User talk:Coffeerob

File source problem with File:Joe-Fortes-beach.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Joe-Fortes-beach.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, 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. 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.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eeekster Still new to Wikipedia. I put the name of the photographer Timms, Philip T. In the summary as well as the Description. Can you check if I have done this properly? I know this image is public domain as it is over 100 years old. I just need some assistance to tagging it properly. Update ok I think I have added the appropriate tags can you check? Thanks Coffeerob (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Timms was the photographer.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) Canoe1967 I added a link to Philip Timms Wikipedia Page.

No problem. If we can find the other public domain image then we can recreate the stamp with gimp or photoshop. I emailed the stamp creator at http://www.limedesign.ab.ca/contact.html but haven't heard back yet.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Joe-Fortes-beach.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Joe-Fortes-beach.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo request

Are you anywhere near John Hendry Park? I am wondering if there is a statue there of John Hendry (industrialist). We could use any images like this and the park to improve the articles. See if you can get a sculptor name if you do decide to pop over and take some pics. The sculptor may have a page here as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be near the park but after a google search, a call to the Vancouver Parks Department and a subsequent message left with the superintendent of the park. (He hasn't returned the call yet) I am going to hazard to say there isn't one. I will let you know the results when he returns the call. Coffeerob (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There must be a statue of him somewhere in the lower rainland. If not they should have one commissioned. The park, museum, libray, and the theatre in North Van, etc may push for one. As to your article it will probably fail Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It needs to be notable and reported in RS that it is notable, I would think.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canoe1967 My reasoning behind creating this page is that there isn't to many buildings that I know of that is:

A Marina
Float Plane Base
Pub
Built from pieces of a worlds fair (The last one held in North America)

The only other place that comes close to this is Flying Beaver in Vancouver and it is only a pub and float plane base. If we talk about the history of the building and have photos of the building when it was at Expo 86 would that make the cut? Without a doubt it is quite the unique facility. A secondary question would be how does The McBarge get it's own page??? Yet it isn't even in operation anymore.

Many editors will want evidence of its 'notability' See: Wikipedia:Notability. It may survive under the radar but f someone tags it for AfD then it probably won't survive.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs as sources

Hi Coffeerob. I saw your contribution at Lighthouse Pub and noticed that you cite a blog (yours?) as a source. Unfortunately, Wikipedia considers blogs and other sites with user-generated content to be self-published sources, and does not consider them reliable (with some exceptions). If you can find other credible independent sources to verify the statements in the article, that would be ideal. Thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I wrote the article on my blog is because there wasn't any evidence of the history out there and the only thing that did cite the pub was completely wrong. I am a former journalist… I kept to those standards I learnt in that industry. So I have to get a third party to write about the history of the pub to actually validate my research? Coffeerob (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of Wikipedia's core policies is that of no original research. Any contributions must be supported by a reliable source. The question here is whether your blog, a self-published source, can be considered reliable.

Wikipedia's guideline about self-published sources says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so."

If you can provide examples of your work in this field that was published by reputable third-party sources, then your blog might be considered a self-published expert source. I would consider getting other opinions on the no original research noticeboard, where there are editors with some more experience in situations like this. --Drm310 (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drm310 Does Wikipedia need links to articles and photos or scanned tear sheets scanned submitted to the no original research noticeboard I have more tearsheets then I do have web articles.

That I am not certain about... no one's replied on the noticeboard yet. It can take several days for a response to appear. In the interim, I suppose you could post links on your user page. The Wayback Machine [1] can sometimes find copies of old URLs that have since expired. As for articles that appeared in print, you could just try a bulleted list of articles with the title, name of the publication and the date. Were you the author of said articles or did you contribute only photographs?

It is true I was more a photographer then I was a writer. But I did do both. I will take your valued suggestions and make the appropriate submissions. --Coffeerob (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing - when you post on a talk page, make sure to add your signature at the end of your post. It makes it easier to see who said what and when. Just type four tilde characters (~~~~) or use the "signature" button at the top of the editing window (third button, looks like a pencil). --Drm310 (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I usually a do use my siggy. But I must have forgotten. --Coffeerob (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Coffeerob. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Drm310 (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a list of published articles to my User Page Regards --Coffeerob (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still no response from there. I've cross-posted the question to the reliable sources noticeboard and hopefully there will be a faster reply there. --Drm310 (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree files

See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 October 24#OTRS pending since April. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan2 I found out that the person who's name is associated with the photos is not the actual owner. However I have now met with the owner of the images and need to change everything over… Can I do that or should I just delete the photos and then get him to upload them?

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Coffeerob. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Coffeerob. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]