User talk:Leopold7
Welcome Leopold7!
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.Arctic Kangaroo 14:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James Lord Bowes.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Puffin Let's talk! 22:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 15:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Possibly unfree File:James Lord Bowes 1834-99.jpg
[edit]A file that you uploaded or altered, File:James Lord Bowes 1834-99.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I have responded to this criticism four times on the 'discussion' page, where it seems no discussion ever takes place, giving the facts of ownership of this image and recieved no reply or useful response. It hardly seems productive to raise an objection and invite debate without returning to the question {{help me}} Leopold7 (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please answer these questions (probably on the PUF page, but here is fine):
- Who took the picture? Can you prove this?
- Where did you find the picture, if it wasn't taken by you?
- When did the person who took the picture die?
- Who owns the copyright to the picture?
- I'll reply after you answer :) gwickwiretalkediting 17:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you GWickwire, I shall again attempt to explain the situation. 1. The person in the photograph was a millionaire, he did not take the photograph, he had someone take it for him. We do not know who this photographer was but it was taken circa 1875 as the subject was born in 1834 and he appears in the photograph to be around forty years of age. 2. A digital copy of the picture from an original family album was given to me by the descendants of the subject, who own the original. 3. I think it a fair assumption that any photographer working circa 1875 is now dead, and has been for some considerable time. 4. The owners of the original picture and I both believe that any copyright has expired, for three reasons: A. The subject (original owner) died in 1899 at the age of 66 years. B. If the photograph was taken circa 1875, as we believe,then it is a fair assumption that the unknown photographer had a similar lifespan to the subject. C. This same image has already been used in various articles and published works - the most important being Japan and Britain after 1859: Creating Cultural Bridges, by Olive Checkland, Routledge Curzon, London 2003. The illustration can be seen there by googling the book title in relation to the name of the subject "James Lord Bowes".
Our opinion is that if the original owner died more than 100 years ago, then his descendants (heirs) are the only people who have the right to decide its use: and they have offered the picture for use in the article on their ancestor. If this is not satisfactory to Wikipedia then the picture may be deleted.
Thank you Leopold7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.5.115 (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to log in and sign the aboveLeopold7 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Help me!
[edit] | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with...what I think may be the beginnings of a growing editing problem. 1. My page on James Lord Bowes was edited - by whom I am not sure- to include the following "The Adam family were established importers of oranges and soft fruit based in London and Liverpool, William being the manager of their estates in Portugal." I have no objection to this addition as it did relate to the wife of the page subject. 2. A further edit then appeared, adding "Charlotte's brother John Isabel Adam (1857-1919) was also a Wool Broker and worked for John L. Bowes and Brother." This statement, unsupported by citations, seems to me to be an inappropriate incursion into the core subject of the Bowes page as, even if 'John Isabel Adam'could be proven to have worked for JL Bowes and Brother, he formed no part of the story of Bowes any more than did any of his other employees. I believe that detailed information on members of the Adam family should be relocated to a page on the Adam family itself, if one should exist, rather than on the Bowes page which deals exclusively with his history and actions. 3. A further edit then appeared, changing the name of 'Charlotte Vickery Adam' to 'Vicary'. This was an obvious error as her gravestone clearly shows the spelling to be 'Vickery'. I edited it back to 'Vickery'. I think it possible that a descendant of the Adam family may be reponsible for these edits and do not doubt that they believe they are acting in good faith, but feel that a line should be drawn before any other edits arise from this source.
Leopold7 (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Leopold7: Don't worry--even though you may have initially created the page, the Wikipedia community, as you probably already know, is comprised of editors, all of whom are adding and removing content. If you have issues with an editors' edits, you should feel free to reach out to the editors whose changes you disagreed with on their talk page and request appropriate citing for their change. If they cannot provide citing, and you cannot find such information anywhere after substantial researching, then you can always undo their edit/remove the information and include a reason (something like "Unsourced content, could not find such information cited elsewhere in a reliable source after researching.") in your edit summary. In such circumstances, when information is not sourced, and you cannot find a source for such information, you should be WP:BOLD (but civil) to revert in an attempt to uphold Wikipedia's guidelines of WP:Verifiability. Also, you can create a new section on the article talk page to discuss the issue if you and the editor appear to have difficulties agreeing (and request other users to chime in on the discussion). Hope that helped, and feel free to reach out to me on my talk page if you have any further questions. --JustBerry (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)