User talk:Vanished user 6393699/Archive 15

DYK for Influence and legacy of Swami Vivekananda
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Surprise surprise surprise ... archived main page  Sohambanerjee1998  04:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
&mdash;Darkwind (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Your Teahouse question
I have attempted a response.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 21:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Steven D99   Contribs  Sign 04:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes i edited the page on purpose not mistake. I removed Satya 2 entry coz it has been delayed. Tweeted by Taran Aadarsh and removed from release list from bollywood hungama site.

Far10han (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Far10han
 * , should have cited reliable sources and leaving a note in both the article and the edit summary.  Sohambanerjee1998  10:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Favour
Since I am retiring, would you do me a favour by taking Chennai Express, Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani, Bhaag Milkha Bhaag, Lootera, Kahaani, Barfi! and Jab Tak Hai Jaan into your watchlist to keep it free from rabid vandals? If yes, then please reply me on my talk page. Thanks, --Jionpedia  ✉  19:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, forgot to tell you. Monsters University just passed the GA review. Can you add it your watchlist too?--Jionpedia  ✉  18:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at File:How I Met Your Mother S9.jpg. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. ''This has been the second time since you added the non free reduce template. As you may not know, the file does not have a high resolution. Please stop re-adding it, because you are starting to get disruptive as you are trying to prove you are right. Also, re-adding the template with Twinkle still counts as a revert of my edit, and you could be reported to the 3RR noticeboard if you continue this behavior. ''  Blurred   Lines   12:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * I am disappointed with this template, the threat of WP:AN3 and above all you. We are both humans and we edit Wikipedia. So please discuss in humane way without the use of templates. Now about the image as far as I remember it was of 420 by 420 pixels and a high resolution one of a Blu-ray/DVD/Home video cover of HIMYM Season 9. Well thats fine now if a pirate has ripped it in mp4 using (thats a secret I won't divulge) and is looking for an appropriate cover for it. There he finds your cover in Wikipedia, a gleaming high resolution one. At the end of the day the producers suffer loses even if they are minor for the cover. I simply asked it to be reduced. If that was my disruption please forgive me. I think you have misread it to be a which is applied when a file is reduced while I placed  calling for a reduction.  Sohambanerjee1998  13:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you know that theres a template like this - ?  Sohambanerjee1998  13:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Me mentioning about the 3RR is not a threat, it was a warning because as I said before, you re-added the same template twice. A 420 x 420 dimensional image is not a higher resolution. Yes, I do forgive you, but please I am begging you, do not re-add the template. And no, I did not misread it as a Non-free reduced template, I saw the same template that you putted in yesterday. Also, your edits to that file was disruptive, so you adding this "" as a response to the warning that I gave you, means that you don't understand what you have done, and you are disagreeing that you are being disruptive for re-adding a reduce template to a file that doesn't have a higher resolution.   Blurred   Lines   16:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay mate, in this case I think 420 pixels is enough but I would request you to please reduce it to 300x300 give or take 20 pixels. And as for, that would have the response of most users but not me as I am willing to discuss and am not afraid being wrong. I should have discussed with you when you reverted me at first. But the comment no higher resolution confused me.  Sohambanerjee1998 ' 16:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And that second comment, my net connection got disconnected so I could not complete it. No worries as I have cut it but the response sounded more like an order, to be true I was pretty offended after being constructively editing and open to discussion from the start. I also take pride in the fact that I have a record of 0RR, which thankfully you saved it.  Sohambanerjee1998  16:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will be more than glad to remove 20 pixels to make it 400 x 400 pixels, but honestly, I think that when I reduce it, it won't look much clearer as it is now. So, for now I would suggest leaving it the way it is because obviously it's not bothering anyone, and the file is not that large to be reduced.  Blurred   Lines   16:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  Sohambanerjee1998  16:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think after reading though the discussion that both of us deserve a Barnstar of Integrity each!  Sohambanerjee1998  17:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Beth Jacob Synagogue Regina Saskatchewan.jpg
The photo was taken by and published in the Regina Leader-Post in 1950. It was published in the Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan, which does not hold copyright in it; the building is no longer a synagogue but a commercial building; the photo can freely be reproduced as has been done here. Masalai (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to draw your attention to this line - COPYRIGHT © 2006 CANADIAN PLAINS RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF REGINA and this page.  Sohambanerjee1998  06:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am quite aware of that statement. However, it applies to the text of the article, not the photo, which was created by an employee of the Regina Leader-Post and which freely granted the Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan the right to reproduce the photo as may be done again here. Masalai (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If I go by your reply and hold the the employee to be original copy-right holder and as you say he granted the rights to Encyclopaedia of Saskatchewan then please provide a copy of that transaction or ask that employee, the original copyright holder to mail it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.  Sohambanerjee1998  06:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would ask you to replace the image with a fair-use license and non-free use rationale untill you can prove or provide something that certifies this image is copyright-free. Or if you ask I can do it for you. can help you with this.  Sohambanerjee1998  06:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I gladly accept your offer to help me with this. The copyright holder if it was the 1950 employee of the Regina Leader-Post would certainly be dead by now; I have been in the Synagogue long ago, performing music there. It has been closed for a decade and a half and is now derelict, the congregation having relocated to the southern part of town. I reiterate, however, that such copyright as exists on material in that encyclopedia refers to text, not this photo. Masalai (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Masalai. According to copyright law, all photos are copyright, whether the copyright is mentioned in the publication or not. Pictures have to be public domain (or released under license) in both the source country and the United States for us to display it here. If the building still exists, the image does not qualify for fair use, as it's possible to go there and take a picture. The Hirtle Chart gives information about copyright law in the United States. Without knowing the photographer's name and the copyright history of the image, it will be impossible for you to say for sure that the picture is in the public domain. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Good news
Chandralekha (1948 film), which I had been working on for months, has finally passed its GA review. &#45;--- Kailash29792 (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , Well done.  Sohambanerjee1998  06:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I have not received any barnstar for having taken the once slumped article to GA status in less than a year, making it the only 1940's Tamil film article to become a GA. &#45;--- Kailash29792 (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Re:R U Back?
Not really. I was doing some minor edits, will go fully inactive from tonight. P.S. Monsters University passed the GA review two days ago.--Jionpedia  ✉  12:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)