User talk:JONJON78

March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Pelham Manor, New York has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 10:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Pelham_Manor,_New_York, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' The major changes you made to the Pelham Manor article were not "minor edits". --Orlady (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Orlady (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Davidsisland.JPG

An image that you uploaded, Image:Davidsisland.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BlueAzure (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Fortslocum.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fortslocum.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image 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. BlueAzure (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Fortslocum.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Fortslocum.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BlueAzure (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]