User talk:Urbanrenewal/Archive6
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is Urbanrenewal/Archive6
Welcome
[edit]Welcome to Urbanrenewal/Archive6...if I don't get back to you right away it is not intentional...
Company names
[edit]Unless there's more than one Friedrich Air Conditioning, there's no need for it to be at Friedrich Air Conditioning Co. — which is why I've moved the article back to its previous location. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)The legal status of the company (such as Inc., plc or LLC, or those provided for companies in other languages such as GMbH or S.A.) is not normally included (for example, Microsoft Corporation, Aflac Incorporated, and GMAC LLC). When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, main company interest, or the suffix "(company)" can be used to disambiguate (for example, Target Corporation, BT Group, Converse (company), or Be Inc.). As a rule, common usage is frequently preferred (such as with The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. or simply DuPont for E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company).
Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
[edit]The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
[edit]The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
First Student
[edit]You appear to have no real knowledge of the subject. Although all three operations have similar names they are completely different operations. The original USA brand "First Student", and the only one named that way, is a subsidiary of First Transit which covers all First Group operations in America outside of Greyhound. First Student Canada is the public prescence of First Canada, and a brand used by different subsidiary operators like Laidlaw, Cardinal, Farwest, etc, and the operator of many public transit systems. First Student UK mimics the North American yellow school bus concept and is used by local operators to distinguish their school services. The North Americian companies are in fact much larger than many UK regional companies, which have separate articles. All of these First Group companies, subsidiaries and operators are different legal entities and fit in different places in the corporate jigsaw. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Talk:First Student I have moved this discussion to where, I think we both agree, it should have been in the fist place. (Or is that FirstPlace? Haha!) Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Coordinator elections have opened!
[edit]Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]Changes to the Diamond Castle Holdings page
[edit]First let me apologize for any syntax or procedural faux pas as I am clearly a "newbie" when it comes to Wikipedia. I am an employee of Diamond Castle Holdings and a few of the founding partners have requested that I modify the Wiki entry for Diamond Castle Holdings to reflect the fact that there were five founders of the firm while the current entry focuses almost exclusively on Larry Schloss. In fact the New York Times article which is referenced in the entry, discusses the five founders, although Larry was clearly the focal point of the article.
I went in and manually edited the page each of the past two days and discovered the following day that the changes were reversed. I was hoping that you could modify the page back to the way I had edited it on April 15, 2010 at 2:13 PM. I appreciate your understanding in this matter and all the hard work you put in to make the private equity entries as accurate as possible.
Thanks!
Enadan (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Message added 02:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Darkwind (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Adding information to Doughty Hanson page
[edit]I would like to add significantly more information to the Doughty Hanson entry. I am doing this at the request of Doughty Hanson themselves, which obviously is a conflict of interest. Therefore, since you are the principle author of the entry to date and a key figure in the Private Equity Task Force I wanted to ask for your involvement in the process. I have also not made any changes to the article at this point, rather I have posted the basic (unformatted) text Doughty would like to add on my user page - where it is open for discussion and/or to encourage the community to take it upon themselves to add the information as they see fit.
I hope you see the proposed text as straightforward and uncontroversial. It reflects in large part the type of information that the Task Force has identified needs to be added - essentially more on the history, investment strategy and details of the funds.
If no-one takes up the initiative I will start to add the text myself - but I would be grateful for your supervision of the process since I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor! Thanks. --RichardStacy (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the job so speedily. Two questions: Do you have a problem with the description of upper mid-market European buyouts; opportunistic European real estate; and early-stage European technology venture capitalin first para? Also - does the selective commentary on some of the funds have to remain - issues with Doughty IV etc? My feeling is we either give a commentary on all of them, or none of them. --RichardStacy (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you aware you are adding copyrighted material from http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/north-american-construction-group-acquired-us310-million-private-equity-investors-0 to this article? As such I have again removed it. ttonyb (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
[edit]The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Lexington.png
[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Lexington.png. 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 file. 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. FASTILYsock(TALK) 02:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
nice work Decora (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Good Day! I would like to know why you keep changing the logo back on the Global Crossing logo update page. Was the change made incorrectly? They have a new logo as you can see on their webpage. http://www.globalcrossing.com (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.208.159.230 (talk)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
[edit]The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Private equity firms
[edit]For eponymous categories at the company level, they are not classified in other categories since, as a general rule, those other categories simply don't apply any longer. In the case of adding Category:Private equity firms, the categories are not simply about the company as they include people and other items that no longer cleanly fit into other categories. This is why the entire series of 'categorizes named after' was created to provide a top level parent for eponymous categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
First Student UK
[edit]as an alternative to Merge, I say move: see Talk:First Student UK, just letting you know,Nankai (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of "FirstMark Capital"
[edit]
You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.
Thank you. Spitfire19 T/C 15:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Notability
[edit]Hello. First off, I've been familiarizing myself with your work on Wikipedia and plan to follow in your footsteps so kudos. Second, I'm curious what it is about Empire that caused you to raise the notability concern. I've been gradually working to get the article up to all of Wikipedia's standards and already cleared the notability issue at the front end. I've had a 3rd party edit the site to ensure it wasn't spam and figured I was getting close. This appears to be a step in the wrong direction. I'm interested in your analysis of the article. Thanks ReMiami (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Oh, if we could discuss on the article's talk page, I think it would make more sense. Thx. ReMiami (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
[edit]The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Loeb Rhoades logo.png
[edit]
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Brynwood Partners
[edit]Thanks for your cleanup on the article. As far as the neutrality issue, I added the info because it had been earlier suggested that perhaps Brynwood was not a notable topic for an article, and I was showing as many solid sources as I could find: NYT, WSJ, Village Voice, etc. The statements in the section are all sourced, but if you think there's a way to tone that down, have at it.
Also, the intro now uses a term, control investments, that may not be obvious to the non-privaty-equity-specialist... can you elaborate on what that is, or hyperlink it the way leveraged buyout is linked? Thanks again.842U (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, please see the article's discussion page and the changes I've made to the tone of the section. Let me know what you think. 842U (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, on your revisions and cleanup! 842U (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, please see the article's discussion page and the changes I've made to the tone of the section. Let me know what you think. 842U (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
[edit]
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, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.
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 Wikipedia: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) 20:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Hewlett Foundation logo.png
[edit]If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" 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. Image Screening Bot (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Rockefeller Foundation logo.png
[edit]If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" 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. Image Screening Bot (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Duke Street Capital logo.png
[edit]PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Chemical Bank
[edit]The article is great! I made some suggestions. With a little tweak, it should pass without any problems. TeacherA (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
[edit]
|
|
|
June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members |
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Appreciation
[edit]Thank you for your kind words on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvertone Records (1930) page. I appreciate them.smjwalsh (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Image Categorization
[edit]If the image is actually contained on Wikipedia, then yes, it can be categorized unless it is not free. If it is not a free image, then it should only be placed in image categories that don't display the image. If the file is already on commons, then the categories are there. If an image from commons is used in an article then it shows up in an appropriate place. There is no need to duplicate the commons categorization system on every Wikipedia. The En wiki is only one, there are many more. That is one of the benefits of commons so that everyone benefits from a central database and categorization system. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe that I have been removing correctly categorized images here if they are not on commons. Do you have an example? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing wholesale involved. When I find a problem I fix it manually. No bots or other automation. Been doing it for years! Vegaswikian (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, the last discussion ended with another editor supporting the my actions as being appropriate and you still believing that you are right and I'm wrong. Images that are on commons have their categories there and not here. If the images were here then using categories would be OK, especially if they are in image categories. No free images should be used in any place where there is no specific rational provided in the image documentation. Exceptions are for categories that are devoted to that type of image that turn off the display. This is not recommended for general categories since it suppresses display of images that can be displayed and, I believe, it mixes the files and articles together in the display making navigation more problematic. I assume that you are also having a problem with my recategorizing logos into an image category for logos also. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your last response:
- . Images that are on commons are not on Wikipedia. Since the images are not here they should not be categorized here. This would be like categorizing articles and images on the Russian wiki here or articles on Wikileaks here. If the material is not here it should not be categorized here.
- . If you want to create Category:Venture capital firm logos and similar ones, feel free. If you need help turning off the image display in the category, let me know and I'll do that for you. This should not include images that are not housed on wikipedia.
- Personally I don't see the need, but that does not mean that someone who does should not create these and move the material. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Private Equity
[edit]Thank you for telling me about WikiProject Private Equity. I was not aware of the group. I have just joined. Thanks! --Jo (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Cogan
[edit]Fair point. Let me see what I can do to make it brief, and explain better that while he was at the outset one relatively junior employee of the firm, he rose to be much more.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I differ. I do think the anecdote most definitely adds to the article. I agree that it deserved trimming, and think that was a good comment. It has been trimmed. The incident is mentioned in many RSs about the firm. It reflects what was possible at the firm, which was a rather unique institution. I will take another look at the refs, but had thought they do relate to the text. If they don't, I will move or delete them. As far as your POV that the tone is not consistent with best practices, I differ. The RSs mention it in that tone. Some highest-level RSs. I've brought a number of wp articles, on various subjects, to GA and FA, and have a sense of what is looked for by reviewers, and this comports with what I have seen. Much of the rest of the article is actually an abject failure at this point -- wholly bereft of refs. And including incorrect information to boot, such as relative to the partner who was sanctioned by the NYSE -- the information was dead wrong (and perhaps dead wrong about a BLP; even worse). The incorrect information was sitting there without a ref, and nobody looking at it thought to research its accuracy it would appear, challenge it, or delete it. The information as to Plumeri rising from the closet (literally) to the top position in contrast is accurate, and supported by RSs, and part of the relevant (as well as, to some I would expect, interesting) aspect of the company. I'm not sure why the RS-supported material in the article grates you, while at the same time you let the non-RS supported (and incorrect) material stand. My view is to improve the article. I also don't understand why you feel that the article "gives the wrong impression" -- it simply reflects what RSs have reported. If you have RSs that say something contrary, please feel free to add that as well. I haven't seen it. I have some background in U.S. intellectual property law over the past few decades, and appreciate your input, but don't believe that there are any copyright infringements. If you feel there are, feel free to alter the language to the extent required to avoid such infringements. BTW, as I notice you indicate you work in the industry, do you work or have you worked for a company that is in the same line of business in the financial industry as Cogan, its successors, Citi, or Willis? Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I hadn't realized it was your article, as you put it. But perhaps that explains a bit. In any event, I am always puzzled by articles that have sentences that lack refs. And that, in addition, are incorrect. I can't recall myself adding a sentence to an article with a supporting reference, and really don't understand the editing that can lead to that result. Some things are matters of subjectivity, but the notion that a sentence should have refs is elementary and in the interest of all. I don't attach random footnotes. I only attach supporting footnotes. When I made my comment about the article, I didn't think for a moment that you would have a sense of ownership about it. Of course, all articles are in progress. I've started a couple of hundred myself, and worked on thousands, and agree with that. Still -- some works in progress have properly referenced sentences. Others have sentences without refs. In April 2010 we on a project-wide basis deleted great numbers of BLPs (after notice) that lacked refs. That's unfortunate, as I expect much good material was lost. But such is the sensitivity to referencing. BLP concerns extend to articles that are not BLPs, but discuss living persons. Had I realized that you viewed the article as yours, I would have avoided mention of my concern in those terms; I certainly did not intend to be rude to you. And you are correct, that it is to the benefit of the project that there is an article there. I will as you suggest try to be a little more polite. I commend you for building this entire section of Wikipedia from stubs into articles and creating articles where there were none. Let's just agree that we have different styles and leave it there. My talk page is cluttered, so I routinely delete all material I have responded to completely -- if you prefer, I will not reply here or elsewhere, however.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Dean Witter
[edit]Check the GA comments. Thank you. RIPGC (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
You are so good! Others argue when they are not awarded GA. Still others don't respond. Dean Witter is now unquestionably a GA. No need to go through the formality of that checklist. I did go over it and it passes with flying colors. RIPGC (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
On your user page, you mentioned a lack of vandalism. I was going to try it once (and quickly revert it) but you are correct. You are a nice fellow. RIPGC (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I try not to offend others. I will let the other reviewer do Chemical Bank. However, if nothing is done by August 1 or 2, I will review it. It looks good but I haven't studied it carefully. What that probably means is that it is a pass or pass with minor work. BTW, I love that name, Chemical Bank. Wachovia Bank sounds terrible. Some of the great names are gone, some are not. IMHO, the great sounding names are Chemical, Manny Hanny, Chase, Citibank, Bank of America (awful logo), Security Pacific, Wells Fargo, Continental Illinois, Texas Commerce, Marine Midland. RIPGC (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
TUSC token 77bde0975982d02bf221d605576262df
[edit]I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Schramsberg Vineyards
[edit]Hello, I'm sure you meant to be helpful with your edits to Schramsberg Vineyards, but you might wish to check up the definition of Champagne before adding Category:Champagne producers to this US winery one ocean and one continent away from Champagne, and you might wish to familiarise yourself with the importance typically assigned to individual wineries before you reassess the article from "low" to "high"(!), which is rather the assessment given to medium-sized wine-producing countries within WP:WINE. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Could you please review Triago for removal of the "general notability" and "verification" tags you attached to it? You will see that in addition to other new info and references, there is now a reference to a profile of the firm that appears in the current issue of Fortune magazine that explains that Triago is not only the second largest intermediary in the secondary market globally, but that it is also a key innovator, responsible for significantly boosting the secondary market's volume with new selling approaches. Many thanks for your time and help on this profile. I will continue building it going forward. Regards, Lanchner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC).
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
[edit]
|
|
|
July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy |
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Image replacements
[edit]Hi, thanks for the heads up. Hugahoody (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome; I'll do my best. It takes a while though doesn't it! Hugahoody (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't have the right software to create transparent backgrounds unfortunately. I use Microsoft Paint; is there a program you could recommend? I realised I had filled Lamro's talkpage with a lot of notices and was going to apologise for this to them. If you feel it's best then I won't leave the warning messages now. Hugahoody (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I've worked through quite a lot of files so it may be easier if you work through my contributions using the link. Would this be OK? Hugahoody (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
CIBC
[edit]Hi. I've partially reverted your recent edit to CIBC. When an image is specified as a thumb, we should leave sizing up to individual user preferences, as specifying an image size will override user prefs. → ROUX ₪ 18:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree there are other problems. Ways around this would be to use an image gallery, for example. The thing is, some users specify thumbnails to be larger (in case of vision problems) or smaller (to speed load times). We shouldn't be overriding user preferences. IN addition, what looks good on your screen may not look right on other screens. So best to leave it alone. Also, pls respond here, I'm watching this page, and fragmented conversations make the Flying Spaghetti Monster weep tears of bolognese. → ROUX ₪ 18:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- First of all this is not my first rodeo - I don't really care that much about image sizing except when it messes up the flow of the article (like it did there). The MOS is not very strict on this front - generally I am ok leaving the image to float, except when I think it causes a problem. The vertical images were way too big, etc. Second, an image gallery doesn't resolve anything but you should go for it if that is of interest. Third your edit was not very careful as you removed a wikilink, and actually added back a forced image size. I put in a compromise hopefully you can live with and we can both go on. Thanks |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 19:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Um, again... 'messing up the flow of the article' means 'messing up the flow on your specific screen and at your specific resolution.' I suggest you also acquaint yourself with WP:BRD; you shouldn't have reverted changes until discussing them, but I am really past caring at this point. →ROUX ₪ 19:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for the advice. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 19:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Um, again... 'messing up the flow of the article' means 'messing up the flow on your specific screen and at your specific resolution.' I suggest you also acquaint yourself with WP:BRD; you shouldn't have reverted changes until discussing them, but I am really past caring at this point. →ROUX ₪ 19:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- First of all this is not my first rodeo - I don't really care that much about image sizing except when it messes up the flow of the article (like it did there). The MOS is not very strict on this front - generally I am ok leaving the image to float, except when I think it causes a problem. The vertical images were way too big, etc. Second, an image gallery doesn't resolve anything but you should go for it if that is of interest. Third your edit was not very careful as you removed a wikilink, and actually added back a forced image size. I put in a compromise hopefully you can live with and we can both go on. Thanks |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 19:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:LeonardGreenLogo.jpg
[edit]If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" 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. Hugahoody (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Rockefeller Foundation logo.png
[edit]If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude (talk 03:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
September 2010
[edit]
{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)If the image these two were edit warring over is a copyright violation, then the image itself should be deleted under WP:CSD#G12. Edit warring over inserting the image is completely inappropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Urbanrenewal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am a little unclear as to why I have been blocked. I flagged this issue on several noticeboards and I have been the one looking to bring in other parties to help in dispute resolution. I have attempted to resolve the issues with the other editor. The issue is that this is an image that is loaded under an acceptable license and is in the public domain. An inexperienced user has been behaving disruptively. I have acted civilly and suggested a path of action that is completely reasonable to address the issue. I have not engaged in edit warring. I would like my block removed so I can get back to the many things i am working on right now. In no way can I be considered a disruptive editor. My record is impeccable and the only reason this issue was flagged was because I flagged it as an attempt at dispute resolution (one of many on my part). Considering the blocking admin's response on appropriate blocks "A block is appropriate to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia or people or things outside of Wikipedia through Wikipedia edits. It is not appropriate as punishment or in a simple content dispute." I have a hard time figuring out where I was causing damage or disruption. If there was a copyright violation - which there wasn't - then the image should be deleted. However the other editor did not pursue this path as suggested. And a 1917 image would not and should not be deleted per WP:PD
Decline reason:
The only thing that you've said that addresses the reason that your account was blocked is "I have not engaged in edit warring." The page history of William A. Clark indicates that you have. Edit-warring does not resolve the disagreement. It just fills the page history with reverts. You're probably right about the image, but this is the wrong way to keep it in the article.--Chaser (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Urbanrenewal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Having never been blocked in 3 years on Wikipedia this is very confusing to me - I am not sure why my behavior is not given the benefit of the doubt. I have been frustrated by a new editor with no apparent knowledge of WP:PD making disruptive edits to remove an image and then constantly undoing my edits when I try to restore content. I made every attempt at dispute resolution - see [1],[2],[3],[4],[5]. These were all met with non-constructive responses from the other editor and no help from the Administrator's noticeboard where I went looking for help / advice / consensus days ago. The first response I got was this block. Meanwhile, the other editor just insisted that he was right and never attempted to put the image through the process for deletion (as I suggested if he really thought it was problematic) that would have resulted in a consensus of real editors to either keep or delete. Please take note that the image is now being flagged to be moved to commons. Whereas this is one minor item that I have worked on across more than 16k edits - this constitutes the bulk of the other editor's involvement on wikipedia.
Decline reason:
I empathize with your problem and also think that you are likely right on the merits, but 4 reverts in 4 days is edit warring and therefore prohibited even if you are right and have undertaken steps towards dispute resolution. The block is harsh - I wouldn't have made it, probably - but within administrator discretion. Sandstein 06:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Thanks for Unblocking
[edit]Thanks for removing the block. I would like to get your advice on how I should have handled the situation differently. As you can imagine it was a fairly frustrating interaction and I was not getting a lot of help when I reached out on the noticeboards. Then to get blocked after I flagged the issue on the incidents noticeboard was obviously not what I had expected. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. Sandstein and Phil were right - it was a bit harsh, but an EW is an EW. The real answer is to pursue WP:DR. The unofficial and more-or-less frowned upon answer is to ping an admin and ask for assistance, but many folks do that because it is often effective.
- You're a solid contributor. Edit warring is the one thing that frequently trips up even our best. I'm sure if you look into my history before I became an admin, you could find a few that I was involved in myself. If you find yourself doing the same thing more than twice, you really need to stop and figure out another plan of action.
- Let me know if I can be of assistance. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, it's a first for me. I guess my other question is tomorrow if the other editor goes back and removes the image what is the right way to proceed at that point? |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Bring it to the attention of one of the admins that commented on your block, me or go back to ANI stating that the edit war has continued. If you bring it to ANI, I would remove the
{{resolved}}tag from the existing thread and move the thread down to the bottom adding your comment. Do not revert the edit to the article. I'm moving this entire thread here from my talk page as it would probably be more useful to anyone else looking at the problem if the EW continues. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Bring it to the attention of one of the admins that commented on your block, me or go back to ANI stating that the edit war has continued. If you bring it to ANI, I would remove the
- Thanks, it's a first for me. I guess my other question is tomorrow if the other editor goes back and removes the image what is the right way to proceed at that point? |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Autoblocked
[edit]Autoblocked - Technical issue
[edit]{{unblock|Can someone take a look at my block situation? The blocking admin removed the block earlier but now the block seems to have infected my IP address as well once I logged in from home. As you can see I was able to make edits after the block was removed but now there seems to be a technical issue. I could really use some help fixing the situation.}}
- I think I found it; can you test edit another page to verify that I hit the right one? Kuru (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- That worked - thanks |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 20:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)