User talk:Rodolph/Archive1

Just a tip, to create a refferal to another item use #REDIRECT [[<targetarticlename>]] instead of "see <tragetarticlename>".

The above synatx allows the MediaWiki software to refer searches and lookups auto-magicaly:-)

Thanks for the contribution though :-)

ShakespeareFan00 14:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Cort

I undid your edit of Fareham page, HC is associated with Gosport, not Fareham CanOfWorms (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can't one be associated with more than one place?

Rodolph (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read Henry Cort article. He was never a resident of Fareham!CanOfWorms (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, try looking up Fontley on a map and notice that it is nearer Fareham than Gosport. At some point Cort rented a wharf in Fareham. Incidently, both Gosport & Fareham are known to claim him for their own.

Or read other non-Wiki works on Cort. (viz. Bridge Works, Fontley Road, Titchfield, Fareham, PO15 6QZ on google maps)

Rodolph (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Rodolph, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! JRawle (Talk) 22:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS do take a look at the pages on writing wiki code, and on style of articles. It isn't necessary to end lines with an HTML <br /> tag!

George Jellicoe, 2nd Earl Jellicoe

Please do not restore your version of the article again. Additional facts added to articles are most welcome, but do take some time to look at some other articles on Wikipedia and try to write in the usual style of the site. Articles aren't supposed to be list of facts, but should be written as paragraphs. I tried to retain all of the content you had added (with the exception of the list of titles, which belongs on the Earl Jellicoe page) so there is no need to change the article unless you have something to add. JRawle (Talk) 17:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have made some good contributions and extended the article quite a bit, but I'm still not happy with the style of parts of the article. We shouldn't try to reproduce DodOnline or a biographical dictionary, so I don't think "Clubs" is a suitable heading. And I still don't quite like the "Honours" section - this could do with some wikilinks and proper formatting (maybe bullets).

I've removed the inherited titles from the honours section as this is not included in other articles and should be discussed in the title article. I'm dubious about some of the others, I'm not sure Earl~ Day constitutes the sort of honour that wiki envisaged with the inclusion of such sections in amongst peerages and military decorations Alci12 15:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the honours section is to cover honours given to the individual. As I indicated before no other peerage article includes a list of each and ever inherited title, that is in large measure the purpose of the title article to save this repeat. See any of the other similar articles for layout Gerald_Cavendish_Grosvenor John_Spencer-Churchill,_11th_Duke_of_Marlborough Articles are not supposed to exist in a vacuum alone. I have reversed this change. In large measure wiki replies standard forms for articles so we have a manual of style and various project pages to try to ensure we all work in the same way. You may find Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage helpful. Alci12 16:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he is the holder of those extra and subsiderary titles. They may be hereditary, but they belong with the present holder as much as anything he may have earned himself. The subject may be commonly known only by the highest one, but nonetheless it is a shame, even a travesty to separate them. They should be somewhere on the face of that article, I thought the most innocuous place was where I've put them. Maybe you don't believe in the hereditary principle, in which case I cannot argue, but if you do they should be spared, please.

It's not to do with belief but article structure. We have an article about each title or collection of titles then where they justify inclusion articles about various holders of such titles. Other than where they are known by one of their lesser titles (eg the heir apparent and his heir who may be known for decades by courtesy titles, which must be mentioned) the fact they have 16 others on succession is not the point of their personal article and clutters it up if they have say 9 to mention, but it's absolutely right to cover in full detail in the title article. See this done at Duke_of_Hamilton and Douglas_Douglas-Hamilton,_14th_Duke_of_Hamilton We have a standard article format and it's quite important to try to work with that format, rather than do what ever we personally like, to keep a uniform structure. Do look at other articles to see they broadly conform. Looking at the article in question it does need a titles/styles section per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage see John_Scott,_9th_Duke_of_Buccleuch Alci12 17:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. I know what you mean. With this case the creations were fresh within the life of the subject, who was known by one of them and in some biogs. (not just Dod) he or others included them all, and he persisted in including Southampton as part of his new life peerage when he had to choose one in 1999. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but may return to it anon...

The Life peerage is fine to mention in both the honours section (see the examples I gave for the standard format of that section in a list) and in the body of the article as it's 'new' to him as an individual. The mention of the courtesy viscountcy in the body of the article is correct as he used it from 25-35 and the Earldom as he is known by it is now obviously there. What's not needed in his personal article is the other viscountcy. If you have questions or suggestions you can always raise them at project peerage where these issues are discussed. We try to work though a logical way to handle formats and problems. Alci12 18:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask what editor you use as I've never seen <br /> tags used before, but I've just noticed that they have extended the interface, and there is a button to add them! This seems crazy to me, as it's very rare that you need to tweak the layout using HTML mark-up. Please use a blank line (and one blank line) only to separate paragraphs. Thanks again for your contributions, JRawle (Talk) 21:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good work Rawle! Thanks for your guidance.

Jerome, 2nd Count de Salis

Please don't remove clean up tags, before the article has been cleaned up. Thanks and greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 17:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Philip Russell Rendel Dunne

Hi, thanks for starting this article, but I think you are violating copyright. We can and shall use sources to write articles, however we may not copy longer text statements or whole texts. I recommend you therefore to rewrite the article since otherwise it can be that it will be deleted (see Wikipedia:Copyright problems). Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 10:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

License tagging for Image:Rodolphe Salis.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rodolphe Salis.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

RE. COPYRIGHT ....I HAVE ADDED INFO, IN FORM OF LINKS TO ORIGINAL FRENCH AND GERMAN SITES.

ps. the picture's now up anyway, put there by someone else.Rodolph (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George III

I answered you on my talk page, here by Snowolf (talk) on 19:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Succession boxes

I'd prefer that we not try to add succession boxes for the possession of manors, simply because they'd become way too profuse to keep up with. As someone who spends a lot of time arranging succession boxes, I worry that adding succession boxes for too many things will result in people attacking the whole concept of succession boxes and trying to get them removed, because they dislike having a huge chunk of tables at the end of the article that may overshadow its actual content. Given the vast number of manors in the British Isles (most of which have no articles describing them), I think adding succession boxes for them is excessive. If you'd like to solicit more opinions, Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization is a good place to look. Choess 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. That seems fair, in that I only added my succession boxes (to a four hundred year long descent of a specific place and quite large estate) after finding that many of the 'approved' succession boxes seemed rather questionable or spurious themselves, useful all the same, that's why I added mine, (but I won't re-install them)... best wishes, Rodolph 10:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Fane

Hi, according to the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes we don't use honorifics in the opening of articles, so please stop adding it to George Fane. Thanks ~~ Phoe _talk 15:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

WRT Image:Queen's Speech 2001.jpg

If that was taken from the BBC, I strongly suspect that they own the copyright to their broadcast and that the pic is then copyrighted by them regardless. 68.39.174.238 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titles

If you want to be sure about a title check the London Gazette for the date in question and then look at only that part before the comma (bold below) If the intent had been to include an X of Y title the comma would be missing and usually a repeat of the Y form before the county. Alci12 18:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"THE Queen has been pleased to direct Letters Patent to be passed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, granting the dignity of a Baron of the said United Kingdom unto the Right Honourable Sir Henry Brougham Loch, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, style, and title of Baron Loch, of Drylaw, in the county of Midlothian."

Compare with

"The QUEEN (has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 12th instant, (to confer the dignity of a Barony of the United Kingdom for life upon Miss Elaine Frances Burton, by the name, style and title of BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY, of Coventry in the County of Warwick."

Whereas, probably the best authority on the peerage, G. E. Cokayne, etal, clearly have it Loch of Drylaw, not Loch, of Drylaw!! Rodolph 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The LG is the official announcement of the state as to the title - other than the LP there is no better authority - Cokaynes is just a commercial publication Alci12 10:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly disagree with your grim dismissal. GEC was undoubtedly a labour of LOVE not just a commercial publication. Anyway I'll check, thanks, xx. Rodolph 11:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, GEC is in fact well known for his mistakes in this regard, as the CP pretty much systematically conflated actual titles and territorial designations (resulting in horrific renderings like "Earl of Leicester of Holkham" and "Baron Dufferin and Claneboye of Ballyleidy and Killyleagh"). (The mistake is compounded by Burke's slavishly copying these mistakes.) Proteus (Talk) 13:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only have access to Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage but there is no doubt that Alci12 and Proteus are correct. The title of the peerage was Baron Loch, of Drylaw. Tryde 14:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is there not perhaps a confusion between common useage and actual technical title? Viz. Lord Montagu of Beaulieu would most likely only be known as Lord Montagu but for the plethora of other Lords Montagu. Similarly the Lords Howard de Walden were commonly known as such only because they were forced to on account of there being many other Lords Howard. The Lords Loch being reticent types and being the only ennobled users of the name Loch had no need for the perhaps pompous sounding extra OF DRYLAW tacked on, so would have quietly dropped it, hence its absense from Debrett & Burke, which as ALCI12 rather dismissively pointed out about G.E.C. are only commercial publications, but which, unlike GEC, rely most heavily on information given them by the subjects of each entry. I do, incidently, know the importance of the placement of the comma, but as I wrote elsewhere today that August 1895 Lords Journal clearly has it 'Baron Loch of Drylaw, in our county of Midlothian. I do not insist that I am right and you wrong, but there is, I feel, still remaining doubt Rodolph 15:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not making reference to common usage. We're referring to the official announcement of the creation of the peerage in the London Gazette. The House of Lords journal is obviously mistaken (which is hardly a unique occurrence — I could find you dozens of mistakes therin if you'd like). Proteus (Talk) 16:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolph, the way we try to deal with issues when there is contradictory infomation from different sources is try assess the sources by which is most authoritative and trustworthy. I'd suggest, and others may choose to broadly agree or not, that the hierarchy for titles is something like: The letters patent creating the title, a writ of summons to parliament, the roll of the peerage, the London Gazette (or supplement) detailing the LP, an act of parliament / royal proclamation / warrant or statutory instrument specifically naming the peer, Hansard, the various commercial publications about the peerage and so on. So while I'm perfectly happy to agree peers are sometimes wrong in their use of their title or shorten the form in use; where we have the appropriate sources we can I think be most accurate by trusting the sources most likely to be authoritative about that use on wiki Alci12 16:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Jellicoe

I removed the picture because it showed a tiny model of the house with a snowman in front of it... Tryde 14:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC) yes, I know it is a model with a Christmas cake's snowman in front of it, but why did you remove it? Rodolph 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heading of articles

I am sorry if you do not like this, but Wikipedia has some guidelines and this is included (you can read the whole text at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)). If there really are two persons with the same name, then they are surely different by her life data or her professions, what usually always is in the introduction, too (see William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke (1468 creation) and William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke (1551 creation) for example). ~~ Phoe _talk 16:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Queen's Speech 2001.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Queen's Speech 2001.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. William Avery 18:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castle

I noticed your edit at Fingask Castle. If you have an interest in castles, you may wish to vote at WP:ACID to improve the Castle article. It is going to fail its nomination today if we do not get two more votes soon. Please contribute!

Thanks. --Grimhelm 22:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heello

Hello Rodolpho I see you added info to Henry Jerome de Salis about the Blossets- I have created a page on the first Blosset to come to Britain/Ireland here Salomon Blosset de Loche

Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 04:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gustv, great work. Thanks for telling me about it.Rodolph

Are you able to tell me the source that describes the father of Julia Henrietta (Harriet) Blosset as Salomon de Blosset de Loche? I believe he was commonly known as Solomon Stephen Blosset- I am not entirely certain he inherited the Seigneurie of Loche as I think perhaps that Seigneuries were similar to an English Lord of the Manor so would pass down through property rather than blood (I imagine the French property of the Blossets would have been confiscated), Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gustav, see this link for a fine painting of Selina Grote/Peckwell:

www.richard-green.com/DesktopDefault. aspx?tabid=6&tabindex=5&objectid=1341

The Solomon Blosset info came from the Trinity College Library, Cambridge, UK. Amongst the Mayor papers are some of those of the Blosset's, however, the web site seems to be not working properly tonight/this year, so I can't give you a link, or check...Other info/confirmation came from an old Joseph Banks biog.Rodolph

try: http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=EAD%2FGBR%2F0016%2FMAYOR

Rodolph 23:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

Heya, you don't need to insert a <br> to divide two sections, a white line for this is sufficient and will in addition not confuse other users either. Greetings and Happy Easter ~~ Phoe _talk 20:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

License tagging for Image:JellicoeSkiing.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JellicoeSkiing.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

~~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. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

George Jellicoe

Hi again Rodolpho can I ask whether you are related to George as I am (very distantly) related myself? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cool, how are you related? I'm not related by blood, but was a friend.Rodolph 19:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fingask Castle

Hi Rodolph, do you think maybe there are a few too many pictures on this page- we don't want it ending up like a scrapbook do we? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolph do you mind if I move a few pics- maybe we could use them in other articles i.e. collage, silhouette, teapot. Also do you have permission from the people in this photo to use their image in Wikipedia Image:24February2007Reeling.jpg? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I think there might be copyright issues with this image unless you have asked the artist to release their work into the public domain Image:FingaskTeaMungoMcCosh2006.jpg? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture desk or scapbook? Is a picture worth 1,000 words? All pictures have permission and are relevant, in that they are of Fingask, to the page. (Several where taken or made by me). Do please use them elsewhere. Are you Phoe re-born? (McCosh has given permission).

Best wishes, Rodolph 18:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodolph I think the problem is as I understand it you are releasing the image into ther public domain i.e. it can be freely copied reproduced published and commercially exploited without your permission or Mungo McCosh's and Steve Abbott's permission. Are you are certain that the artists are happy with that? Re: this photo Image:24February2007Reeling.jpg are these the owners of the castle- if so can you label them? I think this collage may also violate copyright Image:PavilionCollageJune2006.jpg as it possibly contains copyright images/trademarks? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McCosh & Abbott both gave permission, as did R. de Salis. The reelers are not the owners, but both agreed to be thus shown at a recent party given there. The collage I made myself. It may infringe copyright, but does'nt everything!Rodolph 22:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R I think Wikipedia has had to be careful about violating copyright since some bad publicity they had. When you say the artists gave permission did you ask them to put their pictures on Wikipedia or did you explain to them the consequences that will no longer really own their image? My connection to Jellicoe is through his mother's family- we are not exactly closely related though as our common ancestor died in 1694! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbott/Thackeray/Salis/McCosh are all aware. Though, I will remind McCosh. I wonder who was the ancestor who died in 1694?Rodolph 22:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodolph. I agree that there are too many images on Fingask Castle. Copyright aside, some of them are simply not relevant. I don't see how pictures of Christmas cards or revelling can be of any use to people trying to learn about Fingask Castle itself.

If you have a large number of pictures, you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons, which is designed as an image directory. You can make a page there called Fingask Castle, put all your images on it in the same way, and then link to the Commons page from the Wikipedia page using {{commons|Fingask Castle}}. That way you can keep all the images, but the main article is much less cluttered. Let me know if you need any help.

Lastly, you may want to stop by WikiProject Scottish Castles if you are interested in contributing more on this topic. Thanks, Edward Waverley 09:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edward, thank you for your kind words, and info about wiki commons.

Yes, I would like by the end of next week to have re-arranged the images and made them more cognate and less cluttered. I'll look at wiki commons too, though it might take longer as it seems quite obscure.

The pictures of recently made art inspired by Fingask and people revelling ARE relevant, I think, because they show that the place is alive, and that fun can be present; and that unlike some castles/country houses contemporary unfettered pleasure and novelty is an ongoing possibility. The castle is more than just the history of its stones. Also, as the whole house and garden is available for hire it shows what is possible to the people now.Rodolph 13:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:TopiaryCloseUpFingask.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:FingaskTopiaryCloseUp.jpg. The copy called Image:FingaskTopiaryCloseUp.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 17:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SirStuartdetail.jpg

Hi. Who was the artist, and where is the painting held?

I have applied it to a new article: Royal Medical Society.

Ta in advance. --Mais oui! 08:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your message...great re-use! The picture you've got is a detail of a (c1747-1767) portrait of Dr. Stuart Threipland, after the Battle of Culloden, by William Delacour (1700-1768), French born painter who was the first master of the Trustees' Academy in Edinburgh in the 1760s. This image was copied from an old copy of the original, c/o National Galleries of Scotland (Duff House)(?).Rodolph 10:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranee of Sarawak

Well done on the article. Needs some formatting though. --Counter-revolutionary 18:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastnor

Hi Rodolph- can I ask how you calculated the equivalent figure for £85000 - (I get slightly different results). Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my maths might be completely wrong, but I seem to remember being told and reading that the multiplier for comparitive value between C18th and c1920 and c1998 was between x60 and x100. This works for some things, but clearly recent rampant UK (house price) inflation (a house sold in 2007 might easily sell for well over x200 what it was bought for in 1946) means that the equivalent figure for Eastnor castle is difficult to pin.Rodolph 22:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not replying sooner, I found these two useful tools at Pound sterling-

If you calculate using the purchasing power from 1810 to 1830 £85,000 goes to £63,231 from 1810 to 1830. Then, if you put that value into the five ways calculator, you get a range of £4.2 million for retail price index (purchasing power), £5.4 million for GDP deflator, up to £46.9 million for average earnings, £63.3 million for per capita GDP, and £160 million for GDP. I don't fully understand what that all means but I suppose its to do with (i) how many other people had similar amounts of money i.e. they were less rich people back then so an amount would actually seem vastly greater even though it may only be able to buy a limited numbers of loaves of bread! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! Thank you. (See new link to Trinity College re. your first question Blossets, higher up the page). Rodolph 17:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jarvis image

Hello. It was pointlessly confusing having a photograph captioned as being of Jarvis when there were two similar-looking people in it, and however humorous you found the lookalike, he isn't notable enough to merit actual mention in the article. Cropping the article made more sense than expanding the caption. --McGeddon 22:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Reunov&Leo.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Reunov&Leo.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. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TidcombeModel.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:TidcombeModel.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. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Baghdad.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Baghdad.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. Nv8200p talk 03:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Bushcastle.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bushcastle.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. Nv8200p talk 13:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its not exactly a photo to be that proud of is it? Would anyone really bother to pursue someone for its copyright?Rodolph 13:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:LordofAdmiralty.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:LordofAdmiralty.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 22:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 22:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:JellicoeinBaghdad1980s.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JellicoeinBaghdad1980s.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 23:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 23:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PashaNikAksenovPantherHouseMountPleasant2003.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PashaNikAksenovPantherHouseMountPleasant2003.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. OsamaK 19:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Jellicoe, 1st Earl Jellicoe

I notice that you uploaded a picture of Jellicoe (- a cigarette card?) with the title 'Amiralissime' on it. You have put this title in the image caption box. Unless Jellico has an honourary title from a foreign navy this should read Admiral to avoid confusion. Please do not use other languages in this way on wikipedia. --maxrspct ping me 12:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I've qualified your correction. He was known widely as Amiralissime, so it is relevant, one thinks. Rodolph 14:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodolph, actually Amiralissime is the superlative of French Amiral, see http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/-issime . Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gustav, nice to read you again. Yes, thank you very much!Rodolph 13:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo

I've just been reading through some articles you've contributed to, in particular those on the Counts de Salis, I presume you're a member of the family. I'd be interested to know some more about their Irish connection (when did the estates at Armagh leave the family, &c.), if you had any information. I can be reached on my talk-page or by e-mail (linked to my account). Best wishes, --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your edits to We (novel)

Hi, I reverted your edits because they essentially replaced the ISBN with exlinks to Random House, which is a commercial site (see WP:EXTERNAL). I also removed the location, since the ISBN is the same for the US and UK editions.

There is a way to change ISBN links to point to the URL of your choice, instead of Wikipedia:Book sources, by pasting the code from User:Lunchboxhero/monobook.js into User:Rodolph/monobook.js.

--Jtir (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But why remove (vandalise?) the helpfull links to a description of the latest translation? You imply that commerce is bad, what's wrong with commerce? Don't you find ISBNs ugly and unneccessary, even misleading?Rodolph (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs are widely accepted and supported at WP and I find them essential for identifying books and linking to them. (I use the tool described above for the latter.) These pages have much more on ISBNs at WP:

What happens when you click on an ISBN? E.g. ISBN 0-8129-7462-X (It should be a link.)

As for the exlinks, they were about half blurbs and some of those cannot possibly refer to the Randall translation (e.g. Orwell who died in 1950). Most of the rest of the content is already on WP. Commercial exlinks are fine when there is no substitute.

BTW, vandals don't usually leave msgs on talk pages explaining their "edits" and citing guidelines.

--Jtir (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did you come across the article? --Jtir (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, obviously not a 'vandal', its just that I learnt to use the invective from a German (sinc ex-Wiki) who misused the term to describe anyone (me) who removed their precious material or merely re-inserted their own as VANDAL. But my point is that when you click on that 'ISBN' number it takes one nowhere but a waste of time page really only of interest for numerologists.

Whereas the 'exlinks' (and interesting publisher information) I had inserted lead explicitly to an useful and educative description of 'we' Randall's translation of it. The article I found because I was interested in Vintage classics/Randall's new translation. Rodolph (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I assumed that you were seeking to add useful information. The ISBN links are intended to lead readers to more info in a neutral way.

Could you confirm that when you click on this link, that you see a page similar to Wikipedia:Book sources? If not, there may be something wrong, and we will need to get help. If so, you can scroll through the TOC, looking for a location. Personally, I prefer amazon.com, which is near the end in the Individual online booksellers section. This user interface for looking up books is cumbersome IMO, so that is why I was referring you to User:Lunchboxhero/monobook.js.

BTW, the article lists some reviews: We (novel)#Reviews. Can you suggest more?

--Jtir (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, but i still don't see how an ISBN is usefull. For example on the Walter Benjamin page there is a list of books with ISBNs but with hardly any dates of publication given. I click on the ISBN and I'm taken to a list of world-wide libraries, but how does that help? Rodolph (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first link under Online databases, which is WorldCat, has all 16 titles that are listed under Primary literature. Some of the results show a cover image too. That's very helpful, IMO. --Jtir (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the "Find this book" link, you will be taken immediately to the record for the ISBN. --Jtir (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example: The arcades project. Clicking on Cite this Item gives a list of already formatted citations for this item, one of which can be copied into the article. --Jtir (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of John Charles Dodson, 3rd Baron Monk Bretton

A tag has been placed on John Charles Dodson, 3rd Baron Monk Bretton requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARE you completely wacko? Delete? Why? See article for explanation. Rodolph (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Castleold.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Castleold.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 22:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 22:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Coldstreamer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Coldstreamer.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 21:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 21:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks a lots, I mean that sarcastically. Yes wacko- Wiki automatic vandal, -that picture was fine and I had changed the Tag!!!Rodolph (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Wintour edit

Do you have a source on that? Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, sorry, will add it, Brian Masters, Georgiana Duchess of Devonshire, Hamish Hamilton, 1981, page 298-299.Rodolph (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I moved up into the article text and put it into {{cite book}}. Do you think you could add a short quote from the relevant section in the quote= section of the citation template to make it a stronger reference? (I can't verify it with a copy of the book so that would help) Also the ISBN and publisher location, too.

This is interesting to know ... I didn't know she had any aristocratic ancestors. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masters has also written wonderful books about the serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, and British Dukes. His info re. Anna Wintour & the Fosters will have come mostly from Burke's, one thinks.Rodolph (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:George_Jellicoe.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:George_Jellicoe.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. Nv8200p talk 03:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bateman's 'Great Landowners'

The category that you created six weeks ago has been nominated for deletion. I am suggesting renaming. You may wish to participate in the debate. I would also suggest that you create a "main article" on the source book, if only comprising the text that you have placed at the head of the category, but better still it should give rather mnore detail of the source work, whcih I think deoends on a survey of landownership done in the 1870s, which revealed that landownership was even more concentrated than any one had imagined. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK rename as suggested. Bateman's Great Landowners. Thanks for the warning. I can't tell you how much I HATE and LOATH the way Wikipedia is so full of misplaced Deletion. Rodolph (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have re-named the dcategory. It is now -Bateman's 'Great Landowners' (1883)-.Rodolph (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some robot has deleted this perfectly good category that I made a few months ago,Bateman's Great Landowners (1883). John Bateman's book is a masterwork, but apparently not to the puritan, ignorant, socialist, and time wasting gnomes that control the animus that is wikipedia.Rodolph (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SEE BELOW:

This category is for those listed in John Bateman's:

The Great Landowners of Great Britain and Ireland, A list of all owners of Three thousand acres and upwards, worth £3,000 a year; Also, one thousand three hundred owners of Two thousand acres and upwards, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & Wales, their acerage and income from Land, Culled from 'THE MODERN DOMESDAY BOOK' ,

John Bateman, FRGS, (1839-1910): The Great Landowners of Great Britain and Ireland, 4th edition, Harrison, 1883. It first appeared in 1876 as The Acre-Ocracy of England. This was republised in 1971 by the Leicester University Press, New York. It used text from the 1883 edition (the fourth and last), and had an introduction by David Spring.

Image copyright problem with Image:CasaBattistaHall.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Rodolph!
We thank you for uploading Image:CasaBattistaHall.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot.

--John Bot III (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GO TO HELL ROBOTRodolph (talk)

Possibly unfree Image:DeSalisClothBellonna.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:DeSalisClothBellonna.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC) I don't know what you mean. The thing is at least 150 years oldRodolph (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodolph- you seem to be being attacked! I will try and get some of the other images undeleted- I have also corrected the tag on the crest- as it is ancient I think it will be public domain. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much! I understand why the rules exist, but are'nt they slightly counter-productive in that minor figures (and the mediocre) will be condemned to everlasting obscurity, because by the time copyright is lifted either the image will have been lost or the inputer, perhaps the only person who cares, is dead.

What are the rules of 'family' photos. To whom did the right to reproduce, say, my grandfather's holiday snaps pass on his death in 1980? Or my great-grandfather in 1947? Does one really have to wait 100 years!!?Rodolph (talk)

or, say, an anonymous photo taken of and by soldiers during the 1939-45 war? Qui bono?Rodolph (talk)

Charles Seymour, 2nd Baron Seymour of Trowbridge

Rodolph,

I'd love to know what your source was for the following edit on the Charles Seymour, 2nd Baron Seymour of Trowbridge page:

"He married firstly on 4 Aug 1632 (when both were children, he was c11), Mary daughter of Thomas Smith of Soley in Chilton Foliat, a village north west of Hungerford, on the border of Berkshire and Wiltshire."

I'm researching this family and I have not found this information elsewhere! Cheers. --Stemail23 (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

think that information came from The Complete Peerage, edited by G.E.Cokayne, etal. (I added the bit about Chilton Foliat, based on having been there I know it's location).Rodolph (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks for that. if you can remember any further details, especially any more information about the Chilton Foliat connection, then I'd be delighted if you could pass them on. Cheers. --Stemail23 (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I've improved the reference on the page...bestRodolph (talk)

Bateman's 'Great Landowners' (1883)

I presume that you have ready access to a copy of this work (which I do not). I agree that persons being listed in it should be a legitimate category. I know that such categories whave twice been through WP:CFD discussions and am not sure what the outcome of the last one was. Categories need to have clear boundaries as to what should (and what should not). The original category was (I think) "Great Landowners", which sounds as if it was of nebulous extent, and so had to be deleted. The more recent one was more precisely defined. I do not recall the discussion (and am not sure how to locate it), but I think people were saying 'Why 1883? why not 1885 or 1880? Will we also get a category for 1900, 1850, 1800, etc.?' If we were to have so many categories, it would all become unwealdy. My suggestions are as follows:

"Watch" everything you create or do substantial work on, in order that you can defend it against officious people (but conversely accept improvements made by others). You do this by clicking the "watch" tab at the top of the page. You then need periodically to check your watchlist to see what has been changed.
Improve the article: get it into standard WP format (in terms of style), and expand its text, preferably citing your authorities - if you are not sure how to do that, just put it in the text. I have just added the article to my watchlist and so will notice changes: I can put the referneces into proper format, so that you can see what to do for another time. Material used should (if possible) be academic discussions of the work, but if there is nothing else, I would guess that the 1971 edition has a scholarly introduction: threat that as a separate literary work.
In the article list as many of the people as possible, especially those with exisiting WP articles. Add to their articles a sentence as to the scale of their landholdings, citing Bateman as authority (with a link to the artilce on that book). If you are not sure how to do that, leave a note on my talk page after attempting it (with a link to the page altered), so that I can check this (and correct if necessary). This will deal with the complaint about the article being an orphan.
I would leave creating a category again until you have a much more substantial list in the article, and so have a much more populated category.
When you do create a category, provide it with a short headnote linking to the article (which will be the main article for the category). I would suggest that the headnote should explain that Bateman was only published for a few years, so that similar categories cannot be prepared for many other years. This should point out that the category does not suffer from the complaints mentioned above. Having had two similar categories deleted, I fear that it will be necessary for the category to go through the WP:CFD process, but I would hope that with the preparation outlined above, it would be able to survive. I will add that 1883 is not really my historical period: I do not often come much more recent than 1815. Please reply on my talk page. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not querying your use of the date 1883 or of the 1883 edition, merely seeking to explain why other people saw it a problem. A lot of members of the peerage have articles, as to most MPs (and if they do not you can create one - start from the page for their constituency). In a period when there was no pay for being an MP, many were landed gentry. You may be surprised by how many appear. Happy editing! Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Fingaskmuralbeingupdated2007.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Fingaskmuralbeingupdated2007.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? Rettetast (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:McCoshFingaskDalek.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:McCoshFingaskDalek.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. Nv8200p talk 04:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New article

I noticed that Charles Fane de Salis was created recently and it didn't have your fingerprints on it, so I thought I'd make sure it got on to your watchlist. Choess (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Makes a nice change does'nt it (none of my fingerprint that is)?! But I'll be sure to try & give it a good rub down now...Rodolph (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image permission problem with Image:McCoshFingaskDalek.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:McCoshFingaskDalek.jpg I noticed that that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media 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 GFDL 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 did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image 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 in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image'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 uploaded by following this link. Images 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. Nv8200p talk 20:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, I've e-mailed the permissions folkRodolph (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki- why did you delete that image?Rodolph (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at your email to our permissions e-mail address, and saw that you received a reply on 28 October explaining why the release you forwarded to us from the copyright holder was not sufficient. We need a clearer statement from the copyright holder that they want to release their copyright under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (or whatever image license is chosen). The easiest way is to get them to fill in a boilerplate release like the following and forward it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org:

"I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the image located at [ insert link ].

I agree to publish that work under the free GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 or any later version.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE AND NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER"

I know it's annoying to have this image deleted, but it's still in our archive and can be undeleted at any time once the copyright formalities have been sorted out. Perhaps an easier way to do it is if the copyright holder has a website with this image on it, you could simple ask them to put a notice on that web site releasing the image(s) under the free license of your choice. If you want to read more about the copyright policies and allowable image licenses on Wikipedia, you could have a look at WP:C. - Mark 04:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images you uploaded

In order, to confirm the status that the images you uploaded (and to which it seems you certainly hold the rights :) ), it is advised that you forward a note to the permissions queue at OTRS, listing the images concerned (including any that were deleted). This should hopefully prevent some of the tags that have appeared on them, appearing again in the future, and could assist in the restoration of some.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons

In terms of GFDL licensed images, as well as uploading them on English Wikipedia, there is a repository of 'freely' licensed images at Wikimedia Commons, a category on that site has been established in respect of the images you've been kind enough to provide or upload at Commons:Category:Salis collection images. Images on Commons can be utilised on many projects including the other language Wikipedia's Sfan00 IMG (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:RachelBath.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:RachelBath.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.

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 02:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sasikiran (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, but it says who took the photo (me) and the painting was done in the c1640s .Rodolph (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:PortnallPark2008.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:PortnallPark2008.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the photo in 2008Rodolph (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information block added. - This Image should be on Commons :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Hahnemann

I don't know where you got this image from, but it is most definitely NOT a portrait of Hahnemann and in any case he never visited London in his entire life. His very distinctive fine aquiline features can easily be found in images across the web and the person depicted here in this image is most definitely NOt him, there is no resemblance. Just thought you should know. Thanks. Peter morrell 20:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My note does'nt say he was in London. It says the portrait is now in London. Why do you think it is not Hahnmemann ?? I mean distinctive features are'nt always fixed Rodolph (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Peter's revert, and I can't make up my mind which of you is right because neither of you is supporting his claim. All the standard pictures of Hahnemann seem to be from a time when he was considerably older. If you compare the new one with them, then a priori I wouldn't think they are the same man. On the other hand, old men sometimes have very strong features that were not as visible when they were young. Add to this that portrait paintings sometimes don't resemble the depicted person as much as we would hope, and it becomes quite uncertain what to do.

In such situations we often resort to formalities. In this case, while it is easily verifiable that the other pictures show Hahnemann, it doesn't seem as easy for this one.

Rodolph, I think you need to point to some book or at least museum that shows this picture and says it's by Hahnemann. (There may also be rarely used alternatives involving OTRS, in case the information has not and cannot be published in this way.) If we didn't require such a high standard, Wikipedia could easily be abused by fraudsters who try to inflate the values of paintings. (I am not saying that it applies here or that I suspect it does. I am merely explaining why we shouldn't make an exception to the verifiability requirement for pictures.)
Once it's verified that the painting shows Hahnemann, I would still prefer one of the more standard depictions to come first. So long after Hahnemann's death it's not merely a question of what he did look like, but also a question of his iconography – of the way he is depicted conventionally. There seems to be no reason this new picture can't appear later in the article, though. It's not completely overloaded with pictures yet, and the monuments might be made a bit smaller, if necessary. Hans Adler 08:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much for your analysis. You are right, more work needs to be done, and it is as it should be that one can't just declare any old portrait to be whoever one wants them to be without some 'proper' and considered backing and justification.Rodolph (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RachelBath.jpg

Hi, Before this image is moved to Wikimedia Commons there were some things I felt happier checking with the source of the image.

From some comments, you made earlier, I've put an estimate of 17th Century, is this correct?
In addition, Do you have any record of who the original artist was?

On a related matter, over on Wikimedia Commons (A repository and archive of 'freely' licensed media), I created a category Commons:Category:Salis collection images for images from your archive that had been moved to that site from Wikipedia.

I'd finally like to express my thanks for the co-operative stance,you have shown by uploading your archive images (and reproductions of them). It is a terrible shame the same cannot be said for certain national institutions. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much for your encouragement.

Portrait, one of a pair (see elsewhere on Wiki, but (even) lower quality repro) by George Geldorp or an early work by his pupil Peter Lely (this last is quite a contentious supposition/attribution, but is based on painters named in her account books, see Todd Gray). c1638-1641. British. Pictures either came from the Fane seat of Apethorpe Hall in late C19th, or by descent from her nephew, Sir Henry Fane, KB, of Basildon, Berkshire.Rodolph (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Andrew Salius Fane de Salis

Hi Rodolph. I see in the article linked above you changed the intro to say "Andreas" rather than Andrew. Can I ask why? I don't doubt you are right, but it is confusing to the reader (i.e. me) that the title and the lead do not match. Is it possible to explain the reason for the difference in the article? Thank you! -Sketchmoose (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good point. In the orgianl Wiki article it was Andreas, then someone reduced his name down to just William de Salis which was too short, and misleading, so I restored the full version but put in Andrew back in rather than Andreas. A few weeks later I saw my mistake but only re-introduced the Andreas where you saw it. I suppose the flexibility exists because the name is fluid and I'm not sure what he preferred, perhaps he was'nt even himself, (also Fane or ffane or not at all, de or De or von, (similarily Paris or Parigi, Florence or Firenze?), so I left Andreas/Andrew as an tribute to central European and family polyglottism. Rodolph (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Lady ScotlandMarch2000.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lady ScotlandMarch2000.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. Memphisto (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:ValerianFreyberg1999.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ValerianFreyberg1999.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. Memphisto (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no thanks for your hooliganism Memphisto...ergo vandalistic deletion of a good & fair imageRodolph (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it would have at least qualified for

This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content § Images or Wikipedia:Non-free content § Audio clips, and it is not covered by a more specific non-free content license listed at Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates. However, it is believed that the use of this work:

To illustrate the subject in question
Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Copyrights.
Fair use

To the uploader:

Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
For example non-free use rationales, see Wikipedia:Use rationale examples.
Template:Non-free use rationale may be helpful for stating the rationale.
This tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use.

To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.

Article:Patricia Scotland, Baroness Scotland of Asthal

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Memphisto (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks (sarcastic) evil Wiki-bully (I mean what kind of person has a word meaning 'Devil' as a pseudonym)... but the people who kept deleting the image never said why. I hope they have been

threatened too !Rodolph (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must add that the other editors failed to justify their actions so my reversion

of their unexplained editings were wholly justified.Rodolph (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:CaptainJ.R.Jellicoe.jpg

File:CaptainJ.R.Jellicoe.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:CaptainJ.R.Jellicoe.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:CaptainJ.R.Jellicoe.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:LordGrantchester by UKReunov 1999.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:LordGrantchester by UKReunov 1999.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. Memphisto (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:Isabel Lambert catalogues.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Isabel Lambert catalogues.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Isabel Lambert catalogues.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Isabel Lambert catalogues.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Isabel Lambert catalogues.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Isabel Lambert catalogues.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Isabel Lambert catalogues.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Steady on over zealous and worryingly authoritarian soi-dissant Wiki Police. IT was my photograph. It was not a violation, it was a justifiable

creation in its own right if only you'd taken the time to look. What is wrong with you mr. Memphisto. Perhaps someone with a name that means Devil :::one can't expect to be kind? It is deeply offensive to recieve your bullying language. Persistent violator, really. If this is how people who :::want to give good and legal stuff to Wikipedia are treated perhaps it is not surprising that recent reports have recorded a decline in editing.Rodolph (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC) :::Rodolph (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Please don't threaten me with your petty bullying. :::Rodolph (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this image was a legitimate photograph, by me, of a subject in a new context thus removing the copyright violation you suggest. Why do you violate me and remove good work in this crude and vile manner?Rodolph (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:Moncreiffe of that Ilk bookcover.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Moncreiffe of that Ilk bookcover.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Moncreiffe of that Ilk bookcover.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Moncreiffe of that Ilk bookcover.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Moncreiffe of that Ilk bookcover.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Moncreiffe of that Ilk bookcover.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Moncreiffe of that Ilk bookcover.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this image was a legitimate photograph, by me, of a subject in a new context thus removing the copyright violation you suggest. Why do you violate me and remove good work in this crude and vile manner?Rodolph (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:The World through Blunted sight cover.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:The World through Blunted sight cover.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:The World through Blunted sight cover.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:The World through Blunted sight cover.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:The World through Blunted sight cover.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:The World through Blunted sight cover.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:The World through Blunted sight cover.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this image was a legitimate photograph, by me, of a subject in a new context thus removing the copyright violation you suggest. Why do you violate me and remove good work in this crude and vile manner?Rodolph (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:Marlborough Gallery Bacon catalogue.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Marlborough Gallery Bacon catalogue.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Marlborough Gallery Bacon catalogue.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Marlborough Gallery Bacon catalogue.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Marlborough Gallery Bacon catalogue.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Marlborough Gallery Bacon catalogue.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Marlborough Gallery Bacon catalogue.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this image was a legitimate photograph, by me, of a subject in a new context thus removing the copyright violation you suggest. Why do you violate me and remove good work in this crude and vile manner?Rodolph (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:Mani title page & pebbles.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Mani title page & pebbles.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Mani title page & pebbles.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Mani title page & pebbles.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Mani title page & pebbles.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Mani title page & pebbles.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Mani title page & pebbles.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this image was a legitimate photograph, by me, of a subject in a new context thus removing the copyright violation you suggest. Why do you violate me and remove good work in this crude and vile manner?Rodolph (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:Sonia Leon by Craxton Christopher Hull Gallery catalogue.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Sonia Leon by Craxton Christopher Hull Gallery catalogue.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Sonia Leon by Craxton Christopher Hull Gallery catalogue.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Sonia Leon by Craxton Christopher Hull Gallery catalogue.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Sonia Leon by Craxton Christopher Hull Gallery catalogue.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Sonia Leon by Craxton Christopher Hull Gallery catalogue.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Sonia Leon by Craxton Christopher Hull Gallery catalogue.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this image was a legitimate photograph, by me, of a subject in a new context thus removing the copyright violation you suggest. Why do you violate me and remove good work in this crude and vile manner?Rodolph (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:Roumeli cover by Craxton.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Roumeli cover by Craxton.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Roumeli cover by Craxton.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Roumeli cover by Craxton.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Roumeli cover by Craxton.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Roumeli cover by Craxton.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Roumeli cover by Craxton.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this image was a legitimate photograph, by me, of a subject in a new context thus removing the copyright violation you suggest. Why do you violate me and remove good work in this crude and vile manner?Rodolph (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:CraxtoncoversforPMLF.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:CraxtoncoversforPMLF.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:CraxtoncoversforPMLF.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:CraxtoncoversforPMLF.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:CraxtoncoversforPMLF.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:CraxtoncoversforPMLF.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:CraxtoncoversforPMLF.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this image was a legitimate photograph, by me, of a subject in a new context thus removing the copyright violation you suggest. Why do you violate me and remove good work in this crude and vile manner?Rodolph (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:Mani by Patrick Leigh Fermor.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Mani by Patrick Leigh Fermor.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Mani by Patrick Leigh Fermor.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Mani by Patrick Leigh Fermor.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Mani by Patrick Leigh Fermor.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Mani by Patrick Leigh Fermor.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Mani by Patrick Leigh Fermor.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this image was a legitimate photograph, by me, of a subject in a new context thus removing the copyright violation you suggest. Why do you violate me and remove good work in this crude and vile manner?Rodolph (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:A Time for Gifts Craxton cover.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:A Time for Gifts Craxton cover.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:A Time for Gifts Craxton cover.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:A Time for Gifts Craxton cover.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:A Time for Gifts Craxton cover.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:A Time for Gifts Craxton cover.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:A Time for Gifts Craxton cover.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this image was a legitimate photograph, by me, of a subject in a new context thus removing the copyright violation you suggest. Why do you violate me and remove good work in this crude and vile manner?Rodolph (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:Third Lord Monk Bretton by UKReunov 1999.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Third Lord Monk Bretton by UKReunov 1999.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Third Lord Monk Bretton by UKReunov 1999.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Third Lord Monk Bretton by UKReunov 1999.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Third Lord Monk Bretton by UKReunov 1999.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Third Lord Monk Bretton by UKReunov 1999.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Third Lord Monk Bretton by UKReunov 1999.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this image was authorized by the artist. Why do you violate me and remove good work in this crude and vile manner?Rodolph (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:TheCommission1999byUKR.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:TheCommission1999byUKR.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:TheCommission1999byUKR.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:TheCommission1999byUKR.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:TheCommission1999byUKR.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:TheCommission1999byUKR.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:TheCommission1999byUKR.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this image was authorized by the artist. Why do you violate me and remove good work in this crude and vile manner?Rodolph (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:FingaskTeaMungoMcCosh2006.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:FingaskTeaMungoMcCosh2006.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:FingaskTeaMungoMcCosh2006.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:FingaskTeaMungoMcCosh2006.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:FingaskTeaMungoMcCosh2006.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:FingaskTeaMungoMcCosh2006.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:FingaskTeaMungoMcCosh2006.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this image was legitimate & authorized by the artist. Why do you violate me and remove good work in this crude and vile manner?Rodolph (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:FingSilhouetteSteveAbbott23Feb2.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:FingSilhouetteSteveAbbott23Feb2.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:FingSilhouetteSteveAbbott23Feb2.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:FingSilhouetteSteveAbbott23Feb2.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:FingSilhouetteSteveAbbott23Feb2.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:FingSilhouetteSteveAbbott23Feb2.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:FingSilhouetteSteveAbbott23Feb2.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this image was authorized by the artist. Why do you violate me and remove good work in this crude and vile manner?Rodolph (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:FrancisFaneofFulbeck.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FrancisFaneofFulbeck.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. Memphisto (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:CharlesFanebyJohnVanderbank.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CharlesFanebyJohnVanderbank.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. Memphisto (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:RhythmFormula1992.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:RhythmFormula1992.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:RhythmFormula1992.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:RhythmFormula1992.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:RhythmFormula1992.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:RhythmFormula1992.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:RhythmFormula1992.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this deleted? It was my photograph. Rodolph (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who does Memphisto think he is to threaten like he does?Rodolph (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PavilionCollageJune2006.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:PavilionCollageJune2006.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Memphisto (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why ?Rodolph (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:PavilionCollageJune2006.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PavilionCollageJune2006.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. --Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:Some of Robert Smith's children by Maubert.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Some of Robert Smith's children by Maubert.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.jamesadam.ie/BidCat/detail.asp?SaleRef=3074&LotRef=15. As a copyright violation, File:Some of Robert Smith's children by Maubert.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Some of Robert Smith's children by Maubert.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Some of Robert Smith's children by Maubert.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Some of Robert Smith's children by Maubert.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Some of Robert Smith's children by Maubert.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:ViewofSt.Leonard'sHill.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:ViewofSt.Leonard'sHill.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.antiquemapsandprints.com/SCANSB/b-1258.jpg. As a copyright violation, File:ViewofSt.Leonard'sHill.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:ViewofSt.Leonard'sHill.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:ViewofSt.Leonard'sHill.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:ViewofSt.Leonard'sHill.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:ViewofSt.Leonard'sHill.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with images

Hello Rodolph. Thanks very much for helping out with images. There are maybe a couple of points which are not very clear.

For very old pictures, such as File:ViewofSt.Leonard'sHill.jpg, there is no problem uploading these. These can be marked with the {{PD-Art}} license. For your own work, again there is no problem in general and you can use whichever license seems best to you. The problem comes when the thing you are photographing, for example File:PavilionCollageJune2006.jpg or the Leigh Fermor book covers, is someone's artwork and protected by copyright. Because the thing you are taking a picture of is copyrighted, the result is a derivative work and you can't, unfortunately, release your photograph under a free license. This is a simplification. For 3d artworks displayed in the UK you can photograph them and release them under a license of your choice due to freedom of panorama, but not for 2d artworks like the collage and book covers. Very strange, but that's the law apparently. But it's different again in France or the US.

Hope this helps. Very best wishes, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. You have been very helpfull. I think I was being persecuted by someone who was'nt acting fairly. Memphisto had me at the point of, like seemingly so many others, abandoning Wikipedia. For example why was he going after the C17 & 18th portraits? Thanks for explaining so well. Rodolph (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ps: to clarify a collage of paper of any sort, using other people's images that are within the copyright period, are no good for Wikipedia. So are all collages illegal in art galleries etc.? What about if I took a photo of a friend and they happened to be holding a book with cover showing? What about new juxtapostions?

Or as you may see on John Craxton page I photographed the backs of some of his paintings,

surely the backs which include his signature and or hand-wriitng could be an infringement by the same token?

pps: Why are some museums allowed to load in copyright pictures onto Wikipedia? & Why do some images have a Source tag that leads nowhere, well to Time Warner general page ?Rodolph (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:GubanovaThreiplandGovorkov.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GubanovaThreiplandGovorkov.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.

the artists and photographer have all given up the relevant rights to their images to fit with whatever it takes for their images not to be deleted from WikipediaRodolph (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:FingaskMural&LoftyBuchanan2008.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FingaskMural&LoftyBuchanan2008.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.

the artists and photographer have all given up the relevant rights to their images to fit with whatever it takes for their images not to be deleted from WikipediaRodolph (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:FingaskMuralKey2007.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FingaskMuralKey2007.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.

the artists, scanner & co-maker of the key have all given up the relevant rights to their images to fit with whatever it takes for their images not to be deleted from WikipediaRodolph (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:FingaskAksenovphoto.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:FingaskAksenovphoto.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Memphisto (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:Jellicoe2002.png

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Jellicoe2002.png, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Jellicoe2002.png appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Jellicoe2002.png has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Jellicoe2002.png and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Jellicoe2002.png with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Jellicoe2002.png.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Whitecoat.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Whitecoat.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 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 uploaded by following this link. 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Memphisto. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, well. If you were aware that Memphisto has turned deleting my images into his Christmas holiday hobby you'd not be telling me to be cool. Thanks !Rodolph (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:PeersRobes1970s.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:PeersRobes1970s.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 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 uploaded by following this link. 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:JellicoeGrin.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:JellicoeGrin.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 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 uploaded by following this link. 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:JarvisJune2005bySamWhatmore.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:JarvisJune2005bySamWhatmore.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 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 uploaded by following this link. 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:GeorgeJellicoe3.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:GeorgeJellicoe3.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 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 uploaded by following this link. 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:GeorgeBrocas.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:GeorgeBrocas.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 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 uploaded by following this link. 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:EarlJellicoe.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:EarlJellicoe.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 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 uploaded by following this link. 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:FingaskFun2007.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:FingaskFun2007.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 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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Memphisto (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Fingask40thBirthday.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Fingask40thBirthday.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 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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Memphisto (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:FingaskTrio.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:FingaskTrio.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 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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Memphisto (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Fingaskreeling.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Fingaskreeling.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 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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Memphisto (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Jinkers.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jinkers.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 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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Memphisto (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Litup.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Litup.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 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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Memphisto (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:ReynoldsStone'sLondonLibraryLogo.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:ReynoldsStone'sLondonLibraryLogo.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:ReynoldsStone'sLondonLibraryLogo.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:ReynoldsStone'sLondonLibraryLogo.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:ReynoldsStone'sLondonLibraryLogo.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:ReynoldsStone'sLondonLibraryLogo.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:ReynoldsStone'sLondonLibraryLogo.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:AustralianMythsLondonLibraryBook.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:AustralianMythsLondonLibraryBook.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:AustralianMythsLondonLibraryBook.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:AustralianMythsLondonLibraryBook.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:AustralianMythsLondonLibraryBook.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:AustralianMythsLondonLibraryBook.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:AustralianMythsLondonLibraryBook.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this file, File:AustralianMythsLondonLibraryBook.jpg, deleted?

Australian Legendary Tales, Folk-lore, collected by Mrs. K. Langloh Parker, published in London (David Nutt) & Melbourne (Melville, Mullen & Slade), 1896.

Mrs Parker died in 1940. Maker of cover unknown. Book published in 1896. Rodolph (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. the above assault by Lord Memphisto

Dear Wikipedia, see below permissions:

File:Litup (Nick Thackeray)

File:Jinkers (Nick Thackeray

File:Fingask40thBirthday (Nick Thackeray

File:Fingaskreeling (Nick Thackeray)

File:FingaskTrio (Nick Thackeray, has given permission for all the above photos)

File:GeorgeBrocas (public figure (=Earl Jellicoe as a boy), photogrpaher c1920 unknown)

File:EarlJellicoe (photo by Philippa Jellicoe (his widow, has given permission)

File:JellicoeGrin (photo by Philippa Jellicoe (his widow, has given permission)

File:JellicoeSkiing.jpg (photo by Philippa Jellicoe (his widow, has given permission)

File:PeersRobes1970s (Lord Jellicoe-public figure. Photo by Sir Thomas Dunne, KG who has given permission)

File:GeorgeJellicoe3 (public figure, anon. photo, taken during the 1939-45 war)

File:Whitecoat (Lord Jellicoe. by anon. photographer. Public figure at public outing)

File:FingaskAksenovphoto.jpg (permission given by the photographer (me) & the painter Aksenov)

File:JarvisJune2005bySamWhatmore (Sam Whatmore, permission given)

File:ReynoldsStone'sLondonLibraryLogo (public image of public figure institution. Stone died in 1979)

File:AustralianMythsLondonLibraryBook (see below)

Australian Legendary Tales, Folk-lore, collected by Mrs. K. Langloh Parker, published in London (David Nutt) & Melbourne (Melville, Mullen & Slade), 1896.

Mrs Parker died in 1940. Maker of cover unknown. Book published in 1896. Rodolph (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Rodolph (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:FingaskRoyalCoatofArms.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FingaskRoyalCoatofArms.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.

Possibly unfree File:24February2007Reeling.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:24February2007Reeling.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.

Permission has been submitted by me, Rodolph. Helen Molchanoff has given all permissionsRodolph (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:FingaskFolliesatRoyalMedicalSociety2007.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FingaskFolliesatRoyalMedicalSociety2007.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.

Permission has been submitted by me, Rodolph. Helen Molchanoff has given all permissionsRodolph (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:FingasFollies2007KateF.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FingasFollies2007KateF.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.

Permission has been submitted by me, Rodolph. Helen Molchanoff has given all permissionsRodolph (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the images deleted

I left clear messages with Permissions that I had permission from the photographers for their work. Why then were they then still deleted. Please could someone stop Memphisto persecuting me. Someone who has a pseudonym meaning 'devil' can't be right.Rodolph (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All claims of "I have permissions" must be verified through the WP:OTRS system. Please follow the link to find out how to use the system to get the copyright holders to verify their release to Wikipedia. Without the OTRS 'ticket', images are deleted... but can be restored by any sysop/admin once the OTRS tickets are verified. Skier Dude (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleted images

hi I happen to be interested in John Jellicoe and noticed you had posted and then someone had deleted various related images. I don't quite understand exactly what is happening, except that the copyright labelling requirements have not been complied with. If the images are yours to donate and you need help sorting this out please leave a message or email me (should be a link on my user page toolbox for sending emails). Sandpiper (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! I've sent a garbled message via e-mail. In the meantime, I'm not sure how to prove something when some of the creators of the images don't use e-mail, or are illiterate?Rodolph (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure quite what you mean by illiterate, but, yes, I have found the need to artificially create emails to satisfy the regulations where someone is happy verbally to give me permission or even write a letter. The system seems directed towards people who have obtained images from the internet elsewhere. Have sent back an email, but the problem may boil down to the need to get an OTRS tag onto the pages concerned saying someone else has given permission. This did not used to be a requirement, perhaps was not a requirement at the time you originally uploaded the files.

You may want to look at the response from admin High Contrast who deleted George Jellico.jpg from commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:High_Contrast . JellicoeSkiing.jpg is likely to go the same way if it does not shortly acquire an OTRS tag or OTRS pending tag, but I think High Contrast would be happy to undelete them if this can be sorted. Maybe you don't know, but an anon on commons proposed two files you originally posted here for deletion there just recently. Kindly he left a message saying he had done this for user:Randolph on commons rather than user Rodolp here. Maybe he knows more about your user names than I do, but that seems unhelpfull. The anon editor knew precisely what he wanted to do, because the only edits he made were to list your images for deletion.

Have you already emailed anything to the permissions people about either File:JellicoeSkiing.jpg or George_Jellicoe.jpg? If so, then what is needed is to place a tag on the images saying they are pending processing and perhaps leave a note somewhere (havnt worked the right place out yet) explaining the circumstances and maybe the date the permission notes were filed. Unless such a request to tag is placed on the images no one at OTRS knows that they need to be tagged so it will never happen. It also stops people just deleting them untill the matter is sorted. Sandpiper (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks so much, I'll get to it. But if the anon. editor has it in for me what can I do ?Rodolph (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think thats the one, but placing it on this page is likely to be confusing when someone now tries to come here and grant permission for your talk page to stay on wiki. This page is now in the category requesting action Sandpiper (talk)

thanks. Have removed it. Have sent template off to four different people asking them to return it to 'permissions'.

Hopefully, they won't be scared off by its language. I was wondering if the cover of a book published in 1896 (over 110 years ago) is out of copyright or not?Rodolph (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think it is intimidating to be faced with a form practically requiring signing in blood.

I looked at the coat of arms, File:FingaskRoyalCoatofArms.jpg: Do you know how old it is? User:Doops has placed a note on the pictures talk page saying the coat of arms is unusual in that it is the scottish arms but with the english motto and garter circle. I have no idea about arms, but do you know precisely whose arms it is/was? As far as copyright goes there are two to consider. One is copyright of the person taking the picture, and the other is copyright belonging to the artist. I'm not sure if it is a special case because it is a plaque of a coat of arms and so would be something like crown copyright instead of the original artist having copyright.

As to the book cover, probably! If it is not possible to identify the artist after a reasonable search, then the copyright term is 70 years from publication. If the artist can be identified then it is 70 years from their death, assuming that was after publication. It runs from whichever is later out of publication or death. The difficulty is that if a 20 year old artist publishes a drawing and dies aged 100, then coypright term would be 150 years from publication. The US has different rules which make anything published before about 1923 (sorry, have to check date) out of copyright. Thus wikipedia accepts pictures here ot things published before that date on the grounds that US law applies to wiki computers. There is a further distinction depending on whether they were first published in the US or elsewhere, and some US states have different rules! However on commons it takes the broader view that it only accepts images free both in the US and in the country where they come from, which probably brings us back to the question of who the original artist was and when did they die. If the book cover in question does not have a design, say just gold lettering of the title or some such on a leather bound volume, then I don't think it would have copyright. It might then come under copyright of pieces of furniture.... Sandpiper (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

another question ! Take for example my great-grandmother, she died c1950 and took various photographs, some of which are worth of inclusion in Wikipedia. The idea of artistic copyright for her family snaps would never have crossed her mind and thus would'nt have been assigned in her will. She has perhaps 80 descendants. Where lies the copyright ?Rodolph (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright would form part of her legal estate and would be lumped in with anything else not specifically mentioned. There is normally a residuary beneficiary in a will who gets 'everything else'. Whoever that is would own it. If she said her estate was to be divided equally between her five children, then they each got 1/5 share. if she said Charley gets my chair, fred gets the table and bert gets whats left, then bert has it. If there was no will then it would be divided equally between however many claimants there are. I am talking about english law here, which is the only one I know anything about, but broadly the principle would be the same.

However...the executor of an estate has legal authority to dispose of or distribute the goods of a deceased person. They do not have to give any particular item to anyone unless it is specifically named as going to a particular person. Their legal duty is to obtain the value of the goods and give the money to the people concerned. They may choose to do this by giving items to one of the beneficiaries at an agreed valuation (fred gets the house, george gets the shares). I think it is entirely up to the executor how he chooses to dispose of things, so long as he properly shares out their monetary value. So my uninformed opinion would be that if no one has been formally granted ownership of the copyright, it is probably still just sitting in legal limbo, and the original executor would still have authority to dispose of it. I also seem to recall that executorship is inherited, so if the original executor has died, that person's executor inherits authority to act as executor in his place. I think this all means that if you wanted to sell the copyright there would be a lot of busy lawyers. If you are just granting permission to use something which has no commercial value, then you would be legally reasonably safe to informally get whoever was most convenient, either those entitled to ownership or the executor, to grant permission to use the picture. Best I can say, but I decline to take any legal responsibility should you take my non-professional advice! Sandpiper (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you ! I think I now understand. (the law, and Wiki carefullness, in this matter is a shame where it discourages spread of knowledge of certain lesser known artists or photographs of lesser folk, whose images would as a result remain in oblivion but for someone who knew them uploading the images, by necessity illegally, during the 70 year in copyright period).Rodolph (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Myself I find it curious how copyright lengths have extended more or less as the useful lifetime of material has increased. The copyright holders do not necessarily then publish the material they control, but simply refuse to allow it to be used by anyone. I am very sceptical this is of much benefit to the (frequently dead) original creators. Lifetime+ 50 was plenty long enough. By and large it is just a windfall bonus to companies which bought up the rights. The copyright laws (and all laws) exist to benefit society as a whole, and they are beginning to work the other way. If you have a model where it costs a lot of money to publish something, then you need a good return. If publication is essentially free, then what are we paying for? Sandpiper (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand, why for example has this photo not been deleted, if the Wikipedia people really cared about copyright (i.e. the welfare and credit of the artist-rather than just deleting for the sake of it like a fox killing hens) they'd have written something about this photo, (or is it anonymous-in which case I'm wrong) File:Robert Cecil, 1st Viscount Cecil of Chelwood - Project Gutenberg eText 15306.jpg 00:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Robert Smith (merchant)

I have nominated Robert Smith (merchant), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Smith (merchant). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Emeraude (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I find what you say absolutely extraordinary. He was a major business man in early modern Britain and a founder the Sun Fire Office as reconstituted in 1720. I would be grateful if you could apply such harshness to C20th pop singers and footballers.Rodolph (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why are you trying to delete this perfectly good article? Rodolph (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of Samuel Hahnemann

When was the beautiful painting of Hahnemann made? Thanks! Freital (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for asking. I'm told it's 1820s.Rodolph (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DecoyPigeons.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DecoyPigeons.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.

File:Small Lords logo.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Small Lords logo.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.

File:FingSilhouetteSteveAbbott23Feb2.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FingSilhouetteSteveAbbott23Feb2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.

File:FingaskTeaMungoMcCosh2006.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FingaskTeaMungoMcCosh2006.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.

File:24February2007Reeling.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:24February2007Reeling.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.

File:JohnGeorgeDodson.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JohnGeorgeDodson.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.

File:Houseportcullis.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Houseportcullis.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.

File:JamesEarlStanhopeDennerdetail.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JamesEarlStanhopeDennerdetail.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.

File:PotassiumCyanidePot.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PotassiumCyanidePot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.

File:GlassSlideofCulloden.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GlassSlideofCulloden.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.

File:FingaskFolliesatRoyalMedicalSociety2007.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FingaskFolliesatRoyalMedicalSociety2007.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.

File:FingasFollies2007KateF.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FingasFollies2007KateF.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.

File:GubanovaThreiplandGovorkov.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GubanovaThreiplandGovorkov.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.

File:FingaskMural&LoftyBuchanan2008.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FingaskMural&LoftyBuchanan2008.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.

File:Jane Aynscombe holding a peach, England, c1707.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jane Aynscombe holding a peach, England, c1707.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.

Notice

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User:Fastily. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.

Let me also note that if you want to ask people questions, you should use their talk pages, not their user pages. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well thanks for your support! If you looked closer you'd see that mine was not an attack, rather a feable attempt at defence. Rodolph (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)06:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Please explain why you deleted so many of my images?

Hi Rodolph. I listed your files for deletion at WP:FFD because they were unused anywhere on the site - Wikipedia is not an orphanage. If you feel that there is a need for these images, please consider re-uploading them. Many of your images were deleted non-controversially as part of a cleanup effort. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions or comments. Regards, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 17:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Do you know if I could have access to the deleted images for my own uses? Several of them were scans of unique prints, with the original prints lost or discarded because I thought they were safe on Wikipedia? Rodolph (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of noticing that an image has been orphaned, is it not a bit too much of a full time job to police one's own uploads; especially if one does'nt log-in every week.Rodolph (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide me with a list of images you want temporarily restored (to transfer to commons, etc.), I can do the needful. –xeno^talk 13:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolph, you might consider uploading freely-licensed images to Wikimedia Commons where they might be better received. –xeno^talk 17:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much for thatRodolph (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

when an image is out of copyright, to whom should it then be credited?

Afterall, if I made the scan or took the photo is it now then now mine, at least in terms of GDFL?Rodolph (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's out of copyright then it's out of copyright and in the public domain, you cannot relicense it under the GFDL. It should be credited to whoever originally made it/took the photograph/etc. Your credit will be for scanning and uploading the image. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. What are the correct license tags for say, a) an object made in 1750, b) an anon photo of known sitter of 1880, c) a portrait painting of 1710, d) an anon. copy of a known painting done 1830?22:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Bourchier

I have moved the section "Father" out of the article Henry Bourchier, 5th Earl of Bath into a new article George Bourchier as there was more than enough detail to create a separate article. As the Henry Bourchier article does not use inline citations, I am not sure which references were for George, so I have copied the lot over to the new article, but but them into further reading. As you had contributed most of the text for both articles, if you have time I would appreciated it if you could have a look at the new article, fix any obvious mistakes I have made, and sort out the references section. -- PBS (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks for the notice. I'll set to in a day or so. I've all but given up on Wikipedia after having so much gratuitously & ignorantly deleted and

trampled on, but you've done well.Rodolph (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harlinton church.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Harlinton church.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Memphisto (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Memphisto (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as ever Memphisto I'd love to dip you a vat of boiling oil.Rodolph (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fingask Castle Subscription Mural

The article Fingask Castle Subscription Mural has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail WP:N, as I'm unable to locate substantive treatment in reliable, independent sources. The first three references listed in the article cannot deal with this mural, since they predate its creation.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deor (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fingask Follies

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

Appears to fail WP:N, as I'm unable to find substantive treatment in reliable, independent sources. Almost all of the listed references predate the inception of this event and therefore clearly cannot deal with it, and it's unclear (1) whether the few remaining ones include significant material on the topic and (2) what portions of the article, if any, they're cited to support. In addition, the article's tone suggests that it was copied directly from some sort of promotional material.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deor (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Fingask Follies and Fingask Castle Subscription Mural

If you want the articles to be undeleted or to be transferred to your user space, you can request either of those actions at WP:REFUND. If they are restored to the article space, however, I will initiate a community discussion of their suitability at AfD, since I do not believe that the articles satisfy the Wikipedia notability guidelines (as I indicated in my prod rationales). Deor (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Why do people delete rather than have the patience to improve or wait for others to improve? It's all a bit intolerant.

Part of the problem was that some thug deleted all the photos that made those pages make sense.Rodolph (talk)

Hello, Rodolph. You have new messages at WP:REFUND.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnCD (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:C Silvy back of carte.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:C Silvy back of carte.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) 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God alone knows how to Tag these things correctly. Silvy is out of copyright and I made the copy.Rodolph (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Fingask Follies

I have nominated Fingask Follies, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fingask Follies. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Deor (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I am sorry you don't like what I did on the Fingask Follies page or at Fingask Castle, but your old versions are not gone for good until the article is deleted. The text is right there in the history. This is my rationale: We can't have the same detailed treatment of something in both places. So unless you think Fingask Follies is non-notable (the criterion for its having a page in the encyclopedia), there should not be an equally long treatment in Fingask Castle, just a summary because the castle article is on a related topic. The same goes for the mural, which I am inclined to think does not meet notability, otherwise I would summarise that section in the castle article too. (In any event while the mural article exists, there should be a main article note on that section too - feel free to add that yourself, since I assume you still want to save both articles.) More broadly: I believe the follies article meets notability, but most of teh sources seem to be offline. So as I said in my statement at AfD, to save that article is going to require you or someone else with access to them to put inline references into the article using the Patterson and de Salis sources (and the de Salis is not listed at OCLC and I cannot find it on Google either, so that requires full publication info to establish it exists - was it privately published? What is the author's full name?) and the Courier and Advertiser article also if it mentions the Follies. The material in the first half of the article about the pursuits of earlier owners of the castle is irrelevant to the Follies article and is getting in the way of people seeing the Follies themselves as worthy of an article, because it's padding. Some of that might be a useful addition to other parts of the article on the castle, and that goes for most of the sources you list in the Follies article, too. Notice that people are saying the sources cannot be relevant because they antedate the Follies? The Follies article should be entirely about the Follies. The other concern is to find some kind of source for all the info that remains in the Follies article. For example the list of topics for each year's Follies needs at least one footnote; where did you get it from? I have not made a Google search for sources myself yet, because from the look of it you have several, but I am stymied putting them in because they don't appear to be accessible online and I do not have access to any of these publications. . . . I'm sorry you are frustrated by the notability requirements, they are a bit odd, but now that it is at AfD there is close scrutiny and the article needs to be well referenced and all on the topic. Remember that notable in Wikipedia terms simply means it's worthy of being an article. I agree it is, but since it's at AfD it's got to demonstrate that fact. Please stick in footnotes for everything on the Follies you can, and we should be able to save this article.Yngvadottir (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well the road to hell and all that, yes you did mess it up in that I'd merged pretty much the whole mural article with the main Fingask one. You de-merged it leaving only a stub in the main article. The Mural page was then deleted.Rodolph (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Fingask Castle Subscription Mural

I have nominated Fingask Castle Subscription Mural , an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fingask Castle Subscription Mural . Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Deor (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia is shyteRodolph (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC); sorry that's gob-shyte Rodolph (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rodolph. You have new messages at Deor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Files listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 20 if you are interested in preserving them. Thank you. memphisto 12:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the notification. When I received the news I made it so that they were no longer orphans.

However, they were still deleted. Do you know why?Rodolph (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Bourchier, 5th Earl of Bath

Please can you have a look at Henry Bourchier, 5th Earl of Bath and add inline citations to the article as it is impossible to know which source supports which paragraph. Also please add page numbers to the citations as listing just the book is not adequate. Also what does

This article incorporates text from R. de Salis, R : B : M, London, 2009

mean? Many of the sources do not carry dates or publishers which needs to be added if someone is to find the correct source.-- PBS (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R. de Salis, R:B:M, London , 2009 is a reference to a pamphlet I wrote on Rachel Countess of Bath, Countess of Middlesex, or R:B:M as she signed herself.

is it really necessary to go through the whole thing justifying every line?Rodolph (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the publisher? -- PBS (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:V and WP:CITE. Yes it is necessary to source all the facts that are not common knowledge, which in a specialised historical biography like this means most of it. -- PBS (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Massimo de Martini

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

A tag has been placed on Massimo de Martini requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the notability of the subject, contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and give your reasons on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. memphisto 17:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:DeSalisCrimeanWarMedal.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DeSalisCrimeanWarMedal.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please restore this image. See below:

File:DeSalisCrimeanWarMedal.jpg The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the discussion was: Keep. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC) File:DeSalisCrimeanWarMedal.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rodolph (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). There are way too many images used in William Andrew Salius Fane de Salis, and this one really isn't needed. It is one of his brother's medals, not even his. Copyright status is somewhat unclear, and there is absolutely no need for this image in the article. I can't think of any good foreseeable encyclopedic use. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Keep I don't see any copyright issues here. The medal is from the 1800s and lacks any possible copyright. It certainly could be used elsewhere or kept on Commons. Buffs (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Keep in the article Not only keep it but keep it in the same article. If you beleive that it is useless remove his brother from the article.--46.246.173.61 (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section. Keep. No copyright issue as I took the photo. Nothing to loose by keeping it. Live and let live please.82.35.199.139 (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a response to your question at User_talk:Drilnoth#Crimean_War_medal. –Drilnoth (T/C) 20:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks!Rodolph (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Frank Stout sculpture.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Frank Stout sculpture.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: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. Eeekster (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{OTRS pending}} tags added. Rodolph (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Frank stout handstand.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Frank stout handstand.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: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. memphisto 18:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frank stout handstand.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Frank stout handstand.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for 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. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 14:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with File:RodolphFaneDeSalisbyGSWatson.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:RodolphFaneDeSalisbyGSWatson.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.prints.thepcf.org.uk/image/796152/george-spencer-watson-henry-rodolf-fane-de-salis-1854-1931-last-chairman-of-the-grand-junction-canal-company. As a copyright violation, File:RodolphFaneDeSalisbyGSWatson.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:RodolphFaneDeSalisbyGSWatson.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:RodolphFaneDeSalisbyGSWatson.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:RodolphFaneDeSalisbyGSWatson.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:RodolphFaneDeSalisbyGSWatson.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. memphisto 13:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many paintings by Watson are on Wikipedia, why does this one have to be deleted?Rodolph (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY the picture I uploaded should be deleted and not ALL the others already on Wikipedia by George Spencer Watson?Rodolph (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watson died in 1934. so is out of copyright.Rodolph (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:RodolphFaneDeSalisbyGSWatson.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RodolphFaneDeSalisbyGSWatson.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. memphisto 13:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Brett

Hi there. I'm just wondering why you would identify the above subject as a headhunter, as you did with this edit. Claret Ash 14:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Headhunter, because she was as Eade suggests in his recent book, Sylvia, Queen of the Headhunters, ergo as their (the Sarawak queen she could be considered one.

By the way I think it is a bit of a pity you dismantled the previous genealogical tree, as some useful info was lost in the process.Rodolph (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:1734MarriageSettlementSchaub&Cobham.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:1734MarriageSettlementSchaub&Cobham.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: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. Cloudbound (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Barclays bank cheque 1955.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Barclays bank cheque 1955.jpg. 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 are the copyright holder for 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) 08:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stan, some Numismatitists have applied for the cheque not to be deleted. I would say that there must be a good argument for its survival on Wikipedia.Rodolph (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodolph. I have now deleted it because the cheque itself contained original emblems such as the eagle logo and a "two cents" mark. So this is most likely still copyrighted to the printer or their artist. De728631 (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your reply. Still, a wee shame that the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. Rodolph (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Rodolph de Salis

Hi. I'm a waterway writer working on a piece about Dragon Fly, the boat owned by Henry Rodolph de Salis, for Waterways World magazine; I'm working from the 1895 issue of the Engineer which had an extensive article on it. Do you know where I might find a photo of HR? (Or, indeed, any other information about this fascinating character that I might not have come across!) Thanks for any help - I'm richard@systemeD.net if an e-mail address would be easier. --ChaRleyTroniC (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Richard, I've e-mailed you.Rodolph (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See File:Rudie de Salis 1869.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodolph2 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter, 5th Count de Salis-Soglio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neufchâtel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Charles Filgate may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*Margaret Penelope Filgate (21 Jan 1910-)<ref>[Hugh Montgomery-Massingberd (editor), ''Burke's Irish Family Records'', Burke's Peerage Ltd, 1976,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hôtel Drouot may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

held at Drouot.jpg|thumbnail|Frontispiece for a significant auction held at Drouot in May 1914. (showing lot 8, a Renoir ''Baigneuse'' 1895, (80 x 65 cms).]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dawley Court, Middlesex in 1929.jpg

I changed the license tags for you in case that you're not familiar with other tags. By the way, this image may be copyrightable in the United States. Has it been published in the UK and the U.S. previously? --George Ho (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Album cover Bellonna.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Altes Gebau.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Arms of the City of London on an horse blanket 2011.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Bath Candlestick maker's mark on base.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Bath Candlestick one of a pair.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Bath Candlestick centre.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:BedaleHunt2005.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:BedaleTerrier2005.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Bourne House 1997.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:BourneHouseRoof.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:BourneHouseEast23August2005.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Bourchier Tower Sept 2005.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Coachman in red cape London Nov 2011.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Trevor, 22nd Baron Dacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boodles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]