Thanks for uploading Image:20060531 028.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds 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. 18:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed material from St. Michaels University School that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.
Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Docg09:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to step on the Doc's toes, but this user requested my assistence. The school may not be a living person (although there was an ArbCom ruling which extended WP:BLP to groups of living persons), but the students in question are. I'm not going to block you, because this might still be a misunderstanding on your part as to Wikipedia policies. However, once more, and I'll block, if I notice. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)16:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will echo Arthur Rubin's comment. The school may not be a living person, but the people you are naming are and fall within the purview of WP:BLP. You are also within 1 reversion of a 24 hour editing ban for violation of the Three Revert Policy in any case. Going alphabetically through the entire list of Administrators until you find one who might support you is unlikely to succeed - Doc is absolutely correct in his interpretation of Wikipedia policies. -- Arwel (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
With regards to your edits to this article, the information you wish to add is about living people. Living people can cause Wikipedia a lot of trouble in the courts - especially if they feel offended. As a result, we need to uphold the highest standards when adding information about living people. This applies whether or not a living person is the subject of an article or simply incidental to it. The information you wish to add in this article could be seen as defamatory. Our highest standards, then, indicate this information should be both relevant to the article and thoroughly sourced. After reviewing your revisions, it's clear that the information you wish to add to the article may not be terribly significant to the subject of the article, and it included no sources at all. Thus it appears that the editors who have removed this information are acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. I hope this helps you understand the nature of the disagreement – and what you must do if you wish your edits to prevail. Rklawton17:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to your messages on other users' talk pages about your dispute on St. Michaels University School, please read Wikipedia:Canvassing. Spamming other users to seek support for a position may be considered disruptive in Wikipedia. You are not helping your case by doing so, and may be increasing the odds that you will end up blocked for disruption. -- Donald Albury12:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you don't understand why your edits are being removed from St. Michaels University School. You should refer to these Wikipedia policy pages:
Wikipedia:No original research: Information derived strictly from your own personal knowledge or research cannot be posted to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: Information must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.
Hi. I read your help message even though it was not in my talk-page. Well, if an administartor is menacing you because he does not agree with you in how should an aspect of an article be, then he seems to be abusing of his power; since, usually, only vandals should be blocked. Of course, I have not yet heard Doc Glasglow´s point of view... But, in the way you say it, it seems to me as administrator abuse. Also, I have got you a question: What is the article of which you and Doc Glasglow are discusing about? I tried with Living Person, but found no results since it did not exist.
You can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. The article was tagged by a Chinese speaker as a copyright violation. I would have deleted it any way because it was written like an advertisement. Examples include the use of coloured headings, and spam phrases like The 5 theme colours, cobalt blue, mustard yellow, orange, red and green are chosen to reflect the festive mood of each of the zones. It also includes two beach environment outdoor swimming pools, extensive landscaped gardening and cascades to experience the tropical adventure and Inside, one can pamper itself in the 25-meter Metropolitan Art-Deco indoor swimming pool, or dip into the Japanese spa featuring 5 different aroma therapeutical and mineral ingredients specially introduced by Caribbean Coast.
You should note that the images had all previously been deleted because they did not give a verifiable source, so were assumed also to be copyright violations. You should also check whether the text meets the notability guidelines.
I find a page which i regular visit: Caribbean Coast, has been deleted. The reason has not connection to the page on wikipedia. I would like to restore the deleted page. Please help.
You can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. User:Ohconfucius tagged the article as db-spam, db-copyvio). I checked the page given for the copyright, which seemed to be the wrong link, but I deleted anyway since it was clearly written like an advertisement. You should note, incidentally, that articles must be neutral and not pro-communist, or pro- Taiwan or pro-democracy. Jimfbleak.talk.jimfbleak15:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The developer seems to have replaced the site with information relating to another development, but I am confident that, at the time the db-copyvio tag was put on the article, the url was correct. The article, since reposted, appears to have the same copyvio problem. Ohconfucius09:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Caribbean Coast. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.caribbeancoast.com.hk in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDLor released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Caribbean Coast with a link to where we can find that note;
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Caribbean Coast with a link to the details.
Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Caribbean Coast saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.
Although the copyright status seems clearer now, I think there are still issues. You need to provide independent verifiable sources that show why this development meets the notability guidelines. It also reads in part like an advertisement eg "enjoy a coffee...."Jimfbleak.talk.jimfbleak05:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you uploaded Image:20060531_035.jpg, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image, and that, just as with all of your text contributions, you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.
This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.
If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.
If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week.
Hi. When you uploaded Image:20060531 035.jpg, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.
This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.
If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.
If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.
