User talk:Santryl/archive1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome!
Hello, Santryl/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Image copyright problem with File:Cavendish beach06.JPG
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:Piping plover.JPG
Image copyright problem with File:Boardwalk.JPG
Image copyright problem with File:Sand duns and beach.JPG
Your uploads
Good day. I see that you have uploaded a number of images to Wikipedia. First off, thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, there are some guidelines that we need to follow with copyrighted images. Specifically, you need to add a source for the image (a link to a website will do), a copyright tag (there are some listed at WP:ICT), and a rationale explaining why we can use a copyrighted image (explained at WP:NFURG). I see that your images fail to include one of these. Please stop uploading images and address the concerns listed above. If you need assistance, you can ask at the help desk. If you do not fix these images, and you continue to make bad uploads, you will be blocked and your images will be deleted. Thanks for your contributions! STBotI (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Cavendish beach06.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Bodily Harm
Author(s) notification template: ==Proposed deletion of Bodily Harm==
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bodily Harm, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- Non-notable film
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Orange Mike | Talk 21:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Page protection
Just to let you know, adding {{sprotected}} or {{protected}} to a page is only a means for an admin to notify users that a page is protected. This does not actually confer protection to the article. If you need help protecting a page, please contact an admin or request it. Thanks! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
|} Rosenknospe (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Tripwire (film) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Corruptcopper (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:Tripwire90.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Tripwire90.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Hero (2000 film)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hero (2000 film), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- The film seems non-notable, and the given external links direct to an error page and a different film respectively.
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Colds7ream (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Colds7ream (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Unspecified source/license for Image:EstherAndTheKing60.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:EstherAndTheKing60.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 02:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Image without license
Unspecified source/license for Image:Jewelofthesahara.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jewelofthesahara.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 01:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Tripwire (film)
Hi, I got your note about your recent work on Tripwire (film). I'm still not sure this subject qualifies as notable in the way that most films that have pages on Wikipedia do. It might, or it might not -- a few quick searches I did were inconclusive. Take a look at the criteria for notability of films and see if you can address some of the points raised there. Specifically, a couple of links to national movie critics who reviewed the film when it was released would help make the case for notability. Also, I left a note for you above about the image you uploaded to illustrate the film. Good luck -- keep trying! Newsaholic (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Broken Down Golf Cart (cocktail)
The article Broken Down Golf Cart (cocktail) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable drink. All references come from user-contributed websites, and no actual reliable sources could be turned up via Google. Fails WP:NOTE.
While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to say that I am becoming increasingly disheartened by the deleation epidemic occurring in Wikipedia. Nothing seems to be notable and so are deleted. The saddest one, in my opinion was when Providence Continuing Care Centre page was deleted as it was declared Hospital Spam. Really now.l santry (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't be disheartened. Nothing to do with notability. The original text had largely been taken from the hospital's web site (a no-no). And since the material was written to promote the hospital, it had lots of peacock terminology (e.g. the best, greatest, leading, a leader etc.) which are typically used in promoting/advertising. Hence it was misinterpreted as spam and nominated for deletion. I've fixed up the article even more since there was still some copyvio text and, I believe, one peacock term. BTW, my mother spent almost a year at Providence. Cheers. BC talk to me 22:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)