:01, 17 February 2009 151.190.254.108 (Talk) (26,193 bytes) (Undid revision 271347911 by Wilson Delgado (talk) On talk page, you said dict's don't show frequency of use.) (undo) (cur) (prev) 14:57, 17 February 2009 Wilson Delgado (Talk | contribs) (27,002 bytes) (Undid revision 271347266 by 151.190.254.108 (talk) OED and Encyc Brit support a wider understanding of the term) (undo) (cur) (prev) 14:53, 17 February 2009 151.190.254.108 (Talk) (26,193 bytes) (Undid revision 271346617 by Wilson Delgado (talk) Cite verifiable sources for this being other than minority view.) (undo)

If you read the talk page, you will see that I have been operating in good faith, and I'm trying to resist some nonsense. I think that perhaps we will have to go to adjudication. I would be interested in your honest advice. Wilson Delgado (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

re:Original research
It is NOT original research. I just added a source, I'll add others. (You can read in the source how teen girls were stabed/shoot by their boyfriends for refusing abortions). The facts I added are widely kown. It's NOT original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.11.61 (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for the information regarding how to submit the photos for uploading. I have sent the details of the link and email address to the person who is the subject of the photos - he will either submit directly or provide me with the required information. thank you again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hegaldi (talk • contribs) 18:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 5e66de6c942bf594fa540744742f9c7f
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Orphaned non-free media (File:Strawberry Shortcake characters.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Strawberry Shortcake characters.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fetus (non-human)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Fetus (non-human), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Fetus. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Margo Sappington
inre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margo_Sappington

Might it be possible to userfy the article to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Margo Sappinton so I could have a hand at removing the copyvio and bringing it up to wiki standards? Thanks,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Will bring them over but NOT save to sandbox until the copyvio is gone. Appreciate your assist.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Back to you for an opinion. Having found the mirrors, I pulled out several versions and then went at them with a sandblaster. It was actually rather easy to cleanup and source per guideline. And though it has a plethora of redlinks currently, I'd like your opinion of my progress at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Margo Sappington. Thank you much for your considerations.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent advice. I knew it was not ready yet for mainspace... and it does indeed have too much unneccessary content.... red and blue. I'll keep whitling and rewriting. Thank you much Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I brought the girl back tonight... Margo Sappington... as a nice contribution to wiki.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

moved file to commons
Thanks! Jcwf (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
Hi! The University of Santo Tomas seals and emblems is currently on the verge of deletion. I am the main author of the article and I know that most of the pictures on the said article committed Wikipedia copyright infringements, but I am not just well-versed in the Wikipedia rules and policies. Can you help me prevent the permanent demise of the article? Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pampi1010 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 20 February 2009

External Links to Audio Recordings
I added links in a number of articles to recordings of those works, which you removed. I don't understand why. I realize of course that Wikipedia is more than a collection of links and I've read the guidelines on links, but we do have links for a reason, for when there's something outside of Wikipedia that would be useful. (Compare, for example, the audio links for the Marseillaise or, for something non-musical, those for the Koran or the Vulgate, the last of which links to the same site I did.) Wouldn't someone interested in, say, the Greek or Luther or Segond versions of the Bible find audio recordings of them, by native speakers, useful or of further interest? I certainly did, and it took me quite a bit of searching to find them; I imagine many others would as well, and the link spares them the trouble. And certainly such recordings are at least as relevant to the articles as some of the other links listed. So I beseech you in all friendliness to undo the reversions you made. Thank you. Tzetzes (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

DC Meetup Events: You're invited!
This has been an automated because you your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Aly & AJ stalker info
Well sorry, but no one really looks at the talk pages nowadays, especially since you didn't refer to it when removing the content, just mentioned "stalker isn't notable". Besides, you removed the content on opinion of only you. TheDarkOneLives his main issue with the content is the fact that the stalker info is put under 'Personal life', and that there is nothing else written besides that, not the notability of the stalker. Maybe we could re-name it? -- Luigi-ish (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Mehserle mugshot
I don't know how to play the game that you're asking me to me to play. If use of the public record of a government mugshot violates fair use, then everything does, so I don't know what magic words you're asking for. I used the template; the template should be properly worded if it isn't. Feel free to insert yourself the magic words that will satisfy you. THF (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The template includes a fair-use rationale. So I don't know what else to say, because I don't have anything else to add, and am not inclined to research a fair use brief because my philosophy of Wikipedia is to minimize the number of controversial edits I am involved in because it's not a good use of my time to spend it defending minor edits.  If that means it gets deleted, then it means it gets deleted, and I'll spend my hobby-time on Wikipedia making edits that take less effort to defend. THF (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to "Shared Accounts"
The Riley Family response to "Shared Accounts" posted by Andrew c on Dec. 20, 08. The Riley Family (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Mills in 1950 and other issues
Thanks for responding to the debate- even if some of our views are divergent. I made a long comment on User talk:PhilKnight‎ which to save typing time I am repeating below. I asked him to consider deletions he had made and to tag them instead which he happily did.

Phil, I can't see any evidence that you have been following the debate on Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content where I have been discussing these images individually, and as part of the page List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited, this has spilled over onto my talk page, in response to conversation with User:Hammersoft. I have now divided the issues into five categories:
 * Does this page fall within the guidelines set down, to which I am convinced it does.
 * The process of dealing with an unusual resource such as this.
 * The guidelines and the way they are laid out
 * how warnings and necessary deletions should should be effected.
 * How the fair use team can assist in gathering and sanctioning material.

The validity of each of the 53 images was discussed under 1.

I thought about this for about two years before uploading each of these unique images as a gift, and stimulus to any editor working on the Growth of Manchester and thus the economic development of the Empire, any editor working in industrial architecture and particularly P.S.Stott and his ilk, anyone working on the economic policy and how one pulls a society out of recession by forming quasi governmental companies to rationalise a manufacturing industry as a alternative to full nationalisation.

The point of contention has been the de minimis use images - and the how this should be interpreted for a list. While agreeing that the practice should be deprecated, no other method of proceeding has been proposed if Courtaulds UK fails to accept that it is the inherited copyright owner of LCC images and will release them as PD. If you follow back en:wiki policy to the foundation policy you will find as I did that the policy has not been implemented unless it can be demonstrated that images must be treated on a case by case basis. Enough of that. I was concerned that other images existed of each mill but it is not that simple. Each of this images represents an image of a working cotton mill- by 1968 none of them were working mills, in many case the hulk of the main building was converted into warehousing but it was no longer a mill. The engine house is often gone and a gentleman called Blaster Bates destroyed most of the chimneys, they just do not look like a working mill anymore. In the same way that I would not consider my image of the West pier adequately illustrated the pier architecture.

In good faith, you have made several deletions of working mills that have valid FairUse statements claiming that they are not. Would you like to re-evaluate, and reverse your actions. If you still reach the same conclusion can you give some detail as to the logic.

But this is not the way I would have preferred to have operated, What I would like to see is a stronger message on Non-free_content in the form of a in a nutshell message. WikiProject Geographical coordinates has a quick howto- we could have a quick how-not to. This could reduce the contributions by the 'fools and bairns'. Secondly, I would like to see a procedure where a experienced editor could submit a proposal in advance where he is sure that there may be controversy, and get a ticket of approval that could be attached to an image, so folks like yourself would know that this was a considered act not a capricious one. This could white list images so that bots ignore them.

The current system leads to a lot of time being wasted, incredible bad feeling and I believe the loss of many editors who just don't like the conflict, if there is an approved way of contributing- then it makes it a lot easier to zap the dross.

Best wishes Clem. --ClemRutter (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC) That will give you some background on the issues. You used the phrase 'to an untrained eye' and two months ago I would have conceded the argument, but closeness to the images and what they represent has led me to reconsider. I don't think it is valid to say- to an untrained eye- the test is the 'general reader who has become knowledgeable' and then for some (not all) the differences cry out.

I had considered that the best way to gather information on each of these mills was in the format of a list- and then spin off individual articles when there was enough data. but you are right en:wikipedia editors are in general applying the FU policy in a narrow way- ignoring the need for a route for exceptions. Following this path has gained a lot of information, but too much of my time has been spent defending the images so I haven't been able to spin off any stub articles. The infobox is almost written, and and it will be easy to write Start Class articles if that is the consensus. I had concern about notability criteria, but when you consider the number of families lives that revolved round each one, I now think I was being a bit strict on myself.

If you have any further thoughts on notability or any of the issues I have raised, I would welcome them. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit Protected
You could say i am new ive only been here a month and only made 300 editd.But also, how is this tempalte supposed to be usedPermethius (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed Prod
I have removed the prod tag from Fireproof My Marriage, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!  TheAE  talk / sign  17:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Panjabi By Nature
My page was deleted. I am the author of the text which was uploaded on to here and on to myspace. There is no copyright infringement. Thegossip (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

YourStory.in Logo
Thanks for the update Andrew c and sorry about the redundant request. The article I listed was deleted shortly after I posted the request for the logo. I'm one of the employees working at YourStory.in and the Founder and CEO, Mrs.Shradha Sharma asked me to add an entry added for the site on wikipedia. I am currently reworking the article with some help from one of the moderators on the site. I had a talk with another user, Matt, as I had posted a similar logo upload request earlier. He informed me that we needed proper documentation to have the image added to the site which is when I got the registration document scanned and hosted on my photobucket account. According to Indian law, the registration takes a year to come into effect which is why we could not add any documentation for image rights on the site at the moment. Is there any way to work around the problem? --D&#39;artagnan7 (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Andrew. Yes. I am aware of the COI guidelines and neutrality of content. This is yet another reason why I've asked for my contribution to be reviewed by an experienced wikipedia volunteer. Thanks again for the heads up. --D&#39;artagnan7 (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

IFU
Hey, thanks for your help at IFU :D. With this request, Flickr let's you mark images as PD, but the image on Flickr is marked as All Rights Reserved anyway. Cheers,  Matt  (  Talk  )   07:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you mark images as PD in flickr? I just checked the available licenses, and couldn't find PD (nor have I ever seen it).-Andrew c [talk] 14:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, how do you locate the flickr page for an image from just the jpg address? Like, if I had only, how do I back track to get ?-Andrew c [talk] 14:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm wrong, sorry. The PD option is only there for museums working on The Commons on Flickr (like this photo). I always assumed that you could mark images as PD because it's always been listed on the upload page for Flickr. I guess it'd be fine to just state that the image is in the Public Domain in the image description though. Regardless, even if that logos description page said it was in the Public Domain, I'd be inclined to think it would be copyrighted because it's a logo, and because of the newness/few uploads to the Flickr account.
 * To get the description page from an image's URL take the first set of numbers before the underscore (, so ) and put them on the end of  . So   will give you the description page. Cheers,   Matt  (  Talk  )   05:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

96.4 The Wave
To be honest, i haven't a clue how to provide details for an image. I gave all the info i could. I do not understand this copyright and source lark, even though i've provided sources and extra information. 96.4 The Wave, in theory, should have logos fitted onto the artcile, as many other articles contain images. Please help. Thanks - Jonny7003 (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Deanb
Hi Andrew! Which images that Deanb uploaded are you referring to? Please enlighten me because this user has already been blocked for purposeful copyright infringement, and it is very serious if he uploaded copyrighted images after the block. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 00:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I didn't think to look in his deleted contributions! How silly. Anyway, I never got the hang of how to find things quickly on FlickR (keyword searches don't seem to work too well). Is there a method I'm missing? I'm concerned that other images uploaded by Deanb are copyvios, but haven't found them elsewhere myself. Right now the ones I have in mind are this, this and this. The first especially looks like it is from FlickR, but I'm not sure whether FlickR retains camera metadata, so it may be from someone else. Is there any way to find out other than keyword searches? You seem to know more about this than I do. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 01:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bo Bartlett images
Just an FYI re:, I think User:Anelecia is also the SPA account user:NBenezra who are both Anelecia Hannah. That may be the person to contact re:copyright. More here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Re copyvio of Wikipedia
Regarding the MCQ bit about the Commons-hosted picture used without attribution: could you please send the email? I'm about to leave for a week, so I don't have time to write much; and because the image is dually licensed, the email would need to be rewritten in a way I don't quite understand. Moreover, because it's not my image (yesterday I saw the image for the first time), I have no more copyright on it than you do. I ask you because you're clearly familiar enough with the process to suggest a link; therefore I'm hoping that you know better what you're diong than I would. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

More images for 96.4 The Wave
Ok - thanks :) I have an image of the local radio station studios. Will that be ok ? Jonny7003 (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, i didn't, one of the presenters did and posted it on the website. Jonny7003 (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the station is just down the road from me. And yeah i do have a camera :) Jonny7003 (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo Spot image
Am new here in wikipedia so I probably missed out on a rules or two. Fixed the page with sources, hope the article will survive the deletion. Thanks for pointing out! Kenneth087 (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Terrible
Could you please explain the "terrible" part in "terrible purpose"? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Image:BubbleTea2
Why did you delete this image as well? Is this also not allowed to be uploaded?  - down  load  |  sign!  00:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Image update please check
Hello, I've tried to follow your advice and created an image. Can you please check that all is good? 

-Andriyko (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

questions
Hello, I have two questions. You deleted my edits on the article "Biblical inerrancy", I would like to understand more why. 1. Why do you regard the text 'which many Christian denominations consider "passed away"' which refers to the decalogue as helpful? I argued on the talk page that it is rather misunderstandable and that anyway there is a link to the "Ten Commandments" where different Christian views are explained in detail. 2. The letters to the Thessalonians are usually believed to be written to Thessalonica as also the Wikipedia article about these letters of Paul assert. Which scholars refer it to Thessaly? Thank you. Nikil44 (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked User:Chassisplans
Hello Andrew. I appologize for not knowing the rule regarding usernames. Chassisplans was just what I always use for all blogs and postings. Not trying to promote. If you insist, I have created User:Rackmount-guy and will institute a name change. Per the policy, use of a company name is not explicitly prohibited and I have tried to be neutral in my postings. Certainly, using Chassisplans makes my edits very transparent. It seems to me that the only place a user name is visible is in the page history. That doesn't seem particularly promotional versus article content. Note that blocking me prohibited me from editing this page as Chassisplans. You can post to User_talk:Chassisplans as to your decision. --Rackmount-guy (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Vega Verta Pac
Hello Andrew, This file was duplicated because I didn't knoow how to update at that time. First version was up for delation for no source. (Not No free use rationle) New version has both and licence. Thank You, Robert

Advice requested
Would you please look at this and advise me whether you think the very strong support for moving the article that has been won within that group makes it so likely that the project will pass when voted on in a wider forum that it is not worth my while attempting to debate it. One participant has proposed a time limit of one week for voting after the project is formally proposed. I know this is a tough question to deal with, and that you may very well have to respond with "Do whatever you think is best", and so it may be best for you simply not to respond; but if you do feel you can give advice, one way or the other, I would certainly give much weight to your wisdom and your experience both as an editor and an Administrator. Lima (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OTRS issue
I was wondering if you could take a look at 2009031310000561. Further information at here.-Andrew c [talk] 18:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied over there. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about 2009031710066322 now? The customer contacted me through the OTRS via another ticket to ask about this. -Andrew c [talk] 21:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That ticket doesn't contain anything useful yet. I've replied to specify exactly what we need. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Humanism
Hi Andrew, are you still watching this one? There are two editors, who hardly edit anything else, who have been edit-warring with various people over this article for months on various issues, most recently over the section on Renaissance Humanism, which they want to present as a direct forerunner of modern secular humanism. The last edit was this, and this section of the talk page is relevant. They have also been enthusiastically edit-warring with others over the lead section - really there is a question whether this article should just be a disam page leading to the articles on the different types of humanism, themselves greatly overlapping. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
-- Y ar na lg o talk to me 06:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)