User talk:Mogodonman

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:DavidWestcott.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:DavidWestcott.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, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. 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 files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 21:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Cranleighan Society

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Old Cranleighan Society, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.oldcranleighan.org.uk/history.html.

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) 16:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this page in its entirity. All I was trying to do was add value to Wikipedia but its not worth wasting your or my time any further. Mogodonman (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Old Cranleighan Society

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

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Old Cranleighan Society. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Old Cranleighans. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Old Cranleighans - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy for you to delete this page in its entirity. All I was trying to do was add value to Wikipedia but its not worth wasting your or my time any further. Mogodonman (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Old Cranleighans

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

A tag has been placed on Old Cranleighans requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Zachlipton (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Old Cranleighan Cricket Club

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

A tag has been placed on Old Cranleighan Cricket Club requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Zachlipton (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this page in its entirity. All I was trying to do was add value to Wikipedia but its not worth wasting your or my time any further. Mogodonman (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Crest Big.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Crest Big.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, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. 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 created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 16:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Zachlipton (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Old Cranleighans

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Old Cranleighans, 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.oldcranleighan.org.uk/history.html, 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:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Old Cranleighans and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Old Cranleighans, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Old Cranleighans with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Old Cranleighans. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

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:Old Cranleighans 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! — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your time addressing this matter but please delete this page in its entirity. All I was trying to do was add value to Wikipedia but its not worth wasting your or my time any further. Many thanks. Mogodonman (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. And I'm sorry about the frustrating experience. I have removed the copyrighted text from the article. — CactusWriter ^(talk)

Nomination of Old Cranleighans for deletion

The article Old Cranleighans is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Cranleighans until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this page in its entirity. All I was trying to do was add value to Wikipedia but its not worth wasting your or my time any further. Mogodonman (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donating content

Hi, I noticed you claimed to own the copyrighted content mentioned above. However, Wikipedia has no method of verifying this on-wiki. You can, however, e-mail OTRS releasing your copyrighted content under the GFDL and CC-by-SA 3.0 licenses. You can read on how to do that here. Let me know on my talk page if you need more help. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Cranleighan Cricket Club

My frustration is professional. I am managing editor of ESPN and repeatedly our material on sport is reproduced verbatim on Wikipedia and yet no attempt is made by you to do anything about flagrant copyright breaches. To paraphrase your own comment, if you, as in Wikipedia, is not prepared to take time to protect copyright when there are genuine breaches and yet take a moral high ground when there are not, do you deserve to have the rights you do?

I am also interested why your default position is to immediately delete content without any reference to the author - and I did follow the recommended procedure when the issue was flagged - and yet others take a more considered approach to the situation?

Back to basics. Please advise what I have to do to revive this page. If the my material which appears elsewhere on my own websites is removed, then can the deleted pages be restored and, if so, how is that done? — Mogodonman (talk · contribs) [unsigned when originally posted in an inappropriate place - you were lucky I even saw it!]

Firstly, the real reason I deleted Old Cranleighan Cricket Club was because amateur sports clubs are generally deemed not notable enough for Wikipedia. I tried to get confirmation but got an unhelpful answer. I note that the nearest specimen to me Old Whitgiftian Rugby Club or (real mouthful of a name!) Old Mid-Whitgiftian RFC (est. 1926) do not have articles. I challenge you to point me to five old boys clubs that have articles here. I suggest you re-submit your text via AfC (a bit gentler than simply reposting it) but do not expect much joy.

Copyvios. I am sorry if ESPN copyright is constantly being violated. As you know, Wikipedia input is patrolled ferociously but some copyvios still slip through. As well as many humans, we do have a bot to look for copyvios - see its recent results. Depending on how strongly you feel, you could contact the bot's owner asking for it to be beefed up or make a request to the Wikimedia Foundation that more should be done.

Stylevio. I am very surprised to learn that you are a journalist. As such you must be fully aware of "house style". The piece you submitted about OCCC was written in a tone, not too far wrong, but definitely unencyclopedic, it was about ten times too long in relation to the subject and you had not made the slightest attempt to provide any external links. All violations of Wikipedia house style. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was unaware amateur clubs were not deemed worthy of Wikipedia, but if that's the rules then I am happy to abide by them.

Re the violations - they are so numerous it is actually pointless to chase them all down, but given you use bots I am surprised more are not picked up. I suspect not everyone is as diligent as you - that's actually meant as a compliment.

There is a difference between house styles. Your style, for example, would not be remotely suitable for publications I manage but variety is the spice of life. Your thinly-veiled insult about my professionalism was uncalled for but guess years of living in Croydon can make even the most reasonable person rather bitter! Mogodonman (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to Old Cranleighans, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is gone, some content saved, revised to avoid copyright violation and inserted into text of Cranleigh School.I am sure it misses some fine points but then I don't live in England and I am probably unappreciative of the finer niceties there. Anything more I can do ? Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Walter Buchanan (footballer), without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Giant Snowman 20:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you explain why I have been able to add educational establishments for Cranleigh School without any problems until now? I happy to quote the source as the register but just wondered why the inconsistency? I am the archivist at the School so do have access to the records and will include from hereon in.

Proposed deletion of Sportal

The article Sportal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article does not establish notability. I could not find any sources via Google.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Flibirigit (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]