User talk:Yonatan/Archive/Archive-Apr2007

Sam's exotic travels

I replied on my talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I have the OTRS ticket number now: 2007031910013307. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Yonatan! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image permission

Owing to previous use of MS Outlook Express (Mac), the mail concerning this has been lost owing to that application's failure (I now use Mac OSX Mail). I will have to re-request, but will be out of communication for a few weeks after tomorrow. Can you communicate directly with Geoff concerning this? (That way you would get the permission in the appropriate form.) There is a suite of related images, all in the Ford Ranger EV article. View Geoff's photo album on the Ranger EV and press on the button at the bottom - "Send me a message". Your help would be appreciated. Please respond to my talk.

Thanks, Leonard G. 01:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. All image on the Ranger EV page are Geoff's, I think, so clearance for "any and all" related to Ranger EV on his site would be best - I will update the remaining images as needed in a few weeks - Leonard G. 19:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if Goeof does not wish to release more than he allready has, a license for all on the page as of a specific recent date would be fine. Thanks for your assistance as I cannot follow up consistantly on this(I'm writing from Greece). - Leonard G. 05:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Re: Unspecified source for Image:Gulf_war_soldiers.jpg

I believe I found the images here. This was over three years ago. Now that we can resize images and wikicommons exists, we should really be uploadeding the high resolution version to commons instead.--Jiang 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not there, then I don't have a clue where. It's been too long...

it could be replaced with a larger, better picture in the articles it is in--Jiang 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Avivgeffen.jpg

The image is licensed under the Creative Commons ShareAlike license. It was tagged with the {{cc-sa}} tag on upload. [[User:Gotroot801|gotroot801 | <sup>[[User talk:Gotroot801|Talk]]</sup>]] 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail sent, sig (hopefully) fixed. Gotroot801 13:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Ahmad-Shuqeiry.jpg

As far as I can see all of the information requested is there. What did I miss? --Ian Pitchford 17:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Stepherrorwear114.jpg

Hey, could you send the permission for this image to permissions-en@wikimedia.org along with a link to the image? I wanna move it to commons but the permission needs to be logged with OTRS, if it isn't then the image will unfortunately have to be deleted. Thanks, Yonatan ^talk 14:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your going to have to email Steph... I no longer have the email she used to send it to me (so I cant forward it to OTRS). I have no doubt she'll authorize it as she provided the image (Use the form here. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question to the Commons administrator

Hello!

Please, assist me (as the Commons administrator) to resolve this problem and comply with my request on the basis of the information provided in the discussion with Cool Cat, the other Commons administrator. Here I provide the history and - thus - the matter of the problem. I cannot do it via the Commons as my access was blocked. Thank you. --Riva72 09:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Cool Cat: [1]

Hello again! Please, explain me the reason for a one-year-blockade (at the Commons) which I was punished with a few minutes ago by the Commons user called WarX. The reason given by them is vandalizing image descriptions. This is a vicious action by the user because I have not vandalized any image decriptions.. I (as the author of the photos and the authorized person to do the upload as far as images called 'Caspod1-8.gif' are concerned and having the rights granted by law) changed the licences of some images from 'cc-by-sa-2.5' to 'cc-by-nd-2.5'. I inform that I have not changed the licences of the photos I wish to remain in the public domain and I state that I will not change this decision in the future. I request you for the explanation. I am sorry to disturb you and engage you in this matter but I was forced to do it. --Riva72 00:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riva72 was unblocked by me, because he wanted to prepare deletion request, but he started tampering with licenses... I'm not going to be tricked so easily again. A.J. 07:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were not tricked. It was the only way I could do in this situation. It is still a deletion request. I ask you to revert the Ejdzej user's action (applied to the recent photos) which is the violation of the law which I fully possess and which allows me to change the licence from 'cc-by-sa-2.5' to 'cc-by-nd-2.5'. The whole situation becomes annoying and unpleasant. As I said earlier: I have all the rights to do so. The form of the deletion request which the user called Ejdzej is thinking about would be exactly the same: the change of a licence type from 'cc-by-sa-2.5' to 'cc-by-nd-2.5' but it would not be appropriate because I do not have to ask the Commons administrators for the consent. Quotation: Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above. (Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 - legal code). My decision of changing the following licences has got one more reason which can be expressed with words: we cannot donner de la confiture à des cochons. I was led to these conclusion by the recent actions of both such "respectable" administrators as Warx and Ejdzej. I was extremely glad to read the following words by the latter at the ANB discussion page:

Riva72: To the user called Ejdzej: You are really a misleading person and not reliable what is a shame for the administrator.. as: Your upload of the [2] to the article on [3] was done on March 5,2007 - proof: [4]. You voted to preserve the article on the castle in Podhorce on March 3, 2007 - proof: [5] - no further comments - (213.199.192.60 15:07, 3 April 2007). Ejdzej: That's all true. - (A.J. 15:35, 3 April 2007). It is only the fragment of the discussion. I welcome you to read it all at: [6] --Riva72 08:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)--Riva72 08:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat, I ask for your personal deletion of the photos I tagged yesterday. My other statements in this chapter remain unchanged. --Riva72 08:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photos which licence has changed:

P.S. The user called Ejdzej violated the law and broke the previous 'cc-by-sa-2.5' licences given to these photos while he/she(?) blocked me for altering them, i.e. for making derivative works for which I again possess all the rights. He was even so rude and irrational to call the reason for my blockade: spoiling of images.. --Riva72 08:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I have to remind the "administrators" like the user called Ejdzej that according to the (Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 - legal code) it is allowed to create and reproduce Derivative Works. --Riva72 09:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were unblocked to nominate the images you uploaded for deletion as per the discussion we had here. You instead altered licenses. You cannot randomly change licenses. The "law" does not allow you to use a {{cc-by-nd-2.5}} (commons incompatible license) after releasing images under {{cc-by-2.5}}. Commons policy explicitly forbids this kind of behaviour. You are making it increasingly difficult for me to help you.

I cannot delete images just because I feel like it. Being an administrator only means I have additional buttons, I still have to follow consensus like everyone else. Unless there is a consensus for delete, I can't delete the images.

-- Cat ^chi? 09:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user called Ejdzej's words are again worth nothing: I was informed by them at the ANB discussion page that: The blockade is over. Please make a good use of it. Goodbye! A.J. 16:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Nevertheless, please inform me how I can gently remove the photos (which were linked above) from the Commons depository. This will be my last action at the Commons and after that I would like you, Cool Cat, to remove my profile and my user page.. Thanks for understanding (and patience). --Riva72 09:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the newest information by the user called Ejdzej (which name, by the way, sounds awfully..) posted at the Commons ANB discussion user-problems page I wish to inform that I have never trusted the users called Ejdzej and Warx. Besides - recently - I have lost my trust to the Commons and to the Wikipedia projects. I am strongly convinced that the projects ways are dirty.. --Riva72 09:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that I had the right to change the licence types of some (if not all the photos uploaded by me) of these photos (mainly the photos called 'Caspod1-8.gif') as their previous licence cc-by-sa-2.5 was breached by the user called Ejdzej.. while blocking me and reverting the derative works of these photos. To remind you:

7. Termination (Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 - legal code).

This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You (and it means the user called Ejdzej and all the Commons project which he/she(?) is the funny representative of) of the terms of this License. Individuals or entities who have received Derivative Works or Collective Works from You under this License, however, will not have their licenses terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licenses. Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will survive any termination of this License.
Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.

--Riva72 09:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Riva72 09:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To complete my discussion with the Cool Cat, the administrator:

Do not use me as a tool. -- Cat ^chi? 12:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are all tools, the sysops, of someone who holds all the Commons and the Wikipedia. Besides, you are tools of the users; you are for the users and not vice versa. Besides, I see you are only a Cool Cat. I even do not know if you are a man, a woman or an animal. The user called Ejdzej evidently broke the licence rules and you are a coward to admit this. This is all from my part. Bye, bye C.C! --Riva72 14:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my observations:

1. Appeal: If you disagree with its speedy deletion, change this tag to a regular deletion request using the 'delete' and list it on Commons:Deletion requests#Recent discussions so it can be discussed - (from the template info). Does it say to block the user at once?
2. Speedy deletion is also a deletion request.

--Riva72 14:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question to the administrator (repeated): Please inform me how I can gently remove the photos (which were linked above) from the Commons depository. This will be my last action at the Commons and after that I would like you, Cool Cat (sorry for the 'name' - it should be the administrator), to remove my profile and my user page.. Thanks for understanding --Riva72 14:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have chosen you to help me to solve that problem because you talked over my person at: [23] --Riva72 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final words: Please inform me how I can gently remove the photos (change the licences) (which were linked) above from the Commons depository. This will be my last action at the Commons and after that I would like you, the Commons administrator, to remove my profile and my user page.. Thanks for understanding --Riva72 14:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"(...)Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above." (emphasis mine). You can stop distributing the image and release it under a difference license, but you can not withdraw the license or prevent Wikipedia from distributing it. Reverting your attempts to withdraw the license does not constitute a breach of license that would cause it to be terminated. That's my IANAL understanding of the license anyway. Your only option is to ask the Commons community to please honor your request to have them deleted because you want to punish some users at the Polish Wikipedia (or whatever it was)... Good luck with that. --Sherool (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! My name is Jaromir. Thank you for the reasonal words. Yesterday, I made no attempt to withdraw the photos from the Commons depository. I released them under the different licence which was from cc-by-sa-2.5 to cc-by-nd-2.5. It is not my fault that this licence disqualifies the photos from being deposited with the Commons. It is the fault of the Commons policy. The breach occured earlier when I (the author) modified some photos released under the 'cc-by-sa-2.5'. I have the right to modify photos released under the licence mentioned. For these modifications I was blocked with two explanations: 1. spoiling images (which I made myself :)) and 2. ByeBye Riva72, who's gonna revert you now? (this reason by the user called Warx lacked only a mocking smile). But, anyway, do not talk about the past. I only want the Polish section of the Wikipedia to stop using the photos (Caspod1-8.gif) to illustrate the 'damaged' article. In fact, I want to prohibit them to use these photos of the castle in the entire Polish Wikipedia.. This can be done with the change of the template to: Copyrighted free use provided that|The Polish Wikipedia project is prohibited to use this photo and its derivatives (the template [24]). To this request I want to add the last but one which is the change of licences to the rest of the photos which I deposited to the Commons. Ok, let it be no 'cc-by-nd-2.5' but cc-by-2.5 (and no derivative works possible or, if not applicable, under the condition that if you create a derivative work, you must remove from the derivative work any reference to the licensor or the original author). Then comes the last request: remove my user page. I do not wish to identify myself with the Commons at all. Have a nice afternoon. --Riva72 16:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yonatan: I ask you, as the Commons administrator, to help me to carry the following issues:

To place the template: Copyrighted free use provided that|The Polish Wikipedia project is prohibited to use this photo and its derivatives (the template [25]) to the set of six photos (marked: Caspod1-6.gif).
To change the licences of all my photos uploaded to the Commons. I (as the author) would like the following new licence: cc-by-2.5 (and no derivative works possible or, if not applicable, under the condition that if you create a derivative work, you must remove from the derivative work any reference to the licensor or the original author).
To remove my user page as I do not wish to identify myself with the Commons at all.

I would appreciate your assistance. I cannot do it myself as my access to the commons is blocked for a year..

I am sorry for some unpleasant words which emerged.

Can you answer to this message, please? --Riva72 16:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

My name is Jaromir (Riva72). Unfortunately, we cannot have a longer conversation due to irrational actions by the user called Michaelas10. He is not your advocate. The reverts should be done by you if you do not wish my message at your discussion page. Welcome to read the discussion history page. Can we talk at my discussion page, please? Just a few words, a few lines, if you please.. I would appreciate your response. --Riva72 17:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. With all the licence changes as well? This part is really important for me.. Please, understand.. --Riva72 18:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Can you remove my IP (213.199.192.60) the Commons user page as well, please? --Riva72 18:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Can you place the templates: Copyrighted free use provided that|The Polish Wikipedia project is prohibited by the author to use this photo and its derivatives (the template [26]) to the set of six photos (marked: Image:Caspod1.gif to Image:Caspod6.gif). The Polish wikipedia may use the Image:Caspod7.gif and Image:Caspod8.gif.
3. Can you change the licences of all my photos uploaded to the Commons? Under these circumstances, I (as the author) would like the following licence: cc-by-2.5 for all the pictures uploaded by me. I want them released under the condition that (no derivative works possible or, if not applicable, under the condition that if you create a derivative work, you must remove from the derivative work any reference to the licensor or the original author). I do not want them to be modified and vandalised and used with the information that the author of the modified photo is Riva, or that the original photo was taken by Riva. I want them to be used and distributed in their original form. I grant you, the Commons administrator, all the rights to conduct this request of mine..
4. After that, I will no upload any photos to the Commons and post no messages in the future. I will retire from the Commons.. If I broke this agreement you might freely block me indefinitely. --Riva72 19:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, respond... --Riva72 19:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this would be the best solution to the problem which is most unpleasant and I will assume it is closed (finished, resolved) --Riva72 19:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC) + --Riva72 19:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your free time you may look at: [27] and at: [28] and [29]. It is interesting. Have a nice day. --Riva72 06:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=Jonatan, I am referring to the following photos in point nr 2 above=

=I am referring to the following photos in point nr 3 above=

The town of Javornik:

The town of Leżajsk/Lizhensk:

[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
12 photos (all Riva's) at the [56] - Old graveyard page
3 photos (all Riva's) at the [57] - Bernardine monks graveyard page

The town of Zabkowice Slaskie:

The monastery of New Valamo:

[72]
[73]

The II World War Polish badge:

[74]

The Rowan tree:

[75]
[76]

that's all. --Riva72 17:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk redirects

I don't understand what you mean; perhaps you could elaborate on CSD's talk page? >Radiant< 09:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Riva's request

Yonatan, I ask you, the Commons administrator, to unblock my access to the Commons and then I will perform the above mentioned actions (points 2 and 3) myself.. I ask you only to remove my IP user page. I would appreciate if these actions of mine WERE RESPECTED at the Commons! After that, I will ask you to remove my Commons discussion pages (IP's and personal) and do some deletions with the photo files history in order to keep only the current file version (I will provide you with the proper links) and after that, I will no upload any photos to the Commons and post no messages in the future. I will retire from the Commons forever.. If I broke this agreement you might freely block me indefinitely. Please, respond.. --Riva72 09:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Riva's request (reprised)

Yonatan, it is a complicated story and the way you see it is completely wrong (I am sorry). I laughed at the Ejdzej's architectural mistake.. I did not fix it.. He/she(?) fixed it themselves. As far as this mistake is concerned: I pointed that he/she(?) even do not read the articles they are voting for! = and his/her mistake proved it = I nominated 'the castle in Podhorce' article for a deletion because they were so rude to remove my attribution (to the author of the photos) in the form of the dedication. I still regard this removal as the act of a hideous vandalism. I then removed the photos and, then, modified them because our intention was the photos will not illustrate the vandalised (destorted) article for which I was and I am still blocked both at the Polish Wikipedia and at the Commons.. My version of the article failed. The version which prevailed is hideous for many reasons (and not only for the lack of the attribution/dedication) and I and the author of the photos do not wish to identify with it and to identify with the Polish Wikipedia. When my blockade is finished there I will seek my accounts removal there. Another reason for which I no longer wish to identify with the Polish Wikipedia is the fact that I really see myself as the good author.

I see you do not understand or do not want to understand my final request.. I understood and I accepted the fact that I could not change the licences to 'nd' versions so I came up with this final decision of mine, which I will place at the bottom of this message again..

Yonatan, I ask you, the Commons administrator, to unblock my access to the Commons and then I will perform the above mentioned actions (points 2 and 3) myself.. which are:

2. Placing the templates: Copyrighted free use provided that|The Polish Wikipedia project is prohibited by the author to use this photo and its derivatives (the template [77] to the set of six photos (marked: Image:Caspod1.gif to Image:Caspod6.gif). The Polish wikipedia may use the Image:Caspod7.gif and Image:Caspod8.gif.

3. Changing the licences of the photos listed for you above to the licence of cc-by-2.5.

I ask you only to remove my IP user page. I would appreciate if these actions of mine WERE RESPECTED at the Commons! After that, I will ask you to remove my Commons discussion pages (IP's and personal) and do some deletions with the photo files history in order to keep only the current file version (I will provide you with the proper links) and after that, I will no upload any photos to the Commons and post no messages in the future. I will retire from the Commons forever.. If I broke this agreement you might freely block me indefinitely. Riva72. --Riva72 09:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, respond.. I would appreciate your honest answer --Riva72 09:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of my Commons discussion pages may occur only when my request points (numbered 1 to 3) which I placed here are completed. --Riva72 10:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An invitation

Yonatan, I invite you to read the message and to voice your opinion at: [78], if you please.. If you feel like writing a commment, please do it.. I think this may also put the end to our disputes here.. I will not bother you again. Thank you. --Riva72 11:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

יונתן שלום,

סליחה שאני כותב בעבריתף אני לא טוב באנגלית, אבל תסביר לי בבקשה מה הבעיה של התמונה בדף Yochanan Vollach. זכויות התמונה שייכות להתאחדות לכדורגל בישראל, קבלתי אישור טלפוני להשתמש בתמונות אחרי שהייתה לי בעיה עם תמונה של צביקה רוזן. האם תוכל להתאים את הרשיון לכך? אמנם התמונה נלקחה מאתר אבל הזכויות הן של יוחנן וולך או ההתאחדות לכדורגל. אותה תמונה הופיעה באלבום מונדיאל 2002 ברשיון של ההתאחדות. ניסיתי לתפוס את החברה עצמה שהם אלו שאמרו לי שזה שייך להתאחדויות.

כמו כן, נמחקו מהדף 2 תמונות שהעלתי. הם בשימוש חופשי של מימל שסרקנו בייחד חלק מהתמונות והוא גם צילם. אני לא מבין כל כך טוב אנגלית ולכן לא ידעתי לאן לייחס את זה בורה נכונה. מה אתה מציע לעשות? אני חושב שהמשתמש שמחק אותם הוא אדם נוקשה ולא יבין איך התמונות האלו הגיעו שוב ברשיון אחר פתאום.

Updated Adoptee

Could you check User:Yonatan/TLU? (new stuff) Don't forget. TheListUpdater 22:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Bnei Sakhnin

I have added my opinion to the debate (keep the FC), and have found a reference for it being used - UEFA's site (see here - though they still include "Hapoel" too). Number 5 7 01:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comments on Yellow Up's talk page, I wouldn't move FC Barcelona to Barcelona F.C. or Real Madrid to Real Madrid F.C., I would move them to F.C. Barcelona and Real Madrid C.F.. The rule is not XXX F.C., but follows the full name of the club (e.g. F.C. Ashdod or Leeds United A.F.C.) as there are a variety of combinations. I doubt that any football club does not have the words "football club" in its official company title - as Yellow Up noted, Maccabi's full title is "Maccabi Elite Tel Aviv Basketball Club (1995) Ltd", so ignoring the sponsor name and the (1995) Ltd, they are Maccabi Tel Aviv B.C.. The main problem is that few sports clubs in Israel seem to have an official website where the full and official name can be found. Number 5 7 22:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The google hits thing is not a surprise - you will get more hits without FC for any football club (e.g. "Manchester United" gets 9.5 million but "Manchester United F.C." gets only 632,000). Regardless, Google hits can be discounted as a reliable source because "Leeds United F.C." gets more than double the number of hits that "Leeds United A.F.C." gets, even though the latter is the official name. You can criticise my source (uefa.com), but I didn't claim that "there is no mention of the FC suffix being appended to Bnei Sakhnin anywhere"! :) Like I said, I doubt that the full name of the club does not include "football club" in some form. Number 5 7 22:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for moving the Wigan Athletic article on the Hebrew wiki! Number 5 7 23:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems

A few weeks ago you asked me to get my friend to send a permission email to that same address, which he did. Unfortunately you didn't bother to specify what type of permission was needed and then some other admin deleted a perfectly great image. To save us both some bother would you mind going through all the images that I've uploaded and tell me exactly which need extra permission, instead of doing one per week? Also tell me exactly what is needed, and then Wikipedia won't have to lose some of its best sporting photographs. It was a shame about the Peter Crouch one. Cheers, aLii 22:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dudu Aouate

I have put up a request that Dudu Aouate be moved back to his original name. -NYC2TLV 23:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Referral link

Thanks for catching that -- I forgot that those existed :) Silas Snider (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Neil Warnock

Hi. Please take a look here for information regarding his being a referee, and to gauge consensus, which appears to favour his inclusion (although not directly on notability grounds, he is a notable person who is also indirectly a qualified referee). Having once challenged this categorisation myself, I now accept consensus. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 17:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, impressive work on the Howard Webb article - well done. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 17:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel as though he is a 'cuckoo in the nest' as regards the Category:English football referees, and I let them know that I felt this way, but they don't seem to appreciate the slightly ridiculous appearance of the list since he was added (Blades fans! Don't you just love their undying optimism?) Best wishes, and keep adding images to ref articles wherever you can. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 18:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:George_mallory.jpg

I've added a bit more info for this image's tag. Mallory died in 1924 so it must be more than 70 years old. Hope this is OK Andeggs 07:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I hadn't quite realised that. In that case I'm not sure the image is in the public domain. Please leave for 48 house while I do some more research. Thanks Andeggs 08:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Egypt image

Since of informing that my image of the Egyptian canopic jars being speedily deleted due to "Non commercial use only" please note that I never selected the license as that. I actually selected the license as the "Attribute sharealike one" as the creator was a basic historian who allows use of his images. Some clown must have changed the licensing around. Retiono Virginian 15:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]