User talk:Avram/Archive 1

Message
Dear Avram, I am now convinced by your argument that the UK Community Issues Party is notable enough for Wikipedia. As a result, I have asked for my nomination to be withdrawn. Well done for the hard work you have put in.

If I may, I would like to ask you if you could have a look at this article. I nominated it three days ago for deletion, because I do not believe it meets WP:N. Would you mind working some of your magic on trying to get this article up to meeting WP:N guidelines? If you do, thank you very much. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the article, and tried to find sources, but there really is nothing on that group. I dug up a couple of references to the founder, but nothing that even comes close to notability. Sometimes there's just no fixing something! Avram (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying. As you have suggested, some things are just lost causes.  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Rob Oates
The consensus in the Rob Oates article that was nominated for deletion (Articles for deletion/Rob Oates) was less clear than you may have felt. Only one person agreed with the deletion nomination after the article was substantially edited. The early votes (Nsk92 and Punkmorten) were based on an earlier, relatively unsourced version of the article that did not establish notability. The one vote after said edits refers to the nomination's justification, which was no longer the article's sole claim to notability. I'd like to see the most recent content of the article discussed on its own merits. Please re-evaluate this case. Avram (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
 * The AFD was up for a week after you added the sources; I expect if they were considered sufficient people would have !voted to keep. Nobody did. Stifle (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your message wizard directly questions of this nature to Deletion review, which directs questions first of all to the person who closed the AfD.
 * I don't agree with your logic. At the very least, the AfD lacked consensus, since there was no attempt made to reach consensus; in this case, to resolve the question of whether the subject's roles were notable. In the absence of consensus, a more appropriate decision would have been to close the AfD as No consensus. Avram (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

1099 Pro article
1099 Pro article .. just curious by your comments in the AFD. If you know the article creator is removing the CSD tags, why didn't you warn the user on their talk page? --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Another FYI - the log for the page shows that it was already speedy deleted once for blatant advertising. May have affected your decision to go to AFD --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I went with an AfD mainly because I tend to try to defend crappy advertising pages, in the hope that someone will step up and make the page decent. Here, I hoped that the author was just a little touchy about the page being repeatedly tagged while the article was still in progress, and that maybe some dialog and some time could tell whether it was ultimately a notable subject. Now it's pretty clear that the author really doesn't care about dialog. Hope springs eternal. Avram (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Vshipin001
I did not create the spam on this page. I placed a speedy deletion notice there. The user apparently replicated the deleted page on the talk page. McWomble (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Spokoinoi Nochi, Malyshi.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Spokoinoi Nochi, Malyshi.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Fastily (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of UK Community Issues Party
An article that you have been involved in editing, UK Community Issues Party, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/UK Community Issues Party (2nd nomination). Thank you. BlueVine (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of metric units because they 'make things less legible'
Hi,

If metric units make things less legible as you say at Krupp Diamond, there are thousands of articles where people may wish to remove metric units. I happen to disagree but that is only my opinion. I think it is an interesting topic that needs wider discussion. I have raised a question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Feel free to contribute. Thanks Lightmouse (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for image
Thanks very much for adding the Danilevsky image! Someday I'll have to figure out how to do that... Languagehat (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Theodore Kosloff/John Davidson
hi Avram, you're welcome. Glad I could help.Koplimek (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Lists of Russians
Per your comments here, would you care to comment at Bot_requests? Thank you. 198.175.175.57 (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 14 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gustav Sicher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czech. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Message
Avram, I have cited a reliable source and linked to it. I would like to know how that can be considered "original research". Are you saying the a Wikipedia article is not a reliable source?
 * Two things-- yes, WIkisource is a fine place to point to for the text of the US constitution, but a proper source for the statement of legality would be a reliable source WP:RS that states the legal opinion that this association of states is illegal-- the jump from text of the constitution to the legality of the group is what constitutes original research. Avram (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The text is plain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.160.239 (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a section to the talk page so we can hash out the sourcing question where interested folks are likely to see it: Talk:United_States_Climate_Alliance -- Avram (talk)

Fair enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.160.239 (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The Honest Woodcutter
I'm curious about your revert at The Honest Woodcutter. Images hosted at Flickr and Free wouldn't generally be considered reliable sources, and the licenses on several of the images are incompatible with ours, so they can't be incorporated into the article in any way. However, the images are hosted on those sites legally and linking to them is expressly allowed (and even suggested) by WP:ELYES #2. Even beyond that, your revert reinstated a single letter in the section header and three blank dots, which is either a mistake or outright vandalism. If you have any questions, please let me know. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what happened with the revert-- it was a one-click revert using Twinkle. The images in question are all sufficiently old that they should be eligible for inclusion under blanked public domain provisions; the artists in all cases were dead before 1922 and the works were published before 1922. Still, I think I messed this one up and I shouldn't have done the quick revert (and certainly not the broken revert!), so I'll go ahead and restore your edits. If I really think the images can and should be in Commons, I can do that myself and link the gallery once I've done so. Avram (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the revert. You're absolutely right about the copyright, too. I thought that even basic photographs of artwork were considered derivative works, but it turns out that's only true of three-dimensional art (like statues). Two-dimensional reproductions inherit the original copyright status, which in this case has definitely expired. Thanks again. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Steven R. Jensen
Thanks dude. The og page got deleted initially and I just don't want to do all the work over again. Do know how to get it back or add to it? Also, you going to add that alumn to Grinnel College? I'm not big into the philosophy of deleting things you don't like. We're here to add not subtract. I think its the philosophy of wikipedia, add to our knowledge. Yes, its embarrassing a Nazi propagandist went to Grinnel, but its history. Koncurrentkat (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks like the content you had was permanently deleted due to suspected copyright violation. If it is original text, re-add it to the article; unfortunately I don't think it can be restored. As for the Grinnell list, I removed him from the short list on the Grinnell page because that list has historically been discussed on the talk page for Grinnell-- there are a great many notable alumni with pages on Wikipedia, but not all of them can feasibly be on the main article. Maybe Jensen is one such person, but it isn't obvious that he is. Avram (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * oops not Jensen. Kaltenbach. I'll go ahead and add Kaltenbach to the main list where he definitely should be. Avram (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you sir. Right, I haven't heard which law got violated by copying two sentences from a biography, which had the citation to said biography. Thanks for adding to Grinnel.

Koncurrentkat (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)