User talk:Túrelio/Archive 1

Blythe Masters Photo
Hi Turelio -

Sorry I just noticed your inquiry regarding the Blythe Masters photo. Yes I do have permission to use the photo - I have an email that can prove this but I can't send it just anywhere - really don't want to send it blindly to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as it contains proprietary/confidential information... I'm concerned because the photo is about to be taken down and we are linking to it from her blog as well. There is another user - Magog the Ogre (?) - that I am also contacting as he/she flagged the photo as well. Can you help advise me on how to best proceed? Want to keep a photo of her on her wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blythe-Masters.jpg Wintertanager (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, permissions-commons@wikimedia.org is actually confidential in the sense that only OTRS volunteers can access. I am admin on Commons, but I am not on OTRS, so I am not able to read anything going to this email address. As far as I know, if an email is sent to OTRS, a volunteer picks it up, checks the validity and, if judged as sufficent, puts a so-called OTRS-ticket on the image page, but does not publish anything of the content of the permission email; actually they are strictly prohibited to do so, see here. Of course, if there is very sensitive content in the respective email, then you might consider talking to a OTRS volunteer whom you personally trust and ask him to pick up you email directly. --Túrelio (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the explanation. Going to try this... Wintertanager (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Re disappearing letters at opus dei
For your info, we discussed this in the helpdesk:

Help_Desk


 * R Davidson 08:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, though the link should have been Help_desk.
 * Actually, I didn't suspect any intentional "wrong-doing". Túrelio 12:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Revenge Killings
I've updated the wording on the lead in to the Economic and Human costs section. I realize why you would want to mention those two individuals. I found the wording you chose didn't make sense in that particular line. Perhaps you could add it as a secondary line? Netscott 08:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you too for having written me about that, much appreciated. Netscott 08:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

youre right
Dear Turelio,

Im Louisar. Youre right. I made a mistake about the unofficial homepage (opus dei). He has become a communist. I was simply not believing it and thought it was a malevolent joke by someone else!!!


 * Turelio, you are in error in believing that communism implies atheism.  Many communists are atheists, but some are not.  You have no basis to assume that the author is an atheist.  If you feel an explanatory text is necessary, by all means, I think you can label him "a critic of Opus Dei", but that's about as far as you can go.  The Opus Dei article he wrote does not reference his political beliefs, they just aren't relevant, any more than being a republican or a democrat is relevant. If the article was "How my beliefs about communism led me to doubt Opus Dei", obviously, it would be a different story.  But as is, labeling the link "from a communist" is just an attempt to use his unpopular political views to slander him. --Alecmconroy 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Margaret Ogola
Sorry bout that. Her name wasn't wikilinked and a quick check seemed like she was only briefly mentioned in a few allen pieces. I will most definitely NOT delete anyone who has a wikipedia article --Alecmconroy 13:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ACK. --Túrelio 13:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on the Ruth Kelly talk page
As per my comments on the page, I accept that my wording was unclear- I had aimed in rewording that paragraph to explain the link between the two attacks. I thought it was clear from the words 'at the hearing' that it was then the plee change happened and at that point that it became unnecessary for her to give evidence. I take exception to your comment:

"Honestly, this smells like a sort of apology for the second attacker in a Blaming the victim manner."

I have never and would never suggest that a victim who goes to court after an attack upon them invites a second attack in so doing. I think it is regrettable that you suggested otherwise before seeking clarification from me. WJBscribe 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ruth Kelly
Thank you very much for your help with improvements to this page, especially pointing out the limits of the support some references were giving to the article and in tracking down new references. Much appreciated. Fingers crossed for the GA nomination - WJBscribe 20:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

biblio opus dei
Do you know what happened to bibliography-links on OD page? And what "redirected means"? It was much better when the bibliography was there. Louisar 18:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Louisar, 1) it was removed by Alecmconroy during his mayor "rewrite". 2) Redirected means, there is no longer the page that you wanted to get to, so you are re-directed to another page that had been linked to the lemma after the original page was deleted.(not the shortest explanation, sorry). By back-browsing the history of the Opus Dei-page I could extract the former references and external links section and put it into an rtf file. I could mail this file to you, but you didn't activate that function on your user page. Greetings --Túrelio 20:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ruth Kelly again
Thanks for bringing those edits to my attention. That does seem a ridiculous amount of detail and certainly not worthy of if its own main section in the article. I do think that a should be noted when a senior government minister, especially one who has or has had responsibility for the education system, chooses to educate their children privately rather than in the State sector. It shows an inherent lack of faith in a system it was their job to make work. I don't think there's a huge children's privacy issue, though I want to take out the references to learning difficulties, simply to mention what type of school they go to. I'll have a go at toning the section down to a minimum and you can see if that seems like fairer coverage. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 17:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My first Barnstar
Thank you ever so much for that. You've really made my day! WJBscribe (WJB talk) 18:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't mind your opinion on something.
Hello. I was hoping to get your opinion on something. I've noticed that you're very objective and consistent with your edits to the terrorist incidents list. Since you don't seem to have any predispositions, biases, or other issues (or, if you do, they don't affect your edits) I thought you might be the person to ask if I'm being too picky about something. It's about the |jewish federation shooting. You can read all the discussions on the terrorist incident list talk page, as well as the arguments on godfrey daniels' talk page, but to put it quickly: So, what do you think? Should the list include things that were explicitly declared "not terrorism" by the government, and called "hate crimes" even by the victims of such acts? Bladestorm 02:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like the list to only have incidents that aren't logically challenged by reasonable people. (so, the twin towers is in, because no reasonable person would say that it wasn't terrorism, even if some nutjob might argue otherwise)
 * I'd like the list to hold basically trustworthy-at-a-glance information, with readers not having to then research every single entry to see if it really qualifies or not.
 * The FBI, prosecutor, jewish federation itself, and CNN all called it a "hate crime", with the FBI and prosecutor explicitly stating that it wasn't terrorism.
 * A decent case could probably be made for calling it terrorism anyways, but I don't think it's what one would call, "definitely and certainly terrorism, to any and all rational people", so I don't think it should be included on the list.
 * I do believe that the terrorism issue is entirely valid for the actual |article for the shooting itself, because there's more than enough room to cover both viewpoints.
 * Hi Bladestorm, thanks for your trust. As I'm not from the US, I'll first have to get into that subject. But I'll try. -- Túrelio 08:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Fleming
Basically yes, take a look :) Glen 10:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: You can still edit it if you wanna - its only protected against new users and IPs

Preces (Opus Dei)
Actually, if you look, the English translation is almost completely nonexistant at this point-- it's just a copy of latin text, so that it will be easy for a future editor to do the translation. I've filled in a little bit of the translation for those phrases which I know because they're also found in the Latin mass, but most of it still needs to be done. I've posted a request at Wikiproject Catholicism for someone to finish the translation. Obviously, anyone familiar with OD could likewise do it. If all those fail, I am friends with the chairman of my university's latin department and he's offered to a moment to type it out for us if all else fails. --Alecmconroy 10:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks so much for the correction.  The OCR didn't do a very good job of it.  Of course, I was frustrated that I had to do an OCR and translation in the first place, rather than "OD exposed" site doing it themselves like you would expect.  That seems to be a common thread in those sorts of places-- lots of attempts to "expose", few attempts to genuinely understand.   There's this subtexts to those anti-OD sites which scream "Here is a scan of our 'secret document'!!! in the secret society's secret language: Latin.  Sure we could show you an English translation so you can see there's nothing at all controversial in the prayer, but, we're not going to".


 * Anyway, in response to your earlier comment-- yes, it's occurred to me that this article is one that needs to be watched very closely, because the vandals will undoubtedly try to falsify the text of the prayer at some point in their attempts to defame OD. I actually think fighting vandalism will be much easier on this page than on the others, though, because once the translation is done, there will be no need to change the text, so whenver it pops up on my watchlist, there's an excellent chance it's a vandal who will need to be reverted.  I'll try to keep an extra-special eye out for it.


 * Tenna' telwan. (which my Elven->English dictionary tells me means "Until later!".  As a side note-- I hope Tolkien fans dont wind up being the subject of Dan Brown's next novel.  True be told, Fantasy/Scifi geeks have to be way more omnious and spooky than Opus Dei members-- we actually do have secret languages and wear robes.  And  i bet there is an albino Tolkien fan somewhere.  --Alecmconroy 14:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Freefall.gif
Hello, Túrelio. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Freefall.gif) was found at the following location: User:Túrelio. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying. -- Túrelio 06:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Millie.gif
Hello, Túrelio. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Millie.gif) was found at the following location: User:Túrelio. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sad, but o.k. -- Túrelio 07:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ref making
I saw your awesome contributions over the List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE article, keep it up. Here's a new tool that will make your life, easy on ref formatting jobs. Happy editing! -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie |undefined 20:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind note. -- Túrelio 20:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome, If you are interested with more and more new tools, hop in to my tools page. [[Image:SFriendly.gif|20px]] -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie |undefined 20:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sderotchilddrawing.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sderotchilddrawing.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Opus Dei
My edit changed "Mind control cult" to "sect," how is that vandalism? If my edit had been reverted, why does it now say "organization." I fail to see how the synonym for 'religous movement' is vandalism, I would like clarification if possible.Gen.Bob 04:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Paola Binetti and cilice
Thank you for your message. I updated the page with the reference source. Redgolpe 10:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I looked for an online copy of the newspaper but I couldnt find any, even if the present-day newspaper is available online (see http://www.gds.sm/). Anyway, you can find hundreds of reference online (try binetti cilicio, the italian for cilice, on Google) to the mentioned article, also because Binetti's cilice apparently has become a political issue in Italy ever since. I'm not very experienced with references but I thought I should cite the first source. If you feel it's more appropriate to cite an online source (even if it's not first hand), let me know or feel free to correct the article as you see fit. Redgolpe 12:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's an article on the cilice and Binetti —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.110.156.132 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents
Pease see Talk:List of terrorist incidents `'Míkka 21:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

POV
I was just commenting it. Anyway there are some strong accusations in the discussion page. I think we might say the neutrality is disputed by some or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.110.156.132 (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot add a POV-tag without giving any reason. How should then anybody improve the article or remove the alleged POV? As you have supplied that reason finally, it's o.k. now. And please sign all your edits whether on regular or on user talk pages. Thanks. -- Túrelio 07:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Members of Opus Dei
Hi Túrelio,

I disagree with your clarification of "cooperators" as "are not members of Opus Dei". This is a matter of opinion. There is a sense, for example that non-voting preference shareholders in a company are part owners of the company, and a sense that, as non-voting shareholders, they are not.

Cooperators are listed by Opus Dei with the full permission of the former, and provide benefits to the Work without any expectation of rebursement. They have a formalised relationship with Opus that is recognised in the organisation's statutes. It could be argued, and sometimes is, that Cooperators form an outer ring of membership outside the level of numerary and supernumerary, with very limited responsibilities to and rights in Opus Dei. I appreciate that this argument is not shared by Opus Dei, and I'm not sure that even I agree with it, but the non-membership of Cooperators is not an objective truth. I've therefore modified your entry, though not back to my original entry, which I can see did not find favour with you.

Best Wishes,

Jaimehy (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Geraldine O'Connor in List of members of Opus Dei Túrelio, to be honest, I think you're setting the bar rather high. The newspaper article I used as a reference does not actually claim that Ms. O'Connor is a member of Opus Dei, but most definitely implies it. To provide an alternative explanation for her behaviour would be a difficult job. Geraldine O'Connor is clearly a member. I'll have a look for another reference, but to be honest, I rather think you're not quite playing fair. Remember that we're not in a court of law and that stating that someone is in Opus Dei is not a slander, any more than saying that they're Roman Catholic or a Manchester United fan.

Historical Order in List of members of Opus Dei Within each list (divided into logical enough sections) the order is rather higgledypiggledy. If you've no objection, I'll put the list into some sort of logical order.

Best Wishes,

Jaimehy (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Túrelio,

I've just found a site that clearly implies that Geraldine O'Connor is a member. It should be good enough for you as it's "straight from the horse's mouth", i.e. from an official Opus Dei site. I don't know whether she's a numerary or supernumerary, though.

"Vandalism"
You're really going to have to explain to me how you reckon the change made by 206.15.132.18 (changing "personal prelature of" to "cult within") is vandalism. I appreciate that don't agree with the use of the word "cult" in this context. In fact, I agree with you in this case. However, I also agree with 206.15.132.18 that the original text is also inappropriate in this position. Personally, I'd go for "organisation within", and explain what a prelature and personal prelature are elsewhere. But the change was not vandalism (unless you can tell me why you think it is). Jaimehy (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC).

Do you have any problem with me making the above-outlined change? Jaimehy (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for sorting out my ugly references! *Tips hat* --Jaimehy (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ruth Kelly
It was originally added by Philip Stevens without any reference, so I talked to him about it first. It seems that he doesn't have any proof about her nationality either. Why ? Do you? MurphiaMan (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Bhutto Assissination
"At the core of Mr. Musharraf’s problem is a widespread perception that he did too little to protect Ms. Bhutto or that his government carried out the killing itself, analysts said. On Thursday, members of Ms. Bhutto’s party accused Mr. Musharraf’s government of exactly that". If you want to widen it to his government is suspected that is fine. I have no time to check it now but there are riots occurring all over the place where the feeling is he was involved. Remember the word is suspected not a final conformation. The Al Qeada claim is notable but one has to remember that terrorist groups have been known make claims about attacks they are not responsible for. But I did put in my original entry Islamic Terrorists so I never had a problem with that. But the NY Times claiming the feeling is "widespread" and opposition party members are having this suspicion is enough to make it article worthy. Edkollin (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Kari Byron photo
I took the photo in question. I can alter the license, but I don't know how to make it wikipedia-friendly. Help me, please? mitchsurp (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply
No there is not to my knowledge. However, it is highly frowned upon and highly discourage for someone under 17 years of age to post any revealing information about themselves on the Internet.There exists many many many campaigns and organizations dedicated to stopping children from posting anything about themselves on the Internet. Also, I looked into the history of that userpage. It seems the user was also revealing their location. Also, my words were said in a tired and rushed manner earlier. I have not been feeling very well lately. Lastly, this is no longer an issue of age. It is an issue that the person is probably not the minor in question and if it is not does not fall under the CC it was posted under. It is my personal opinion that that is not the person who owns the account.  Rgood erm  ote    08:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I would like to add that that comment was meant for here. Generally it seems that here on Wikipedia a minor has not been allowed to post their real name or an image of themselves. However I have noted that that has changed a lot from case to case.  Rgood erm  ote    08:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for this, late night, getting sleepy, thoughts are slow you know. Anyways, an admin has blocked the account as a confirmed sockpuppet. Take a look at here. Should not be that hard to find. (Sorry, my personal is that you no longer are suspect when you are blocked)  Rgood erm  ote    08:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem and I am glad to see you could get through my tired ramblings.  Rgood erm  ote    23:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

we have a big problem
Túrelio, The image of Grabbe should not be reverted. If you know how to keep the enhanced image of J. Orlin Grabbe visible on the J. Orlin Grabbe page, please let me know. For some reason, the image of the other fellow (the one you want) seems to override everything. This is probably caused by the Grabbe.jpg-file. Please just answer me here so we do not need to chase one-another from one talkpage to the other's. ThsQ (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the name of the J. Orlin Grabbe file from Grabbe.jpg. You should probably change the name of the Christian D. Grabbe file too. Apparently because we both had a Grabbe.jpg file, the J... overrode the C....  Sorry.  Everything seems to be ok now, but someone should delete the image of J from the Christian D. file page.  ThsQ (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi ThsQ,
 * sorry, I didn't come earlier to :en to see your message. It seems with the availability of File:James orlin grabbe2.jpg everything is fine. I've the impression that this image even looks slightly better than the one in Grabbe.jpg. Actually the overwritten Grabbe-file wasn't "mine" at all; I saw that when patrolling new uploads/recent edits on Commons. I will delete the Orlin Grabbe-image version from the Grabbe.jpg. Cheers. --Túrelio (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. It was kind of funny yesterday.  I was in the middle of copy-editing the James Orlin Grabbe article, and had inserted the "enhanced version" several minutes before, and then suddenly he changed altogether into a different person !!  ThsQ (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your thread about Frazer McBride on WP:AN
Hi, jsut a friendly note about our speedy deletion process, which allows faster deletion of such articles without duplicating the admin effort. Note that the deletion criterion are very strict, on some isntances Articles for Deletion is preferable. Cheers, -- lucasbfr  talk 11:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Cow
Hi Túrelio,

File:Cattle2.jpg, the image you indicated, was part of a species identification initative taking place primarily on one of my user subpages. The original plan was to invite experts in the field to determine the species names and then transfer them to the Commons under the correct names. Quadell transferred many of the images to the Commons before this took place, believing that the species would be more quickly identified there. This particular photo was taken in Zimbabwe. If you are able to identify the species names of any of the subjects of my photos, your help would be much appreciated.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, Neelix. I've added the location info. --Túrelio (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hyderabad Police
You reverted changes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyderabad_City_Police. A List articles supporting my claim existing, you check http://apstatepoliceweekly.wordpress.com/ ( a consolidated list for one month August 2009).
 * Many of your edits, including the replacement of the logo by a self-made graphic, were pure vandalism. Such will be reverted again by anybody here.
 * But from the past to the future: a blog is not a reliable source. If there are serious reports from reliable sources (regular newspapers, but not from the letters section), then you may use these as sources. However, as of your current edit-hisory, I would strongly recommend you to first put your proposed edits/additions on the article's talkpage so that others can look into them. This way you may have success. --Túrelio (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

msreddywgl: I wish to facts in the wiki, present article paints untrue picture.

Here are #1 news paper articles that, that got published about crimes in August 2009 month. AP Police has 75,000, below are the reported crimes came in most popular new papers in India.

1) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/city/hyderabad/Ponnur-SI-arrested-amidst-high-drama/articleshow/4908160.cms 2) http://www.deccanchronicle.com/hyderabad/trainee-cop-ends-life-913 3) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/city/hyderabad/Yadav-sends-Vivek-Dube-on-indefinite-leave/articleshow/4887840.cms 4) http://www.deccanchronicle.com/hyderabad/si-opens-fire-scribes-791 5) http://www.deccanchronicle.com/hyderabad/dgp-probe-orderly-system-ap-388 6) http://www.deccanchronicle.com/hyderabad/custodial-death-5-policemen-suspended-412 7) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/city/hyderabad/Police-shielding-Ponnur-SI/articleshow/4872239.cms 8) http://www.thehindu.com/2009/08/27/stories/2009082759210300.htm 9) http://www.thehindu.com/2009/08/27/stories/2009082757520300.htm 10) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/City/Hyderabad/Dube-Lincoln-suspended/articleshow/4934871.cms 11) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/city/hyderabad/Murali-case-Cops-yet-to-quiz-Dube/articleshow/4917217.cms 12) http://www.deccanchronicle.com/hyderabad/dgp-flouts-lobby-rules-982
 * Yeah, but here is definitively the wrong place for that. Go to the article's talkpage and make your proposals there. --Túrelio (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

msreddywgl: Kept in talk page, want to bring to main page

Jim Bugental
Hi William Meyer, as your image File:JimBugental1.jpg has been copied to Commons, I would like to know whether you shot it by yourself (if not, then who?) and the time (year) when it was shot. --Túrelio (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I shot the photo myself about 1998. William Meyer (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have updated the date on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Mormon missionaries
I do not have contact with the photographer. All I was doing was looking at Flickr for free pictures of Mormon missionaries that allowed for redistribution. If it is no longer on Flickr I have no idea. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. That's sad, because without permission, it will likely have to go. --Túrelio (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Images
Hi there. Unfortunately, much to my irritation, I can't locate either of the images on that page that don't have URLs, even by going to the URL supplied on the third image and searching from there, nor does Google yield anything. We might loose those images, which is annoying. I did reduce the logo image to conform with fair use, though. Thanks for the note. SGGH ping! 11:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs
Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --Túrelio (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Andrea Santoro
Hi Túrelio. The article Andrea Santoro is categorised in Category:Jyllands-Posten cartoons controversy, and the article states the student had been influenced by the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Hope that explains the comics connection. Hiding T 13:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

painting
Hi. Thank you. I have already done what you suggested. Cabanes (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply
Hi i am going through wikipedia and Removing the Apologeticsindex.org as a source since it fails WP:Notability, and WP:Verifiability, standards to meet Reliable source Guidlines thus un-Reliable Souce unrs. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

File:BennelongCampaign.jpg
Hi Turelio, I noticed your comment on the File Talk of the above image. I doubt in common sense that it could possibly be a copyright violation because it was displayed in a public place without ownership (In someones yard/ possession etc). Any ideas as to a license it could go under? Further, would it be possible to crop the image (say the picture in the poster)? Thanks, Wikistar (Place order here) 02:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be offended, but (our) common feelings about what was intended by somebody, doesn't change copyright. Freedom of panorama can't cover such exhibits because they are not permanently (as required by most FOP-laws) placed into the public. On Commons, where I'm admin, this image would be deleted immediately. It may stay here on :en, but then it should be put under fair-use rationale. Cropping the head would likely not be allowed/justified under fair-use, as there is likely a free portrait image of John Howard. --Túrelio (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks..
for reverting this IP on Sderot. It looks as if there are some people who are engaged in a long-term campaign to eradicate what the historians say. May I also ask that you put  Najd, Gaza‎ on your watch-list? The same people who "change history" on Sderot, normally also do the same on Najd. Anyway, thanks for the good work! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: galaxy images
thanks for tagging those. I must have misread the license when I uploaded them. Thingg &#8853; &#8855; 17:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why?
Hello, you seem to have expressed the need to have Opus-dei: existence after religion deleted... Why? It is by no means an advertisement, and completely factual... Please elaborate. —Pollux.rees| (talk • contribs) 20:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. --Túrelio (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

massacres
good point. As you say, the sources are Korean. The results from Google Translate do not confirm the reason for the massacres. Indeed, the articles discuss the different court cases and the issues of law being decided.. So I think I will delete that portion. (I suspect it was included because of mythology built up over the years to explain the deaths.) Syntax-wise, I used "because" is a smoother term than "by reason that". Syntax was the only reason I had behind the edit at the time.--S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks RE: Elihu Katz and Jacques Rogge
hi there, just to thank you very much for your help. I've got a bunch of photos of people, but am terrible with wikipedia coding. i'll learn more, but if you see anyone here you want to attach to their page, please do! http://iphotod.wordpress.com

I've got the International Olympic Committee to prepare a letter for the Jacques Rogge image.

thanks again,

Andy, 4 Nov 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andymiah (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, great photos on your blog! --Túrelio (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request for PositronDiscovery.jpg
Hi Túrelio, please help me again. Deletion of this picture was suggested at the same time as the Radon picture (which has since been saved, due to your help).

I think all the information is now with PositronDiscovery.jpg in Commons to show that this famous picture is in the public domain. Please check it so that the Deletion Request can be removed.HPaul (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

George Grove image
Alas, no photographer's name credited in the Musical Times from which I have got the image. Tim riley (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your new labelling is fine. Are you by any chance an image expert, and if so are you willing to check articles for compliance with the WP image rules? Tim riley (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Re:your question: being an admin on Commons, I did in a few cases recommend for deletion images local stored on :en, of which I got aware on Commons. But I'm not fully accustomed to the details of :en policy and/or US copyright specialties. --Túrelio (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's OK! Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Hk417.jpg
I'm pretty sure it came from the company website. It was a while ago though. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Re. Gul_Mudin.jpg/Spiegel
Thanks for the note Túrelio, my apologies if I am mistaken, however when I contacted them they dd state they are charging for the license to reproduce the photo and they do display a copyright notice. I don't want to overstate my case though. Would it be possible to put the file elsewhere on Wikipedia as a fair use file? Again, thanks for your attention on this. V7-sport (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's less about right or wrong, just about "strategy". Though not a US citizen, I'm quite convinced that the original image is not PD-USGov. As the image seems also be on the web in a pre-Spiegel version (i.e., without censored victims face), it wouldn't really help to have the "Spiegel"-version removed due to their request, as this wouldn't concern the original image. And about fair-use: though I am totally against showing this image (for non-copyright reasons) on Wikipedia, it might actually pass as fair-use on :en, as soon as it is removed from Commons for being non-PDUSGov. --Túrelio (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I understand. As an aside I agree that the image shouldn't be shown on regular Wikipedia, however it would appear that those who want to show it have the momentum behind them. Thanks again. V7-sport (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You are right
I will correct that. Lafem (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sambalpur.jpg
To prepare this collage I shot the individual photos myself. But must appreciate your keenness of observations. Good Work.--&#91;&#91;++@adikka (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I've added this information to the image description template. --Túrelio (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for your welcome Túrelio. Gerwoman (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Daussoigne-Mehul.jpg
Hi there. To answer your question "Frères Ghemar" (in English the 'Brothers Ghemar') is the name used in most reference works to refer to the Belgian court photographers Louis-Joseph Ghemar (Born 1819- Died 1873) and his half-brother Leon Louis Auverleaux (flourished up until the late 1870s but date of death is unknown). The two men worked together as a team. The original photograph is part of the M. Gilson collection at the library at the Royal Conservatory of Liège. Best,4meter4 (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Túrelio (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, and the description at commons looks good to me.4meter4 (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

re: vandalism
Hi Túrelio,

Thank you! —for the heads up, and the assist in cleaning. Yes, it seems I have made an enemy, someone with nothing better to do than cast aspersions on the College GameDay gang. For whatever reason he has singled me out among the many editors fighting his vandalism. Here's hoping he gets bored some day soon, as I'm running low on troll food. Best wishes, Jivecat (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi. Please do not make idle accusations of vandalism in your edit summaries (re Ouellet and Foley being Opus Dei prelates), at least regarding myself, again. You know full well I am not a vandal, as you had just previously reviewed the heavy edits I made to the Josemaría Escrivá article, and, however much you may have disliked them, left the article virtually untouched except for removing one CN tag. I got my info and formed my opinion re Foley and Ouellet being Opus Dei prelates from Matthew Fox's The Pope's War. I am always willing to admit when I am or even may be wrong. Agreeing to disagree is one thing, but disregarding WP:AGF and making inflammatory edit summary comments are another. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I wrote "likely" and no, I didn't know you as vandal or no-vandal, as our ways hadn't crossed yet, as far as I remember. Actually my impression of you having some insight in this area, as of your edits in Escrivá, suggested to me that these 2 categorizations were made deliberately wrong, as it happens every now and then with other users. As this seems not to be the case, sorry. --Túrelio (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

BridgetDS Photos
I read the discussion, I've uploaded a ton of photos by her so you can go right ahead and delete them all.-- Ezekiel 7:19 †Go  Buffalo! (sign)† 13:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I had assumed we had caught all of them already. I'll take a second look on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Good afternoon
Herewith I would like to ask you for your support regarding the articles which I placed in Wikipedia English version. In the English version of Wikipedia I replaced the article about Aviadvigatel issued by me and translated by Aviadvigatel translators.

BilCat participant replaced this article with the previous old one explaining that “ … it was an unattributed, poor translation of Russian article with few sources…”. In the same way the article about PS-90A engine placed instead of Aviadvigatel PS-90 article, was deleted from Wikipedia English version (the PS-90 engine has never existed, it was named as PS-90A engine from the very beginning). Besides redirection was deleted which I made from Aviadvigatel PS-90 article to Aviadvigatel PS-90A article. Renaming of the article from “Aviadvigatel PS-90” to “Aviadvigatel PS-90A” which I made was also rejected by participants BilCat and Dave1185.

Nobody answered to my discussion opened by me at Aviadvigatel PS-90 page. Please, can you give me advice about my further actions in this situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solovei777 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Solovei777, I have no knowledge about this area. However, your request to move the article from PS-90 to PS-90A seems reasonable to me. Therefore I have left a comment at Talk:Aviadvigatel PS-90 . --Túrelio (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 21:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD
Please see Articles for deletion/Cults and governments since you contributed to the article. Borock (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirect
Hello Túrelio. I have a question: how do I remove redirects in Commons? The reason: I have been trying to rename categories in the Portuguese namespace with appropriate English variants. Anyhow, I discovered several propriate English category names with redirects to Portuguese variant. The issue to rename to English has been discussed at an appropriate Commons discussion page, and I had begun converting the Portuguese-language names into English. But, one of the users responsible for Portuguese-only naming has created English-to-Portuguese redirects rather then the reverse. How can I remove the redirects, to therefore, apply Portuguese-to-English redirects? I attempted to blank, and obviously, the system did not permit this. Any counsel? Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ruben,
 * personally I'm not a friend of redirects, but I have accepted that they may be useful, especially for files after renaming etc. In the case described above, I would recommend directly contacting the user who made the "wrong" redirects and remind him that category names on Commons have to be in english per policy, except for proper names. Could you point me to the cat you attempted to blank. In general there is conflicting information about this topic, if you compare this and this. --Túrelio (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Contacting the original editor is almost a non-starter. His Portuguese-only naming record presupposes his unwillingness to undo what he has done. This has resulted in a Commons:Categories for discussion on the subject of English versus Portuguese naming in Commons. Regardless, the categories in question, for now, are: commons:Church of Vera Cruz (Aveiro), commons:Church of the Convent of Carmo (Aveiro), commons:Sé Cathedral (Aveiro), commons:Church of Alvito, and commons:Church of Santa Maria da Feira (Beja). You will note there are redirects to Portuguese-only category names. I appreciate your willingness to resolve this. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

O.k., when correcting some wrong interwikis, I finally found the following cats in english:
 * Category:Church of Santa Maria da Feira (Beja)
 * Category:Church of Vera Cruz (Aveiro)
 * Category:Sé Cathedral (Aveiro)
 * Category:Church of Carmo (Aveiro)

Category:Church of Alvito is likely too unspecific for Category:Igreja Matriz de Alvito as there is also Category:Churches in Alvito. Only Category:Church of the Convent of Carmo (Aveiro) needs some correcting as is goes via 2 redirects to the current target. --Túrelio (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Renaming categories
Hi Túrelio. I have procedurally closed the requested move you started at Category talk:Sierra Leonean murder victims because (due to the MediaWiki software) categories cannot be renamed like articles, templates, portals, etc. and must go through the CfD process instead. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying. However, I assume that now nothing will happen. Actually, this was not a rename, but more a duplicate deletion since both cats exists already. --Túrelio (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 11:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. --Túrelio (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ralph Sampson Image
Please see WP:Help desk. The newbie is making an earnest effort to comply (I think) and is encountering obstacles. Her email pleadings to me seem genuine but my capacity to advise is limited. Can you be her hero? ```Buster Seven   Talk  12:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Buster7, as I am not very active on :en, I can't do much locally. On Commons, where I am an admin, I actually blocked her yesterday for 1 day after she had repeatedly overwritten an existing image (see version histoy) despite warnings not to do so. Anyway, at the help-desk thread and on her talkpage I've advised her to use her Commons talkpage for communication, as long as it is about freely licensed image. Fair-use image wouldn't be acceptable in this case, as there is already a free one available. --Túrelio (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

photo file:Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II X.jpg
Thank you for noting the incomplete copyright/permission notice on this photo. At the moment I cannot remember how/when I actually found it, and I do believe that I did not tag it right.

The link to the Library and Archives Canada sit is

http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/ourl/res.php?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_tim=2012-06-11T15%3A58%3A52Z&url_ctx_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=3194652&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fcollectionscanada.gc.ca%3Apam&lang=eng

otherwise go to their web site and search C-018846. The link shows that under "Terms of Use" they list "Restrictions on use: Nil" and "Copyright: Expired".

I am not sure how to change the copyright/use tag on the photo on Wikipedia, or to remove all the questioning templates. Perhaps you are more familiar with these types of problems and can fix it. In the meantime I am also going to send this link to "Permissions" and perhaps an editor here can resolve the issue.

Ron B. Thomson (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. --Túrelio (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I took this matter to Possibly unfree files/2012 June 11 as I feel that it is too complex for a {{subst:npd}} tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for info
Thanks for info on photos. Cabanes (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Bishop Finn lead
Hi Tuerlio -- I noticed that you reverted the addition to the lead of the Bishop Finn article. I wanted to point two things out, one on veracity, the other on notability. First, you are correct that the article used to have an inaccurate sentence that said no other bishop had been criminally charged in connection with sex abuse scandals. That sentence is wrong. But the new sentence is correct in saying that Finn is the first US bishop to be charged not for perpetrating abuse, but for his role as a supervisor of priests and more specifically for not reporting suspected child abuse. Both the New York Times and National Catholic Reporter seem to agree on this point, looking at the references in the body of the article. On notability, Bishop Finn's case follows the conviction and jailing of Msgr. Lynn, who was also charged for his role as a supervisor. National Catholic Review and other sources see these cases as a turning point in this matter in the church. While Bishop Finn may have other things that belong in the lead, this indictment is historic -- to use the old test, is would likely be in the first paragraph, if not the headline of his obituary.

Thanks, I hope this helps you understand the thinking behind the lead more clearly. Some of this was explained in the talk page, but I understand how you could have thought that this was just the old wrong sentence reappearing (and in the lead, no less)!

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.18 (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for opinion at Bots/Requests for approval/Commons fair use upload bot 2
Hi, I've requested to renew authorization for my bot at Bots/Requests for approval/Commons fair use upload bot 2. You recently participated in the discussion about it at ANI so I wanted to invite your opinion. Thank you! Dcoetzee 02:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:AIV
Hi. You recently reported someone who has already been blocked to WP:AIV. Even though people are blocked, they are still able to edit their own talk page unless they have been blocked from editing their own talk page. So what you should do is not report to WP:AIV (as people who are already blocked are automatically removed) but let the administrator who originally blocked the user know about it. Cheers MadGuy7023 (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * O.k., thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

John Estrada
Thanks for flagging the unsupported assertion in this article. I made a slight change, replacing your " source? " with fact; that automatically adds the article to Category:Articles with unsourced statements which is supposed to flag it for attention (in theory, anyway -- there's a very large backlog in that category).

That template displays [citation needed] to the reader.

Again, thanks for flagging this problem.

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I see you made similar notes at Carolyn Cassady, Lee Radziwill, and Vladimir Posner and I added fact tags to those as well. Folks here dislike Wikipediocracy but their criticism can often be helpful even if not expressed with affection. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I too dislike the site, though sometimes they correctly point to faults. Thanks for adding the proper template. --Túrelio (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Richard Parncutt
I have just added some info on Richard Parncutt's page, before I noticed that an IP has deleted your previous edit, hiding this in a big extension (see here and and here). I do not want to undo all the edits, because some of the information added by the IP seems relevant, so I suggest that you just repeat your edit. --Wikiwatchers (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Danke für den Hinweis. --Túrelio (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Help request
Dear Túrelio

As you have often helped me for my renaming of files in the project Commons, I would appeal to you.

In recent times I happened to insert images on the German Wikipedia, I noticed that a contributor have systematically removed my images without apparent reason. He even left a message on my user page. This message is very unclear and I do not understand the meaning of it. I am even more sorry that my pictures have never been a problem on all projects and they were even exposed in the Galerie im Zeughaus in the city of Perg by the board of Wikimedia Austria.

Can I hope You can give me assistance in this matter.

Thank you in advance and best regards,

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Túrelio,

I just saw your efficient action and I thank you sincerely.

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See de:Werke von Jakob Couven now. --Túrelio (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Stalking is a blockable offence
Be warned. If you continue to stalk me, I will take action to see that you are blocked from en.WP. Tony  (talk)  15:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * While I reject your claim of being stalked by me (but it's your perception anyway), be sure that — after I've seen your way of "communication" on Commons — there will no voluntary interaction from me with you anywhere. --Túrelio (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You have been interacting with me for the past few days. You have foolishly shown that you're stalking me. Again, be warned, I will take action if you continue. The Commons corruption you've been indulging in through your support of it—where basic policies such as privacy are abused by admins to attack a user publicly—is not the way things are done here. I don't think you realise the role you've been playing. Tony   (talk)  16:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

.

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. I didn't even notice it you fixed it so fast. Falkirks Talk  17:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

A helpful tip
The next time you report something on ANI, please remember to notify the users involved. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ACK. --Túrelio (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Jorge Fernández Díaz
Concerning Jorge Fernández Díaz: I agree my source was not that clear, bur it is a small thing to find other sources, certainly on the internet. For example this English article from El País: http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/03/04/inenglish/1362414330_213634.html or this article http://www.elplural.com/2012/02/23/en-interior-se-asiste-con-perplejidad-y-preocupacion-a-la-%E2%80%98caida%E2%80%99-del-ministerio-en-manos-del-opus-dei/. Furthermore, it is common knowledge in Spain he is a member of Opus Dei. He doesn't make it a secret al all... I can't think why this would be critical or libellous, it's an organisation of the Catholic Church. It's known for its ultraconservative positions, just as Jorge Fernández Díaz is. As Opus Dei is a kind of 'lobby group', it makes it very relevant to know that a government minister is a member. It is also mentioned on the Spanish and Catalan wiki's. I think it's relevant, so that's why it should be included. I can't give you any biography, but that's quite normal as he's indeed a living person. Cheers Criostóir (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Criostóir,
 * I am not against mentioning a fact, provided it is properly sourced, which was not the case with the former source. The new El Pais article seems to be sufficiently clear. So, feel free to restore your edits, just replace the old source be the new one. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the extra work! ;-) Criostóir (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Chorioactis geaster
Hi, thanks for updating the images there. I tried but I couldn't figure it out. Where do I go to learn about reverting images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickbeard (talk • contribs) 07:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Brickbeard,
 * as these images were uploaded (actually overwritten) to Commons, it needs to be done over there. In case you notice such acts of image-related vandalism on :en again, please jump to Commons and leave a note at c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism or c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. --Túrelio (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Wallis, Hold House Port Mear Square Island.jpg
Hi Túrelio, re: your enquiry, I can't remember exactly but I'm pretty sure it was from the Tate Gallery website:

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/wallis-the-hold-house-port-mear-square-island-port-mear-beach-t01087.

Hope that helps. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  17:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thank you. --Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)