User talk:Cicdc
File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Ferrini holycard.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Ferrini holycard.jpg. 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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. 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:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, 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 files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 16:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Contardo-ferrini1.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Contardo-ferrini1.jpg. 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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. 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:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, 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 files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 16:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Augustin-Marie of the Blessed Sacrament, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04094c.htm.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion
[edit]Hi,
I have seen some of your edits around and I thought I would offer some free suggestions, in view of the Saint Joseph page. It is obvious that you have good knowledge of the Gospels in general, but some of the Wikipedia issues may need getting used to. When I first saw the term "revisionist scholars" that you added to the Saint Joseph I knew it would bother many editors, and would lead to some debate. Personally, I had no problems with your edit, but I knew that in Wikipedia they would be objected to. But I was too busy to do anything about it, so left it and then forgot about it. Now the whole set of changes were reverted and I did not object to the revert because your edits were "on the edge" so to speak.
What I hope is that this type of revert will not disappoint you to the point that you quit. There is a shortage of knowledgeable editors on this topic. As I have said before, teh Charlie Sheen Wiki-page is always up to date and accurate, but many of the pages on this project need help.
My suggestion is to be just careful about specific types of sentence structure that "go over the edge" and result in the baby getting thrown out with the bath water. If you just word our edits in a flat, factual and emotion-free style, then a great deal of unnecessary debate can be avoided. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2011 (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) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |