Jump to content

User talk:Erictimewell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, Erictimewell! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

June 2010

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Sant Feliu de Llobregat has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://peredot.wordpress.com/biografia-den-pere-dot/.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Pedro Dot do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://peredot.wordpress.com/biografia-den-pere-dot/.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-bot welcome

[edit]

Greetings Erictimewell - thanks for your contributions. Amazing work you've done on thePedro Dot article. Congratulations! Don't let 'em get you down! Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support, Technopat. I am perfectly happy to submit to Wiki principles, including those I don't yet know about. After all, they have produced Wikipedia. And so far I am pleased with the way my work is shaping up. I predict that it will reach a take-off point at which the rose maniacs will intervene, God bless them, and the thing will grow like Topsy.Erictimewell (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading rose images to Wiki Commons

[edit]

Yesterday I uploaded a rose photo in portrait mode. When it appeared in Wiki commons it had been tilted sideways to landscape form. And when I linked it to an article it remained in the wrong form. I re-loaded and nothing changed. Then I loaded a portrait photo of the same name. The new photo (same name) is correct as a thumbnail or at full size, but the medium size continues to be the original. I would like to get the first image right, appearing in its correct portrait form at all sizes. The name of the file is "Nancy Hayward.JPG", uploaded from "Nancy_Hayward.JPG". Erictimewell (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to clean your cache? Use Ctrl+Alt+R. --Diego Grez let's talk 00:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Bypass your cache for more details - the exact method will depend on your browser. FYI, the picture looks fine to me in all views so this solution should work. AJCham 00:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Diego. The cache fix fixed the different images; a big help. But what do I do about the portrait image which turned into a landscape one? Erictimewell (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to upload a new one, Wikipedia software can't rotate it. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 02:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diego, I opened the original portrait version in Photoshop, in which I saved it. Then I imported the Photoshop version to Wiki Commons and it worked perfectly. Without your encouragement I would have done nothing. Erictimewell (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Furness

[edit]

I'm a bit confused regarding the pics you've been uploading. Who is Margaret and what does she have to do with them? You claim the photos as your own work on their summary pages but credit her in the article, hence the confusion. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That confusion was true of one photo, which has been removed. All and only the photos taken by Margaret Furness cite her as having taken them at the Wiki Commons end. Three of the four photos not naming her were taken by me and licensed to the public domain. The fourth was already on Wiki Commons. If in doubt, you can contact her at Margaret Furness <mfu19130@bigpond.net.au> Sorry for the earlier lack of clarity. Two of her photos have since been replaced by others with much higher resolution. Erictimewell (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, it's just been festering in the back of my mind for a few days. I usually stay as far away from image issues as I can but this one just wouldn't leave me alone. :) 69.181.249.92 (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Dot

[edit]

Maybe it's a matter of browsers (I'm using Safari), but I don't see the difference in line height to which you refer. Do you see the same problem on the millions of other articles on Wikipedia? --Millbrooky (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Millbrooky, I'm typing this on my knees. The problem always occurs when there are superscripts indicating references. But to check what you said, I looked up Wiki Pedro Dot using Safari and, presto! the problem completely disappeared. For non-Wiki reasons I greatly prefer Camino; there obviously lies the problem. Thanks for your help. Erictimewell (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Riethmuller_in_his_Turramurra_garden.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Riethmuller_in_his_Turramurra_garden.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've used the wrong description of the image, digitised version of a unique slide its owners have released into the public domain. It provides irreplaceable information for Wiki Frank Riethmuller. Erictimewell (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A high-resolution version of this photo is being prepared. I'll make it clear when it appears that it is in the public domain without qualification.Erictimewell (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct PD status inside and outside the US has now been established for a re-loaded and re-named low-resolution version of the photo. It can stand till the high-res version becomes available. Erictimewell (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Frank Riethmuller photo album

[edit]

The article Frank Riethmuller photo album has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not an image repository.

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. Steamroller Assault (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a simple aesthetic reason for separating the old photos of the article's subject: in the main story they are a burden on the words. I can easily transfer them to the bottom of the parent article, but would rather not do so. There are more images to come, all of them historically unique. Still, If I don't hear from you in the next 12 hours I'll move the images. Erictimewell (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Riethmuller at Turramurra.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Riethmuller at Turramurra.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image has now been tagged for US and non-US out-of-copyright. Erictimewell (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Articles for deletion nomination of Frank Riethmuller photo album

[edit]

I have nominated Frank Riethmuller photo album, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Riethmuller photo album. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steamroller Assault (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have sent this article over to a deletion discussion because of the guidelines set at WP:NOTREPOSITORY, which explain that Wikipedia is not a repository for image files. If you feel that these images can serve to improve the encyclopedic content of the Frank Riethmuller page, then they should be placed there. However, I am not certain that Wikipedia is better served with multiple photos of this individual, unless it can be shown that it aids the Frank Riethmuller article to have them there. Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Steamroller Assault, thanks for you explanation. The photos show that Riethmuller was a (somewhat fake) gentleman throughout his life, a bookmaker's clerk who smooched rich old ladies by naming roses after them, to over-simplify. If you think they would be better on the main page, or removed, I will respect your judgement. The colour photo on the main page is historic in a different way: it has the only known photo of a rose which is now extinct. Cheers, Erictimewell (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, RHaworth. But it comes too late: I've abandoned the album idea. Let it cease to exist. Erictimewell (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Riethmuller at Turramurra.jpg

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Riethmuller at Turramurra.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. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} I'm working on Wiki "Wilhelm Kordes", which is a translation of the German site "W. Kordes' Söhne." That is, the German site names the firm W. Kordes & Sons. But the stub names only the original (not very important) founder. I need to know how to apply to have the name of the English site brought in line by being retitled W. Kordes' Söhne (or W. Kordes & Sons if that's thought to be a suitable translation.) Erictimewell (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can move the page to a new title by clicking on the "Move" button in the menu next to "History". /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fetchcomms, worked like a charm. Erictimewell (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


{{helpme}} I notice that six months of my work on the Wiki entry for Frank Riethmuller has been heisted by Facebook. There is a fake Facebook entry appropriating my work. Worse, the fake entry has been promoted above the Wiki entry on a Google search. Can anything be done to stop this? Erictimewell (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link? MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link is actually irrelevant. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 02:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, nothing's been stolen. Facebook simply gets its content from Wikipedia, and as far as I can tell, complies with Wikipedia's copyright terms. We cannot control their actions, at any rate. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) They have not heisted it. They are using the content compliantly under the terms of the free distribution licenses every article in Wikipedia is licensed under. You can see their compliance notice clearly at the bottom of the page. In fact, if you click edit this page right now, you will see just below the edit box :You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct in a way, guys. The Facebook appropriation is legal beyond doubt. But here we have a historical figure who died in 1965 provided with a Facebook page to which he has contributed nothing, including consent. And we have another historical figure, me, who has worked for six months unwittingly to provide all the material to the same page. At least 20 Google search items mechanically parasitise the same Wiki entry. But Facebook goes straight to the top of the list. Wiki should be talking to Google about it. Erictimewell (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do not control Google's search algorithms nor do we have any direct involvement in whether Facebook allows entries on historical figures. What exactly would we speak to Google about? "You should alter your practices because it's not fair that the second most popular website in the world is legally using our content when we created it? It's unseemly? I do know how it feels, and worse. This book is selling on Amazon for $66 (as is this one for $9.99) and I wrote 95% of the content. But that's what we sign up for here. Content that we agree can be used by others, even for commercial purposes, so long as they comply with the our free licenses. At the end of the day, anyone reading our content at a site that is compliant with our licenses is being informed of where the content arose. By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fughettaboutit, thanks for making me refine my complaint. I have no objection to others taking advantage of my work: that's why I am doing it on Wikipedia. My objection is to Facebook taking priority purely because it is "the world's second most popular website," not because some wise guy has written a post-Mormon algorithm for enlisting the dead to Facebook. There are excellent grounds for addressing Google, starting with the Google algorithms producing such a silly result set. But you seem focussed on whether Facebook's behaviour is legal … Sorry you got done over on Carom Billiards. Erictimewell (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, we can't do anything about it. You'll just have to talk to Google. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now realise that many people are talking to Google, badly damaged by the "content farms." Read about it all on http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/01/trouble-in-the-house-of-google.html Erictimewell (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Riethmuller POW report 1940.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Riethmuller POW report 1940.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the image police make one wonder if Wikipedia is worth it. Though File:Riethmuller POW report 1940.jpg has been online since August, the first objection goes straight to removal from the photo corpus. Rather than waste time, I'll reintroduce the image as a link. Meanwhile let's see if the national archive of Australia can guarantee the image's copyright status in a useable way. Erictimewell (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of appreciation for your work

[edit]

I just came by to tell you how much I appreciate your work at W. Kordes' Sons and on the subject of roses in general. It's good work and certainly worthy of a barnstar or some other shiny gold star, but I find those a little awkward. There's a minor WP:MOS-issue at the list of Riethmuller roses but no worries, I'll fix that later. Cheers, --Six words (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Six Words. I am well past the elephant stamp stage. I like people who take the trouble to understand what I am trying to do. Therefore, thank you for amending my links. Erictimewell (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Nicolai Anders von Hartwiss, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Koeppen and Paeonia (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) 10:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Zara Hore-Ruthven.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Zara Hore-Ruthven.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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 in|article name}} 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 the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 13:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Magog, I honestly don't remember where I got that photo – it's so long ago. But it's no longer in use on any of the sites I've started, so please just delete it. Erictimewell (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note about rose garden edits

[edit]

Thanks for this note, most helpful. Have some experience with other Wiki rose articles and love the subject, but I'm not familiar with all conventions. I'm still working on this page and hope to get it finalised and through tomorrow. Will check back and revert where I've got single and double speech marks wrong. Thanks again. Libby norman (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Nieuwesteeg Heritage Rose Garden, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Libby norman (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions hopefully all present and correct

[edit]

Nieuwesteeg Heritage Rose Garden is now live (finally!). Do hope I got the rose naming conventions right – I did go back and check following your helpful note. Libby norman (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libby, just saw your note. In my opinion you got everything right. People are already using this article as a guide. I'm adding better or extra photos and a few tiny details, but to my mind it's essentially complete. Erictimewell (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nieuwesteeg Heritage Rose Garden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kootenay (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) 11:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alister Clark Memorial Rose Garden

[edit]

Ffs, read WP:FIRST. You really can't write any-old-shite on Wikipedia, it has to be verifiable. 88.104.4.74 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alister Clark Memorial Rose Garden may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Fitzhardinge

[edit]

I know nothing about roses and I knew nothing about Olive but I enjoyed her bio ... great work. Castlemate (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Castlemate. I'm touched to have your opinion. Erictimewell (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Irvine

[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Susan Irvine, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.penguin.com.au/old/lookinside/author-profile.cfm?AuthId=0000000934.

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) 06:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mushrooms

[edit]

To clarify - is that the entire poem? DS (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DS, I don't know. I only know it from the online version of the review as cited, and there is no indication that it is complete or not. Erictimewell (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Ian Sprague, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.australianpotteryatbemboka.com.au/shop/index.php?manufacturers_id=89, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.


If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Ian Sprague saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Zpeopleheart (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Zpeopleheart, thank you for alerting me to the problem. The solution must be to remove any claim in the offending passage which can't be sourced elsewhere, which amounts to very little of it. I will note this in the Talk section, and quickly fillet the offending details. Then I will get back to you and see if the result is up to Wikipedia standard. Erictimewell (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention to the matter. I only checked the pottery section for copyvio issues. You may want to check the rest of the article as well for copyvio. Good luck! Zpeopleheart (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zpeopleheart, I think there's a general problem here. The fewer published sources on any topic, the more likely a summary is to read as plagiarism. But I can live with this. Back to the drawing board. Erictimewell (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zpeopleheart, I think the pottery section is now unimpeachable. See what you think. Erictimewell (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Since I wrote that, the author of the potentially copyrighted website has informed me that exactly the same material is available online under Creative Commons Non-commercial licensing. Naturally I have inserted the new reference into the concealed parts of the article. Can we now cancel the fatwa? Erictimewell (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Erictimewell. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waterhouse

[edit]

Thanks for the E.G. Waterhouse article. It's been needed for a long time! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteghost, thanks for the thanks. Thanks also for the photos. Two of mine are there only till superseded by better ones. I want to do more to clarify the prose about EGW's landscaping; maybe in a week or two. Erictimewell (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteghost.ink, can I ask your advice? Are there any made landscapes left in Sydney known to have been made by Waterhouse, especially but not only at the University of Sydney? I have added a mixed bag of camellia photos to the Waterhouse article, and other websites provide plenty of photos of Eryldene. But this sharpens the lack of visual material on Waterhouse-made landscapes. If there are any, I'll try to come up to Sydney this spring and take photos for the article. If not, we'll have to see what can be obtained from the University itself. Erictimewell (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts over the years on EGW. It all helps to promote the house and the open days. I put a post about it in the Eryldene Fb page https://www.facebook.com/eryldenehistorichouseandgarden/posts/10162264385770093 Cheers Silent Billy (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Silent Billy. Actually my nom de Wiki is remarkably similar to my legal name. I have long-term plans for the Waterhouse article, especially for photos of his landscaping work, but it's hard to get up from Melbourne to Sydney when gardens are at their best. Meanwhile I'm plugging away at the camellia photos. On another topic, his closest architect friend finished up a raving anti-Semite; I'd love to know what Waterhouse really thought about the Second World War. Perhaps you know someone who can help. Erictimewell (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another Sydney architect, John James (Readers Digest House and notable dwellings), wrote a thesis on the New Guard which I imagine would be accessible at Sydney University somewhere. This might contain info on Waterhouse among others. Waterhouse knew among others de Groot - he purchased/commissioned furniture from him. Try to contact Penny Holden via the house - she has info on a lot of stuff.

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bijar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Garrus, Iran (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.

Thank you. Fixed. Erictimewell (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Erictimewell. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Erictimewell. 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 2019 election voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mornington Botanical Rose Gardens (November 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by EchidnaLives was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
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 after they have been resolved.
echidnaLives - talk - edits 08:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Erictimewell! Having an article draft 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! echidnaLives - talk - edits 08:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:
This draft appears to contain two separate articles?
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 after they have been resolved.
DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:
Resubmitted without any improvement. Once more: we cannot have an article with two different subjects on it. Separate the 'Mornington Botanical Rose Gardens' from 'Mathias Heymann' and decide which one you wish to submit.
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 after they have been resolved.
DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twin topics

[edit]

Hi, can you please stop submitting a draft that has (as far as I can tell at least) two different topics on it, as this will never be accepted.

Also, please don't remove earlier AfC comments or tags from drafts, until the draft is accepted. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mornington Botanical Rose Gardens (November 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cabrils was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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:
Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:NCORP) but presently does not. Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see referencing for beginners. Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements then resubmit the page and ping me and I would be happy to reassess. As I said, I do think this draft has potential so please do persevere!
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 after they have been resolved.
Cabrils (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Mornington Botanical Rose Gardens

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Erictimewell. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mornington Botanical Rose Gardens, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Meale Adelaide 1972.jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 07:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vladlen, I didn't know which option to choose when I uploaded the file. But I provide the exact information in the text. The file was in the Australian National Archive but has now been released from ALL COPYRIGHT RESTRICTION by them. The original author of the photo was unknown to them and is unknown to us. Is there a correct way for me to indicate this? If so, please tell me and I'll do it. Erictimewell (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Erictimewell (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a proper source for this photo? You identified this image as coming from the Australian National Archive with [Item ID: 33057283], but when I looked at the record for that item Id, the image is a different one. If you can provide the correct image ID, I can help get this sorted out. -- Whpq (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whpq, there are now two photos from the same collection under the same conditions. The first is at [1]https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/ViewImage.aspx?B=33057283 and the second is at [2]https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/ViewImage.aspx?B=33057282. When I wrote to NAA asking for permission they replied that they were entirely out of copyright but they would like acknowledgement that NAA had provided them. Beside the point: I paid them $35 for a high-res copy of the first photo which has so far not been provided. Erictimewell (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright gets very confusing, and is seldom as straightforward as it might seem. The photo is from the A6135 series which were photos by the Australian Overseas Information Service or equivalent. These would put them under Crown Copyright which is publication + 50 years. As these images were from 1972 (and I assume these would have been published at that time), 1972+50 would mean that these images are Public Domain in Australia as of Jan 1, 2023. However, the English Wikipedia, requires that photos be freely licensed in the United States. This gets complicated because of the URAA. I am unsure how URAA affects government works so I will need to do some more digging to get this figured out. -- Whpq (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Whpq. Enlightening. Erictimewell (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through the documentation at Commons, these images are public domain world wide because the Crown Copyright is expired, and Australia has waived any copyright worldwide at the expiration of its copyright so there is no issue with any URAA restored copyright. {{PD-AustraliaGov}} is the appropriate licensing templates for these two images. I'll take care of fixing up the licensing and information. Thanks for finding these free images. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Whoq, great news! Many thanks for the trouble you have taken to provide these two photos to the public. Now I can go ahead and get high-res versions of both. They give is documentary evidence of how their subject lived and worked in the now-distant 1970s. Erictimewell (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Erictimewell (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Mornington Botanical Rose Gardens

[edit]

Hello, Erictimewell. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Mornington Botanical Rose Gardens".

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Josh. Delete, delete. I've since visited the garden and it's too mediocre to be worth an article in my view. Erictimewell (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Erictimewell (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erictimewell&oldid=1187203501"