Welcome to my talk page.

Please place all new comments at the bottom of this page with a new

section header, or under a previous section if appropriate. Remember

to ALWAYS sign your comments with four tildes. ~~~~

Notes: Please be constructive, and be nice. Please "assume good faith" before making other assumptions. Don't attack me or others and I will do the same for you. Yes, actually I do sometimes make mistakes! So if I've screwed up please just let me know in a post below or email me privately and I'll do my best to fix it.

As of July 11, 2010 my signature changed to: Austex • Talk

For my own editorial remarks I use "North Texas Green" color #059033

My quick links for edits:

R.Rock G.Town L.F. My Edit Count

Wi-DM DMPA SandBx

WmCo Aus Travis List of Colors

BLP Text Backup

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2(19N) Archive 3

Old Comments

(archived 24 August 2010)

Start new comments below here:

File:Antlers caboosses.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Antlers caboosses.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 18:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly - I don't understand the problem. It was properly licensed as CCA-SA 3.0 There is some incorrect langauge in the caption about who took the photo but it is I who took the photo and licensed it as the uploader. What is it that needs correction, please? Austex • Talk 22:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Could you change the license to {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}? That would fix it. Kelly ^hi! 15:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I have never seen the "Self" license and probably should have been using it all along. Will make the change. May take a day or two for me to figure it out and get it done. Thanks. 15:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have re-submitting the original image through Creative Commons with a proper license. Image then was added to article Antlers Hotel (Kingsland, Texas) I hope this solves the issue. Austex • Talk 00:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:McConico.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:McConico.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At my request, the actual publisher/owner of the image sent and email to OTRS to license the image under a CCA-SA 3.0 license, as is noted in the image history summary and it was accepted by OTRS with the notation "This media was proposed for deletion as a replaceable non-free content. The result was to Keep the file, as no adequate free-licensed file exists or can be created to fulfill the limited role performed by this file at the time deletion was considered." The image appeared in the Round Rock, Texas article on Wikipedia and will be added back. It also appears on my page at Austex as a temporary holding placemarker to add it back to the Round Rock page. This license superceds the previous limited license and a true and correct DCA-SA-3.0 license is on file with OTRS as noted on the File:McConico.jpg page. I went to considerable trouble and a fairly extensive amount of time to get a fair use license from the publisher as this is an importnat iamge relating to Round Rock's history as the first black City Councilman. Obviously I myself cannot provide a license as it does not belong to me, but the publisher/owner of the image provided the proper license. Please let me know if you have further questions, or suggestions as to how to perfect this license, or if I have not done this correctly. Given the above I think it is no longer a non-fair-use image. Austex • Talk 20:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several issues - There is no OTRS ticket number, which is always displayed when they get the appropriate releases - can you cite to the ticket number for this? Second, there is still an incorrect license on the image description page (thus, the Orphaned noticce). If that is incorrect, it should be updated (incorrect license removed). I would hold off doing this, however, until you are able to put the OTRS ticket. Third, the "proposed for deletion... keep..." is inaccurate, there was no discussion, you simply removed the deletion tag (03:26, 25 July 2010) and put the rationale for it on the talk page. Skier Dude (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the necessary experience to deal with this. As far as I honestly know it was not I who removed the proposed for deletion tag and it would not be my practice to do so, and I have no OTRS ticket number and don't know why I would have kept it if I had one. I was not even the licensee. I've never even heard of an OTRS ticket number and have uploaded many images. Isn't there a notation, as I recall, from OTRS re approving the image and confirming thta they received his email license? It was the publisher and image owner, not me, who licensed the photo at my request (as was noted by OTRS on the image page). Given that this involves arcane matters such as keeping an OTRS ticket number on something that I didn't license, I supose you just ought to do what you want with it. It seems to me like these technialities are a distinction without a difference and your comments are unfortunately indeciferable to me(although I am certainthat you mean well) as to how to solve it. This is way over my head and my only interests were in recognizing a major historical figure in the Round Rock history that I was writing. This is the only known photo of Mr.McConnico and is an image that cannot otherwise be created. And it's Fair Use was licensed under CCA-SA-3.0 by the owner/publisher of the photo(not me). I truly don't know what else to do. I am just a normal editor trying to do a fair job. I don't understand why the urrent license is not sufficient. As for being orphaned, I removed it from the Round Rock site when the licensing issue irst came up. I am happy to re-add it if that helps solve the problem. Austex • Talk 03:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To solve this, if you are certain that the actual (C) holder has sent an e-mail to OTRS is simply to wait for them to put the ticket number on the image. Even if it deleted before the ticket is added, the ORTS staff has administrators that can restore the image. Without that, it could easily be challenged down the line as a replaceable fair-use; to allay that problem, let ORTS do their job & have patience - they're not normally as fast as the admins/sysops are here on the en.wiki site :) Skier Dude (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am absolutely certain. It is noted on the image site: "Copyright from Community Impact Newsletter released July 26, 2010 by Publisher using CCA-SA-Ver 3.0 per email sent to'permissions-ed@wikimedia.org'." And it was released by OTRS on 8/8/2010. That's more than a year ago. Do I need to track down the publisher and have him re-submit this again? Austex • Talk 04:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image has been re-licensed as McConico2.jpg. Austex • Talk 17:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image has been deleted. Have you not received a proper email form from John Garrett, Publisher, providing a CC-AS-3.0 license for this image? Austex • Talk 21:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to contact WP:OTRS; Admins (including me) here don't necessarily have access to that database, someone listed on their page will be able to answer your questions. Skier Dude (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! License was finally receved by OTRS and they issued a ticket as follows: Ticket#2011081610019755 File:McConico2.jpg User:Skier Dude Can you assist in merging the ticket with the image? I don't know how and from my reading its look like it probably has to be done by an admin. Says to forward the ticket number to the admin who first contacted me and they will forward to OTRS. (Or does OTRS do this eventually themseleves?) I am guessing that I need the photo undelted so that the ticket number and permission can be added. Glad to get this resolved after 13 months. Thanks very, very, very much. Austex • Talk 00:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been undeleted and is back live. See final discussion HERE

Skier Dude See note on your discussion page re McConico2.jpg Also, please ignore me if this idea is inappropriate. I have NEVER asked for something like this before on Wikipedia, and I don't know if it is kosher to ask, but given that I worked for nearly 14 months (it starts in my Archive 3)on this one image alone, trying to get it cleared, getting the publisher to write three time to OTRS with a proper permission form (and the image was cleared briefly last July then deleted again so perserveing through it all), is it appropriate for you to consider awarding a barnstar of some sort for perseverence in the face of adversity or such? If not appropriate to ask, please delete this section and I will understand Austex • Talk 20:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about "Archive" citations

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

A number of my citations come from the Austin American-Statesman's paid "Archive" section. In other words, you have to have a valid paid account to get full text of articles and the orginal url. If I cite the archive url I get a huge, long, multi-line url which includes my username and password, which is obviously not appropriate. So I'm currently just using "url=statesman.com (Archives)" notation. It does not link at all to the article itself, but it gives a publication source (not not th article) plus I am providing the article title, author and publication date, etc.. But you cannot get to the article itself without paying. Two questions: (1) Is there a place I can store a full article on Wikipedia and refer to it there? (2) What is the proper form for such difficult and perplexing citations? Austex • Talk 14:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer #1: definitely not—that would be a copyright violation. For #2, you don't have to include a URL, as WP:V is satisfied if you include the metadata. If the articles have identifiers such as DOIs, OCLCs, or BibCodes, you will want to include them to help identify the article. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Appreciate the help very much. You guys are always quick and helpful. Many thanks. Austex • Talk 15:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Follow up re the above. On a BLP I got a ton of flack by editors saying that they didn't know if the BLP person was only "mentioned" in the news article, or if the article was about them specifically. Makes a big difference re establishing notability (in fact the case in particular was deleted in a AfD for lack of proven notability despite excellent news articles that could not be properly cited from the paid archive of the Austin American-Statesman. Yet I cannot use the archive's url. Suggestions? (PS - where is the metadata?) Austex • Talk 22:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the subject of the article in question? CapMan07008 (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is was a BLP that was deleted by AfD in 2010. But I have had it come up here a time or two on other articles. I have not been using the longer url because it has my account name and password in it (see url). Here is an example ^[1]

My substitute for that url is footnoted here, but the critique is that you cannot read the article to see if it conveys notability. ^[2]

Truth is you can't read the article with either one, hence my wondering if the article could be pdf'd or the unformatted text placed (in my sandbox perhaps, or special page) somewhere to be referenced?Austex • Talk 14:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the article metadata referred to above? I know about metadata in photos, but not newspaper articles.

Take a look at the URLs themselves: from the first one: "docid=0EA07856E73E6565"; "dlid=DL0111020402395432054". I think that might be what is referred to, though I have no idea if those are internal ids only for their database, or refer to some more broad cataloguing system. Meanwhile, let me check whether Austin American-Statesman is in newspaperarchive.com. Regarding the notability issue, if I averred that the article contained substantive treatment of the topic, I would expect to be taken at my word, but since I'm also a realist, what I would do it write the content that shows notability, citing each part to those sources that verify the information. It that got deleted because people demanded to see the content itself, I think you would have a very good basis for overturning at WP:DRV. In any event, if you have the subscriptions and can personally download copies of the articles, then you could offer to provide by email copies of the pdfs. Whether this would violate the terms of use of the website is an issue, but I don't think you would be violating any copyright in doing so.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not in their database:-(--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful ideas. I do pay for the archive so I could take the relevent information and provide it by email, or for that matter on the discussion page for future reference. Thanks. Austex • Talk 01:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for Peer Review (2 September 2011

See also=

Reputation Workbook

References

^ Davenport, Christian (10 December 1988). "Round Rock May Get Retail Project: Arboretum-like development slated for I-35 and FM 1325". Austin American-Statesman. Retrieved 3 February 2011. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ Davenport, Christian (10 December 1988). "Round Rock May Get Retail Project: Arboretum-like development slated for I-35 and FM 1325". Austin American-Statesman. Retrieved 3 February 2011. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/User talk:Austex/Donald G. Martin (Austin, Texas). Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 7:29pm • 09:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Please do not write an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline Writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedians with articles.) Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. I think the lack of response to your proposed article is simply that the majority of editors do not consider it good form to write an article about yourself. It really is a good plan to wait until you are notable enough for someone else to do it. Kind regards Theroadislong (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I disagree and I am following precisely the route laid out in Wikipedia for doing so - yes a hard hill to climb, but I am doing it "by the book." This is not an effort in social networking, I have plenty of that. While it is generally "not in good form" to do so, Wikipdia does in fact provide for doing so with certain requirements. Unfortunately no one will read the darn thing to see if it meets those requirements. Lastly, I have kept it in a discussion space, not article space, in order to get feedback, not admonishments.Austex • Talk 22:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which route you are following but WP:YOURSELF makes it fairly clear that you will have an uphill struggle! Good luck.Theroadislong (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong - I am following WIKIPEDIA policy (route). Not something I simply made up! You should know that there is a policy for this and I am following it as carefully as I can. Austex • Talk 22:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong - you talk about "our" policy and "our" guidelines like you are the arbiter on behalf of Wikipdia. ANd you refer to "Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline." Of course I have read that, and have read it carefully. Here are some of the reasons I think I am meeting those standards (and am requesting help):

First, the Wikipedia WP:BIO section on notability says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." As you can see, the new bio has been much more extensively cited with just these kinds of references since the original draft. The current article has 53 truly excellent, independent, verifiable, high-quality citations.

Secondly, in WP:BIO, the number one criteria says '"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published articlceswhich are reliable, and independent of each other." I HAVE NOW PROVIDED FOUR SUCH BIO ARTICLES. NOT EVEN ONE OF WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL DON MARTIN ARTICLE. I am really working hard to establish true notability and I hope you will look at these actual bio articles and not just say editors will not even look at it becuse it is autobiographical.

Third, Wikipedia policy says: "The proper way to get your own writing about yourself in if you really think you can meet the inclusion criteria . . . is to make a proposal containing the text you want, instead of just putting it up directly, and seek the consensus of the community through discussion. Not only does this provide independent viewpoints on it that can allow you to discover biases you were not aware of having, it also helps provide an indication of good faith and that you are willing to put the interests of Wikipedia first instead of standing in a position of conflict of interest. That is why I am offered this article on a subpage first for feedback and comment rather than moving it immediately to article space. So far, however, I have received absolutely no openly constructive edits, suggestions or assistance per "our" guidleines and policies, which would help me to make it better or to better meet notabiity requirements.

Lastly, Wikipedia policy says that "the definition of what is valid for purposes of notability should be very broad." I would be most appreciative if you would assume good faith on my part and recognize that I am making a careful and hopefully broader and more well-reasoned attempt to follow policy and to insert a nuetral point of view, and that you or others would read the article on it's merits. A huge amount of time has been spent to greatly and significantly improve this article.

SUMMARY:After looking at numerous other biographical articles, I see many that do not have as much grounds for notability as this article does. And Wikipedia provides for a WP:BLPSELF route to an article. My waiting until "someone else writes about you" is one option, but the BIO option is also another allowable and legitimate way to go as well. I would truly appprecaite you reviewing it in that light as I can say I personally think it meets the notability test hence my placing it out there for constructive feedback. I'd be delighted to revise it to ensure it is not a self-promoting tone. I think (and could be wrong) that I have attempted to write impartially and in the style that I have seen many other articles address business activities, business ownership, publishing, entrenuership, sales of businesses, real estate development, etc. Some hints along those lines would be helpful and appreciated. Even a total re-write would be welcome Austex • Talk 22:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I created a $400 million project....considerably larger than the net worth of Optical Express. Does that count for anything re notability? Austex • Talk 22:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don Martin

I have moved your article to User:Austex/Don Martin. You should create sandbox articles in your userspace. If you have any questions, please ask me. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Don Martin Public Affairs (Austin, Texas)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Don Martin Public Affairs (Austin, Texas) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 20:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vanadus - I see no button for "Click Here to contest the speeedy deletion." This is not at all my first article. While it is about a company, it is actually about the authorship of two publications which provide notability. Austex • Talk 20:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

See WP:AUTHOR. Does Don Martin pass those? Vanadus (talk | contribs) 20:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that being the author of one of Arcadia's books (especially as it is a collection of old postcards), or of a self-published work contributes to real notability. Not every author is notable, I'm afraid. I would also draw attention to an error in the article - if it was founded in 1981, the company would be 30 years old not 20. No notability is shown for the company, which is the ostensible subject. If the books were notable, that would not transfer to the company. Peridon (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---The book was written by myself and not by the company (????) Since then I have also authored an e-book on "Do It Yourself Internet Reputation Repair." You are correct, however, on the inaccuracy on the date of the company. Founded in 1989 the company is 22 years old, not 30. 173.174.98.191 (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Oops, had not signed on. Austex • Talk 19:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antlers Porch.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:Antlers Porch.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 19:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Barnes and noble.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) 12:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Michael movie poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Michael movie poster.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. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Don Martin Public Affairs (January 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This page has been declined or rejected as an abandoned draft by an inactive editor. If it is not edited further within six months after it has been declined or rejected, it will be deleted as a disused draft. Since the originator of this draft is inactive, any comments may be addressed to the last reviewer.

This draft is written from the viewpoint of the company, focusing on what the company says about itself. Corporate notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the company.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Don Martin Public Affairs and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Don Martin Public Affairs, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Austex! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Don Martin Public Affairs

Hello, Austex. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Don Martin Public Affairs".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TheTrainNoch (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:KingslandSlab.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:KingslandSlab.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 in section F11 of the 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. Salavat (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:RRbumpersticker large.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RRbumpersticker large.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Barnes and noble.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Barnes and noble.jpg, which you've attributed to Donald G. Martin. 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 {{permission 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. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the 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. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 10:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]