User talk:JackTinWNY
Image copyright problem with Image:FaithBW.jpg
[edit]I did discuss this with the artist, and she agreed to release the photo to the public domain. I attempted to annotate the photo as such. Apparently I failed. I will try again when I have a chance.
Thank you for uploading Image:FaithBW.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of the license tags. My lingering concern about this image is that it is used in the article primarily to illustrate Faith Page, but WP:NFC states that nonfree photos of living people used only for identification are usually regarded as replaceable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Your concerns
[edit]Hi, thanks for getting back to me on this. I shall check with the artist and see if she will agree to release this photo to the public domain. Thanks... Jack
- I noticed the license was changed to GFDL, which is a free license. That's great! I guess that means you were successful in getting a copyright permission from the photographer. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Carl, Thanks for your help. Yes, she released the page and the photo, and I sent a copy of her release to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
Unspecified source for Image:FaithBW.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:FaithBW.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 13:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 13:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
December 2008
[edit] When adding links to material on an external site, as you did to Faith Page, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
- If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
- If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
- If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;
If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Link access procedure, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.linktionary.com/l/lap.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JackTinWNY, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
for (;;) (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Universal Alcatel for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Universal Alcatel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Alcatel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –eggofreasontalk 18:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The article G.704 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement.
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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ElectroChip123 (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The article Multilink Procedure has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
cursory reading makes it seem like the topic is a bit ill defined. Like there are multiple kinds of related procedures, and coverage of this topic is probably better served on other pages. additionally there isn't exactly a plethora of helpful sources.
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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)