Cohesion

Obtained from http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/exhibits/engineering/. Image copyright owned by North Carolina State University.

Legal information can be found at [1]. The key paragraph was:

The materials from our collections are made available for use in research, teaching, and private study, pursuant to U.S. Copyright law. The user must assume full responsibility for any use of the materials, including but not limited to, infringement of copyright and publication rights of reproduced materials. Any materials used for academic research or otherwise should be fully credited with the source.

{{Non-free fair use in}}

Hello Cohesion, so you did somoe nice work on my wiki by creating sections, but I can't quite see how to get to the sections to edit? See, e.g., some nasty spam there.

Fixed, added email on that wiki also :) - cohesion 00:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

thank you for the answer, i will look for a free alternative--AFUSCO (talk contributions) 13:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cohesion, I noticed that you removed the {{NowCommons}} tag from Gallery of flags with animals; now, how do you suggest we should notify readers/editors that an article has been transwikied to Commons? Regards, Himasaram 02:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, I see what the intention was. I added {{commons}} to the page, does that seem to work for what you needed? The template that was there is a date based template meant to mark images that exist on commons that should be deleted from the english wikipedia. - cohesion 03:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I guess it's better than nothing. However, gallery articles at the 'pedia are going through a permanent transwiki process, as have recently been agreed on somehow (you never quite know with this project, though) so it is highly likely that this and other gallery articles will be deleted from the 'pedia eventually. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of city flags. Some articles, such as the city flags one, has been deleted, while others like Flags of active autonomist and secessionist movements has been turned into soft redirect pages. --Himasaram 03:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I thought it might be a candidate for deletion, and there may be specific tag for this transwiki project. Or you might just want to nominate it foe deletion. If you meant to mark it for deletion let me know and I will nominate it for you. The template that was being used is definitely for images though and is linked to CSD:I8, placing the including page in Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. - cohesion 04:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there is a specific tag, as this process has just started. For now, I think I'll simply make those articles "soft redirects" as soon as I have brought the tranwikied Commons article up to shape. Thanks, --Himasaram 05:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cohesion. I am an OTRS admin and I noticed you didn't send the email as requested on the volunteering page. Could you please fix that? Thanks! Cheers, guillom 20:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

done :) - cohesion 00:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am cohesion on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/cohesion. Thanks. --cohesion 22:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, pardon about "moving around" too much about your reply and mine. Now, can you just make this clear: is it customary to respond on my talk page or should I go to your page to reply. You know, what's the usual protocol? About the image: please suggest where we should continue the discussion/suggestion. I will follow your lead. But it seems better on my talk page then? Just kindly confirm your agreement with this. Thanks. So I know where to go or look. Sorry again. - Dragonbite 04:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

User talk pages are a little weird :) Different people do different things, I would say most people like to keep the whole conversation together on which ever talk page started it. I am a little more fluid with talk pages, I don't really care how they work out. I will often copy and paste both parts so that they are complete in both locations. I know that may seem odd since I just complained about something similar, but since, for talk pages, both people are informed of the discussion it doesn't cause problems. :D - cohesion 04:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay: copying here my replies too:

"Okay. I may consult some other uploads then? Or even prior to uploads (probably much better especially if I'm in doubt or not sure)? I am coming up with an article which may be difficult to have images (I am trying to figure out). I might consult you beforehand since I had a conversation with you also somewhere else (via email at wikimedia permissions I believe; I remember that.) Once the article is up, I'll let you know. You're very proficient about these matters. And thanks too about this advice about the use of "attribution" tags. - Dragonbite 04:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

...And I probably have the same issue then (like the Rico J. Puno image) about this image: Image:Hajji Alejandro Filipino singer.jpg. Better bring this up now so I could get help solving it (hopefully right away). But now, I don't know how? - Dragonbite 04:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)"Reply

Just dropping by before I log out for the night. I am trying to find out some information from the photographer. - Dragonbite 04:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

In general there might be an assumption that any image can be included on wikipedia, if only we find the right tags. This isn't the case. There are some images that we don't know the copyright holder of, and other images whose copyright holder does not allow us to use them, and they don't fall under our non-free content policy. Other images may require a lot more work. I don't want to discourage you because I know you have been doing a lot of work getting very good permissions from people. But we do have to know the person who actually made the image. That is the copyright holder, the person or entity that created the work, not people who made copies down the line. I am not going to intervene with the image you mentioned above, because in general I don't like tagging images that I find due to people asking me questions, because I don't want people to feel like asking me questions will get their images deleted. Also, just so you know, my talk page style varies by my perception of how comfortable the other user is on wikipedia, and is somewhat non-standard. Most people strongly prefer to have the conversation in only one place. (I don't want you to think my way is normal, haha) - cohesion 17:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

See this. I looked for Image:Noonday_Dolomite1.jpg on Commons, but couldn't find it. Do you know what happened here? Carcharoth 14:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The image is on commons as commons:Image:Late Precambrian Noonday Formation.jpg. The deleted version had no links on enwiki. I restored it and made a new deletion comment stating its new location and redeleted it. All the uses are already using the existing commons image though. I'm curious if this caused a problem? Usually no one notices things like this. Was the image being used in a way that didn't get listed on the image page? - cohesion 22:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cool, thanks! :D - cohesion 12:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for commenting at MediaWiki talk:Licenses/en-nonfree! I've responded to your concerns. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for all your comments and protected edits. While you're at it, could you fix MediaWiki:Licenses to have the same options for software screenshots as MediaWiki:Licenses/en-nonfree? Thanks again! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Better yet, we might want to use some fancy noinclude code and transclude all the specific option pages onto MediaWiki:Licenses. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah that might be a good idea for long term stability, probably would need more input for that though. Mediawiki talk:Licenses has a good amount of people watching it, just the response time is slow sometimes. :) - cohesion 13:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh yeah, I did change Mediawiki:Licenses also. - cohesion 13:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cohesion

My name is Amy Hayes. Recently I have had vandalism on my Wikipedia biography.

Since you appear to be someone who is involved with it being deleted, I thought I should write to you. Recently I filed for Divorce from my husband and posted a basic divorce announcment easily verified. Jeff Brassow keeps undoing my edits against a restraining order.

My bio was accurate and true. I am doing my best to understand the process here so forgive me for not being very fast in getting it.

Why is my bio up for deletion?

I read a post that acted like my accomplishments were not easily verified?

I certainly can be contacted and my web site has relevant and true information on me.

I have been off from wor for the last year and a half. That does not make my impact any less.

My husband Jeff is in violation of the restraining order. There was nothing wrong or bad with my biography over the years.

Your expertise and wisdom is greatly appreciated

My email is amy...[redacted]@excite.com

I have written to Wikipedia to discuss all of this. I have contacted my attorney.

There were no negative comments or false contibutions to my biography and I certainly appreciate all of the hard work others have contibuted.

Sincerely

Amy Hayes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.103.158 (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see our policies on verifiability and biographies of living people. We require sourcing of all statements that could be disputed from reliable sources. The reasoning for this is to avoid situations where we may present incorrect information. We are extremely cautious with biographies of living people because we are aware that information presented here can have a significant impact on their lives. Since the article about you was not sourced for 4 years I decided to see what the community thought about keeping it. This does not mean that the article will absolutely be deleted, only that it is being discussed. Wikipedia also does not encourage legal threats, and I am choosing to distance myself from the situation. I hope that answers all your questions. - cohesion 18:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm a sysop in Vietnamese Wikipedia, I'm creating an Upload page like English Wikipedia vi:Wikipedia:Truyền lên tập tin, I've changed file MediaWiki:Licenses/vi-ownwork corresponding to Own work options, but they still display Media:Licenses information. Can you know what problem is? Vinhtantran 11:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The localization of that is a per project setting, so the developers would have to turn it on for viwiki. It is set up correctly though, so when it's turned on it should work. :) I would contact wikitech-l to request it being turned on, I don't know what the downside is to having it on if there is any, so I'm not sure what sort of consensus you would need. :) - cohesion 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I saw that you expressed concern on this article's talk page about verification of facts, reliability of sources, as well as article ownership. I share your concerns, and wanted to bring to your attention the fact that I have expressed my concerns on the Administrators' noticeboard:

Hello Cohesion. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looks like it's being handled already, so fine with me. :) - cohesion 20:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please do NOT have CohesionBot continue to change "forage" to "fodder." While all forage is fodder, not all fodder is forage, and the distinction matters a great deal in the articles that discuss feeding livestock. ("Fodder" is everything, including grain. LIvestock all need forages, they do not necessarily need grains. This is a significant distinction when it comes to animal health). I fixed several articles where the bo t went through, but may have missed some. Thanks.Montanabw^(talk) 05:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The bot is really just me. The article at Forage I don't think should be a disambiguation page in that case. I have made the changes already. If you ever need to link to something as a new term it shouldn't be a disambiguation page, otherwise it will end up on a list for people do redirect links away from. A disambiguation/article hybrid won't work out. Sorry for the trouble, I wasn't sure if they were the same, but since we didn't have an article on forage at the time I directed to fodder. - cohesion 12:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not sure how to solve the problem of forage being a sort-of disambiguation page. Will think on that one, if you have any ideas, go for it. One problem is that "forage" means both grasses/derivatives and such as well as the verb "to forage" which ought to be covered by the foraging article, but that one is a real disaster, it is actually about "foraging theory" and at no place actually describes with forage or foraging is, looks like it was copied out of some scientific journal and is, in practical terms, useless. (sigh) Start wading into the agriculture and ag articles at your own risk. Montanabw^(talk) 15:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ha, well I learned something new (forage vs fodder), can't ask for more really. :) I think Forage shouldn't be a disambiguation page, I've made it into a stub already, that should be fine. Later today I will go though more of the bot edits and see if any need to be fixed. - cohesion 00:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm a longtime reader of wikipedia and have recently begun to contribute. The Crusades, and medieval military history in general, has been both a personal and academic passion for some time. I had contributed quite a bit, my contributions were undone, I put them back (or tried to), and then they were undone again, which has lead me here.

The information in the original article was overly simplistic and not at all up to date on the most recent theories and perspectives. Clearly the economic desire and role of such maritime powers as Venice, Genoa, and Pisa, as well as the Angevin "Empire" of Charles of Anjou must be part of any serious information on the Crusades. The same can be said with an accurate picture of late 1100s Byzantium, or the retaking of Lisbon by Crusader-Portuguese forces in 1147, during and a part of the Second Crusade.

I highly object to any of my conributions being labeled "vandelism." The original article was not sufficient to gain a remotely accurate picture of the Crusades. I recognize that certain contributions of mine may not fit stylistically with segments of the original article, but this can be easily corrected with parentheses or spacing. Please restore my contributions, let me restore them, or let me write a completely different article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunslinger1812 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is this in reference to an edit you think I did, or just a general request for help? I haven't done much anti-vandalism work lately, but I can't be sure I didn't revert something if I came across it. Which article are you referring to? Sometimes working within the community may be difficult, but I hope you it doesn't discourage you! - cohesion 13:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for pointing out several major errors associated with the Nathaniel Street-West Wikipedia page. I am quite new to Wikipedia as you more experienced editors can readily see. I can see that the article needs far more documenting to the proper sources and I am working on a reasonable system for doing so. I have read many Wikipedia biographies of musicians and where as some have a footnote for practically each and every sentence, many more are written in a looser format that lists sources but without pasting numbers and footnotes all over the place. This will take some time, however the material will be properly sourced. On a more serious note, the messages that were left in association with the photograph uploads in this article in no way implies that the photographers who logged in under the "Penny Lane" editor claim to be (or are) associated with the subject. I can see how it would be confusing for several photographers to log on using the same editorial user name. I see the error now and from this point on there will be no more than one person (editor) logging on as PennyLane100. Unfortunately two of the photographers/artists who uploaded several image files (Image:American Way Cover Art.jpg; Image:Witness Cover 300px.jpg; Image:Nathaniel Street-West in 2006.jpg) by logging in under the PennyLane100 editor name identified themselves as being associated with Puffin Records. This is because I requested the images from Puffin Records and the employees misunderstood the ground rules for how to identify themselves and the legal status of the photographs. As the editor PennyLane100 I am not associated with the subject and neither are the photographers who logged in as "aliases" of PennyLane100 associated with the subject. I requested images of the subject from Puffin Records and the people who logged in as “aliases” and uploaded these images at my request misunderstood what to write. I am the sole editor of the initial text & page design (before other editor's recent corrections) and hold myself responsible for all errors. I am uploading all new photographs for this article and any photographs I request from Puffin Records I will ask to have sent to the Wikipedia Commons if at all possible. Our webmaster devised the plan to use one editor username for the whole page so that the photographers could simply log in as PennyLane100 and upload, and was confused by the immense amount of data ruling who may and may not claim a copyrighted image, and by the many different licensing regulations and this led to the mess. Nevertheless, I am taking all responsibility for this embarrassing debacle. There is no conspiracy here. The people who logged in appropriately (me) and inappropriately (those we asked to log in as a convenience) as Penny Lane100 are not in cahoots together in any diabolical way. My biggest concern is that I have embarrassed the artist, Nathaniel Street-West, by thinking of him having to suffer through the egregious and threatening warnings plastered across the top of his Wikipedia page. AT the very least, I am requesting that the "conflict of interest" notice be removed from the head of the page (all these notices do is embarrass the subject and not the editor). I am also requesting that other editors refrain from accusing me of having some undue conflict of interest in relation to the subject. (By the way, who is the person in charge of removing these notices?) Again, thank you for your help! I hope this clears up the situation and I will be passing this on to the other editors who mentioned a possible conflict of interest. (Apologies for the long message!) PennyLane100 02:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

My only concern regarding this issue was the username being used by multiple people, I believe you or someone in your group had asked about it at WP:MCQ. I didn't comment on errors etc on the article itself. As far as removing warnings, that is done by the community, or you as you correct the things that are mentioned. For example, once you add sources you can remove the tag that says no sources etc. It's not punishment, it's just an organizational tool :) Hope that helps, if you have any other questions let me know. The images are still pending various decisions. If you do plan to re-upload please be sure to tag the old ones with {{db-author}} so they can be removed without getting forgotten about or having too much process involved. Thanks! - cohesion 01:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for reverting vandalism on Larrys Creek on October 20. I appreciate your help keeping the article presentable while it was linked on the Main Page very much, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

A few days ago, I noticed your bot changing article links from ascension to Ascension of Jesus Christ. I have since proposed that this article be renamed Ascension of Jesus to match the main article Jesus, and similar article like Virgin Birth of Jesus and Death and resurrection of Jesus. No one has commented on my proposal, (found at the bottom of here) so I am contacting you to see what you think, because you ran the bot for the changes. And if you agree with my change, I wonder if you wouldn't mind running the bot again.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Seems fine to me, the link changing I was doing was because all those articles pointed to a disambiguation page. If you want to change it to Ascension of Jesus you really just need to switch the redirects, we could switch out all the article links, but most people don't in that situation. - cohesion 04:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

You removed the scroll boxes from the Keke Wyatt article. Please cite the Wiki Article that states that scroll boxes are not allowed. No one seems to contest their usage in the Madonna article. Tukes 07:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I only see them in the references section there. I'll go ahead and ask at WP:STYLE, and you can follow that conversation if you would like. You shouldn't assume that if it's not stated somewhere it's fine, articles should have a consistent style from one to the next. - cohesion 12:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

You need to reconsider the logic behind what you last suggested. Tukes 20:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

These are bad, bad, bad. They screw up the printability of the article. I believe there were templates that were once quickly deleted. We shouldn't be hiding content or refs with these ludicrous scroll bars. IvoShandor 22:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, that makes sense. I never considered that people print out Wikipedia articles. Tukes 23:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I never liked the scroll bars, but I didn't think about that aspect until someone pointed it out to me either. :) IvoShandor 23:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

What I meant was that not everything that's a bad idea is enumerated, not that people shouldn't try things, that's where good ideas come from! See WP:BEANS for a humorous look at that idea. :) - cohesion 00:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, we just don't do articles that way, and not just for printing; even viewed online, scrollboxes are a usability nightmare. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

And they are actually against the style guidelines, see WP:CITE#Scrolling_lists. KnightLago 02:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I asked at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style about this, but got no response. I am now spamming people whe participate in MOS with this request: would you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader template usage and tell me what you think? - Peregrine Fisher 07:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Templates as leadszReply

I'm the editor of Kzk. Unfortunately you should've have left the plot on for many different reasons but because of your changes i have caught the vandal. Thank You,Hope you understand. Lil'Khan 17:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am working WP:CP and came across the entry for Listenability. It seems fairly obvious that the author is the copyright holder, and he claims to have filed permission with OTRS. I see that you restored the page (indicating that you received permission?) but then blanked it again. What gives? Did he file permissions or not? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

There was no statement of license from the copyright holder. An email did occur, but not a GFDL licensing statement. This was a while ago, I sent a followup, but there was no response. I don't see any reason not to treat it like you normally would with WP:CP. This probably is the same person, but otrs can't "confirm" GFDL. I don't have any opinion on whether you should delete or not :) Sorry for the confusion from unblanking, and reblanking. - cohesion 17:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why don't you like the tone warnings on the top of that article? [2] Just wondering, I don't really have a strong preference. - cohesion 04:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oops, all I meant to remove was the deletion/copyvio tag, but my revert tool rolled right over your edit. east.718 at 04:59, December 31, 2007

Ahh, yeah, I should remove those faster. Sorry for the trouble. :) - cohesion 05:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Aslong as there are men there shall be wars - Alber Enstien —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.220.247 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. :) - cohesion 22:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello

Can you provide examples for English cohesion?

KCA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.195.156 (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you mean. - cohesion 20:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cohesion, I see you once did some editing on the forage page. I was wondering if you would take a look at it again and let me know what you think. Gabacho2 (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

That looks pretty good, I worked on it a little from the disambiguation side. :) - cohesion 21:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you recently left me a message regarding an image I had posted. I deleted all source and copyright information because I accidentally posted the image in Wikipedia when one already existed in Wikipedia Commons. So there are not duplicate images, I would like this the image that is uploaded to Wikipedia deleted so as not to have duplicate images. Let me know if this is possible. Thanks! --Kaitlin510 (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you recently left me a message regarding an image I had posted (Image:Hyland_firstonbasead.jpg). I deleted all source and copyright information because I accidentally posted the image in Wikipedia when one already existed in Wikipedia Commons. So there are not duplicate images, I would like this the image that is uploaded to Wikipedia deleted so as not to have duplicate images. Let me know if this is possible. Thanks! --Kaitlin510 (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure, the image has been deleted. :) - cohesion 18:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Someone needs to get it to revert itself on redirects which intentionally targeted Dragon Ball (disambiguation page). I have reverted one, but the bot needs to undo the rest. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

The correct way to intentionally link to a disambiguation page is to link to Dragon Ball (disambiguation) for example. There were hundreds of bad links to Dragon Ball from articles, these have to be distinguished from the intentional links. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links_to_disambiguation_pages for more info. The best solution I think would be to move Dragon Ball (franchise) to Dragon Ball, and move the current Dragon Ball to Dragon Ball (disambiguation). That was not the consensus from Talk:Dragon_Ball_(manga)/Archive_1#Requested_move though, so I'm not going to do that unilaterally. Anyway, the bot is not automated, the problem is if you have a few intentional links to Dragon Ball along with literally hundreds of incorrect links to it they will not be disambiguated as you intend. They will be disambiguated though, inbound links to a disambiguation page are always seen as a problem, and will find their way to the various logs etc. If you have some way of distinguising which ones are intentional I can revert them, but this situation isn't stable, and the next random person to fix this will probably "fix" them the same way I did. - cohesion 22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Question is, can you program it to re-target those links to the Dragon Ball dab? I'd be a pain for me to the edits manually. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think I changed any of the links to Dragon Ball (disambiguation), only the ones to Dragon Ball. I'm not exaggerating when I say there were hundreds to Dragon Ball, most of which would be undesirable to you also, if I understand you correctly. Here is an example of the most common type [3] I need some way to distinguish between those and ones that should go to a disambiguation page. The normal way people do that is to link to Dragon Ball (disambiguation) directly per Wikipedia:Disambiguation so when people fix the disambiguation they can see, "oh, this one was on purpose". Does that make sense? - cohesion 12:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't know if I completely understand. Can you change them to Dragon Ball (disambiguation)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Any that are intentional should be to Dragon Ball (disambiguation), I just don't know which ones are intentional. That change I linked above is not one that you are saying should link to Dragon Ball (disambiguation) right? - cohesion 02:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, I'll fix it myself later. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see your bot is changing the links that should point at [[free energy]] into [[Second law of thermodynamics|free energy]].

Writing the free energy suppression article it became obvious there are various very different interpretations of free energy. It's just like skepticism knows both scientific skepticism and philosophical skepticism. Fully contradicting each other.

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title (obviously). However, Second law of thermodynamics is not mentioned on the page free energy. If you think it should be on the page then a link would be more appropriate I think.

Take this for example:

Motionless electromagnetic generator: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Motionless_electromagnetic_generator&diff=162913509&oldid=158766367

[[Classical electromagnetism]] does not contain any mechanism allowing for "''[[over-unity]]''" or "[[Second law of thermodynamics|free energy]]" devices.

lol

Good luck Go-here.nl (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I notice you're using one of the {{motd}} templates, run by Wikipedia:Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I might run through them some time this week. :) - cohesion 19:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome. Tanvir che (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please review and participate in the discussion to determine if/how Houston neighborhood articles should be merged/redirected to List of Houston neighborhoods. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a good move :) I'll take a look! - cohesion 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

About half the link disambigs you made to Shrapnel shell should have been to Fragmentation (weaponry)... I'm trying to track them down and fix them, but that was a definite goof. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I tried to give people the benefit of the doubt when it wasn't clear, based on the discussion here. I'd be happy to look at some of them if you want to let me know a type or article etc, I'm pretty familiar with the types of articles that use it right now. The more complex cases though may be better suited for someone with domain specific knowledge. The largest category of article I relinked to Shrapnel shell were deaths by shrapnel, I tried to base this on year and context, but often it still wasn't obvious. In those cases I went with Shrapnel shell, assuming (maybe incorrectly) that the editor was correct in the terminology. - cohesion 04:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Any explosive fragment post-WW-I is almost certainly the Fragmentation (weaponry), as were many before... The traditional old shrapnel lives on a tiny bit (post-WW-II Beehive rounds, etc) but is nearly gone. Now it's generic for casing or miscellaneous fragments from HE detonation... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, this is a very confused term I hadn't realized how much until I read the relevant articles, Fragmentation (weaponry) wasn't even on the disambiguation page until I added it... :\ - cohesion 20:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you have tagged one of my images. Can you explain. I am a relatively new wikipedian Chrisfromcanberra (talk)

The Image File:Aerialgoldcreek.jpg. I removed a warning from the image page. You originally didn't specify the license, and a bot flagged the image as being problematic, but you then added the license. The problem flag was still there, and I removed that. The image is ok though, although not used in any articles. :) If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks for adding free content to Wikipedia! - cohesion 21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is missing, David Cameron have you deleted it or moved it somewhere? (Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC))Reply

It has been corrected already. I deleted an image of David Cameron in 2006 [4], and for some reason on June 8 of this year someone changed the link back to that old deleted version [5] I don't know why they would do that. Someone else fixed it. :) I haven't interacted with that article since 2006 as far as I know. - cohesion 05:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thank you for your comments. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC))Reply

jestem osoba chora na pseudoxantoma elasticum wraz z zespolem grundlad stranberga od 19 lat czy mozesz napisac troche wiecej na temat tej choroby i jej zagrozen bo w polsce nie wiele chyba sie wie na jej temat jestem chyba jedyna osaba z takim schorzeniem w kraju i lekarze nie wiele mi powiedzieli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.89.189.47 (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi friend.

A distant relative of Charles Asgill has recently had colorized an image you uploaded as "File:General Sir Charles Asgill.jpg". She wants to substitute the color version for the greyscale one which you have up. This is a (life + 70) file that is in the public domain, but as a recently tweaked image it presents a more intricate copyright situation than those with which I normally deal at WP. Nevertheless, I've promised her to do my best. I was wondering if you might be persuaded to upload the colorized version as a "new version," together with whatever necessary amendments to the copyright template you deem necessary?

The colorizer is fine with the file's use, and the owner of the colorized file is a WP user herself, albeit one who is completely put off and frightened by the uploading process. Please let me know your views on my talk page or better yet drop me an email and I will send a copy of the file along for you to assess. It's quite a nice job, very professional and it cost her a bundle. Thanks. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR //// MutantPop@aol.com //// Carrite (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's fine, I'm not that involved with the image, it was probably pointed out to me by someone like yourself when I uploaded it. It's public domain, so any alterations can also be public domain, or licensed in any way you like (free license of course). I'd rather you or her upload it as they come from you though, but the licensing isn't complicated. She can basically choose whatever license she would like since it's a alteration of a public domain work. Thanks! -cohesion 00:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear Cohesion,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Happy birthday! --J (t) 01:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! - cohesion 21:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joel Dodd is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Joel Dodd until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

That's fine. :) - cohesion 14:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am trying to track down copyright information on a photograph currently hosted on a page about Majlis al Jinn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majlis_al_Jinn

The photograph in question appears to have been uploaded by Michael McAndrew on 27.10.07 and I'm seeking to establish what kind of copyright restrictions apply to the work:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Descending_into_cave.jpg

Are you able to furnish me with any information on the photograph's underlying copyright?

I'd be most grateful for any information you're able to provide by emailing fleabeater@mac.com

193.169.154.71 (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)FelReply

I'm not sure, sorry - cohesion 22:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related content on Wikipedia throughout the month of June. On June 21, there will be a multi-national edit-a-thon, if you wish to participate. Here is the project page for Houston: Wikipedia:Meetup/Houston/Wiki Loves Pride 2014. Ways to help? Create or improve LGBT-related articles, host an edit-a-thon at a local coffeeshop, library or other location, or photograph LGBT culture and history in the Houston area. Visit the project page for more information, and if you are interested in contributing, just add your name to the list of supporters or add the results of your work. Thanks for your consideration! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I might start editing again, and have not lost access to the account etc, so might as well keep to spare the process. :) - cohesion 01:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

You saved yourself by exactly 10 minutes ;> Welcome back! –xeno^talk 01:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

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) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

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) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. Acalamari 12:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Autodate has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Did Q28 make a mess today? 09:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Seems fine to me, thanks! cohesion 20:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Category:Promotional photos with no terms indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply