This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

I was referring to myself. I restored, but then realized that the OTRS information was not present . It was incompetent of myself to restore without getting full and proper permission. It's a difficult process to go through, and is quite understandable the user to not include all of the necessary information: the burden falls on myself to make sure it's all there, and in that I failed, and hence I said "Ignore the incompetent OTRS person" referring to my own incompetent actions of restoring, and then realizing permission was not there. Unfortunately this didn't get conveyed this well, and my sarcastic reprimand of myself came off as something else. I admit I am indeed new to the OTRS system, and apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. I also apologize for how my comments came off: I simply meant to reprimand myself. Regards, NativeForeigner ^Talk/ _Contribs 01:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, when adding permission to articles as opposed to images, we have the {{ ConfirmationOTRS}} template which lets us identify the source and the license all in the one box without needing extra text below it. VernoWhitney ( talk) 11:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That will be much cleaner to use. Adrignola ( talk) 12:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for handling the OTRS for File:Emiliavasaryova.jpg. Can you say if the confirmation also works for File:Mgombitova.jpg, from the same uploader? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot. I will send a response back to the uploader asking for a higher resolution copy of the other photo to see if I can address the issue. Adrignola ( talk) 17:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted as copyvio, but as spam - see WP:REFUND#PEPID Knowledge Base. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 19:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't make a good note of that. So many tickets... Adrignola ( talk) 01:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, can you explain what the problem was with this permissions: File:Cerridwen_Fallingstar_photo_by_Susanna_Frohman.jpg? I sent her the text, copied from Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries, and she did so, and e-mailed it to permissions-enwikimedia.org, and then forwarded me what she had sent, which looked fine. What was the problem? Thanks. Softlavender ( talk) 15:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That form is a good one to use, but we need permission from the photographer, not the subject. So we need it from Susanna Frohman and not Cerridwen Fallingstar. Sometimes copyrights are transferred to the subject via contract or a work for hire, but the image page specifically stated that "Susanna Frohman must be attributed as photographer in any use of this image", which makes her the copyright owner and not Cerridwen Fallingstar. P.S. You can sign in with the same username/password at Wikibooks that you use here at Wikipedia if you visit Special:MergeAccount to get your account changed to a global one. –  Adrignola  talk 15:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood. Fallingstar owns the rights to the work, which was a work for hire signed off on by Frohman, but wants to insure, out of courtesy, that Frohman is attributed as the photographer. I myself personally added the text that says "Susanna Frohman must be attributed as photographer in any use of this image". That does not make Frohman the license holder of the photo. It simply is a courtesy insured by the CC-3.0 license, which in all cases specifically states what atttribution is required for re-use. Is that clear? Softlavender ( talk) 15:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

An odd situation, but okay. I have marked the image as having permission in line with your comments and the receipt of permission from the copyright holder. –  Adrignola  talk 15:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not odd at all, but thanks for approving the ticket. Softlavender ( talk) 15:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to know why you deleted erie anime experience page, if you don't allow anime convention pages then delete them all not just the ones you dislike. Now I know why the trade school I went to said not to trust anything on this site. You say to keep it neutral, the page was wrote with facts, that can be found on the EAE site as well as animecons.com and many more. I should tell everyone that Wiki is to bias and only allows content that the Admins want/like and heck with everyone else. ( Kenshinkyo ( talk) 14:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)).

I'm pretty sure I approved an image that was placed on that page, but I had no impact on the page after that point. I'm not even an admin on Wikipedia. Commons, yes, but not here. You should address the issue with the people who discussed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erie Anime Experience. –  Adrignola  talk 21:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Adrignola, Is my signature right for English Wikipedia? -- Duke ^{ϡ»» ileti ^^} 16:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it isn't. It's misleading, making people think you're User:Duke, when you're actually User:Koc61. It also uses "Kullanıcı" instead of "User" for linking to the user page. –  Adrignola  talk 16:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering what was invalid about OTRS ticket ID 1800191? Shouldn't confirmation that User:Hariscizmic is who he says he is be sufficient? Thanks. -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 20:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no association with either the designer's site, http://www.theaxart.com, or the photographer's site, http://www.sspraguephoto.com. A Gmail address can be registered by anyone; we don't just take someone's word when it comes to published works like that. The username matching someone's name on another site is still not proof either; I can register any username I like. Additionally specific license releases are needed and permission from both is needed. Furthermore the ticket only referenced a single file yet the ticket was used to tag several files. It's one thing for an uploader to assert that something is their own work; it's another for our trusted volunteer team to assert such a thing based on no firm evidence at all. –  Adrignola  talk 20:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I was not aware that the ticket referenced specific images. There should (hopefully) be another e-mail with the subject containing "theAxart.com", dated 6 August 2008 20:24 (UTC or UTC+1), sent to photosubmissionwikimedia.org from a Hotmail address that can be verified ( www.theaxart.com > request password; hyperlink is a mailto: link which should match the sender's address). This (if it exists) should not contain any references to specific images, and instead confirms that the user is who he claims he is. I had assumed that the ticket referenced above was this e-mail, but it appears that I was mistaken. Would you please attempt to locate the e-mail that I described above and verify the claims, if that is possible? Then would those images which are attributed solely to him (if any) and were confirmed as {{ GFDL}} by him on-wiki be usable? Thank you. -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 21:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I only get the same ticket referenced above in the search results. I also cannot view the link or trigger any action upon clicking "request password". –  Adrignola  talk 22:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...maybe the link would work in a different browser/OS? Anyway, if the e-mail is not there, then there is no point in verifying that the e-mail address is genuine. Thank you for your help. -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 23:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the section from E-procurement that was marked as a copyvio. The section was added wholesale in one edit back in 2005 and matches the source word for word; a clear cut & paste job. I do not have access to OTRS, so someone will need to close out the request there. Kuru (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. I actually had to stop midway through the ticket and resume today. There are many many different articles covered by it. –  Adrignola  talk 14:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yikes. Looking through your contributions is a little scary; I'll see how many of these I can help to resolve. Kuru (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done the same for Chat room which had a similar cut-and-paste addition. Are all of these somehow related to techtarget.com? -- Tothwolf ( talk) 18:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a representative from the site is responsible for pointing these out. Fortunately they took the diplomatic route as this was quite a significant number of articles containing their content. I don't think we'd see something like this nowadays, since there are bots checking anons/non-autoconfirmed users' contributions for copy-pastes, but most of these were added several years ago. –  Adrignola  talk 18:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi I noticed that you have asked for a couple of undeletions recently in connection to permissions being received from OTRS. Please consider applying at RFA if you are going to continue. Although there has been opposition in the past, these days there is generally a consensus to allow trusted users from other projects to have adminship if it will help them with routine janitorial tasks like sorting out image permissions and, I presume, transferring them to commons. Please let me know if you would like me to consider a nomination or would like to discuss this further. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I had previously gotten the impression that RFAs are pretty grueling. I have to admit that I don't do a significant amount of content editing here or participate in deletion debates, considering that I can find it difficult to put enough time in to take care of backlogs at Commons and the never ending flow of emails to OTRS where they seem to be lacking personnel as well. In light of that I wouldn't expect it to be successful, frankly. On the other hand, at Commons, would-be admins aren't expected to know all areas of copyright law before they are elected by the community and it's expected that they will limit themselves to areas of their expertise. But Wikipedia is much larger in terms of participants. So overall I am hesitant. –  Adrignola  talk 13:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the subject gets to pick his biography picture? The previous picture was more recent and his face was unobscured. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait a while before changing it back. My action is to build goodwill as I wait for a response back from his agent for the submission of an image since they wanted it "replaced". They were quite angry and "did not approve" of it and consider it to not be the "proper representation" of him. I am hoping whatever image I get back will be more recent still and will be of even higher quality. But they probably consider the "proper representation" to only be those with shades. Shouldn't have let a fan take a picture with him without glasses then. –  Adrignola  talk 23:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do. I will notify you if a couple weeks pass and no improved image (IMO of course) appears. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Adrignola, I just noticed today you detected a possible copyright-problem in the Spiral model article, I guess after you have received an email, which is filled under the OTRS ticket 2011052510014855.

In your notification in the article, see here you mentioned the http://searchsoftwarequality.techtarget.com/definition/spiral-model as the original source. This however seems very unlikely to me, which I have explained here. Could you take a look at it? Thanks, you. -- Mdd ( talk) 21:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. –  Adrignola  talk 01:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For your OTRS work and especially the tedious job that resulted in this. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Oi! -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

First barnstar. Thanks! –  Adrignola  talk 19:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerning your recent footnote on 415 Records, thank you for handling that OTRS. I have a question though. Is it still appropriate for the article to have that footnote statement in the mainspace and the particularly worded template in the talkpage, if the entire article has been rewritten, incorporating several other sources and using the original copyrighted article as a source instead? The original material was prepared by an extremely knowledgeable individual; an expert in the field who is not only closely connected to the specific topic but also covered in the article. The original submission needed a lot of work to be made encyclopedic and accurate, and to procure additional sources. Since we did not at first have proper permissions on file for the copyrighted material (btw, I submitted the request for copyright problem investigation), I proceeded as though the original article would need to be used as a source instead, and created a fully re-written article, which has now taken the place of the original article submitted (which is still available on the web). However, that source is now cited in the article instead of used as the article. My thought is that since it is no longer substantially (or even partially) authored by the source's original author, that the footnote and the talkpage template should both be either altered or removed at this point. Is there a way to retain the thankfulness for that generous donation to Wikipedia and yet still move forward to a fully accurate presentation? Thanks for your most diplomatic thoughts on that. duff 03:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's clear that the initial editor of the page was also the copyright owner (I don't recall if that was the case off-hand), then a thank you note on their talk page would probably do nicely. Or maybe they have a contact page on their site you could use if you're particularly adventurous. As for the tag, you can remove it if you like; it remains in the talk page history should it be an issue ever again in the future. –  Adrignola  talk 03:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not 100% clear to me that the initial editor was the copyright owner/author (and wikipedia editor User:DanielLevitin, which I am assuming is usernamed that because it is he), because it was an IP edit that submitted it, but it does look that way. contributions of first editor The submitter sandboxed the article twice and then put it up whole, and then came back 4 years later from that same IP address & edited the article that pertains to the author of the article Daniel Levitin. I think he did initially submit the article and I think our user/editor is also him. I have also already thanked him (Levitin) for the recent permissions secured, on both his user talk page & the article's talk page, which I did while the permissions were being sought. I may not be quite as adventuresome as thanking him also on the very webpage, but believe I will be bold enough to remove the footnote on the mainspace & the OTRS on the talkpage, with your permission. Thanks much. duff 04:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Adrignola. Would you please help out with the trying situation that has arisen here. It is an ongoing problem, trying to prevent fishing articles from being plastered with vanity photos, and you seem to have been the instigator of this situation. Thanks. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 17:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Photos were submitted via OTRS per Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission and I placed the images on the article at the subjects' request. I can't give a "noodle" about notability in this process. I remain a neutral third party; countless articles I've gone through the trouble of processing OTRS permission submissions for have been deleted as failing to prove notability, after I put in the effort of getting the required information from the copyright holder. I'll freely admit that I tire of telling them when they come back asking why the articles were deleted (even though they followed our process), that they're not "notable" enough and they wasted their time. My rule is that I put a picture up once and I don't try to keep it on or make any further judgments as to suitability. Should I not do so in order to avoid being an "instigator", I get another response querying me as to why the image that was submitted and accepted doesn't show up in the article. At that point, the image has been uploaded and it's free to be used or not used. I make no guarantees to photo submitters that the image they submit will remain in use, just as I can make no guarantees to text submitters that their article will remain intact. Frustration all around, it seems. –  Adrignola  talk 18:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you please delay deletion (set for 2 August) of the images as it will probably take more than two weeks to contact the photographers concerned and arrange ticket numbers etc. Thank you, Ptelea ( talk) 14:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've placed {{ OTRS pending}} tags on them, which will buy you some time. –  Adrignola  talk 15:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence

Your image work on Wikipedia is amazing! I used to volunteer with OTRS issues, and there was often a month-long backlog. It brings a smile to my face to see these issues resolved now in days or even hours, and it's due to hard-working people like you. For adding confirmations, and for adding rationales for non-free images, you've enriched the images available for everyone. Thank you. – Quadell ( talk) 20:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much. I'm afraid there would soon be a backlog once again were I to find less time to contribute. I hope that they can find additional knowledgeable individuals to help share in the workload. –  Adrignola  talk 03:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please stop reverting her birthdate to 1983? The one on the Ralph Carr website is obviously a misprint. NOT ONE source barr that website uses 1983. Here is a link from her former official website confirming it as 1981 http://www.grailhaven.com/showcase/vanessa/about.htm (and if you say it's a misprint, you must acknowledge that the site you mentioned is capable of making a misprint too). Also look at this section in the date 18-11-99 http://www.grailhaven.com/showcase/vanessa/mstones.htm. It says she received drivers licence and passed VCE exams on this date. An IMPOSSIBILITY for someone born in 1983. Also she is the oldest sibling and her sister Melissa was born in 1983, another impossibility for her to be born in 1983. ALL sources barr the one you've used cite 1981 as a birthdate, http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Vanessa-Amorosi-Biography/CBF9504F3269A79E482569740012FB69 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1925079/bio http://www.birthdaypresentforhim.com/30th/16 http://birthdays.sanjeev.net/born-on-08-08-1981-vanessa-amorosi http://answers.encyclopedia.com/question/vanessa-amorosi-born-339941.html http://www.celebritieswho.com/celebrities-born-in-year-1981-august.html http://www.australianmusichistory.com/this-month-in-australian-music-august http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/vanessa-amorosi-introduces-new-single-gossip/story-e6frewz0-1226084454751 . Please understand it is more likely that her site made a misprint than all these websites being wrong. If you don't believe me, have a look around the net today as it is her birthday and see how many mention 30 as her birthday. Pay attention to her official site. 60.224.2.240 ( talk) 18:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

We got an email from her agent asserting that very date and complaining just as vehemently as you are about people reverting it back to 1981. This is quite likely to be a case where a misprint on a site some time ago has been propagated around the Internet, with each site using one of the other sites as a source and so on. This isn't the first time that misinformation about a person has been cascaded around because people didn't do fact checking before writing stories. So who should we believe? Fan sites or the official representative? The agent also added the birth date to the biography at http://www.ralphcarr.com/web/rcm.htm to confirm the exact date with us and to provide us with a source for use in the article that can be independently verified by someone without access to Wikipedia emails. I made the change to service the complaint and to honor our obligations under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to get things right. I am not personally invested in the content of the article, so it would be more productive to host any discussions on the talk page for the article. –  Adrignola  talk 13:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? I just emailed them and they thanked me for the correction. We'll see who's telling the truth soon enough. 60.224.2.240 ( talk) 19:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We got an email and that's what it said. Documented in our system by trusted users. Versus your word, anonymous user. I don't take kindly to people accusing me of lying. –  Adrignola  talk 22:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to send a quick note to say thank you for restoring those images to the Heavens-above article. It makes me want to spruce up the article even more ! It's nice to see things moving along well, despite my newbie mistakes. Thank you ! Penyulap _talk 10:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. It's gratifying to help ensure that good content isn't lost. –  Adrignola  talk 13:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that Dr is not her name and should not be part of the article title.

Also bear in mind that it must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that shet meets the notability guidelines. It is now wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have independent verifiable references. As a matter of policy, all biographies of living people will be deleted if they do not have such references

It must not be written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with any claims linked to independent in-line references. Some of the existing text is too spammy for an encyclopaedia article.

Good luck

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Also make sure that there are no external links in the main text, they should be in a separate external links section. Use wikilinks to other wikipedia articles like Vancouver where appropriate. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I just handle the emails buddy. I'll forward your words on. –  Adrignola  talk 18:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me to resume the [1] page, though it is deleted and fine that I think . Wasami007 ( talk) 05:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Happy to help out and preserve useful images. –  Adrignola  talk 13:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just realized that you have made a comment on the Miniature Lop topic regarding a possible conflict of interest and suggested a merge of this article with the Mini Lop topic. Before you carry out any further modifications, please take some time to visit the British Rabbit Council website as well as The National Miniature Lop Rabbit Club Website.

Miniature Lop (Max 1.6 kg) is a recognized breed in the UK and it is a totally different breed from the US mini lop (Max 3kg). Unfortunately we have our own rabbit registration organisation in the UK, which is independent from the American Rabbit Breeders Association in the US, and even more unfortunately there is only one English version of Wikipedia. If you do a search on Google UK, you will realize how many people are confused between a US mini lop and a UK miniature lop( or mini lop, as that is what we called them in the UK). Therefore it is extremely important, for both topics（Mini lop and Miniature Lop) to be co-exist on Wikipedia. MiniatureLop ( talk) 01:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. You should point this out on the talk page if anyone's discussing it there. It could be that others might still want to combine and address the distinctions on the same page. I don't do much editing here so I really leave that to others to decide. –  Adrignola  talk 00:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now made a comment on the discussion page for anyone who has the plan to merge the two topics. I just wanted to say, if you have read the topic completely and did you research afterwards, instead of judging the topic based on someone's username, then you wouldn't have made a comment such as : (This should be merged; is a promotional piece by the user with a conflict of interest given the username). I seriously found this comment extremely offended and unprofessional. I realized you might have made over ten-thousands of contributions to Wikipedia, but it does not make you an expert in every field. If you want to make modifications on any other topics in the future which you do not have expertise on, please do you research first before add in your own opinion. To make this topic even more trustworthy, I have even contacted our National Miniature Lop Rabbit Club (UK), and several large miniature lop (British Rabbit Council) breeders in the UK to revise this topic on Wikipedia. Miniaturelop ( talk) 16.37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you confirm whether it has always been policy that the ticket number must be included when adding the OTRS confirmation to talk pages? I see that you have removed a confirmation from an article on my watchlist, but if you review the history to see who added the template in the first place, it's evident that it was an OTRS agent. Specifically, OTRS volunteer User:Mailer diablo verified the permissions and added the template to Talk:Robert J. Beck in 2005. Should it be removed over a technicality or a policy that may not have been in place when the template was added? -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 13:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Trust but verify. Keep in mind that the Meta page can be altered by anyone. The official list is on the OTRS wiki. We can't have a template stating "Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number {{{otrs}}}" without that parameter filled in. Furthermore, without a ticket number for other OTRS volunteers to verify the release, it's just the individual's word. Without a way to verify the contents of the emails exchanged, we cannot determine whether a release was properly sufficient or whether it was ambiguous, should questions later arise (and they often do). –  Adrignola  talk 15:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand the need for verification, I was just curious as to whether the requirement to include the OTRS ticket number was always present, and if it was not, whether we wold grandfather those permissions in if they were added by a confirmed OTRS volunteer. As an aside, Mailer diablo is also confirmed on OTRS wiki. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that it wasn't. See the historical version of the {{ Confirmation}} template that was redirected to {{ ConfirmationOTRS}}, thus causing every article lacking a ticket number to be deposited into Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission. –  Adrignola  talk 16:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the file for your connivence. Since you're familiar with the situation, it may be best that you continue to handle it. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For all your diligent work with the OTRS system! Kitabparast ( talk) 18:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! –  Adrignola  talk 18:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm just curious about some of my images that were put up on the LifeKraze site and then taken down by you, as the owner of those images, I would like to ensure that they remain there (they're just more attractive) and the content of the screenshot is important.

What can I do to make sure all of that can stay on the page. I've also posted this on the discussion page for LifeKraze.

JodaThongnopnua ( talk) 15:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I posted a reply on your talk page. –  Adrignola  talk 15:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Following your request I've added the edit filter flag to your account. It would be nice if you kept it read-only and ask me or some other sysop to remove it once you're completely done with it. Have fun. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am a little confused, If both halves of the Ross Dependency are part of new zealand and both using NZST, why would there standard and DST be switched, remember, antarctica is stretched on this map, due to its location at the bottom of the world, the Antimeridian cuts through the Ross Ice Shelf, placing the eastern half of land on the left side of the map appearing far from new zealand, however the International date line has been skewed to prevent the spliting of united pieces of land such as Chukotka, Wrangel Island, Fiji, Tuvalu, or to island groups like Kiribati from being divided into different days. I dont see why the ross Dependency would be an exception here, but I may be wrong, I will do some research. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Actualy are artical on the Ross Dependency [2], clearly states UTC+12 for Standard Time, UTC+13 during summer (September to April), 16:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Dont worry, i'm not upset, I like advise on my maps, I just cant find a place that says to have them in reverse, thank you for telling me though, the person whom was concerned might not have known antarctica is shaped like this , and not like the bottom of this map , perhaps he needs a reminder, Please have a nice day. Also if you find any other mistakes, feel free to tell me, I have made tons of mistakes, and just recently caught and fixed them, we all make mistakes, and advise is always appreciated. :) – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Today you rescued File:Josie.pdf from oblivion when you processed Migdia Chinea's OTRS email. Did that email also mention her other recent upload, File:Josie's eye.png, or must she send another email? -- John of Reading ( talk) 15:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I requested that the image be undeleted at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion; if it's the same as the PDF, we don't need the PDF. –  Adrignola  talk 15:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. They're not the same, but if the article survives I think the "eye" is a better picture for it. -- John of Reading ( talk) 17:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Restored. Nyttend ( talk) 03:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Good work on managing files. You deserve it. Thanks Mohamed Aden Ighe ( talk) 16:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Can't say it's a thankless task with comments like yours providing motivation. –  Adrignola  talk 18:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The way that the OTRS was let known of the permission of the image was because of a email I made to PhaseWare. You can see the email here as a HTML file on my website. Feel free to link to the email on the file page, or copy it to another site and link to the "another site"s copy. LikeLakers2 ( talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't necessary. We have the email on file in our system. –  Adrignola  talk 23:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

So can you tell us if the image has consent and therefore can be returned to use? B^e——C_ritical 01:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thought I had, but I'll reiterate on the discussion page just so it's clear. –  Adrignola  talk 04:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to make absolutely sure, since otherwise restoring the image could be seen as against consensus. B^e——C_ritical 04:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Adrignola. I was looking at my cross-wiki contributions and saw that my account at Wikibooks had become unattached. I tried logging in over there and found my ISP had been rangeblocked by Mike.lifeguard ( talk · contribs) a few years ago (see this rangeblock and this rangeblock) and unfortunately he has retired. A similar thing happened here at Wikipedia around the same time (see rangeblocks here and here). To make a long story short, it was a bad block and was reversed (long boring discussions reviewing the block then reversing it and a review of what happened). Anyhoo, as you're a crat on Wikibooks, I was wondering if you could lift those 2 rangeblocks. Thanks much. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 07:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, any admin could lift the blocks (rather than a 'crat). Anyways, I have lifted the blocks. I had about six months ago removed a whole lot of indefinitely blocked IP addresses blocked as being open proxies. So this one didn't show up since it was a definite period of blocking, though still too long for my tastes. As a bureaucrat I can help with usurpation if that is the remaining issue. –  Adrignola  talk 14:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I appreciate your generous help. Actually, the reason I asked you was because your name was the only one I recognized from the list of admins and crats at Wikibooks. Anyhoo, I'll head over there and make sure the account works and see if I need an usurp. Thanks very much for all the help. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 17:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks! Bizutage ( talk) 16:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:Users willing to offer advice

• File:BSicon uexhAKRZoe.svg
• File:BSicon exvSTRr3-.svg
• File:BSicon uevSTRe.svg

etc

Is it possible to licence this as PD shape? Bulwersator ( talk) 09:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. They are fairly simple and so there is not enough original creativity to justify a copyright. Standards in the US are lower than those in the UK, which allows for "sweat of the brow" to be counted in determining whether an item is copyrightable. So the best practice is to add {{ PD-shape}} in addition to any existing licensing tag, so that those in countries that have a higher bar can therefore use the more restrictive licensing option. –  Adrignola  talk 14:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Bulwersator ( talk) 15:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it necessary to do sth more with File:Ananas.comosus1web.jpg? Bulwersator ( talk) 20:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have checked the information at Commons and made any corrections needed. It may be deleted at Wikipedia now. –  Adrignola  talk 23:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw you had done some work on gadgets. We're trying to start a library for gadget authors to use. Please check it out and post any questions or comments there — ☠ MarkAHershberger☢( talk)☣ 19:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Need review of page history block. Thank you. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 05:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not well versed in copyvio issues like you are but a photo was mentioned on my talk page as possibly having issues.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Update. Issue being handled by admin User:DESiegel.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Bad has been nominated for merging with Template:No. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 22:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 11:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:American Majority (logo).png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion has started about wrapper templates of {{ Link language}}. You may be interested in participating because you participated in a related previous discussion. E^pi*i batch ( talk) 02:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC) ( Retro is my main account.)