User talk:Rhanbury

Permission for use of File:cartridge.gif
I have tagged File:cartridge.gif - This image is missing verification of permission. It has an author and source, and a claim of permission over email or other means, but it has not been logged in the Commons OTRS for verification. Please forward proof of permission it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, and replace this template with. Follow the instructions given, and use the ticket ID sent to you after verification. Unless verification of permission is given, the image can be speedy deleted seven days after this template was added and the uploader was notified: (1 June 2009). --Ozhiker (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have forwarded the original email as instructed, and copied it into the description. In retrospect however, having spent the last two hours reading the help files, I don't think the email is explicit enough. I need guidance though - I may be able to get the CPSA to agree to a free licence, but I'll never get someone to spend hours reading wiki help files and crafting legal wording onto a website somewhere. There must be an efficient way to get someone to give permission, but how?? --Rhanbury (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Rhanbury, please have a look at the example consent declarations at WP:CONSENT and Example_requests_for_permission. --Ozhiker (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, I wouldn't have found that without help. I'll get onto it! Rhanbury (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer be able to have them marked as minor by default. For more information on what a minor edit is, see WP:MINOR or feel to get in touch.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Lady Eleanor Holles School Crest.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Lady Eleanor Holles School
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://gsa.uk.com/2017/02/gsa-school-open-international-school-china/. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Fixed - see discussion on User talk:Diannaa. Rhanbury (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit of Celia Brackenridge, July 2018
Your addition to Celia Brackenridge has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Larry, that was lazy of me. I can't see a way of getting the same information in without using the same words, so I have rewritten in more abbreviated form. Rhanbury (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Conflict-of-interest discussion at Lady Eleanor Holles School
Hi! I don't know quite what to think about your connection to the school, so have (a) held back from commenting on it and (b) asked for input at the conflict-of-interest noticeboard. You are welcome to comment there, or not, as you see fit. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC). Thank you, that seems like a good way forward. Rhanbury (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I see you have again removed the COI template from this article o the basis that you have addressed the issues. I direct you to WP:COINOTBIAS. Use of the template is a statement of fact and not something you can change by successfully editing in a neutral point of view. I would also point out that you should be proposing any changes to the article on the talk page and letting an uninvolved editor add the text (if agreed) to the article, not adding it yourself. Lyndaship (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think I had removed it just before I saw your comment on the talk page, and Johnbod's dissenting view, and given the latter decided to leave it off to see what happened. Pragmatically, I suggest the following way forward: Leave the COI tag for now. I will complete my planned edits over the next few days, and then request a review by a neutral senior editor, such as yourself. You / they can give it a thorough check for NPOV, and if it passes the benchmark remove the COI tag and I promise never to touch so much as a single comma again. Editing is already a slow enough process, and the idea of putting every word or sentence I propose to tweak, one by one, onto the talk page and requesting someone else to transfer them to the main article, means, in practice, that it will never happen. We have to bear in mind the purpose of the COI rule is to prevent bias, not prevent editing by anyone who has an affinity with the subject - this is explicitly stated in the guidance. I bet that almost all substantial school article edits are by current or former members of staff, governors, pupils, or parents, all of whom have a COI by strict standards; it is just that they are not readily identifiable by their usernames so are not called out on it. Can you live with this proposal? Rhanbury (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that its likely that all school articles have been edited by people who have an interest in conveying a viewpoint of the establishment and I dare say a good few have an undeclared COI as defined by wikipedia. When you have finished your edits by all means post on the talkpage and ask if another editor will remove the COI tag, I think they would be wrong to do so but I will not then reinstate it. Of course I cannot speak for the other editor who placed the COI tag initially or for anyone else who frequents the COI board who feels that the rules should be upheld (regardless of how honest you have been in declaring your relationship and the NPOV of your edits). Lyndaship (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Autumn
See you in September. You could consider coming along to the London Wikimeetup and meet editors from other areas of WP, where you would be most welcome. previous meeting link. ClemRutter (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Pamela Schwerdt
And very fine-looking she is too. You don't fancy giving Sibylle a bash? Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. - I'm with Johnbod on the schools' COI issue - I wrote much of this, Monmouth School and don't think my having been there many moons ago made it impossible to maintain a Neutral point of view.
 * Thank you KJP1! Because Sibylle had a slightly less public profile than Pamela, she is slightly less notable. Let's wait a bit and see if anyone objects to Pamela first. Hopefully I've done enough, but there are some editors who set the notability bar very high. On the COI thing, nobody actually accused me of lacking NPOV, or indeed criticised any of the actual content. All of the deletions were on various matters of principle. Feel free to have a look at the Talk:Lady Eleanor Holles School/long draft page and see if there is anything that you, as a neutral editor, feel comfortable adding to the main article, although I'm intending to add more citations in due course. Also consider the list of head mistresses on the LEH talk page. Rhanbury (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In my judgement, Sissinghurst and the Victoria Medal make them both quite unassailable! But it may make sourcing a bit more challenging. Shall try to drop by LEH but away for a few days from tomorrow. KJP1 (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Voted :-) Rhanbury (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Pam Alexander


A tag has been placed on Draft:Pam Alexander requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jan/28/regeneration.communities. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick (Talk)  12:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sphilbrick - I hadn't realised that you couldn't use copyright content even temporarily whilst you rewrote it in draft space (I explained that this is what I was doing in the edit history) and in fact deleted it just before the article was deleted. Or possibly just after - I can't tell. How can I retrieve the non-copyright content to try again? Rhanbury (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Shootercartridge.gif


The file File:Shootercartridge.gif has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)