Rogerfpurcell

Welcome

Hello, Rogerfpurcell, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Mono Happy editing! ǝɥʇM0N0farewell 01:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Non-Free rationale for File:JordiFolchPi.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JordiFolchPi.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:JordiFolchPi.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:JordiFolchPi.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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. Marcus Qwertyus 18:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Champions League

Hi, your edits on the UEFA Champions League article aren't helpful. The article is a combined article for the trophy that was previously called the European Cup. Real Madrid have won this competition, whatever its format and whatever its name on 9 occasions. If you search for European Cup you get re-directed to the UEFA Champions League article - one and the same, just a change a name and format. The first line of the Champions League article says "European Cup" redirects here. Ytic nam (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC) I just instructed the copyright author (Albert Folch) to release the copyright authorization by sending email. These instructions are very complex for non-initated users ... The file, btw, was called "Cover of 'For the love of the ball'.jpg" (without the " ").

File permission problem with File:For the Love of the Ball.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:For the Love of the Ball.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 believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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) 18:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Cover of "For the love of the ball".jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cover of "For the love of the ball".jpg, which you've attributed to http://www.amazon.com/For-Love-Ball-Albert-Folch-ebook/dp/B00FOIL552. 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 believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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. Stefan2 (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Cover of "For the love of the ball".jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Cover of "For the love of the ball".jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:JordiFolchPi.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JordiFolchPi.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:JordiFolchPi.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:JordiFolchPi.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 believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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 Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rogerfpurcell. The copyright of photos such as this typically is held by the photographer. The simple fact that a photo, etc. has been posted online is does not automatically mean that it has been freely licensed, and in many cases such photos are actually still protected by copyright. Wikipedia requires that the original copyright holder make a declaration of consent explicitly stating that they agree to freely license the image for anyone (not just Wikipedia) for any purpose (including commercial). Such a statement can be made by posting an appropriate license (see Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses) on the source website or in an email to the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team (OTRS) (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for details). If you are the original copyright holder then you can license the image as {{PD-self}}, write the necessary declaration of consent yourself and send it to OTRS for verification. If you are not the original copyright holder, then you need to request that the original copyright holder write a declaration of consent. You can then forward their declaration of consent to e OTRS for verification. Unfortunately, verbal declarations are not sufficient for verification so even if the original copyright holder tells you its OK we need something written for verification purposes. If you have any questions, please let feel free to ask here or at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly -- The owner of this picture was Jordi Folch Pi's widow who died a long time ago. She passed it to Albert Folch, the closest relative. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I am his biographer. Albert Folch tells me he has tried to email the copyright authorization of the picture to Wikipedia. We really are at the end of the rope here for a very small issue: the man is dead!

Rogerfpurcell (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rogerfpurcell. As far as I know, all that needs to be done is for whomever currrently holds the copyright of the photo (I'm assuming it is now Albert Folch) to either send a declaration of consent to OTRS, or for Albert Folch to post something on the website where the image was taken from which explicitly states the image is freely licensed. Something in writing which clearly states that the copyright holder agrees to license the image in a way which allows all of the following for both the image itself as well as any modified versions based on it: modification, redistribution, or use for any purpose (inlcuding commercial). Basically, my understanding of this is that anyone anywhere can dwonload the image from Wikipedia and use it in anyway these please (inlcuding, for example, putting it on a T-shirt, etc. they want to sell) without checking with or needing the permission of the copyright holder. There are different types of free licenses which can be used and the right one for this image may depend how much control Mr. (Albert) Folch wants to relinquish over the image. More information can be found at Wikipedia:File copyright tags and you or he should be able to ask more specific questions at either Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. You and Mr. Folch might also want to read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials because it also contains information relevent to the above. The fact that an image has been uploaded to a publically accessible website, even one like Picassa, does not automatically make it "public domain" and such claims are likely going to lead to the image evenutally be deleted. As I stated above, something more explicit and verificable is needed than simply saying "the image is available online so that means it's free" and providing a link for the image. You can find a little more about this at "What are some common issues with image submissions? How do they differ from article submissions?" in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-14/WikiProject report.

For reference, there is an alternative to licensing the image as "free". Certain copyrighted content can be uploaded locally to Wikipedia if it complies with Wikipedia:Non-free content. There are, however, fairly strict limits placed on how such content can be used which might not be suitible for your purposes. Each use of a non-free content on Wikipedia requires a valid non-free use rationale be provided which satisfies all 10 of the criterion listed in WP:NFCC. Please note that Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines are purposely designed to be fairly restrictive because non-free content is still considered to be copyright protect, and therefore, it might not be suitable for your purposes.

Finally, I just want to comment on the As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I am his biographer. statement you made in your post. Please don't take this the wrong way, but Wikipedia articles do not have "official editors-in-charge". Wikipedia articles are free to be edited by essentially anyone with the only real requirement being that these edits comply with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. As editors, we don't own the articles we create or edit, and any attempt to try and claim ownerships is likely going to lead to serious problems with other editors. Even the subjects of articles do not own "their" articles. There are mechanisms in place which can help resolve disputes when they arise, and these are available to all editors. So, in a sense, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, all Wikipedia editors are his biographer. You should also be advised that Wikipedia takes conflict of interest editing quite seriously and that trying to assert ownership over an article is often seen by many as either actual, potential and apparent conflict of interest. Any connection you might have (officially or unofficially) with Jordi or Albert Folch, even if you are not being paid, might limit the types of edits you are allowed to make so it might be helpful to read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and familiarize yourself with the relevant policies and guidelines. Please also try and understand that Wikipedia articles are not intended to be memorial pages for promoting the memory of individuals we may have known personally or heard about in other ways, but otherwise might not meet Wikipedia:Notability. I'm not saying that's necessary the case with Jordi Folch Pi, but the article as currently written has sourcing and style issues which make seem more of a memorial than encyclopedic article in some regards in my opinion and might make it hard for the article to survive it happens to be nominated for deletion via WP:AFD by another Wikipedia editor.

I've written a lot above so if you have any questions feel free to ask them and I'll try to answer them as best as I can. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for all the advice.

Re: "biographer", I'd love it if others also contribute! I just meant that I seem to be the only one caring to enter info because I was exposed to Jordi Folch's work during my biochem classes (one of the greatest biochemists of this century), and then browsing the web about art I discovered the Albert Folch (artist-scientist) - Jordi Folch connection so I thought it was very interesting. Would love if you could tip me on style. I have read the article on Tone (I assume you flagged that) and I don't see anything in my writing that is not "clear and understandable" or that is not "written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader". I think I used "English language in a businesslike manner", but I'm open to suggestions of course. I'm only a biochem student so I don't claim a huge mastery of language. I really would love to iron out the deficiencies of the article so you can unflag those. I will try to add more references.

Re: image copyrights -- Albert Folch has assured me that he has sent an email to do the Declaration of Consent and he forwarded me the authorization email -- yet the image got flagged for deletion afterwards. This archaic system of editing does not allow me to post an "authorization ticket" or other systems that would make it more user-friendly. Even this system of talking to you is extremely cumbersome. We have followed all your instructions for posting on Wikipedia. I can try to ask Albert Folch to, in addition, post a CC BY-SA 3.0 license on the Picasa website, but I believe that all the right steps were taken to supply the information requested -- that's why we ae frustrated that these images (both JordiFolchPi.jpg and AlbertFolch2.jpg) are still being flagged for deletion. If you can help in any way, it will be greatly appreciated.

Rogerfpurcell (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If a "declaration of consent" was sent to OTRS and it was done so recently, then it is possible that it hasn't been seen by anyone yet. Anything that has been deleted image that has been deleted, can be undeleted per WP:REFUND so it's not like the image is gone forever. You might want to ask at WP:OTRSN about this. Just tell them that you or Albert Folch sent in the declaration of consent as required, but the image was still deleted. FWIW, there is already a free version of a photo of Mr. Folch at File:AlbertFolch.jpg on Wikimedia Commons that can be used in the article instead of File:AlbertFolch2.jpg which you uploaded the other day. The new file you've uploaded seems problematic because the "meta data" at the problem does not list "Albert Folch" as the "author" or "copyright holder". So, unless the photographer who took the photo is you, the file probably cannot be uploaded as free without explicit permission from the phtographer, even if Mr. Folch is the subject of the photo and has posted the photo on his Picassa page. Just for reference, it looks like the previous version you of the photo (File:AlbertFolch new.jpg), you uploaded was deleted by Explicit (an administrator) as a copyright violation per WP:F7 because it was uploaded as non-free content. As I mentioned above, there a quite a few restrictions placed on non-free images. One of these is WP:NFCC#1 which basically says that a "non-free" photo of a living person is not allowed because the possibility exists that a "free" photo of said person can be taken by anyone at anytime or can be replaced by already existing free version. Since the free version I linked to above already does exist, a non-free photo of Mr. Folch is probably never going to be acceptable. Also, essentially uploading a photo which is the same as something that has been previously deleted for copyright concerns is generally frowned upon, so it might be a good idea to ask Explicit about this at User talk:Explicit

Regarding the tone of Jordi Folch Pi, I will say that article seems to rely too much on the obituary by his former students and is lacking independent secondary or third-party sources. Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect what reliable sources say. Using an obituary to source content needs to be done carefully because they are considered to be primary sources, unless it can be shown they were written by someone completely independent of the subject and by someone subject to some form of editorial (i.e., fact checking) control. What is written in the article may be true, but Wikipedia requires verifiability so better sourcing is need to support claims like "was followed over a period of several years by a series of famous papers...", "His fundamental philosophy was that...", "Folch successfully used his method to examine..." and "Folch can be considered as one of the founders of the chemistry of complex lipids ..." just to name a few. These kinds of statements are usually fine when supported by a reliable source, but generally considered original research. Such statements are not really neutral when left unsupported. Anyway, content issues like this are something better discussed at Talk:Jordi Folch Pi so I'll post something there when I get a chance. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

OTRS discussion

Hi Rogerfpurcell. Just want to let you know that I started a discussion about the files you've uploaded at WP:OTRSN#File:JordiFolchPi.jpg and File:AlbertFolch2.jpg. OTRS volunteers have access to emails that have been sent so hopefully someone there will check into the matter for you. They can verify whether the files have the proper permission they need. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi again March july -- thanks! Your edit came in at the same time I was editing the talk below so there was an edit conflict. Here it is again:

Hi again Marchjuly -- Thanks again for your guidance -- it's a learning process for me.

Re: copyright issues. You will laugh at this, but it's not obvious what "non-free" or "free" images mean, so I was just clicking to try whatever would work (what do I care). When you take the time to explain the photographer role, I get it, but all this is not obvious in the words "free" or "non-free" to the regular street guy like me. My feeling is that (seeing that tonight Albert Folch already uploaded the CC license on the Picasa website), he believes to be the copyright holder (even if the photographer was not himself -- could have been someone from his family, who knows ...). I don't care, I'm done if you guys believe him. If not, you'll have to delete the pictures. My intermediary role is over.

Re: primary/secondary sources. This is a very interesting subject (the verifiability of information entered by large numbers of people) and this is the reason I was attracted to becoming a Wikipedia editor originally. Believe me I care deeply about it. I think, though, in this case you are wrong. The reason is that the credibility of the information was already embedded in the writers of the "obituary". This was an editorial in a prestigious journal, written by two other prestigious scientists. Hey we are not talking about a normal dude, Jordi Folch was nominated for the Nobel Prize in the 1970s, and his paper (cited in the Wiki page) is still ranked as #9 in the list of the most cited papers in the history of Science! So I'm not sure how you go about it, but ref. #1 is *definitely* not a "primary" source as you tagged it. I can add more "variety" of references, but I thought that that one was pretty complete. Anyways, I enjoy our discussions, but if this addresses this particular concern, please remove the tag so I can move on. Otherwise please be more specific on how to improve the text. (I'll move the references to the sentences you suggested -- that's very helpful.)

Rogerfpurcell (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Just want to update about the image thing. As I posted above, I asked about this at the OTRS noticeboard. A OTRS volunteer named S Philbrick checked through the database for permissions emails for the files in question, but was not able to find any record of any such emails. It appears that (automated?) replies are immediately sent out to all persons sending emails to OTRS and these replies contain a ticket (reference) number. S Philbrick can use this number to check the database again. Do you, by chance, know this number? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC); [Note: Marchjuly edited this post after the fact to add the missing words "such emails" - 00:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)]

If I have a ticket number I can find it. Unfortunately if I find it my response will be probably the same as the response I just placed at the OTRS noticeboard a few moments ago.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion pending for File:JordiFolchPi.jpg

Hello, Rogerfpurcell. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:JordiFolchPi.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

• If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

• If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion pending for File:AlbertFolch2.jpg

Hello, Rogerfpurcell. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:AlbertFolch2.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

• If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

• If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:AlbertFolch .jpg

Thanks for uploading File:AlbertFolch .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 believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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 Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rogerfpurcell. This has been discussed before, both above and at WP:OTRSN. You now claiming this as your "own work" when previously you said it was copyrighted by Albert Folch Folch. The metadata for the photo shows that the photo was taken by "Scott Manthey". As explained in Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard/Archive 4#File: AlbertFolch2.jpg should not be deleted! Please stop tagging it and Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard/Archive 4#Wikipedia disconnect leaves editors defenseless, Wikipedia needs to have an acceptable permission statement on file for verification purposes. This is not going to change no matter how many times you try to re-uploaded the same file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)