User talk:Duncanbruce

License tagging for Image:Princeofwalessink.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Princeofwalessink.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands 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. 13:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Repulse.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Repulse.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Iraq_medal.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Iraq_medal.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:King_George-VI.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:King_George-VI.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm sorry, but I've had to remove the image from George VI of the United Kingdom again. I do agree that it's a much better picture, but unfortunately the copyright is still in force outside Canada, see for example WP:PD#Canadian_images:_Yousuf_Karsh. DrKiernan 14:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Awards

I see you readded the section "Record Holders" that I deleted. Lets not start an edit war, I noted in my deletion that one should see the talk page. If you disagree with the sections deletion then please join the discussion on the talk page andd give your reasons. Russeasby 12:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you readded it again and have not yet contributed to the talk page discussing this subject. If you want to have this section in then please contribute to the academy awards talk page and explain to those that disagree with you why you think it should be added. I see you left something on my talk page, but offered no reason in your note as to why this section should be included. Please respect the way wikipedia works and join the discussion. As for your claim that you "previously sought permission from wikipedia to edit this section and they agreed" that makes no sense at all? Wikipedia is a community effort, if you happened to speak to one individual who said your information belongs here, then invite them to join the discussion on the talk page as well. As of now no one has shown support for your "record holders" section which contains redundant information. Russeasby 15:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Rehme robert2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rehme robert2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Academy Awards article and good WP practices

Relative to the record holder content disagreement, Duncanbruce, you didn't offend anyone. But it is a good idea to open a topic up for discussion when it appears there are very different opinions on it. If something you contributed gets reverted, rather than flipping it back, take a deep breath and head for the Talk page. In this case, I would have gotten the source for the quote before responding — it strengthens your position, although you still may not gain a consensus on the material.

Also, I see that you have been having some problems with uploading images and tagging them properly. Here are a few good links for you to look at before making more contributions. This will make contributing much easier for you.

Be sure to check out the image tagging links other users left for you above.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Have fun!

— Jim Dunning talk : 18:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Battlestar Galactica CD.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Battlestar Galactica CD.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Battlestar Galactica CD2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Battlestar Galactica CD2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best Picture

Hi. Please see below, taken from the Best Picture Talk Page. Do I have the following correct? This was confusing, and I could not make sense of it. Please reply at my Talk Page, when you have a chance. Please let me know if my understanding of this whole scenario is correct. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This is what we should do and I will change it on the main page:

Titanic 'Is the first Best Picture Winner to Produced, Directed, Written and Edited by the Same Person'. No Country For Old Men 'The Coen Brothers are the first people to be Nominated for Directing, Producing, Writing and Editing (Under the pseudonym Roderick Jaynes) a Best Picture Winner --Duncanbruce (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now changed it by Adding the James Cameron section to Titanic and re-phrasing the No Country For Old Men section, I hope this pleases everyone. --Duncanbruce (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, is this the distinction? Cameron did all four functions (produce, direct, write, edit) ... he simply was not nominated for all four of these awards / functions ... but he did win Best Picture. The Coen brothers also did all four functions (produce, direct, write, edit) ... and the difference is that they were indeed nominated for all four of these awards / functions ... and they also won Best Picture. Do I have this all straight? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:King Edward VIII. (1936).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:King Edward VIII. (1936).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on 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 08:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 137.205.8.2 (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Boris Johnson

I understand what you are saying, but here on Wikipedia, we don't change information about political candidates/elects until they are actually officially in office. For example, when David Patterson became governor of New York in March, we didn't change the info on his page until he was sworn in. Again, I know what you are saying, but the policy here is to wait until the day of (ie. until midnight) to update the info. Regards. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 18:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inre: Patricide (2007 film)

The article to which you have contributed is slated for delition, as notability has not been established. I am myself attempting to show notability and to source the information in the article. I am working on the film in User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox Patricide. It would be extremely helpful if you could send my links to indicate that film has been seen, distributed, and/or reviewed. Please go to the bottom of my[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|talk page]]. Thanks. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Duncanbruce! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Robert Rehme - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Henhouse (2010 film)

This is to let you know that I have proposed for deletion an article you created, The Henhouse (2010 film). My reasons are given at the article page, basically a lack of notability. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the "prod" notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you can show the film has received outside coverage in reliable sources, as opposed to simply being screened at festivals, I will withdraw my proposed deletion. And of course, even if the article is deleted at this time, it can be recreated later if the film later becomes more notable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duncanrommel.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Duncanrommel.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 13:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The National Film and Television School Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The National Film and Television School Logo.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]