User talk:HamiltonHarbour

Fair use rationale for File:John_Scarlett_Feb_1865.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:John_Scarlett_Feb_1865.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

John Scarlett article

Hi HamiltonHarbour,

The John Scarlett (Toronto) article is a good start, but does need much improvement before it can be considered either a "B"-class or "Good"-class article. The NPOV issue is a minor one, but the article does not really explore his use of a slave, or other possible negatives. It is almost written as a hagiography -- but not quite that bad. Also, vast sections do not contain sufficient or any inline citations. Please read the WP:Manual of Style with regards to how and where to use inline citations (also see WP:CITE). Also, some of the citations are just bare URLs, something to that should be avoided for several reasons, least of which is that if the link is broken, it does not really say what it is supporting and giving editors the option to try to locate it by other searches. Where possible, please use Web Citation to permanently archive links. Again please see WP:CITE.

My other issue with the article, that may prevent it from ever being classified as a "Good"-class article, is the lack of multiple, reliable sources. Given the sources you have now, it might be possible to get the article to "B"-class, but that would be it, since there are only about five sources. Having few sources is a common situation with older subjects that have limited notability outside of their city or country, and of course the issue of "original research" WP:OR.

I hope this helps. I am interested in the subject, since I live near his former properties, and use Scarlett Road often, and I think you are doing good job in researching and writing this article: it is helpful to people interested in the early history of West Toronto and York South.--Abebenjoe (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Simcoe Grange.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Simcoe Grange.png

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 the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 22:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Simcoe Grange.png

Thanks for uploading File:Simcoe Grange.png, which you've attributed to Peter Scarlett. 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 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}} 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rock Lake (Algonquin Park) has been accepted

Rock Lake (Algonquin Park), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)