User talk:Lamerica

Colombia Three

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Cwr dean cornwell mural.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cwr dean cornwell mural.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) 15:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Cwr chicharro y aguera.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cwr chicharro y aguera.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) 15:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Cwr sale des pas perdus.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cwr sale des pas perdus.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) 15:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Cwr william rappard.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cwr william rappard.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) 16:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright, Centre William Rappard

I see that at the talk page of this article, you asked, "Is there any reason why this page has been deleted? I do not see any copyright violation here."

Wikipedia's copyright policies do not allow the duplication of non-free text without verification of permission or proper handling under our non-free content policy and guideline. This material still contains text duplicated from the pdf. For example, compare this from the article:

The original site of the Centre William Rappard was part of an estate formed from the Rappard and Bloch properties, and contained two mansions. The original Villa Rappard was built in 1785 (now a Montessori school). The Villa Bloch was demolished in 1957 to make way for the south wing expansion of the Centre William Rappard. The Villa Rappard and land, situated to the north of the original site, were acquired by the ILO in 1963.

With this from the source:

The original site of the Centre William Rappard was part of an estate formed from the property of two families. It already contained two mansions. The Villa Bloch was demolished in 1957 to make way for the south wing expansion of the Centre William Rappard. The Villa Rappard and land, situated to the north of the original site, were acquired by the ILO in 1963.

Material from the World Trade Organization is explicitly protected by copyright (see [1]). While the WTO allows reproduction for non-commercial purpose, their license is not compatible with Wikipedia's, because they require that they be informed of such use and because they do not permit commercial reuse without written permission (both of which requirements impose restrictions beyond those allowed by GFDL). It seems that there has already been some work underway to revise this material into original language, but it must be completely rewritten unless we receive permission to license it under GFDL and CC-BY-SA from the source (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials if you are the original copyright holder and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission if you are not. They must grant us license to reuse and modify the material, even commercially, in order for us to accept their images or text. The only right they retain is the right to attribution; they cannot require notification.) The temporary space now linked from the front of the article, which has been blanked again, may be used for that purpose. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We will also need verification of permission for the images, which have been tagged accordingly. If you send a letter verifying permission as instructed, please place {{otrs pending}} (brackets and all) on the file pages and on the talk page of the article. This will alert other Wikipedians that permission may be forthcoming and can help prevent the early deletion of this material. If you have any questions about these processes, please let me know. I will be watching this page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We have sent two emails (text and images) granting permission to publish the contents of the brochure "The WTO Building: The symbolic artwork of the Centre William Rappard, headquarters of the World Trade Organization" (Geneva 2008). I have added {{otrs pending}} to the talk page of the article and to the talk page of the first image (in the box). I cannot locate the other images to add {{otrs pending}}. I hope this is enough ref. authorisations to publish and that from now on the page will be stable --Lamerica (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC) I have now added {{otrs pending}} to the other image files. --Lamerica (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I checked and do not see that it has yet entered the e-mail queue; sometimes, there can be a little bit of a lag. You should receive a response from the OTRS agent who receives and processes your mail. Please keep an eye out for it in case clarification is requested. The OTRS software "bottom loads" responses, which means the first text you see should be "Thank you for your e-mail", followed by the complete contents of your letter. Any questions will follow. I point this out only because sometimes we do not receive responses to clarification requests, and my personal theory is that people don't always notice these questions at the bottom of the e-mail. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Having researched, written and published the information in the publication mentioned above ("The WTO Building") it is a bit frustrating to justify myself ref. rights. But I understand the complexities of authorship and copyrights, and I am thankful to your carefull eye. I hope the reply comes back swiftly. If I understand your kind message correctly it will come through the email --Lamerica (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So far I did not receive any reply from the OTRS agent. --Lamerica (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I appreciate your patience. I know it does some odd that you have to write to give permission, but unfortunately since we don't have any method in place to affirm identity on account creation, we have no other option. Sometimes, it may take up to a few days to get a response; the process was designed to allow up to a week. I will search the e-mail queue a little later today to see if your message has arrived and if an agent has not been assigned will check the status. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you--Lamerica (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming increasingly difficult to understand, and also time-consuming and somehow frustrating. Please see below --Lamerica (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Maybe you didn't mention the article in the e-mail? Agents typically only clear material that has been explicitly named. I'll go see what I can find out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem. Unless you sent a separate e-mail, your letter says (in part), "sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the photos" and "We agree to publish these photos." It doesn't say anything about licensing the text (yes, the licensing requirement really is that specific. You would be surprised some of the complaints the Wikimedia Foundation has received, and as a result we are instructed carefully on what we must receive to accept donations). I see you've written a response to the OTRS agent, who may be able to resolve the matter swiftly. I'll do another search of the system to see if you sent a separate letter for the text that may have gotten separated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a separate letter, but I've sent a note to the agent pointing out our conversation for context. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I sent two letters. One for the text (subject line 'Granting permission to publish "Centre William Rappard"' sent Wed 03/06/2009 15:48) and another for the images (subject 'Granting permission for images related to "Centre William Rappard"' sent Wed 03/06/2009 15:56). Your quotes above are from the latter one. To both I attached our publication which of course includes images and text. --Lamerica (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In any case I appreciate your effort and those of your colleagues.--Lamerica (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well no wonder you're confused. I wonder if the e-mail granting text was lost in cyberspace or if I just overlooked it? I'll go try to search for it again just in case it's been put into the wrong queue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've found it. The tickets were evidently merged, and the permission letter for text was obscured by the permission letter for images. I'll go ahead and note the clearance for that. Thank you for your patience, particularly with this delay, and for helping me identify the problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure.--Lamerica (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the difficulties you've already had, I really hate to burden you with this, but you have agreed to license the text only under GFDL. Wikipedia is undergoing a transition this month which will make that text unusable unless you agree to co-license it under CC-BY-SA, which is a similar license, but incompatible. As part of the legal allowance of transition, GFDL does not allow us to use any GFDL-only licensed text that was permitted to us after November, 2008. Could you, please, send another response to the same agent expanded your release to include CC-BY-SA? If you do, and note that you have done so here, I will now be easily able to locate that letter because of the ticket # and can note that we are free to use your donation even after that transition. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. New letter sent (subj. '"Centre William Rappard" (text and photos) - License under CC-BY-SA').--Lamerica (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It's in already. I have it and will process it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That's great news. Thanks very much for your valuable help.--Lamerica (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged the article and also clarified the tag on one of the images. I've left a note for the agent handling your release letting him know. You may receive a request for further clarification from him, since some of your images are pictures of other pictures, and he may need further information about the copyright status of the originals. Text is the area where I work, so I'm afraid I'll have to leave those image questions to an agent with more experience in that field. Hopefully, he will be able to resolve it without further input from you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I do appreciate your assistance Moonriddengirl. --Lamerica (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Cwr aerial 1926.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cwr aerial 1926.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming increasingly difficult to understand, and also time-consuming and somehow frustrating. I received the email from Brandon Weeks telling me that "the necessary modifications to our article(s)" have been made (it seems that the message refers both to the article "Centre William Rappard" and all the photos included herein. However the article continues to be invisible and showing the "Possible copyright infringement" notice (which being copyright holders is a bit nasty to read in). Furthermore, now I receive this new notice from OrphanBot about the rights of File:Cwr aerial 1926.jpg. We are the right holders of these material (text and images), and contributing authors of most of it. We followed the process suggested and granted the necessary permissions to publish it. Is there anything else we should do to consider this article published? --Lamerica (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lamerica. I have been in contact with someone who deals with OTRS requests, and they have informed me that the ticket that you refer to covers only the images in the brochure "The WTO Building: The symbolic artwork of the Centre William Rappard, headquarters of the World Trade Organization" which was attached in the email. As this image is not in that brochure, it is not covered by that release. If you can email again with the same licensing for this image, we would be able to mark it as kept. I'm really sorry that you're being put through these hoops -- I understand that you're just trying to give us images! We do have to be very careful with copyright, however, as a result of the very open nature of Wikipedia. If I can be of any more help, please let me know. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I have replaced Cwr aerial 1926.jpg by Cwr aerial 2001.jpg, which is included in the above-mentioned brochure, but it doesn't seem to work correctly and I don't know why. In addition to this, could you help with Cwr main entrance.jpg and Cwr sale des pas perdus.jpg? If what you have been told is true, the thumbnails should not have that nasty legend: "This file is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after seven days from the date of nomination." :) Thank you, --Lamerica (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Sam Korn. I see that the "candidate for speedy deletion" tag has been removed from both photos. Now I still have Cwr aerial 2001.jpg that does not show. Thanks for your help. --Lamerica (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that it was a technical problem with the photo, not about rights. Now it works. --Lamerica (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Cwr aerial 1926.jpg was uploaded and then removed from Centre William Rappard on 10 June 2009. After that I obtained from ILO Historical Archives the permission to publish it in Wikipedia, as follows. The ILO Archives fully authorizes the WTO to use/reproduce this image for its inclusion in online (WTO website, Wikipedia, etc.) outputs. All photos must be attributed to the "ILO Historical Photo Archives". Then I uploaded it again to Wikimedia Commons "Cwr aerial 1926.jpg". Please do not delete it again.--Lamerica (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What exactly did they allow? Are people allowed to modify the image? To use it in non-online works? --Carnildo (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The authorisation reads: 'The ILO Archives fully authorizes the WTO to use/reproduce the photos sent [including this image] for its inclusion in online (WTO website, Wikipedia, etc.) outputs.' This includes print or online productions by Wikipedia readers and of course they are allowed to adapt it to their needs. The authorisation only requests that 'All photos must be attributed to the "ILO Historical Photo Archives."' Thank you, --Lamerica (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. I hate that sort of vague permission statement. Without further clarification, I'd interpret it as Wikipedia-only, no derivative works. It doesn't, for example, allow me to add a smiley face to the picture, print it out on a poster, and sell the poster. In any case, the GFDL tag you've put on File:Cwr aerial 1926.jpg is clearly incorrect. --Carnildo (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Could you please be so kind to direct me as to what kind of permission statement would be acceptable for Wikipedia and which tag should I put on this file since GFDL is incorrect. Thanks very much for your assistance.--Lamerica (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, the copyright holder (presumably the ILO Archives) would release the image under one of the standard licenses (saying something like "we agree to license this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license"). Failing that, they should make a clear statement allowing the image to be used freely ("we permit anyone to use this image for any purpose, so long as it is attributed to the ILO Historical Photo Archive"). Right now, there's no suitable tag for the image: images that are licensed for Wikipedia only or where derivative works are prohibited get deleted. --Carnildo (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will see what can be done and will get back to you.--Lamerica (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

'The ILO Archives agree to license this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license. All photos must be attributed to the "ILO Historical Photo Archives."'--Lamerica (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Forward a copy of the email to permissions@wikimedia.org so we've got a permanent record and someone will update the image description page. --Carnildo (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will add the file names just in case.--Lamerica (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Lamerica! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 139 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Edmundo Murray - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Cwr william rappard.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cwr william rappard.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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.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:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 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. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Cwr referendum2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cwr referendum2.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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Cwr referendum1.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cwr referendum1.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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Cwr referendum3.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cwr referendum3.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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Irish Migration Studies in Latin America

The article Irish Migration Studies in Latin America has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for notability since 2009. No independent sources, not included in any selective database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

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) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lamerica. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Lamerica. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Lamerica. 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)

August 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Newtownforbes, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. A particular problem here was you inserted unsourced information into content that was sourced and not presesnt in that source. Please source content and do not disrupt content sourced by others. Thankyou Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)