Paulears

License tagging for Image:Linda.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Linda.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 22:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Beadle-panto.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Beadle-panto.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Gary.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gary.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 20:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Gary-beadle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gary-beadle.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gary-beadle.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Gary-beadle.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. NauticaShades 13:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:May-mcfettridge.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:May-mcfettridge.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Uk Beach Boys

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Uk Beach Boys requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. AllyD (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Uk Beach Boys

The article Uk Beach Boys has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article is unreferenced, and despite some mentions of the band online I couldn't find evidence that they pass the notability guidelines for bands.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:V

Hello! When you add new information to Wikipedia articles, you must cite your sources. See WP:V and WP:OR for more information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It's fine - the entry for pantomime is already so compromised in accuracy that my edits to reflect current practice made sense. I am at a loss as to methods to verify or provide citation as to current practice, as I have never seen any pedagogical source content apart fro that contained in historical sources, which is at least 50 years out of date. The terminology for what appears to be current practice is so out of date. Pantomime, for example, has not had a chorus for many years, in the same way that musical theatre doesn't have one. The current content is accurate from the viewpoint of up to circa 1970. Producing pantomime is my business, and I thought improving wiki accuracy was sensible. The current entry is extremely poor, inaccurate in contemporary detail and so many important features are missing, it's embarrassing. I realise wiki accuracy is paramount, yet I'm unable to provide you with any citational evidence for everyday, common professional practice. Not to worry - but as so much is inaccurate and even misleading, apart from the historical content - much really requires removal if it can not be replaced. All the information I inserted is based on UK pantomimes I have been involved with for a number of years. I have scripts, photographs and production documentation that confirm the facts, but it's a shame it can't be used as wiki needs to only reflect existing information sources.

Not to worry - worth a go. P

WP:EDIT WARRING at the Pantomime article

No, it's not fine at all. If you continue to WP:EDIT WAR, you may be blocked from editing. You may not add information without citing published, reliable sources. See WP:V, such as newspaper or magazine reviews, or articles about pantomime. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow - When I said but it's a shame it can't be used as wiki needs to only reflect existing information sources.

Not to worry - worth a go. I meant it was worth me attempting to update the innacuracies, not that it was worth a go getting around the rules - I keep getting asked to donate to wiki - and would have appreciated some genuine help rather than a swift slapdown. There was genuinely no need to threaten with blocking. That is a gross and uninformed reaction to a genuine intent to improve wiki accuracy, which in this instance is considerably out of date, and compromised. Much of the information present has no citation or point of origin and is not reliable and robust in accuracy. Terminology in the industry is jargon based, and some terms here are simply archaic and have not been used in pantomime since the 1950s. I totally understand evidentiary requirements, having been an educationalist for many years. I will leave editing errors and correcting misinformation based on 38 years of professional performing arts involvement, primarily in pantomime and light entertainment. There was absolutely NO need to react to my well intentioned edit, and your less than helpful removal explanation.

Perhaps as the keeper of the keys in this section you would personally like to correct the errors? Otherwise, your stance supports a view that wiki is inaccurate and resistant to changes. It is never wise to threaten the well intentioned, and worse, to not even read the responses. I defer to your judgement and attitude. I will point my colleagues to this entry and ensure it's inacuracies and old fashioned take on an evolving industry get spread around. I am not aware of this subject being aired in print or journals. I could easily add this information to on line industry sites, but in general, we already know. If some of the newspapers are prerequisites for validy on here, I understand why it is so poor in some areas. P

Sure. I am happy to update anything in the article if you can point me to a source with the correct information. Please see WP:OR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)