User talk:Anoldtreeok
Welcome!
[edit]Hello Anoldtreeok, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Reconsider! 09:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Sydney montage1.gif
[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Sydney montage1.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah sorry, I messed up with some of the licences for the picture, and only uploaded it to see how it looked uploaded. It's probably best if it's deleted, because the quality is poor, and I haven't worked out the licencing yet. All I'd have to do is credit some of the people based on the licences they gave for the images they uploaded, but for now speedy deletion is probably the best option. EDIT: I'll work out all the sourcing I have to do and re-upload it in higher quality in a few days. Don't know if it would be of any use on here, but I'll re-upload it anyway. Anoldtreeok (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Burnt pine.jpg
[edit]Thank you for uploading File:Burnt pine.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I originally had a licence, but realised it was wrong. I couldn't figure out which form of deletion I should mark it for as a result, so I removed the licence so that this would happen. So yeah, thanks. Anoldtreeok (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Sydney montage
[edit]For a sydney monatage you seemed interested in. Sorry if you feel I've now spammed your talk page.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Any of those pics would be awesome. But as has been said dont repeat pics like there is in the ones above. If something appears in one image unless its tiny don't put another picture in where it is also. i dont know about all of sydney and being inclusive because the major landmakrs are mostly in the city but i included some south and north sydney pics. Altormainstream (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Damned with faint praise?
[edit]I don't see what is hard to understand about the question itself. - Well lucky you!
Thanks for the translation / interpretation. I think you are probably correct. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
And, of course, I agree with the opinion you presented.
Changing subject completely, you may find Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links useful. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
(I would have fixed it for you, but I think that would have been more than "a little presumptuous".)
- This because of the images that were posted here? Thanks, that link was helpful (mainly because of an edit I attempted a while back that was a phenomenal failure actually). I didn't mean to make the "I don't see what is hard to understand" line sound as if I was trying to say "You're all stupid for not being able to read through the various abuses of grammar and spelling" by the way... Anoldtreeok (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Nice reply! Most appreciated. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I came here for a reason. But now I can't remember what it was! (Youth is wasted on the young.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes! (Now I remember!!) I don't seem to be making any progress in communicating with our (presumably) Chinese colleague. Could I bother you to read Talk:Adelaide#China_town, and if you think you can contribute something useful, do so? (Thanks in advance.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I added something very small. I tried to explain why I don't have a problem with the image, but the user seems to be trying to avoid reference to things that are a minority. I don't see how they seem to think this image implies a massive Chinese influence. But, maybe there is something I'm not seeing. Anoldtreeok (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ta. (FYI, all of the rest of us are not seeing it, either. Ho Hum.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Image at Sydney
[edit]It's not your monitor. The image used both "upright=1.2" and a forced image size of 200px, I'm not sure why. When I removed the forced image sizes the image was made larger. As a square image it needs neither so your removal of the upright tag was appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah OK. I was trying to figure out what was going on. Thanks for informing me. I was comparing revisions and everything haha. Anoldtreeok (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
St Andrew's
[edit]I've improved the layout bt placing the pic on the same level as the TOC. I had difficulty making it stick there previously, bu there have been some changes to how formatting functions nad it seems to work. Amandajm (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- If nothing else it's neater. I was just a bit lost about the layout, but I guess I can't complain so long as it's neat and easy to follow. Anoldtreeok (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Joseph Potaskie
[edit]Hi, I removed the article because i believe it shouldn't be deleted. I believe you are under the imprssion that i know why you have nominated this article. Would you please explain to me why this article is a candidate for deletion? I removed the deletion because i don't agree with it, and i did think that it could be remved by "anyone". I am a decendant of Joseph Potaski and i too agree with the creator of the page, and believe in its notability. I am fairly new to wiki, and do not know the concepts and rules of editing. I do however plan to help develop this article, so i would appreciate any help or advice you could give me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.0.177 (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I didn't nominate it this time, I just put the notice back up because the discussion goes on regardless of whether the message is there, so people should know what is going on. The reason it has been nominated is stated on the articles for deletion page. The article has changed a fair bit since it was nominated, but the notability is still an issue. I recommend going there and stating why you believe it is notable. For improving the article itself, find a larger range of sources, and add inline citations. Anoldtreeok (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Nice job
[edit]Hi, I just saw this montage on one of the foreign Wikipedia's [1]. Good job. ***Adam*** (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
![[1]](https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:Montage_of_Sydney1.jpg){kind=link}
- Hmm, I only added it to two or three foreign wikipedia's, I guess it's been found and added on quite a few. Thanks, I've made several montages for Sydney, but that's probably the first one that's any good, so the first one I put on the commons. Anoldtreeok (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've declined the speedy deletion request as that's for articles where there is no assertion of notability. I don't think there is a CSD category that this article would be fit into particularly well... if you think it should be deleted, WP:AFD would be a better bet. Cheers, Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Sydney meetup
[edit]Hi, I got your name from this list, and thought you might be interested in a meetup in Sydney at the Alexandria Hotel tomorrow. I hope you can join us. Sorry for the late notice. --99of9 (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- No problem, late notice is fine. I'm right in the middle of University exams though, so won't be able to make it to anything sorry. Anoldtreeok (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough! I hope they go well. --99of9 (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 13
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Soundwave (Australian music festival), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slipknot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
* Scientific investigations at Loch Ness
[edit]Good evening:
Please allow me to share an article with you. Maybe you will find it interesting:
http://www.naturapop.com/home/scientific-investigations-at-loch-ness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.2.207.74 (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
[edit]Your upload of File:Brisbane Montage.jpg 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) 14:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Image source problem with File:Brisbane Montage.jpg
[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Brisbane Montage.jpg.
This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.
While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.
If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC). 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) 22:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
File:Cronulla beach pre 1950s.jpg listed for discussion
[edit]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cronulla beach pre 1950s.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
