User talk:Dave59
O.K I'll come clean. I wrote the essay as well as voting for its deletion. The rude (but arguably justified) comments were made by someone else.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Dave59"
Dave59, Hi! sorry but I've only just noticed your message, It's normal to add them to the end of the list so I hadn't spotted your earlier one. At the time of your posting on the 31st I was out taking the photo of Holmfirth from the unmade track above Cliff Road and also several others of Jackson Bridge, Scholes, Hepworth, Totties, and New Mill, from the top of Tenter hill above Jackson bridge, plus others I've not dealt with yet (Netherthong, Upperthong), along with some video filming. Getting the one of Holmfirth was interesting as the track along the side of the Cliff was a good test of my suspension, turning round to go back was even better. If you go direct to the Holmfirth Photo click here and click on the image it will zoom to full size. If your photo is clearer and shows more please put it up on the page, the better the image the better the article. Richard Harvey 01:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Dave59, Thanks, I drove down the track from the top until I got to the 'wider bit' by the bench where I turned round and went back up it to the top. Leaving a lady walking some hounds a bit perplexed. I've just started an article on Netherthong and inserted the photo I took on the 31st. Richard Harvey 21:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Almost forgot regarding tresspassing on Yorkshire Water Authority moorland. You probably wasn't as it may come under the classification of open country (moor or heath) and access may be allowed under The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 clck on the link to see the full act. Richard Harvey 07:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Dave59 Hi, Just to let you know I have reverted the image of Brockholes Rail Station for the following reason:-
The image I wanted to use on the article was a photo of the station itself, not one of the former Station Masters house, which is now a private dwelling. The upload you did using my original file name only puts your photo up, over the top of mine, but retains my original info details and copyright, thus taking away your credit for the photo. This is generally the way for an uploader to update or resize their original entry.
Your photo of the Old Station Masters house is very good, I remember using the waiting room when younger, and there were 2 tracks on the line. You need to reload your photo with a different title and then put it on the article with the relevant title. Though first I think you may need to get permission, from the householder as it is a private dwelling and the owner may not appreciate it. With current privacy laws in the UK its best to be careful. Richard Harvey 09:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Dave59 Hi, No it looks like you got it right. Not to worry I made loads of errors when I started. Thanks for the info re public/private I prefer to err on the side of discretion, it saves hassle.
If you get up Holme Moss at all there is an article on it that requires some photo's plus another that needs a good photo of the Transmitter Tower. Richard Harvey 17:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Captive Dolphins.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Captive Dolphins.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the message and photo Dave. I had seen your photo on the article page and was a bit mystified as to why it was removed. It probably just needs a little colour correction, otherwise it is a good photo, taken from an interesting angle. I don't see that it warranted being taken off. However I am new to Wikipedia so I don't know how these things work- who determines what and how many photos should be in an article, for instance. I added the first photo to an article the other day, and someone else added another one as well, but I didn't see that it was up to me to determine that the second photo was any more or less valid than mine. I have a number of photos of the Canberra that are probably better than what is currently there, but unless it is regarding a factual inaccuracy, I don't like stepping on anyones toes. I would just add your photo again and see what happens --Dashers 23:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I was not planning on adding any of my photos to the Canberra article, I would not say they were any better yours. Like I said before, go for it. If you are interested in this ship, I added some photos of her engine room to the Turbo-electric article. --Dashers 12:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your replying on my talk page.
I want to say only two things in response. Having read most of Lewis' nonfiction corpus, I find it unbelievable that he would consciously insert a sexual element into children's fiction! Now, some would argue (and you seemed to be doing it) that he may have subconsciously done so: but how could we prove it and how could he, if he were here, disprove it? Hence, the whole thing is starkly unscientific, as is, I believe, nearly the whole study of psychology.
Secondly, as to the distastefulness: you express my view exactly in reference to some "robust Ulster invective." Having read the man extensively, this whole thing is something I believe he would have found rather absurd. Srnec 21:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
OHB
[edit]Thanks! Yeah, I'm only to the part where he's in Germany though. I downloaded the online version to see if I could find any of the details that are in the plot summary and found that I liked it a lot! So it'll probably be a while before I'm through it, but I'll hopefully be able to address your concerns. Thanks for dealing with the accuracy issues. Peace, delldot talk 12:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
NowCommons: File:Elland.JPG
[edit]File:Elland.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Elland.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Elland.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!
[edit]Congratulations Dave59! Your image Image:Man of the woods.JPG was the Random Picture of the Day! It looked like this:
. - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 00:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
[edit]Your upload of File:Aonach eagah.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Another one of your uploads, File:Boys toys.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Another one of your uploads, File:Captive Dolphins.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Image source problem with File:Uncle ho.jpg
[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Uncle ho.jpg.
This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.
While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.
If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The file File:Sukharnus last erection copy.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, no freedom of panorama in Indonesia
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
