User talk:Moneybags15

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Beverly Course.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Beverly Gold Course.jpg. The copy called Image:Beverly Gold Course.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 18:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Chick Evans Scholars Foundation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

reads like an ad, copyvio

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Dawn bard (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't recreate this page again as a cut and paste from another site - it is a copyright violation and is against Wikipedia's policies

A tag has been placed on Chick Evans Scholars Foundation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

copyright violation (http://groups.northwestern.edu/evanscholars/history.html), recreation of speedily deleted content, reads like an ad

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Dawn bard (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Hole2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Hole2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Hole8.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Hole8.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Hole18.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Hole18.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Hole10.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Hole10.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:HoleNumber2.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Hole2.jpg. The copy called Image:Hole2.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Beverly10.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:CCC.jpg. The copy called Image:CCC.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Hole8.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hole8.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, then 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, then 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:Fair use, 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 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:DMK18.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:DMK2.jpg. The copy called Image:DMK2.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Downtown Hole 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Downtown Hole 2.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) 22:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Prichard

As it stood the Ron Prichard article was pure vandalism, being just a copy of Jack Nicklaus. If you were intending to edit it into an article about Ron Prichard, I suggest you read WP:AUTO and forget the idea. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked this page now, do you want me to delete it? Regards--Oxymoron⁸³ 06:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy tag clearly states "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself". Why do you think that it does not apply to you? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Ron Prichard 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. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Ron Prichard constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

AfD nomination of Ron Prichard

An editor has nominated Ron Prichard, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Prichard and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:0529prichard2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:0529prichard2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. EALacey (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC) EALacey (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Beverly_Course.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Beverly_Course.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, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. 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 per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images 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?) 01:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Downtown Hole 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Downtown Hole 2.jpg, which you've attributed to Beverly Country Club. 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) 08:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]