User talk:Shehal
|
to all wikipedia moderators
[edit]Most articles I have published on kanabona.com under the science category are topics of science presented in a different way - with the intention of allowing non-science-literate people to understand. I added links to articles from kanabona.com to various wikipedia articles with the intention of allowing non-science-literate readers to find a simplified version of it.
As per wikipedia constraints I have not added anymore links from kanabona.com.
Your edits to a.o. Cone cell
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Cone cell do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
January 2008
[edit] Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Time dilation. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Quaeler (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Time Dilation. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Time Dilation
[edit]I don't think you get the idea of Wikipedia. If you have reached the conclusion that the article is not accessible to the lay-person, the correct solution is to either modify the article or introduce a new one. The answer is not to add a link to an external blog. Quaeler (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
External link to personal blog in "Density of air"
[edit]Note what others stated above. WP policy states that placing external links to your own blog is to be avoided, unless you are a notable person in the field. I have noticed that you have done this repeatedly in several articles, including "Density of air". If you have relevant information to add, please add it to the article. I think what you are doing could be considered link spamming. Djd sd (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Density of air, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia. {{{2}}} You've been warned numerous times concerning adding links to your personal blogs. Quaeler (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
placing external links to your own blog
[edit]Most of the science related articles posted on kanabona.com are with citations and written as articles as opposed to blog posts. These articles are not rantings. Citations and deductions are presented in these articles.
"I think what you are doing could be considered link spamming"
[edit]I think what the Quaeler meant to say was: "I deleted your link and decided to throw a stone at you just in case what you are doing IS (as opposed to COULD BE) link spamming"
A tag has been placed on File:15 jan 10 eclipse srilanka jaffna library.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
- state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
- add the relevant copyright tag.
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 that has been nominated for deletion (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 page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ww2censor (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:15 jan 10 eclipse srilanka jaffna.jpg
[edit]
A tag has been placed on File:15 jan 10 eclipse srilanka jaffna.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [2], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
- state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
- add the relevant copyright tag.
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 that has been nominated for deletion (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 page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ww2censor (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:15 jan 10 eclipse srilanka jaffna nallur.jpg
[edit]A file that you uploaded or altered, File:15 jan 10 eclipse srilanka jaffna nallur.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. --ww2censor (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Solar ecilipse images
[edit]Hello, and thanks for your astonoushing solar ecilipse images! You should release them under a license, that allows commercial use, or they can not be included in Wikipedia. As the author of the images you can simply change their license information in Flickr to CC-BY-SA (Creative Commons - Attribution - ShareAlike), and edit the image license information (or just notify me, after you have changed the license in Flickr). If you do not change the license, the images will unfortunately be deleted from Wikipedia. --hydrox (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
hi i have changed the license to
 | The copyright holder of this file has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author, as if in the public domain. However, as a courtesy, a link back to Shehal Joseph would be appreciated.
|
is that okay?
- Yes, thank you very much, it's very okay! May I also suggest moving the two images to Wikipedia Commons, so that they can be easily used across all different language Wikipedias, not just the English-language edition? The new license is compatible with the stricter free content upload requirements to the Commons. The license and the attribution link will remain in effect naturally, the only difference being that the images will be more accesible. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. Thanks again, --hydrox (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hello again Shehal. As it turns out, you editing the license template does not seem to be enough. The images were again nominated for deletion in the Commons because the license in Flickr is not the same as the one displayed on the image. I would suggest that you edit the images' license information in Flickr to "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons", and we should be fine. Your current license (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons) does not allow commercial reuse, which both Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons require. --hydrox (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
done. changed flickr license info
File permission problem with File:Malay_Biryani_prepared_with_Sri_Lankan_Spices.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Malay_Biryani_prepared_with_Sri_Lankan_Spices.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-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 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. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Closedmouth (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The file File:Unawatuna KingfisherRestaurant.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused image, no context to determine possible future use.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
