User talk:Oliver kanjo

June 2010

Please stop adding colors to the lede section. No other mass transit system on WP uses color (BART, New York Subway, London Underground) and it's distracting and makes it difficult to read for some. Standardization exists for a reason. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

They were already there - I am merely updating them with the most recent information that has changed the colors.Oliver kanjo (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, stop re-adding them. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll gladly challenge that allegation. The history of the page speaks for itself.

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Rendered a 3O at the article talk page. BigK HeX (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Great work so far...

Been meaning to say this earlier, but I just wanted to mention that you have been doing a find job with MetroRail articles. I do admit all the work did throw me for a loop, but lord knows the articles needed the additional work. What are your thoughts on what I had mentioned on the METRORail talk page in regards to the recent article name changes? --Hourick (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the compliments. As far as the name changes, it could go either way, really. I'm actually for the sections of town for now since the names have at least been constant everywhere I've looked to try to find information. Outside of the Houston Chronicle article that mentioned the new date for the North Line (Fall 2013), Go METRORail seems to be the only source with as current information as I'll ever find. Now if the names were to change, though, then the entire thing is up to whatever we all agree upon then.Oliver kanjo (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Red line Extension

Just as an FYI, there will be another elevated portion between Salem and Bennington due to the railway located there. The only reason why I know this is because I had to do a Freedom of Information request from metro a couple of months ago. Unfortunately, I was unable to find documentation online to verify that fact without it being WP:RS. If you wish to look or request the document from metro, it will be the North Corridor DEIS, Page 10. --Hourick (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Found it on the METRO Solutions Website Oliver kanjo (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

House Poster

I took the liberty of tweaking your rationale for the House (season 7) promotional poster. The primary purpose for rationale is to justify the use of a potentially copyrighted image as it relates to the article (or to specifically explain how it is not copyrighted), and to justified it even being used in the article (it's not necessarily considered "necessary"), so simply saying your temporarily using it until the DVD comes out (since a DVD cover will require the same justification, by the way) probably won't cut it. You can see the whole policy ->here<-. Also, you used the wrong licencing tag; you have to look through those options carefully, as there is a specific tag for posters. It helps (as it did for me) to look around other articles using posters or DVD covers. If you click on the image, it will take you to the image's page, where you can read the rationale of the editor who posted it (some of my own work is the Psych (season 5) poster (that one got updated a couple of times), the Two and a Half Men (season 7) DVD, and The Mentalist (season 2) DVD). And of particular importance, an Admin flagged your image as being too high res; the answer to "Low resolution?" needs to always be "yes", as it discourages quality copies from being made from a Wikipedia page, just like "Replaceable?" always needs to be "no", because if there's a free copy of the image, or a similar image without copyright we can be using, then we should. I also took the liberty of downloading a new copy from another website that should meet the criteria. It's a lot, I know. KnownAlias contact 03:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine as I didn't know how leaks from places like EW worked and stuff like that. Also, thank you for correcting me - after looking at the other pages, I had determined that we were possibly only looking for DVD pics, hence my rationale. Oliver kanjo (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. From what I've seen, it's customary to use a promotional poster at the beginning of the season, then swap it out for the DVD when they come out...the DVD's release adds information to the article that's not covered by the promotional poster, and adds to the rationale for the switch. KnownAlias contact 17:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Info about TRAINS

Hello. I see that you've made news about some Amtrak routes. When doing so, please put brackets onto the TRAINS magazine name, or you must remove the source. I suggest that you put references about the information instead.

For example, you put this: As of the August 2010 issue of Trains Magazine, the Southwest Chief currently faces some challenges regarding some moves made by BNSF to cease all freight operations between La Junta, CO, and Lamy, NM.

You should not say it as it is not from the Trains Magazine, since the story is heard elsewhere. You cannot put information from blurbs and say that it came from the magazine into articles. For what you put, please remove "issue of Trains Magazine" from that message. Then put a reference next to a word or at the end of the sentence. Don't forget to put about another problem of the route in western Kansas. For me, I suggest this link as a reference instead of just the TRAINS articles. http://www.hdnews.net/Story/Rail090310

Ctempire (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC).

I must admit that you've lost me here. If I may, let me start at the beginning and see if I can get on the same page as you. By putting brackets on the said magazine that I pick up in physical form, I am thus linking to the Wikipedia article that covers the magazine correct? If that is so, I'm not certain why that would make a difference - it is still referencing the same thing, just with different form. I have no beef if people want to correct that part. As far as referencing goes (in your first paragraph), there is - it's at the end of the complete story as I have read it from the magazine. Now, speaking of that, despite that the story has been heard elsewhere, the physical magazine itself is a legitimate source - I may not have had access or knew of any website that may have contained the same story. If there is more relevant information contained within that isn't told (which speaking of, I told of both issues - I will drag everything over next sentence), please feel free to add it. Because I only have the physical magazine and its information, that's the only thing I can truthfully put as a user of Wikipedia, but the issue raised does make me think that I could reword the beginning as such:

"[According to] the August 2010 issue of Trains Magazine, the Southwest Chief currently faces some challenges regarding some moves made by BNSF to cease all freight operations between La Junta, CO, and Lamy, NM. It has been reported that BNSF told Amtrak as of January 1, 2010, that all maintenance costs belonged to Amtrak if they wished to pursue routing the train over the same right-of-way. Furthermore, BNSF has also declared that it will maintain the tracks between Hutchinson, KS, and La Junta, CO, at a Class 4 (40 mph passenger train maximum) speed instead of a Class 2 (79 mph passenger train maximum), again handing the bill over to Amtrak if they wanted to see service at a Class 2 level. These moves have led BNSF to offer to host the Southwest Chief over BNSF's currently used freight routes via Wichita, KS, Wellington, KS, Amarillo, TX, and Clovis, NM; however, Amtrak has refused and insists that they will pay the bill in order to keep the service as it currently is."

If there is something I am missing in all of this, do let me know, but at the present I am still lost. Oliver kanjo (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to correct my message here. You can say the information comes from magazines, in a fashion like "According". Apologies for stating some wrong information about sourcing. TheGGoose (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Massage Therapy (House)

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Massage Therapy (House), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 183.81.143.241 (talk) 05:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of METRO image

Look: University_Blue_Line_Map.jpg This will be speedily deleted. Images from the federal government are PD, but images from local governments usually aren't. And you don't need a copyright notice to claim copyright. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Houston Light Rail Expansion.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Houston Light Rail Expansion.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Eeekster (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happens, happens. When I first posted it, I was completely new and didn't know what fell under where with copyright. If it is proven to be classified as not free, then so be it - it was my mistake. Thank you very much for letting me know, though. Oliver kanjo (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:House Season 7 Promo Poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:House Season 7 Promo Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

MetroRail map

Oliver, did you download this from the METRO site? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Downtown_Houston_Close_Up.pdf&page=1

METRORail is not a federal government agency. AFAIK its stuff is all copyrighted WhisperToMe (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't remember if it was the official site or the Go METRORail when they were two separate sites that had different information. As it stands, back then I was new and I thought that city government would fall underneath that (since there wasn't a specific category when I had looked). You are correct in saying that it is copyrighted - someone else pointed it out earlier, and I've simply let folks do what they need to do, even if it means deleting the images. If that needs to happen with this one, then by all means eliminate it. Oliver kanjo (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree files

Some files that you uploaded or altered have been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because their copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the files' copyright statuses cannot be verified, they may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description pages: 1, 2, 3, 4. You are welcome to add comments to their entries at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Clorox (diskussion) 23:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:North Red Line Expansion.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:North Red Line Expansion.jpg, 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. Wikiacc (¶) 18:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Massage Therapy (House) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Massage Therapy (House) 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/Massage Therapy (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

1keyhole (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)