Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Bwisok! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steven 'Bo' Keeley. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steven 'Bo' Keeley. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! CharlieEchoTango (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Bo Reading Upsidedown.jpg
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
File Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading File:Bo Reading Upsidedown.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.
If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.
Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
File Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading File:Bo Bike at Stlouis Tourney.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.
If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.
Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
File Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading File:Bo in Lumbercar.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.
If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.
Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Welcome to Wikipedia. While everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, a number of your recent file uploads, such as File:Bo in Lumbercar.jpg, had missing or false information regarding their source and copyright status. Please note that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Images and other media must only be uploaded if their copyright status meets the conditions stated in our image use policy, and if their provenance is clearly documented. If you have questions, feel free to ask at the copyright question page or on my talk page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Steven 'Bo' Keeley, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
Please 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.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading File:Bo Cover Kures.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading File:Bo Racquet Photo.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading File:Sprains Cuts knife attack in caracas.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading File:Bo caracas.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading File:Cover kures 2.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
Hello! Bwisok,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
As reviewing administrator, I've checked the article.
Here's what is needed:
1)remove entirely the section on the accomplishment of her pioneer ancestors.Reduce it to one short sentence in her bio.
2)Remove entirely the section on her travels
3)Move the reviews of her books to footnotes to the line for the book concerned. Use a balanced quotation, not the most praise you can find.
4)Find and add a specific 3rd party reference for each award mentioned,.
5)Find the ISBN numbers for each book, and add one of the numbers for each book, preferably the 13 digit number for the hardbound version..
6)The interviews go in a section called External links.
7)Do not repeat under "honors" what is already in the text earlier--it goes one place or the other
8) "consulted" should be listed only if she is named prominently in the credits.
9)Make absolutely certain that none of the material is copied or Closely paraphrased from any previously published print or online source, including author information pages and book jackets. . If there is, rewrite that part from scratch,
As it is, the piece looks too much like advertising. Do not resubmit it until you've removed all the excess I've mentioned. If you need any help ask me. I frequently work on articles from authors, DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Cathy Luchetti, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. 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.
Thanks, Sarah.Bwisok (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I need help to upload an image of Dane Elkins for an article I'm submitting. Can someone help me? It's a public domain photo of Dane Elkins that his father Brett has sent to me for creation of the article. Please tell me what I need to do to upload files like this in the future. Bwisok (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Bwisok (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
I've gone back over the article and do not see a source or reference that does not meet the notability guidelines for high school athletes. Dane holds world titles, and that is documented in reliable sources that are third party and not routine posting of results. Maybe you can point out a source or reference that does not meet notability guidelines or reliability sourced material. If you can't find a specific item that does not meet the guidelines, then please reconsider and approve the posting.
75.114.183.247 (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading File:George Meegan Coat and Tie.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. Jac16888Talk12:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
Can someone tell me why my photos in the George Meegan wikipedia page have been deleted and how to get them back. I submitted the email from George authorizing the use of approximately 15 photo images to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. What else do I need to do? Please someone in Wiki land, talk to me, help me resolve this very simple problem that should not ever have become a problem.
Notification of automated file description generation
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your upload of File:Bo hobo drinking gatorade.png 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)13:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Stefan2. I just sent the authorization again from the owner of the files.
Stefan2, any chance of telling me what or who OTRS is? I looked it up once, but it took a long time to find out, and you must know. Thanks.
What good did that do, Tucoxn? I've indicated the image meets all requirements for free use, and the owner who is the subject of the article has sent another (this time more formal) authorization to Wikimedia permissions to authorize the use of that image file. I'll give it a few more days then reinsert with appropriate edit notes. How about helping me with actual useful information on how to upload a valid file that the subject of the article 'owns' and is willing to see posted in Wikipedia for free use? Did you ever actually help anyone with what they would like to legitimately post in Wikipedia?
Bwisok (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thanks, Schwartenberg, I appreciate your wanting to help create an entry for a notable athlete. Yes, he meets the Notability requirements specified there. He's independently documented as being #1 in the world in his class by applicable standards and ranking organizations for racquetball and paddleball.
Bwisok (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion
[This was posted on Wikipedia user:Tucoxn's page, it applies to about 90% of the 'admins' I've dealt with over the past 3-5 years as I try to be an article creator or contributor. I've created or contributed to 6-12 articles for Wikipedia, virtually all of them as much fun as enduring a root canal procedure. Permission to copy and share any and all contents.]
Just wondering what your role is in the Wikipedia universe. You seem to have the same fundamental qualities as the overwhelming majority of 'admins'--are you a reviewer, editor, person of arbitrary authority?--that I have encountered in my experience with this supposedly open online encyclopedia:
Of the perhaps 30-odd individuals whom I've dealt with for the past three to five years, all but two or three... roughly 90% of you have shown yourselves to be completely uninterested in actually helping article creators like me accomplish their objectives in posting scholarly, professional, informational, and/or educational articles about noteworthy subjects (with attractive, well-composed, obviously free-use images inserted). Your role seems almost universally to be to cruise the body of Wiki contributions and reject with sadistic glee (and offering no comprehensible, easily furnished alternative) any of a million deviant postings--deviant for not satisfying the Byzantine system of rules that no normal human consciousness can reasonably deal with.
Whenever I submit my work into the bowels of King Jimmy's Holy System, I feel like Dorothy trying to get an audience with the Wizard of Oz for the benefit of my friends, the Tin Man and the Lion... and being barred by those funny-looking gargoyle creatures--or were they the flying monkeys with the big teeth--until I come up with the magic word or a ton of bureaucratic chits from persons on or around the Wiz who have major pull. Is that your function, Tucoxn? Is it your job to prevent individuals from seeing the Wiz and thus having clean, easy access to the Magic Kingdom? You get your jollies out of rejecting and denying people and offering no help whatsoever?
If so, then my congratulations, you are performing superlatively! I mean that. How do I get to have your level of authority in Wikipedia? Seriously. Can you tell me how to work my way into a position where I become an esteemed gatekeeper? I know this is a volunteer business, so you're not making any money. Contrary to 90% of the Wikipedia 'admins' I've dealt with so far, I would derive immense satisfaction from being helpful and accommodating--provide step by step instructions, person-to-person, on how to make an article/image poster successful in what he is trying to do.
Nothing personal, T, it's just a system and you're the way you have been trained to be. I'd really like to know how to get to have your level of authority in the system--if it's possible without an advanced degree or some special qualifications that assure unquestioned obedience to duly constituted authority. You can tell I'm unhappy, and I fully expect you'll remove this entry from your talk page, but I'll have it over on mine. But that's okay, I know you're a good person and so am I, just venting a little bit and I'm pretty sure I'm expressing what 90% of the contributors feel dealing with the Wikipedia system. Please if you can help me find out how to climb the ladder of helpers in Wikipedia or point me to a source for Wikipedia for Dummies.
Please accept my apologies for whatever frustration I may have caused you. I am not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I'm not sure if I should take it as a complement that you thought I was one (if it's a complement... thanks!). I'm also not involved in OTRS, although this seems like an area that could use more help. I'm merely a simple volunteer and I write and edit articles like anybody else here, including you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and the Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. Some of my edits might be considered to be bold changes to articles.
You may have noticed that I help with removing references to pictures that were deleted on the English Wikipedia and on Wikimedia Commons. I do not delete the pictures (only administrators can delete articles or images on Wikipedia, as I understand it). I only remove the missing or already deleted pictures from articles (other editors are allowed to undo my edits). I believe articles with deleted pictures look like a mess of red text and empty boxes; I think that presents a sloppy image and I like to help clean up articles by fixing the red text or empty boxes. On the right is an example of a broken image, the kind I usually clean up by fixing or deleting.
I've written a few articles using images that I uploaded, including Metroxylon vitiense, Cyrtostachys renda, and Joseph Willcox Jenkins. For those articles, I uploaded File:Metroxylon vitiense ex Seem.jpg, File:Cyrtostachys renda (ornamental) - Suva, Fiji.jpg, and File:Joseph Willcox Jenkins profile.jpg. The illustration of Metroxylon vitiense came from a freely available (because its copyright protection expired) book called Flora Vitiensis: A description of the plants of the Viti or Fiji Islands, with an account of their history, uses, and properties (vol. 2), by Berthold Carl Seemann. The image of Cyrtostachys renda is a photograph that I took with my cell phone camera. The image of Joseph Willcox Jenkins I downloaded from the internet and found the original source (the person who took the picture); since no other contemporary images of Jenkins are available, there is a fair use rationale for using that image in a limited way on Wikipedia. Indeed, the image is only used in one article: Joseph Willcox Jenkins. Each of these images was provided to Wikipedia in a different way and each has a different license for use in the encyclopedia. You can see that their licenses are different, on the pages for the files I linked to, above.
Here is my analysis regarding my removal of the image on Cathy Luchetti, which I believe upset you. Please look at this edit of yours, which was when you added back the deleted image. You will see that there is a place for the image of Cathy Luchetti but, in fact, only a box with the red text "File:Cathy Luchetti author West.jpg" appears. This is because the image File:Cathy Luchetti author West.jpg was deleted by Ronhjones (an administrator) on 6 March 2014. It seems like the file did not have its copyright permissions provided to Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 February 23#OTRS pending since October). I notified you that I removed this deleted image from the article because I believed it was the right thing to do, and that you would appreciate the courtesy of being informed.
Editors who want to use copyright protected files on Wikipedia can send permission to use them to Wikipedia's Volunteer Response Team using the Open-source Ticket Request System (also known as OTRS). I used this system once or twice to check copyright permissions with no problems but I've never provided permissions using it and I'm not an OTRS volunteer. It seems like there is a problem with the copyright permissions for the image File:Cathy Luchetti author West.jpg, which were either not accepted by an OTRS volunteer or something else went wrong.
I strongly suggest you contact Ronhjones, the administrator who deleted the picture. He is also an administrator on Wikimedia Commons and an OTRS volunteer. I think he will be able to provide some insight on exactly why the picture was deleted and exactly what needs to be sent to Wikipedia to confirm copyright permissions for the picture. I hope this helps, at least a little.
Please know that I do not plan to delete your comment from my talk page. In fact, I will leave it there and reference the response that I'm providing you, here.
Again, please accept my apologies if I offended you. I certainly didn't intend to insult you or your work. I understand your thoughts that editing Wikipedia can be like making an appointment to see "the great and powerful Wizard of Oz"; after all, it is the largest encyclopedia in the world and I guess it sometimes operates like a bureaucracy. I enjoy constructive criticism and I'm sincerely interested to know what you think I could do better so that others don't misinterpret my efforts to improve Wikipedia. If you're indeed interested in obtaining a position of trust in the encyclopedia, I believe gaining experience making positive constructive contributions (like writing articles and reverting vandalism) would help... although I'm no authority on such a topic.
Thanks so much Tucoxn, I can see you were simply trying to help clean up the article on Cathy. I respect you for what work you have done to understand the ridiculously overcomplicated rules and procedures for uploading the vast majority of images; also in your case I understand sometimes the ownership rules have to be complicated. But for 95% of us it's unendurably Byzantine to figure out who and where to talk to about simply using an image that the subject of an article 'owns' or possesses and intends to be freely used in his article. In this case of (the absolutely wonderful) Cathy Luchetti, I do believe I've found the magic key, and Cathy has sent the proper form into permissions. So I'll simply go thru the process of uploading it again. But I still expect to be doing something wrong.
Still the vast majority of my comment needs to be taken as real frustration felt by the overwhelming majority of the authoring community that is commonplace in this citadel of official 'knowledge' known as Wikipedia. I've dealt with many other barnacles on the ass of progress over the years, and few reviewers/editors (whoever is making decisions about what is acceptable) are the slightest inclined to help an honest, intelligent author accomplish his goals of posting worthwhile material. Thus I have come to DETEST Wikipedia and its policy-setting leadership as a closed and arbitrary guild desperately holding on to divinely ordained Old Paradigm authority over information. I liken it to the Inquisition.
I can cite several instances (one particularly offensive case that involves King James himself) of Wiki leadership making decisions to squelch vital work... work that the properly edited airing of would enlighten and improve actual lives. In those instances, most of the Wiki functionaries with torture-and-reject authority that I have had to deal with absolutely delight in making the author's life miserable. I can literally see their Cheshire cat grins shining thru their rejection notices: "not notable, poorly sourced, does not 'meet the requirements of the thousand-page Volume VI on standards for discussion of any subject having relevance to raised eyebrows on Caucasians' (located in the third linked maze from the left at zyszigpoterzebie.us.com.ca.org)." Only of course they never tell the author specifically what is wrong and specifically how to make it right. That would not be WIKIPEDIA PROCEDURE!
No, Tucson, it's just an awful system. It's fat and lazy and full of itself. No I don't detest the functionaries themselves. Do we feel hatred for the obnoxious clerk at the DMV? Of course not. It's the government, and they're expected to be obnoxious. Anyone helpful is shunted aside or booted out. Fortunately, online encyclopedias are not the government. Yet. Wikipedia tries to be like the government and revels in intellectual authoritarianism and squelching hard evidence that differs from the party line. But it's never going to have a monopoly, so it can't be government until or unless the actual government takes over and makes it a ministry of approved information.
What Wikipedia needs is competition. How about Open-pedia or Opedia? If I were 10 years younger and not generaling even bigger causes, I'd get some good minds together and throw down on old Jimmy. We'd kick his butt, too. An open online system receptive to its suppliers--the authors--and its user audience would mop the floor with your Church of Rome-like coterie of high priests and sycophants and Cheshire-grinning DMV clerks that has become (and has probably always been) Wikipedia. I'm a real author now. Also, I work as an editor and was an old-school editor in Corporate America for 20 years. Here's the deal: My Opedia would have much higher editing standards--especially for readability--than Wikipedia. Beside our stuff the standard article of Wikipedia would look like program notes for an ultimate fighting contest in Hicksville.
What else? We'd all be friendly and helpful. Like you, Tucson. [Although I know you're just a regular (though more abuse-tolerant) user like me.] If an admin got more than three complaints from an author he'd be out on his ear, like an air traffic controller who has too many 'deals.' And this is a biggie: We'd pretty much throw out the whole notability criteria. What's the point? Opedia is the people's encyclopedia. If you quarterbacked the high school city championship football team and married the prom queen, and there's a public record of it,--or if you were the waterboy for that football team (and it's documented that you brought water to the RB who was thus enabled to score the winning TD)--you can have an entry. Claims of notability tend to be self-regulating; readers can figure things out. You worried about running out of server space? What's notable? How dare the Masters of Knowledge decree that a blind-deaf child learning the liberating concept of WORDS isn't noteworthy because nobody wrote a book or a play about her. You get the point.
Anyway, thanks for taking time to chat, T. And if you know anyone with capital who wants to do things right, count me interested. Wikipedia, Google, Microsoft, General Motors, the State, the Military Industrial Complex, the Education Induistrial Complex, the Prison Industrial Complex, the Vatican, the Faceless Bureaucracy of Arbitrary Central Power, etc. ... they're all destined for the scrapheap. A lot sooner than most of us think.
File copyright problem with "Cathy Luchetti author West.jpg"
Thank you for uploading File:Cathy Luchetti author West.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.
OK, now that's out of the way:
I'm the OTRS volunteer who is handling the ticket for this image. There were several problems:
You tagged it public domain, but the OTRS letter specified a different license. Not a big deal. I removed the license tag pending more information received by OTRS.
The message came from a gmail address, which is no proof of identity at all. This could be solved by creating a temporary page on cathyluchetti.com that references the ticket or verifies the gmail address, proving that the person controlling that web site also controls that email address.
The message claimed that Cathy Luchetti holds the copyright, but the copyright of an image belongs to the photographer, not the subject.
No permission was sent from the photographer, nor did we receive any proof that the photographer transferred the copyright to the subject. It's possible that the photo is a 'selfie' but unlikely considering that it looks like a posed studio photo.
I have replied to the sender describing these problems, but it might help if you communicated the same, so we can keep this image. The Wikimedia Foundation is strict about this, because the foundation is exposed to legal liability by failing to perform due diligence in getting permission from the actual copyright owner whose identity can be confirmed. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Okay, thanks for your help A. She can provide the information you need. But I'm confused about who owns an image. If a photographer takes a photo of me and I buy it from him, don't I own the image and the rights to use that image as I wish, including in an encyclopedia? Or wouldn't that be spelled out in the standard contract? Also, I haven't read anything anywhere that makes the general process of simple use of an image in Wikipedia comprehensible or provides am easy to grasp flow chart describing what a contributor needs to do to use an image. Everything I've read in the Wikipedia help system about image use is far too complicated. Can you point me to something simple and straightforward? 75.114.183.247 (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
OK, I'll try to explain.
If you buy a photo of yourself from a professional photographer, you don't own the copyright to it unless the photographer transfers it to you. If you buy a CD of photos of yourself taken by a studio photographer, the CD usually comes with a copyright release, because you are expected to make digital copies. Now, if the studio only gives you prints, and retains the negatives or original digital version, you can use the prints just as you'd use a book: you can pass them around or show them to others. But you do not have the authority to grant distribution rights to others. Only the copyright holder can do that.
The key here is that even if Cathy Luchetti has permission to distribute the photo (like publish it on her web site), without the copyright release, she doesn't have the authority to transfer that permission to anyone else. That is, Wikipedia does not have permission to distribute it, and Cathy Luchetti cannot grant that permission unless she also holds the copyright. And by copyright law, the photographer owns the copyright, not the subject of the photo.
It would be different if she was to publish her own encyclopedia, then she could put whatever photos of hers she wants in it. But here she and you want another entity, the Wikimedia Foundation (which owns the copyright to Wikipedia) to re-publish a photo that the Wikimedia Foundation has no right to publish, unless the actual copyright holder has declared the photo public domain or grants the Foundation the right to distribute it.
Excellent, where did you go to learn all this, A? Is there a special school for Wikipedia volunteers? Actually, the way you explain it DOES make copyright law easy and straightforward to understand, at least in this context. I'd gladly donate a small amount to any effort you make to produce a 'Copyright and Use of Images on Wikipedia/Wikimedia for Dummies' document. My deep personal judgment and conviction is that ANY law must be easy and straightforward to understand and comply with for just about everyone. Otherwise that law is an ass... not worthy of a free people's respect, understanding, use, or compliance. 75.114.183.247 (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well, I did take a business law class several years ago that covered some of this, but that isn't needed, because you tend to get a better understanding just by answering tickets on OTRS. OTRS has several 'boilerplate' replies to common queries, such as "I give permission to publish this picture of me on Wikipedia" in which case we have a boilerplate reply to explain that generally the photographer holds the copyright, not the subject, and we need permission from the actual copyright holder.
The individual basic laws are straightforward and easy to understand. What complicates them are nuances and advances in technology. I wrote an article here about the book Just This Once, which was a collaboration between a computer and its programmer to create a book that Jacqueline Suzann might have written. At the time, copyright law was simply not equipped to deal with it. And years before that, copyright law was not equipped to deal with public display of a videotape you legally own to an audience. And there are other issues, like copying a photo from a book that might be considered public domain in the United States but still copyrighted in the country in which it was published. And on and on. Each new situation adds new wrinkles and complexities. The "law" is not fixed, but rather a fluid, living thing that must adapt to the times.
In Wikipedia's case, with the advent of instant digital distribution globally over the world wide web, the Wikimedia Foundation must protect itself from liability of infringing on someone's copyright. The Foundation takes advantage of a couple of different legally-recognized free licenses (Creative Commons and GDFL) that still allow the copyright holder some rights (mainly the right to be attributed as the author of the work) while allowing the Wikimedia Foundation to redistribute the material freely. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I just heard from the subject, it appears the photo is after all a selfie, so this is for Amatulic (I'll also post this on your talk page), can you tell us what to do so that the photo can be left alone as is? Here are Cathy's words:
"Brian,
I had the photo taken at Sears for 10.00. It was a photo booth, not a human photographer. Amazingly, it turned out. There is no way I can get permission for this, as I said: photo booth."
OK, that would mean that permission from Cathy is sufficient. If she would include this information in a reply to my recent OTRS ticket email, that will be great. All that remains is for her to provide proof that the gmail address from which OTRS received the permission letter is actually hers. She can do that by acknowledging the ticket number or her email address in a temporary web page on her web site, which she can remove after I acknowledge it.
The image has been deleted due to lack of response from Cathy Luchetti. It can be restored if she answers her mail pertaining to the ticket she opened. A statement from her (not you) saying it's a self-portrait in a photo booth, and some proof of identity of the gmail address, would be all we need. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Can you please send that message to Cathy at [redacted]? The last time I heard from her, she told me she hadn't received anything from "OTRS" or anyone else related to Wikipedia Byzantinia. :) Bwisok (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'm hoping you can send her that message sooner rather than later. She tells me she is on the lookout now for this vital message from OTRS. Thanks, perhaps you can leave me a message or have OTRS leave me a message when you have sent her the message to confirm whatever it is you need to confirm. Much obliged, Ama. Bwisok (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
All done! Confirmation received and verified, and the image has been restored and properly tagged. I have also updated the older ticket for several other images to refer to the current ticket for confirmation of identity, in case someone decides to delete the other images because that confirmation wasn't established then. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dane Elkins, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. 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.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dane Elkins may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Championship (indoor), he won the gold medal in the boy's 14 and under and boys 18 and under (as a 14-year-old.<ref>Racquetball Tournament (5/21/2014 - 5/25/2014), 2014 National Singles
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Brad S. Elkins and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
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 "Click here to 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Brad Elkins and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Brad Elkins and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dane Elkins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pacific Palisades. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Bwisok. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thank you for helping with the Gregory Creswell discussion. You made some good arguments in favor of notability, but regrettably you over-wrote the introductory paragraph rather than posting comments in on the articles talk page. As a result I had to revert all your edits on the article, but copied and pasted your comments on the talk page.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Bwisok. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks Tolly4bolly. I'm an infrequent user and was trying to create an article, but did not remember how to do that nor did it appear obvious from the links or the help notes. I thought that I could pick any article then choose edit, then by adding <Subject> and starting over, deleting the remainder of the article I was editing from, THAT would create the new article called <Subject>. Can you point me to a Wikipedia for Dummies link, I also particularly had problems with submitting images to the commons or public domain from the private collections of my subject.
Bwisok (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
After someone correctly removed the excessively detailed "achievements" section, the only references left were one to Youtube (almost always unsuitable) and three to Dropbox (always unsuitable). Please provide some reliable, accessible thrid-party sources.
I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Welcome to Wikipedia. While everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, a number of your recent file uploads, such as File:Bo in Lumbercar.jpg, had missing or false information regarding their source and copyright status. Please note that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Images and other media must only be uploaded if their copyright status meets the conditions stated in our image use policy, and if their provenance is clearly documented. If you have questions, feel free to ask at the copyright question page or on my talk page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. Jac16888 Talk 12:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
_-_Suva,_Fiji.jpg){kind=link}
