User talk:RaphaelQS
Welcome
Comillas Pontificial University
[edit]Hello again,
Continuing with my "improving Spanish universities project", it would be very kind if you could vectorise the Comillas Pontifical University coat of arms as shown in the .en wiki article.
Many thanks, --CreiterAdam45z (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Done --RaphaelQS (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
University of Salamanca
[edit]Hi Raphael!
I'm going to be working on the article University of Salamanca, and would appreciate if you could vectorise the existing coat of arms into .svg as per usual.
Thank you! --CreiterAdam45z (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hey Done --RaphaelQS (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Great as usual! --CreiterAdam45z (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
UEA
[edit]Sorry to bother you again but any chance of a vector of the University of East Anglia shield? What software are you using out of interest? Many thanks for your sterling work! Adalta1884 (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, I'm using Inkscape a free and open-source software. I just uploaded the full coat of arms of the University of East Anglia. I will vectorize the shield later. --RaphaelQS (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Seaford College
[edit]Was wondering if it also might be possible to vectorise the Seaford College logo. If not then not to worry :) Kind regards, Adalta1884 (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Done --RaphaelQS (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Ardingly College
[edit]Thanks for your work on the Ardingly College shield and coat of arms, they look great! Just a small detail, would it be possible to add, what look to me like 3 mounds of earth, below the cross, in keeping with the original? If it's too late to make that addition then not to worry. Your work is highly appreciated. Kind regards Adalta1884 (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Done --RaphaelQS (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. Just a minor additional detail is that originally the cross extended to the boundary of the red box containing the feather. Would it be possible to extend the top part of the cross to here? Many Thanks for your excellent contributions! Adalta1884 (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Done let me know if you need anything else. --RaphaelQS (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. Just a minor additional detail is that originally the cross extended to the boundary of the red box containing the feather. Would it be possible to extend the top part of the cross to here? Many Thanks for your excellent contributions! Adalta1884 (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Ardingly College correction
[edit]Hi, It has come to my attention that you have uploaded a very accurate svg version of the Ardingly College coat of arms. Nevertheless, the crest is still missing the heraldic knight. Could you, by any chance help me by seeing if we can do anything about it?
Here is the official crest: File:Coat of arms of Ardingly College on college window.jpg
Warmest regards. --WSussexTim (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Done. --RaphaelQS (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a million! looking great! --WSussexTim (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi RaphaelQS!
It seems like this coat of arms was rightfully deleted from Commons due to it being a non-free image. Nonetheless, I would appreciate if you could upload it again but this time as a non-free image to Wikipedia.
Many thanks, --BurgeesHill12 (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Real Sociedad de Tenis de La Magdalena
[edit]Good afternoon,
It would be of huge help if you could transform this club seal File:Escudo de la Real Sociedad de Tenis de La Magdalena (Santander).png into inkscape vector svg. If you can, I would be very grateful. I shall be using it in my newly written article Real Sociedad de Tenis de La Magdalena. Thank you --Cantabrucu (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Done --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks ever so much! --Cantabrucu (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry...
[edit]about the incorrect revert on my part. I read the diff incorrectly. Regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
INSA logo
[edit]Hi RaphaelQS! I saw that you were the initial uploader of the INSA logo (on page Institut national des sciences appliquées de Lyon). The logo changed in 2014 [1], but I can't upload it because my account is unconfirmed. If you have a few minute, would you mind doing it? Thanks. Deelight (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Done --RaphaelQS (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! Deelight (talk) 12:37, 11 June 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) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there
[edit]I was wondering whether you could do me a favor and add "and age" to these protected pages: 4Chan, Apple, Gamefreak, KFC, Nintendo, PlayStation Home, Taco bell, WikiWikiWeb, Yahoo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1807:3A59:0:56:646C:FE01 (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Columbia logo
[edit]I'm sorry but is there a reason that you replaced the colored Columbia GS logo for a colorless one? I don't really see the need for this. The actual one is colored (as can be seen on the Columbia University campus). IcarusLivesX (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Cheadle Hulme School logo and image change
[edit]Hi - you have recently changed the logo image for the Cheadle Hulme School page and have also removed an image of the front of the School which existed on that page.
Firstly, the logo you have replaced is the incorrect School logo. No version of the logo should ever exist without the words "Cheadle Hulme School" underneath the crest; those words are part of the logo, as per the School's brand guidelines - Cheadle Hulme School Brand Manual.
Please could you re-instate the former logo which was already on the page?
Please could you also explain the reason for removing the image of the front of the School? This image is a good representation of what the School looks like and therefore provides those who don't know the School with an impression of it. That photo was uploaded by an editor as per the page's Talk Page.Timhudsonchs (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hello!
- 1) It is the coat of arms, not the logo. The logo, as you just say, is the coat of arms with "Cheadle Hulme School" underneath. We use the coat of arms in the "image" field of the infobox, as you can see in other articles: Eton College, Westminster School etc.
- 2) I don't have a strong opinion about having a picture of the school in the infobox. Most of the other articles about schools don't have it so I remove it for consistency. If you think it is an improvement for this article, you can put it back. --RaphaelQS (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - I understand your perspective on what you are calling the coat of arms but this does not exist anywhere in the School with the words Cheadle Hulme School underneath - as per that Branding document. I work in the Communications department at the School and so it is up to me to make sure that everything is used consistently across all our media, which is why we need to make sure that the correct image is used. Please could you replace the original image as you have used an incorrect one. Regarding the image of the front of the School, I am happy to put it back but as I am representing the School, I don't want to appear to be raising a Conflict of Interest issueTimhudsonchs (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC).
- I also understand your perspective, but the logo of the school is composed of a coat of arms with the text "Cheadle Hulme School" underneath. You don't need to officially call it a coat of arms it is de facto a coat of arms because it is a unique heraldic design. I don't think it is a good idea to break consensus about the infobox and putting a logo in the "image" field. --RaphaelQS (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think I'm making myself clear. The School's crest, in its complete form, includes the words Cheadle Hulme School underneath, as per the School's Brand Guidelines. The image you have uploaded is therefore an altered image ie. it has been cropped but shouldn't be. This can be counted as a copyright violation. I can request for this to be a file up for discussion but without going to those lengths wonder if you could please re-upload the un-cropped version then that would be the correct and accurate image to use. Thanks. Timhudsonchs (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- You are perfectly right. It was a mistake, I can't just use the logo of the school for extracting the coat of arms, it is a derivative work that doesn't fall under fair use and therefore a copyright violation. I will delete this image and try to trace the coat of arms myself. Thank you for raising the issue and helping improve the article. --RaphaelQS (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Update: The problematic file is now deleted. I just draw my own rendition of the coat of arms of the school for the infobox. If you have any comments or suggestions please let me know. --RaphaelQS (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi again - I see your replacement now but I'm afraid that I will have to note this as unencyclopaedic. What you have uploaded is an artist's impression of the School's crest and, as such, does not offer factual or historical accuracy to the page. Users could view this and think that it is the School's actual crest which, in fact, it isn't. Again, I will have to note this as a file for discussion/deletion due to it's unencyclopaedic nature unless you are able to re-upload the correct file again. Thanks.Timhudsonchs (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hello again, it is the consensus on the project that we use our own renditions of the coats of arms. For example, for the article about Eton College in Berkshire, the coat of arms is not the official rendition, see: and the official rendition. You can also see the coats of arms in the infoboxes of the articles about the constituent colleges of the University of Oxford. It is still encyclopedic because coats of arms are by nature subject to the interpretation of the artist. --RaphaelQS (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- If this is the case then it would be better if the 'coat of arms' was more complete. You have omitted the two 'feathered wings' from either side of it.Timhudsonchs (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- UPDATE: Please could you refer me to the discussion you refer to regarding the consensus about coats of arms on school pages? I have looked on the Projects page but can't see this mentioned. Timhudsonchs (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Again if you have any comments or suggestions please let me know. --RaphaelQS (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - I still think that this is not an accurate representation of the School's crest. The others you point out to me are much more accurate. This one does not look enough like the School's crest. Why is it not possible to simply stick to putting the original file back up, as previous? Where is the discussion regarding this?Timhudsonchs (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- We can't put the official rendition of the coat of arms in the infobox because that requires to extract it from the logo and thus making a derivative work of copyrighted material. For the coat of arms in the infobox of article about school, I don't think there is a formal discussion about the use of artist renditions. This is a consensus de facto because this is how we have done things in the project for more than ten years. Please remember that all consensus are subject to change if it is for the better. Nothing is written in stone. If you think it is better for the project to stop accepting our own renditions of the coats of arms you can still open a discussion in the project talk page. You can also open a discussion in the article talk page if you think it is better for this specific article not to follow the consensus about coat of arms in the infobox. I think your argument about accurate representation of the official coat of arms can be heard even if I think that the coat of arms I have traced is pretty accurate. We can open this debate to more feedbacks if you wish. --RaphaelQS (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - I still think that this is not an accurate representation of the School's crest. The others you point out to me are much more accurate. This one does not look enough like the School's crest. Why is it not possible to simply stick to putting the original file back up, as previous? Where is the discussion regarding this?Timhudsonchs (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Again if you have any comments or suggestions please let me know. --RaphaelQS (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hello again, it is the consensus on the project that we use our own renditions of the coats of arms. For example, for the article about Eton College in Berkshire, the coat of arms is not the official rendition, see: and the official rendition. You can also see the coats of arms in the infoboxes of the articles about the constituent colleges of the University of Oxford. It is still encyclopedic because coats of arms are by nature subject to the interpretation of the artist. --RaphaelQS (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi again - I see your replacement now but I'm afraid that I will have to note this as unencyclopaedic. What you have uploaded is an artist's impression of the School's crest and, as such, does not offer factual or historical accuracy to the page. Users could view this and think that it is the School's actual crest which, in fact, it isn't. Again, I will have to note this as a file for discussion/deletion due to it's unencyclopaedic nature unless you are able to re-upload the correct file again. Thanks.Timhudsonchs (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think I'm making myself clear. The School's crest, in its complete form, includes the words Cheadle Hulme School underneath, as per the School's Brand Guidelines. The image you have uploaded is therefore an altered image ie. it has been cropped but shouldn't be. This can be counted as a copyright violation. I can request for this to be a file up for discussion but without going to those lengths wonder if you could please re-upload the un-cropped version then that would be the correct and accurate image to use. Thanks. Timhudsonchs (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I also understand your perspective, but the logo of the school is composed of a coat of arms with the text "Cheadle Hulme School" underneath. You don't need to officially call it a coat of arms it is de facto a coat of arms because it is a unique heraldic design. I don't think it is a good idea to break consensus about the infobox and putting a logo in the "image" field. --RaphaelQS (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - I understand your perspective on what you are calling the coat of arms but this does not exist anywhere in the School with the words Cheadle Hulme School underneath - as per that Branding document. I work in the Communications department at the School and so it is up to me to make sure that everything is used consistently across all our media, which is why we need to make sure that the correct image is used. Please could you replace the original image as you have used an incorrect one. Regarding the image of the front of the School, I am happy to put it back but as I am representing the School, I don't want to appear to be raising a Conflict of Interest issueTimhudsonchs (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC).
Marlborough College arms
[edit]When I looked at your first attempt the image was not coloured. I have no problem with the coloured version. Dabbler (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hello. Perfect! --RaphaelQS (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Washington Post logo
[edit]Hi,
Personally I agree with you, and I think the logos should be added back to the articles, but the consensus on the template page is that they should be gone. Do you have any good reasons why they should stay?
Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
SVG of Against Malaria Foundation.png
[edit]Thanks so much for uploading an SVG version of that image. However, I notice you didn't indicate the replacement image in either the di template nor the notification. While it was easy to figure out what had happened in this case, that's not always true. I would like to request that, in the future you indicate the replacement image when a file is replaced.
Second, I notice that your fair use rationale does not actually indicate a URL source of the new file. It just vaguely references the organization. I find that this sort of thing can make things difficult for reviewers and such in the future. Could you please indicate the file source you used (even if it wasn't originally an SVG)? If you created it yourself, please indicate what file you used as a base.
I'm not any sort of admin or anything, but I do spend a lot of time with images on Wikimedia. And I think both of these make things easier and take only a little bit of extra time. (Especially if you use Twinkle) — trlkly 03:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you for saying that to me, I try to do my best. I just put URL of the PDF from which the vector logo was extracted in the Non-free media data box. --RaphaelQS (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
File sources
[edit]RaphaelQS, you need to start adding a url to the files you upload or I will mark them for deletion for no source. I noticed it with the University of Richmond seal, and I noticed you didn't do it for another one. When I look through your uploads, I see it is a common thing of yours to not include them. I would hate for all of the files you uploaded to be deleted simply because you didn't add a source. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Please also learn the difference between a non-free image and a public domain image. This file is clearly in the public domain. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, most of the time the source is simply the organization (college, university...). --RaphaelQS (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- I realize that, but an exact link to the source (usually a brand guide) helps verify it... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, thanks! --RaphaelQS (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- I realize that, but an exact link to the source (usually a brand guide) helps verify it... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, most of the time the source is simply the organization (college, university...). --RaphaelQS (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Sir Charles Chaplin
[edit]Hi Raphael. Is there a good reason you moved Chaplin's "Sir" from "honorific_prefix" into his name? Strictly speaking a "Sir" is a style to which knights are entitled, like the more lowly "Mr" for ordinary folk. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hello. This is simply style, "honorific_prefix" is for things like "The Right Honourable", and "Sir" is part of the "name" field. For example: Ninian Stephen --RaphaelQS (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, as a practical issue I can see the point. Not sure I fully agree, but it's not worth an argument. Thanks for the response. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Non-free vs. Public domain images
[edit]RaphaelQS, please learn the difference between a WP:Non-free image and a WP:Public domain image. The example would be the University of Pittsburgh wordmark that you recently uploaded. Something simple as text is in the Public Domain and therefore not a Non-free image with a copyright. I know you also probably hated when I tagged the file with 'no source', but until you can get thru to your head that every. single. upload. needs a source, I will continue to tag the files. Resulting in not doing so and continuing to upload without a source could get you blocked. Also, please optimize your files by removing unnecessaru coding. This saves space and therefore doesn't make the images too big (KBs or MBs, etc.). Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- "I know you also probably hated when I tagged the file" don't worry about that, I don't mind at all. I always forget about putting the source, when you flag a file this reminds me to do it so it's cool. --RaphaelQS (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your revert of my removal of the uncited date of birth given for Patty Jenkins in that article, per WP:USERG, websites w/ user-generated info like IMDb are not considered reliable under WP:USERG.
Also, such information must be accompanied by inline citations of reliable sources, per WP:V, WP:CS, et al. Having accumulated nearly 9,000 edits since 2013, I assume you're aware of this by now. In any event, please do not add material to articles without citations. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't know that IMDb was user-generated. --RaphaelQS (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- No worries. However, I should point out that the new source you added to the article supports only the 1971 birth year, and not the birth month nor birth date. When you add a source, please make sure it supports all the information you add or re-add to an article. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Please help add Coat of Arms on the regional page of University of Salford
[edit]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:University_of_Salford_coat_of_arms.png https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=索爾福德大學
Thanks:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upinel (talk • contribs) 03:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Updating Council on Foreign Relations's Board of Directors
[edit]Hello RaphaelQS,
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has recently made changes to its Board of Directors[1].
Would you be available/willing to update our Wikipedia page for us? I work at CFR and noticed you recently made edits to our page (thank you). I'm happy to make the edits myself, but I'd like to follow proper protocol by going through a third-party Wikipedian.
Thank you!
Dkingsmill (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
References
Request for Comment (RFC) notification
[edit]Hello, RaphaelQS. An RFC has been opened that may be of interest to you. It can be found by the article's name in this list and the actual discussion can be found on Template talk:Infobox university, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. Eden5 (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
question re: NAACP logo
[edit]First off, thanks for replacing that logo with an SVG. I do have a source question, though. Did you find a vector version of the logo, or did you just manually recreate the original JPG logo as an SVG? I do not see a vector logo on the URL you list as the source.
It is a a good SVG that matches the JPG, so I think it's a good image. But knowing the exact source for files used under Fair Use is considered quite important on Wikipedia. So I'm just checking.
I will be happy to edit the source based on what you tell me here, if you do not want to bother with it. But I'd like to know.
Thanks again! — trlkly 20:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hello the seal was extracted from this PDF: http://action.naacp.org/page/-/Toolkit_Faith_v_7_RV_1.pdf --RaphaelQS (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The edit that you just reverted again at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is not vandalism. It was added in this edit by Darknipples. As this article is under discretionary sanctions editing restrictions, I recommend that you self-revert.- MrX 15:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- My bad this wasn't vandalism. Fixed. --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
[edit]Dear RaphaelQS,
Given the lack of consensus on the University of Paris and Sorbonne University talk page, I have request a dispute resolution regarding these pages.
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:University_of_Paris
Best, --SirJamesMcBiscuit (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
It is...
[edit]... from Harvard, jackass. Corky 19:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- You are on Wikipedia please use the "seach" on the top right to learn about the difference between a vector image and a raster image. --RaphaelQS (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Also, please stop the name calling you're not 12 (I guess). --RaphaelQS (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please use the search button on the top right to learn more about edit warring and how to discuss it. You should also use the search button on the top right to learn more about taking ownership as you've done with many files. You're not 12 (I guess). I know the difference between all of them and have read them all. You can't seem to accept other people's work or edits, which shows how ignorant you really are. Corky 20:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- So you DO understand the difference between a raster and a vector image! That's awesome so now stop altering colors of the vector file yourself because you found a raster version with different colors somewhere. Thanks, that'd be great. --RaphaelQS (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- If Harvard wanted to keep using gold, they'd have it on their website.... but they don't. Plain and simple. Corky 20:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Your speculation isn't a source so you don't get to alter the colors of the vector image. --RaphaelQS (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- If Harvard wanted to keep using gold, they'd have it on their website.... but they don't. Plain and simple. Corky 20:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- So you DO understand the difference between a raster and a vector image! That's awesome so now stop altering colors of the vector file yourself because you found a raster version with different colors somewhere. Thanks, that'd be great. --RaphaelQS (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please use the search button on the top right to learn more about edit warring and how to discuss it. You should also use the search button on the top right to learn more about taking ownership as you've done with many files. You're not 12 (I guess). I know the difference between all of them and have read them all. You can't seem to accept other people's work or edits, which shows how ignorant you really are. Corky 20:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Civility, and File sources
[edit]Please, there is no need to bicker when someone brings something up to you, just accept it, you dont need to say anything but, okay, and move on. Also, Files you upload are constantly being brought to Files for Discussion due to your lack of supplying sources. Forgetting (Emphasis added) on most of the files you've uploaded can be considered disruptive, so for the sake of everyone and the project, please double check your work before hitting upload, or use the guided uploading process. Thank you! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 19:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Help with MEMRI?
[edit]Hello, RaphaelQS.
I'm representing the Middle East Media Research Institute on Wikipedia and need help making updates since I know I'm not supposed to edit the article myself.
I see from the article's edit history that you have made constructive changes to the article. Would you be willing to take a look at a recent proposed edit that I've posted on the Talk page? The first thread links to new suggestions for the "Reception" section. There has not been any feedback yet, and I would like to get your input on whether the draft is an improvement over the current article.
Many thanks. R at MEMRI (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
University of Oslo seal update request
[edit]Hi. I see you were the one who added the seal for the University of Oslo page in 2016. Would you be able to update the seal to the official one which is the same seal with a red background and white text?
According to the University's graphic design guidelines the seal should always be with a red main colour and white text when in colour: http://www.uio.no/om/designmanual/grunnelementer/segl/segl-retningslinjer/
The seal should never have a white main colour and black text. That's not the official seal and is never used by the university.
You can download the official seal (apollonseglet) here (below "last ned": http://www.uio.no/om/designmanual/grunnelementer/segl/ PromisingLight (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Done --RaphaelQS (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! PromisingLight (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Why don't we include age for colleges and universities?
[edit]Why don't we include the age for colleges and universities? I'm not challenging the assertion that we don't do it but asking why we don't do it. We almost always include the founding date in the infobox and article so why not use the age template, too? ElKevbo (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate an answer to this question. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I had totally forgotten your question! It's simply consensus that has developed from over time in the project. --RaphaelQS (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Stav Shaffir
[edit]Hi, would you care to clarify the reason for the reverts on Stav Shaffir article as the user thinks that "irrelevant" is not valid. Please respond on article talk page. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Not giving me a credit
[edit]Hello, for some reason I don`t know you keep copying my work and stealing my credit. I`ve created for example File:Israel Security Agency.svg and File:Aman-logo.svg. You uploaded it without mentioning who created this. In addition you keep reverting my work by removing symbol I created for IDF and replace it with your version. Actually, the last version you uploaded is stolen from another file I made. Please stop behaving like this. Tal (Ronaldinho The king) 21:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, I did not know you created the official logos of the organizations in question. That doesn't seem plausible actually. Also, stop using the term "stolen" Wikimedia is a non-profit organization and all the medias that aren't the official logos of organizations should be under free and open license OR REMOVED FROM THE SERVERS. --RaphaelQS (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, of course I didn`t created the official logos. I created a good quality version of them and all I ask for is a proper credit. Tal (Ronaldinho The king) 10:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Logos
[edit]I saw your edit-warring to restore the redundant nonfree newspaper logo. What is the merit of having this twice? You claimed in your edit summary there was a consensus to do this; that sounds unlikely to me, but please begin by pointing me to this consensus you claim. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Can you reply to this, please? If I see you continuing to edit without responding I will take it you have lost interest and will re-remove the surplus nonfree image. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you want me to say. Look at other newspaper articles by yourself and you will see that most of them have the logo in the corresponding field of the infobox. It is a consensus i.e. a vast number of members of the project who do the same things for many years. --RaphaelQS (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I would like you to answer two questions. I'll bold them so you don't miss them again.
- 1. What is the benefit to the reader of carrying two different versions of the logo?
- 2. Where was this agreed?
- I understand you're not now claiming there was a consensus in a discussion, just some sort of tacit agreement not to remove them? I'll add a third question:
- 3. How does this claimed tacit practice fit with our policy on nonfree material? --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- The logo is used to identify the newspaper, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the newspaper, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the newspaper, and illustrate the newspaper's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey. --RaphaelQS (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, but what is the benefit to the reader of seeing the logo twice, one on the front page image, and then again in the logo field? It has to be a strong benefit to pass NFCC and I am not seeing it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's not the official logo on the other image.--RaphaelQS (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- So you think The Independent didn't use its own logo on its print edition when it had one? Huh. Before we get too surreal here, take a look at Template talk:Infobox newspaper#Logos and page spreads. There's a discussion there that shows there is no consensus for this duplication of fair use images. I think at this point the onus is on you to show there is a need for it. Failing that, I think they have to go. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I would agree that the discussion you linked was relevant if the logo was the same in the image. It's not. --RaphaelQS (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- So you think The Independent didn't use its own logo on its print edition when it had one? Huh. Before we get too surreal here, take a look at Template talk:Infobox newspaper#Logos and page spreads. There's a discussion there that shows there is no consensus for this duplication of fair use images. I think at this point the onus is on you to show there is a need for it. Failing that, I think they have to go. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's not the official logo on the other image.--RaphaelQS (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, but what is the benefit to the reader of seeing the logo twice, one on the front page image, and then again in the logo field? It has to be a strong benefit to pass NFCC and I am not seeing it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- The logo is used to identify the newspaper, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the newspaper, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the newspaper, and illustrate the newspaper's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey. --RaphaelQS (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you want me to say. Look at other newspaper articles by yourself and you will see that most of them have the logo in the corresponding field of the infobox. It is a consensus i.e. a vast number of members of the project who do the same things for many years. --RaphaelQS (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, we disagree. Let's see what others think.
Disambiguation link notification for January 12
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timothée Chalamet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NY (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Sherborne School Logo
[edit]Thank you for taking in an interest in this article. However I take issue with you about the colour of the seal. The colour as I have it is the colour used by the school (please see every use of it by the school online) and the colour of what is known as 'The Sherborne Penny'. The arms of Edward VI are used by the school because the school was founded by Edward VI; to th ebest of my knowledge the school's charter acknowledges the school's right to use them (vide Gourlay's history). You also acknowledge that the school uses the arms but then deny the opportnity to show them; I am struggling to follow your reasoning but am open to your explanation. fuseemusee (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I see now that you created the original seal artwork so perhaps feel protective of it. Would a satisfactory compromise be if a) you coloured it to reflect how the school uses it and b) that I then showed the arms seperately captioned as 'Arms of Edward VI'? fuseemusee (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, I agree with everything, you obviously know far more about this school than I do, but please use the vector graphics format (SVG): File:Coat_of_Arms_of_England_(1509-1554).svg and File:Dorset_sherbone_school_seal.svg. If you don't know how to update the colors of the seal on the SVG file you can ask here Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Image workshops clicking on "new request" under "Illustration workshop". Have a good day! --RaphaelQS (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi RaphaelQS, thank you for your kind and encouraging reply. I had given up on Wikipedia but thought I would check back to see what you and others have said and find a true spirit of collaboration has suddenly asserted itself! So I will tentatively try to move forward again, adding noteworthy historical details to this article from a neutral POV. I am not an expert on Sherborne School and have no connection with it, but having read a book on it recently was fascinated by its 1300 year history. I have since ordered a couple more books on the Saxon saint who founded it and Wildman's history of the school. You are quite right about using the SVG format, however I have run into problems opening both files in Illustrator, Inkscape and other editors, all of which seem to say they are not true SVG files. Anyhow, I found a workaround and created an SVG file of the recoloured seal and arms and will upload it shortly so let me know what you think. I see from your profile that you have done great work in providing high quality logos for institutions so greatly value your opinion and experience. It is good to be collaborating with you. Fuseemusee (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Arrow 3
[edit]Hi, can you, please, provide a source about Arrow 3 being 'hypersonic'? Flayer (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- https://www.jpost.com/Defense/Israel-successfully-tests-Arrow-3-missile-defense "It obtained hypersonic speed" --RaphaelQS (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Why did you replace the Image in Dan Ariely's article?
[edit]Greetings, I uploaded an updated image, provided by Prof Ariely. What's wrong with it?--Asafabir (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, the resolution is simply too small. --RaphaelQS (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Inquiry from a Public Relations Representative Assessing Kite Pharma Wikipedia Entry
[edit]Hi RaphaelQS,
My name is Vivian and I am a Public Relations professional at GCI Health, a healthcare communications agency. I'm reaching out on behalf of our clients at Kite Pharma to potentially update outdated information found on the Kite Pharma Wikipedia page.
Given your previous efforts editing the page and similar company pages, I wanted to see if you would be interested in reviewing the page as it currently stands. To further disclose my position, I'm aware that per Wikipedia’s guidelines neither the company nor the company’s representatives can make direct edits to Wikipedia pages. Respecting these rules, our priority is ensuring that the Wiki has the most up-to-date information – I'm reaching out in the hopes you may be able to assess the current state of the page against publicly available information to make accurate and appropriate updates.
Namely, the page lists Arie Belldegrun as CEO which is no longer up-to-date information. You'll find that outlets including STAT News reported that the new CEO will be Christi Shaw. Because the use of press releases as a source is not allowed, please let me know how you would best verify a business announcement otherwise.
The page also uses the incorrect version of the Kite Pharma logo. Would you as an editor consider replacing it with the correct logo available on the Kite Pharma website?
Please let me know if you have any follow-up questions.
Best, Vtamgcih (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
School age
[edit]Thanks for this. The edit by User:2600:1003:B12F:A643:3925:BEE6:2F6C:8665 Slipped through the cracks in my passes at cleaning up a long-term IP-hopper who does this to lots of schools and also adds uncited BLP to individuals' articles. DMacks (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
RfC at Stanley Kubrick
[edit]This is a courtesy notice that there is an ongoing RfC about adding an infobox to Stanley Kubrick at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Since you are a previous participant in such discussions, you may be interested in participating. --Laser brain (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 22
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adam Neumann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
[edit]Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit]House Atreides
[edit]Hey there, I just reverted your revert but thought I should come here to avoid any back-and-forth conflict. I should explain that I am the biggest Dune fan/nerd and have made significant edits to pretty much all Dune-related articles since 2006. As a matter of fact I've probably made more edits to House Atreides than any other editor in recent years. During that same time I've been trying to improve the character articles with citations asserting notability, but it is difficult to find sources (at least online) that actually discuss the characters in a meaningful way. Even the film/miniseries reviews are limited. I actually got a copy of the Touponce book but haven't had a chance to implement it. In any case, the House Atreides article has gone virtually unsourced for years, and truly in its current form it is not worthy of a standalone article. When we have the Dune (franchise) article, articles or robust list entries for every Atreides character, and articles for every novel, there really is no need for a collective article like this one. I went through it and made sure the important plot info and links related to the Atreides were covered (at least in Frank Herbert's work) in the redirect destination before redirecting it. "House" or family articles have a rough history; all of the A Song of Ice and Fire family articles were in similar shape and redirected years ago, and I don't know of any others still in existence. In any case, I obviously agree that the Atreides are notable, but knowing the limited sources out there I don't think this particular article can be adequately improved. We're better off focusing on the character articles, which are in constant danger of deletion LOL. I'm sure the new film will generate a lot more discussion of the novels and characters so that should help. Thanks!— TAnthonyTalk 16:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Building template
[edit]Hi I apologize, I thought that template was created so to be inserted to other info templates. Kind regards, Rakoon (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- No worries :) have a nice day! --RaphaelQS (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Several sources
[edit]I agree completely that 'several sources' is classic weasel wording, and have applied that tag myself for exactly that reason, but typically because there is just one or even no citations whatever. But the issue here is surely just an injudicious/lazy choice of words, since three citations are supplied. I guess you may be right in this case, though, given the high profile of the article - it needs to be as good as it can be. Hopefully whoever contributed that text will come back and edit it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Puerta de Hierro logo
[edit]Hope everything is well in the midst of this mayhem.
I have just vectorised the Real Club de la Puerta de Hierro crest, as per was suggested in this talk page in 2017. The earlier version needed a bit of work. However, I find it hard as an amateur to correct a small detail. Within the shield, the letters CPH are interspersed, but some parts of a letter go over another etc (something I haven't quite achieved in the last version of the file [2]). It should be as depicted here [3] rather than here [4] where the fact that it is coloured in black and white has made it appear like there is a space between when the letters coincide. This has obviously affected my bitmap trace.
Could you perhaps help me out with this small detail? If this issue needs further clarifying don't hesitate to ask!
Thank you so much!--Cantabrucu (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the insistence. I have managed to fix the error. However I still have a small problem, but I'm sure its relatively simple. Could you help me make the borders of the crest a bit thinner (particularly of the letters since it is that what I'm having problems with because I traced bitmap so it won't let me make them thinner. --Cantabrucu (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote
[edit]Dear RaphaelQS,
Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.
xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Announcing WikiLoop DoubleCheck
[edit]Dear Wikipedians and contributors, the open source Wikipedia review tool, previously "WikiLoop Battlefield" has completed its name vote and is announcing its new name: WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Read the full story on the program page on Meta-wiki, learn about ways to support this tool, and find out what future developments are coming for this tool.
Thank you to everyone who took part in the vote!
xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Real Club de la Puerta de Hierro
[edit]Hello again Raphael,
This time I'm going to work on a stub on the Spanish Wikipedia, to then translate it into the English one, and it would help if you could vectroize this coat of arms: https://www.rcphierro.com or here: http://www.fedgolfmadrid.com/upload/fotos/original/logo_golf_puerta_de_hierro.jpg
Your usual friend, --CreiterAdam45z (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
[edit]Hi RaphaelQS,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.
New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
[edit]HI RaphaelQS,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.
Deletion of "Age" from College of the Holy Cross
[edit]Hi. You explained your deletion with "please refer to the template documentation of the Infobox university it's 'Start date' in the "established" parameter and not 'Start date and age'". Could you please let me know where that template documentation is? Thanks. Contributor321 (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- See Template:Infobox university --RaphaelQS (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. Contributor321 (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit]Ben-Gurion University of the Negev returned to old logo
[edit]Hi @RaphaelQS:, I left you a message in the talk page of the article on the university. It somehow reverted to the old logo.--Adig-pt (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 25
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stéphane Legar, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages English and Spanish.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review
[edit]Dear editors, developers and friends:
Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.
Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.
Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Help with The Spy Machine?
[edit]I see that you make constructive edits to articles relating to the Israeli military. Perhaps you might like to look at an article covering a documentary about the Mossad: The Spy Machine?
I see a new editor (apparently with more than one username) has just severely edited the quotations I added to the article. It may well be that there was overuse of quotation before but imho the result of the recent edits is now not only a barely comprehensible article but the edits also show a clear bias against the meaning of the original sources (airbrushing?)
If I was a normal editor interested in editing this article it would not be a problem to revert and build a better consensus. But, as explained on my user page, I have a COI so do not want to overstep the line. Hence reaching out in case you might like to try and find a good way forward. The film is unusual and important, made in collaboration with a significant Israeli production company, and deserves to be accurately represented.
Apologies if you‘re too busy or otherwise not interested. AnOpenMedium (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Technion's logo
[edit]Hi @RaphaelQS:, I may need your help in replacing the Technion’s logo. Both logos in the infobox are obsolete. I opened a COI request in the Technion’s talk page, but I’m not sure the answer I got is accurate. You can see the right logo in the web page of the marketing unit of Technion: https://marketing.technion.ac.il/plugging-in/download-technion. It is in the middle of the page - the Print | Vertical | English | 300dpi logo. --Adig-pt (talk) 07:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- The logo in this file File:TechnionLogo.svg is the "Print | Digital | Horizontal | English | 300dpi" from the marketing unit of Technion. I don't see any indication that it is obsolete, it is still listed with the others on the site. Can you clarify what you mean? I'm a little confused. --RaphaelQS (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks @RaphaelQS:, please note that there is a difference in the place of the symbols: in File:TechnionLogo.svg it goes all the way to the last line of the text, while in the logo of the marketing unit of Technion it ends in the middle of the text. The reason the Technion wants the Print | Vertical | English | 300dpi logo is because it's "neutral" since the symbol is on top of the text and not on one of its sides. You can see the right logo (with Hebrew text) in the Hebrew wiki: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%98%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F_-_%D7%9E%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%98%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99_%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C --Adig-pt (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @RaphaelQS: what do you say? If you are not convinced yet, I can try asking the Technion for an official letter explaining the change, if that helps.--Adig-pt (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Again I don't see any indication that the logo uploaded in the file File:TechnionLogo.svg is obsolete in any way. The logo is still officially available on the Technion marketing website ("Print | Digital | Horizontal | English | 300dpi") and is still used by the university including by being the main logo on the website. --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- @RaphaelQS: please note the difference: in File:TechnionLogo.svg the symbol goes all the way to the bottom of the text, while in the logo from Technion's marketing website it goes only halfway to the text. So File:TechnionLogo.svg is not an official logo. As seen on their page, there are many versions of the logo, but they prefer the Print | Vertical | English | 300dpi logo because it's neutral. --Adig-pt (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed the difference was subtle enough for me to miss it, but you were right I updated the logo. --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- @RaphaelQS: thanks for that. Can you delete also the seal? It's obsolete. I'll ask the Technion's guys if they are OK with that logo. If they insist on the Print | Vertical | English | 300dpi, I'll ask them to issue a letter on the subject. Will that convince you?--Adig-pt (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- @RaphaelQS: Ok, I think I'll delete the seal since it's not in the the Technion marketing website and I'll ask the relevant people at Technion if they are satisfied with the current logo.--Adig-pt (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- I wonder if the seal isn't official, it's still used on the boxes of scarves that are sold in the Technion shop for example --RaphaelQS (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK, I think I'll ask the Technion's guys for an official document about the logos and then get back to you.--5.29.13.215 (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. --RaphaelQS (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- @RaphaelQS: Ok, I finally got an official letter from the Technion about the logo. How can I show it to you? --Adig-pt (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- @RaphaelQS: Do you need the letter from the Technion, or can I just erase the "Technion seal"? --Adig-pt (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Not necessarily a letter but you will need to provide a source that the seal is deprecated because the Technion still uses it officially on their merchandise as I have shown. --RaphaelQS (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- @RaphaelQS: Well, one source is the marketing page with all logos https://marketing.technion.ac.il/plugging-in/download-technion which doesn't include the "seal". I also have an official letter stating that "This is a version of a logo that was designed in 2011 for a set of commercial products marketed after Prof. Dan Shechtman had won the Nobel Prize. This logo was never officially approved by Technion management and its appearance on Wikipedia remains the only use since". If needed, I can send it to you (how?).--Adig-pt (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- @RaphaelQS: What do you say?--Adig-pt (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- The problem with the seal not being on the marketing page is that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Often universities do not include their official seal in their marketing page so that it is not used by mistake and reserved exclusively for the diploma. On the other hand I have no reason to think that you are lying about the email you received from the Technion and that confirmed your assumption that the seal is not official, so I let you remove the seal. --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- @RaphaelQS: Thanks for your confidence. I'll remove the seal. If you still have doubts, you can get in touch with Nir Shilo, Technion's marketing manager. His contact details can be found at https://www.technion.ac.il/en/communication-and-external-relations --Adig-pt (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- The problem with the seal not being on the marketing page is that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Often universities do not include their official seal in their marketing page so that it is not used by mistake and reserved exclusively for the diploma. On the other hand I have no reason to think that you are lying about the email you received from the Technion and that confirmed your assumption that the seal is not official, so I let you remove the seal. --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Not necessarily a letter but you will need to provide a source that the seal is deprecated because the Technion still uses it officially on their merchandise as I have shown. --RaphaelQS (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. --RaphaelQS (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK, I think I'll ask the Technion's guys for an official document about the logos and then get back to you.--5.29.13.215 (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- I wonder if the seal isn't official, it's still used on the boxes of scarves that are sold in the Technion shop for example --RaphaelQS (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed the difference was subtle enough for me to miss it, but you were right I updated the logo. --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- @RaphaelQS: please note the difference: in File:TechnionLogo.svg the symbol goes all the way to the bottom of the text, while in the logo from Technion's marketing website it goes only halfway to the text. So File:TechnionLogo.svg is not an official logo. As seen on their page, there are many versions of the logo, but they prefer the Print | Vertical | English | 300dpi logo because it's neutral. --Adig-pt (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Again I don't see any indication that the logo uploaded in the file File:TechnionLogo.svg is obsolete in any way. The logo is still officially available on the Technion marketing website ("Print | Digital | Horizontal | English | 300dpi") and is still used by the university including by being the main logo on the website. --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hi RaphaelQS, Hope you are well. I noticed you made some edits to the board of directors' page and I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping me with a project relating to it. Charlotte Valuer (Former head of the IOD UK) founded a charity called "Board Appreitnce" which aims to end inequality in the boardroom by giving the next generation of business leaders experience on company boards. I'd written up the page and had ago referencing a draft of the page (it's in my sandbox) but I'm struggling with the referencing. Do you have the capacity to take a look at it and help me get it up to scratch or point me to where I'm going wrong? m https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MIAAccount/sandbox&redirect=no Thanks so much MIAAccount (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Flagcruft
[edit]Hello! I recommend that you read MOS:FLAG more carefully. The "acceptable exceptions" are meant to be kept to a minimum; the rules generally state that only useful or neccessary flags / logos should be used, such as national flags to easily identify sides in a battle. However, the flags/logos of individual units do not contribute anything useful, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Inappropriate use, specifically MOS:FLAGCRUFT. Applodion (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- In the context of military units, it is a long-standing consensus, see for example 21st_Army_Group#Order_of_battle --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is a classic example of MOS:FLAGCRUFT; i.e., if you encounter articles with excessive flags, they should be removed. There is no such thing as a "long-standing consensus" - there are simple rules, and we follow them. Applodion (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Please read the relevant section "In some military history contexts" in the guideline cited. --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- I have. To quote: "It may in some narrow military history circumstances be appropriate to use flags, as they were used at the time being written about, including naval ensigns, provided that the flags are (as usual) accompanied at first occurrence by their country (or more narrow) names—our readers are not expected to be military historians. An example might be an in-depth exploration of a famous battle involving numerous forces with known flags; such flags might be used in summary tables to make it clearer which force was being referred to for a particular detail." Nothing in this text says anything about mass using flags and logos of individual units in infoboxes or lists for no other reason than to make it look prettier. Cases like "in-depth exploration of a famous battle involving numerous forces with known flags; such flags might be used in summary tables to make it clearer which force was being referred to for a particular detail" are more appropriate to medieval battles where individual lords had their own coat of arms, not a modern battle where unit flags serve a purely symbolic purpose. Applodion (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Per this guideline in the context of military articles "flags might be used in summary tables to make it clearer" and this is how they are used in the project by longstanding consensus, see the thousands of articles that use unit identifiers in this way throughout the project. --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- How do these random flags make anything clearer? They only look nice, they have no purpose. Applodion (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- The purpose is to make a long list more readable, clearer to the reader. That is why they are used in this way in thousands of military articles when a long list of units is detailed, for example in order of battles. --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- How do these random flags make anything clearer? They only look nice, they have no purpose. Applodion (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Per this guideline in the context of military articles "flags might be used in summary tables to make it clearer" and this is how they are used in the project by longstanding consensus, see the thousands of articles that use unit identifiers in this way throughout the project. --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- I have. To quote: "It may in some narrow military history circumstances be appropriate to use flags, as they were used at the time being written about, including naval ensigns, provided that the flags are (as usual) accompanied at first occurrence by their country (or more narrow) names—our readers are not expected to be military historians. An example might be an in-depth exploration of a famous battle involving numerous forces with known flags; such flags might be used in summary tables to make it clearer which force was being referred to for a particular detail." Nothing in this text says anything about mass using flags and logos of individual units in infoboxes or lists for no other reason than to make it look prettier. Cases like "in-depth exploration of a famous battle involving numerous forces with known flags; such flags might be used in summary tables to make it clearer which force was being referred to for a particular detail" are more appropriate to medieval battles where individual lords had their own coat of arms, not a modern battle where unit flags serve a purely symbolic purpose. Applodion (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Please read the relevant section "In some military history contexts" in the guideline cited. --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is a classic example of MOS:FLAGCRUFT; i.e., if you encounter articles with excessive flags, they should be removed. There is no such thing as a "long-standing consensus" - there are simple rules, and we follow them. Applodion (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Birzeit University Seal
[edit]Hello ! I updated the Birziet university logo Seal to the right one and its updated on the wiki , but the old on and the wrong one still appear on the search engine , the one that ave the arabic font ١٩٣٤ which means 1934 , and the right one is the one with the english numbers 1924 , can you please remove the old one from the archive its under your name role, I will appreciate that , I already put the right seal on the wiki web , thank you so much Ali.batha (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's orphaned, the bot is going to remove it. --RaphaelQS (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
House Flag of the China Merchants Group (Since 1984)
[edit]Hello, I need someone's help to upload this file to the English wiki as a non-free image with fair use in an article about the China Merchants Group. I can't do it myself and the file will soon be removed from Commons. Thank you in advance for your help. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
[edit]- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:University of Austin.png
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:University of Austin.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)