Hi, I'm responding to your question at Wikipedia:Newcomers help page. If you let me know what was the name of the file then I can delete it for you.--Commander Keane 17:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you are saying that the version you originaly saved at Handsworth Park, Birmingham UK is incorrect, you can just edit the page and modify it - there's no need the delete the previous revision.--Commander Keane 18:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Handsworth Park wiki" was the incorrectly uploaded file, but the link you just gave me to "Handsworth Park, UK" looks correct (tho' it may not yet conform to Wiki convention which I've still to learn). Can you tell me why I can't get "Handsworth Park" on the Wikipedia Search. Has it yet to be vetted? Also if is accepted how do I link it to other Handsworth references in Wiki? Thanks Simon

• I actually just moved Handsworth Park, Birmingham UK to Handsworth Park (since it's the only one, I don't think there is a need to establish that it's in Birmingham).
• The search index only gets updated every few weeks (we have limited development team), but if you hit "Go" then you should be taken straight to Handsworth Park.
• You can make a link by enclosing a word in square brackets. For example:
  • [[Handsworth]] looks like Handsworth, and
  • [[Handsworth, West Midlands|WhateverYouLike]] looks like WhateverYouLike
• I'll go through the article and add some standard Wikipedia style feature if you like. Also, the information isn't copyrighted is it? I notice that it is a precis - is that a free resource? I'll remove your name and contacts detail from the article, and put them on the talk page (except your email - since you might get spam).--Commander Keane 20:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, remember to sign your edits on talk pages. You can do that by typing --~~~~.--Commander Keane 20:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Commander K

Many thanks. Yes "Go" worked v. satisfyingly.

I like the tidying up you've done as well. The material is not copyrighted. The only contentious item I'd suspect is the contested reasons for moving the Carnival/Festival to another site although it had its Birmingham origins in Handsworth Park.

I am trying to grasp some of the other instructions. Do you mean I must type in "..____" or is it just "____" or even "----"? Repeat please.

I was going to go to the other Handsworth references (some of them - not the Handsworth in Sheffield) and insert a link back to my entry but although I am not unfamiliar with hyperlink insertion, i can't quite understand your instructions. Do square brackets make the insertion become a hyperlink?

Best Simon

Well to type your signature you literally type the tilda 4 times. The tilda looks like ~. So if you put ~~~~ on any page, when you save (or show preview) your signature and date will be displayed.

The linking examples I gave you were for internal links - to other Wikipedia articles. What you probably want is to know how to do external links. Examples:

• [http://www.google.com Google is a website] looks like Google is a website
• [http://www.yahoo.com] looks like [1]
• http://www.altavista.com looks like http://www.altavista.com

--Commander Keane 23:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Commander

When I try to edit my entry. Carnival is misspelled as "Carnivale" the edit link brings up only the references and not the main body of text.

Sorry to bother you with all these questions as I learn. Also did you put in the link to Handsworth Park in the Handsworth reference? I wasn't me as far as I know as I could not bring up that part of the text. Any reasons?

S

You are not bothering me - helping new users is what I like doing around here! The problem you are having with not being able to edit "Carnivale" is that you are using the [edit] button near the "References" section instead of the "edit this page" tab which is at the very top of the page. Using "edit this page" will allow you to view/edit the whole article.

I didn't add the link to Handsworth Park in Handsworth, West Midlands - it existed previously. Oh yes, and try to rember to sign - it makes it easier for me to make it to your talk page.--Commander Keane 23:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably mention that ~~~~ doesn't work in edit summaries, just normal pages.--Commander Keane 23:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd removed the references you added. Roma is nation of cca 8 millions and the links you added do not really feel as /that/ relevant for the article. Pavel Vozenilek 19:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can use Category:Roma people to classify your article. The main article is already too big and should be splitted. Alternatively, Category:History of Roma people could be used (I can create it you prefere).

Using category means adding text like [[Category:XYZ]] to the bottom of the article. Pavel Vozenilek 22:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help wikify my latest entry on Black Patch Park? Also, a volunteer has taken out my x-reference to Roma people (I realise this is a v.sensitive issue) but the history of this park revolves around the way the Romany were evicted from it. My long term friend - a Gypsy and campaigner for Gypsy rights and author of a book on Gypsies of the New Forest - Len Smith - has told me that Black Patch Park is well known in Romany History. We now have the irony that the present campaign to protect the park is being assisted by the descendents of the very families who were forcibly evicted from the Black Patch to create a park for the new industrial workers. Do you not think this is a Roma People case study worthy of a x-reference between Black Patch and Roma people?

Many thanks for your assistance. By the way i do not resent the editing. it is what Wiki is all about and i appreciate the opportunity to make the case but in order to do it properly I value your help. Simon

• Roma people. The place to discuss whether or not the references should be included is on the talk page of Roma people: Talk:Roma people. See what other editors think there.
• I will gladly take a look at Black Patch Park for you.
• Please remeber to sign. I explained it above, but if you want further explantion on how to do it I will happily elaborate.--Commander Keane 20:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signing

You just need to use ~~~~ on talk pages (user talk pages and article talk pages) when you make a new comment. Articles are never signed. You place it after your comment. Don't worry about the comments you haven't signed previosuly, just sign from now on. For example when I make this comment (explaining how to sign) I will place ~~~~ at the end, and you will see: Commander Keane 22:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sibadd!

I've just unpicked the changes you made, where you converted all references to Fred Dinenage to Fred Dineage and then attempted to redirect the article.

Mr Dinenage's name is spelt Dinenage, despite its pronunciation. You can see this by visiting the Meridian website, Transdiffusion and Fred Dinenage at IMDb.

Let me know on my talk page if you've got any questions! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 11:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sibadd!

Heh, don't worry about it! If you lined up all the embarassing mistakes I've made on the 'pedia from end to end... well, it's a long, long list, put it that way! I only knew about Fred's spelling in the first place because of a long thread some years ago on Paramount Teletext, of all places. Eventually, to solve the question, someone from Paramount rang Meridian and asked them - and they put the guy through to Fred and he laughingly confirmed it. It's stuck in my mind since then! It's also one of those regular threads that pop up on MHPchat every couple of months.

So, don't let in bother you! You did right making the changes you thought were right (as we say here: Be Bold!). Keep adding stuff to Wikipedia. We need you! Cheers :) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a friend of commander keane and here to help. First you have to upload the image you want from the toolbox on the left side (upload file). If it's already uploaded, then you have to type [[Image:Portrait.jpg|thumb|This is a portrait of someone.]] Let me (or commander keane) know if you have some more questions. Happy editing. :) Gflores ^Talk 02:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your email, I presume you are talking about Image:BlackPatchSnow.jpg for Black Patch Park. It needs to be under a particular license, an acceptable one at that. Choose one from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and ensure your friend, Karen, approves of it. You can try {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} or {{No rights reserved}} or {{GFDL}} or any others in the sections of for image creators, public domain, free licenses, or fair use in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. hope that answers your query. -- Zondor 12:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

including information about the author would be nice. -- Zondor 12:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the new license edit, it looks acceptable. It has as much information as possible to help maintain it. You can sign your username with it. You may want to add email addresses but that may be too much. -- Zondor 13:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Zondor Sibadd 16:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[[reply]

You can ask me questions anytime on talk page, that's fine! I guess someone will edit your writing sooner or later (edited mercilessly is the popular phrase for it) and conflicts can be frustrating. If you keep cool, all will be well.

I read Denys Rayner and found it to be very enjoyable. I fixed up the images so the captions display. Other that that I couldn't find anything to improve! If you are looking for ways to better an article you can take a look at Wikipedia:Featured articles for inspiration.--Commander Keane 14:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a note/comment via the 'Discussion' tab on the Denys Rayner article. Suggest it would be usefull if all the discussion re Denys takes place there so that all readers of the main article can comment if they feel the need. Boatman 08:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, this sounds tricky. If you feel you own the photo you could release it under a free licence, but I feel that it's a bit like Charles Dickens giving up a copy of his latest novel - you don't really own it (but I'm not a lawyer or anything like that, just a guess).

However, we can use a copyrighted photo from a book under the Fair use provision. For example, if the image is the only one available of him, then it would be fair use (even though it is copyrighted). In that case you would use {{Fair use in|Denys Rayner}} on the image page.--Commander Keane 04:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responsing to your google query, I did read it before but it slipped my mind. The way google indexes (records) web pages is something of a mystery. Sometimes it will index a Wikipedia page in two days. In this case I think google will pick it up eventually, we will just have to be patient. I don't think we can influence google indexing. Howver, for a better google explanation you might like to try the Reference desk.--04:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:DenysRayner1943.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. To my knowledge physical ownership of a print of a photograph doesn't confer any ownership of the copyright or an implied licence to copy. Morwen - Talk 14:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darn it, but thanks, Morwen Sibadd 15:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its on Tiego Ave in Toronto, Ontario. joshbuddy^talk 18:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks. Your answer passed on to the person who asked. Sibadd 18:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, it's generally considered bad form to ask comments on the actual userpage (like you did on User:Commander Keane - do it on the talk page instead. Thanks! JJE 21:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. lessons being learned Sibadd 21:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at Talk:Black Patch Park, Natalya seems to agree that a merge is needed. The correct procedure is to add merge tags to both articles (Natalya has already done this) and then discuss what the better title should be. There is no need to contact the original author of Black Patch, since they have no ownership of the article. However you can if you wish, it seems to be Etat (they haven't edited for a month though).

So just wait a few days for discussion, and carry out the merge of material into Black Patch Park. Once you have merged the info in to Black Patch Park you can make Black Patch a redirect to Black Patch Park (by replacing it's contents with #REDIRECT [[Black Patch Park]]). If you want some help merging, just ask me.--Commander Keane 04:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to deal with the issue of disambiguation. Instead of redirecting Black Patch we could make it a disambiguation page, with Black Patch Park one of the entries. Just give me a shout if you need a hand with that.--Commander Keane 05:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Commander Keane. I think Black Patch Park might be better becasue there are somany Black Patch's in UK and possibly elsewhere. it's a generic name for many post-industrial waste spaces! Sowe could have a reference back to Black Patch Park or a disambiguation (sorry still not on top of this)next time a Black Patch entry for elsewhere appears in Wiki Sibadd 16:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The merge looks good, thanks for taking care of it. My only suggestion might be to rearrange the pictures so they flow with the article a little better and don't move the contents around, but that's just a stylistic choice. :) One suggestion, you might want to employ the use of the "Show preview" button more (if you are not doing so already). That way, you can see what your edit will look like before you save the page, and if you want to change it you won't have to re-edit it, making it a bit easier.

Commander Keane had a point above about turning Black Patch into a disambiguation page (rather than a redirect) - this sounds like a good idea, and I'll bring the idea up on the talk page. Please add your thoughts. -- Natalya 15:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links can be hard to work with! I've gone ahead and formatted the links on the two pages, but I'll try and explain the different ways they work so you can change them as you would like, and know for next time.

• By typing the URL of the link, you get the link as a URL.

Typing:

http://www.google.com

Makes:

http://www.google.com

• By putting the URL in single brackets, you get a numbered link.

Typing:

[http://www.google.com]

Makes:

[2]

• By putting the URL in single brackets and then putting text after the URL but still in the brackets, you get a link with whatever the text is.

Typing:

[http://www.google.com Google]

Makes:

Google

• And finally, by putting text outside of the brackets after a link, you get regular text, plus whatever you had with the brackets.

Typing:

[http://www.google.com Google], a search engine

Makes:

Google, a search engine

I hope that helps! For more information, you can take a look at the "How to link" section of External links. -- Natalya 22:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really really helpful even though iot;s straightforward once explained. Many thanks, Natalya Sibadd 02:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I'm glad it was helpful :) -- Natalya 03:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[3]: It's certainly copyrighted and too restrictive for Wikipedia in that you can't reproduce, reprint, or freely used. It really fits into none of any of the free license categories. The only one that can be considered is Fair Use, that is, in small or reduced proportions and that is used fairly. Fair use can be things like samples, logo, cover arts, promotional material, screen shots, publicty photos, etc. (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use). Free licenses are much encouraged over fair use ones. -- Zondor 09:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:BlackPatchSnow.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 10:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElectricEye. I'm a little confused. Are you gently telling me I am doing something wrong.I'm not quite sure why I have been sent this tutorial and I will be glad of advice.Sibadd 19:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that you've done anything wrong. I just noticed no one ever welcomed you to Wikipedia. :) --ElectricEye 19:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever checked out Wikipedia:Village pump? There's a lot of things going on there, you might be interested. If not, that's fine too. --ElectricEye 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's really nice. Sorry for sounding a bit apprehensive. I am so enjoying Wikipedia and using my entry on Denys Rayner as a basis for a possible biography. Having the entry is great because I can refer informants to it and they can either mailme directly or edit the entry in Wiki. Brilliant! Thanks again for your welcome and I will check through the tutorial advice in more detail. I know there's a lot to learn.Sibadd 19:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.

1. OrphanBot will not even look at a properly tagged image. You can re-upload the image if you don't know the copyright tag templates by heart. When uploading an image, select the appropriate option from the dropdown "licensing" menu below the image summary.

2. Contact Carnildo, the worthy owner and operator of the aforementioned robot.

Good luck! --Chodorkovskiy 04:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks good, I made a few small changes, and added some categories, if you could provide some references then that would pretty much complete it. well done. Martin 14:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks v.much Bluemoose. Look i haven't worked out if this is the right way to reply to someone who's helped and improved someone else's work. Anyway until I hear otherwise thanks. I'm a little confused about adding references as most of what i know i know because the subject of the article was my stepfather and I have been collaborating with the writer Paul Peacock who's writing his biography. For me the Wiki article has been an amazing exercise in trying to summarise the life of a person from whom I'd never tried to stand back, but I hope I've also produced a piece that is also interesting anhd useful to others. Perhaps I should put JH's published books in references along with the Nugent Report. Any suggestions? Can you also have a look over my entry on Denys Rayner another person who influenced me a great deal and who died in 1967. I am seriously thinking of expanding the article on Wikipedia into a fuller length biography, but working up the Wikipedia piece has been an excellent discipline.Sibadd 15:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I havent had time to fully read it, but it looks good too. As for references, anything (book, internet site etc.) that can be used to verify the information would be useful, as you have done on Denys Rayner. Martin 15:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll see what I can do even though I know nothing about Denys Rayner. --ElectricEye (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes you did the right thing, although it is best to leave an edit summary along the lines of "reverted vandalism" or abreviated to "rvv", if it becomes persistent then an admin may block the user or the IP address. Martin 18:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sibadd!

Thanks for letting me know about the vandalism to Denys Rayner and thanks for your quick revert of the vandal.

This vandal was an AOL user. Because AOL is incorrectly configured as an ISP, their users are effectively unaccountable when online. Whilst this may have positive implications for privacy, in practice it means that AOL users get a very much diminished internet experience and are routinely banned from many websites. AOL so far has refused to correctly configure their systems to send an identifying header that would still allow anonymity but prevent abuse.

This vandal, under that IP address, vandalised Denys Rayner and another random article. Under other IP addresses they will have vandalised other articles (they used an edit summary designed to specifically distract the Recent Changes patrollers from investigating).

Vandalism of Wikipedia is, unfortunately, a fact of life. It happens. There's no way of preventing it, and little than can be done to stop it without taking away the essential Wiki-ness of Wikipedia. All we can do is revert it on sight, just like you did. We have tools to help in this and a dedicate group of people at the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit who monitor every new article and changed article in an attempt to cure vandalism as it happens. I estimate that our average time between an article being vandalised and it being restored is well under a minute! ➨ ЯЄDVERS 19:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Boats8July06.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. 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've formatted the lyrics a bit, which looks a bit better. Let me know if you'd like it different. Along the line of including lyrics in an article, take a look at WP:SONG#Lyrics, which discusses copyright issues of lyrics. -- Natalya 22:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:BlackPatchSnow.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 09:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:ChubVenables.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. 09:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:SaveBPP.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. 04:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sibadd, I've been following the development of the Black Patch Park and your recent comments to User:Pigsonthewing. It really does help to skim Wikipedia to get an idea of what is considered encyclopedic and what is considered an essay here.

Some of it is stylistic: the kind of chatty "In all likelihood they'd been camping thereabout unheeded" and "such-and-such tells us" sort of phrasing that's fine in an article but you won't see in an encyclopedia. Contact addresses are considered promotional: "'Enquiries may be sent to: Hon. Sec., The Friends of Black Patch Park, Centre of the Earth, 42 Norman Street, Winson Green, Birmingham England B18 7EP'". Other issues are about the way Wikipedia's sourcing system works: material has to come from reliable third-party sources (as defined in WP:RS) so statements from personal websites and YouTube vids are taken with more than a certain caution, and unpublished private e-mails ("'An e-mail received by the Friends on 22 February 2007 suggests that...'") are completely out.

Rather than getting despondent, I'd advise you to take a bit of time to adapt to - and we've all been through this - the ways in which Wikipedia works that differ from, say, a local history journal. In many genres, credibility is established by identity and personal credentials; but because of Wikipedia's open system, credibility is established by citation of reliable third-party references.

Trust how experienced editors perceive an article. If they put a "personal reflection or essay" or "lack of citation" tag on an article, the tags are there to help other editors, not as an attack on the integrity of the original contributor. Such global tags, pointing out an overall stylistic issue, are normal here. Tearlach 13:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tags which indicate that the article is written like an essay do not mean that the article is at threat from deletion. Reading through the article, it is clear it is notable and worth keeping on Wikipedia so if a tag proposing the deletion of the article is placed on the article, I can remove per Notability (part of the Wikipedia guide which you said you didn't want to read). So that is cleared up, you do not need to worry about the article itself.

The problem with Black Patch Park is the lack of references to statements. Basically, as Pigsonthewing has pointed out, there are statements which need supporting with links to websites or to names of books which say exactly the same thing or explain it. This significantly increases the quality of the article.As you appear to have knowledge on the subject, you should reference the article with tags to show where the information has come from. Saying that you know the information is not good and it can not be used as a source. Sources can be internet links, books, leaflets, images (maps, scanned leaflets etc.). Basically, anything outside of Wikipedia which is reliable other than the editor itself.

The style it is written in is actually quite good now. Recent edits have removed the parts which damaged the article in terms of written quality. It included a lot of quotes which whilst can be good, they can also be overwhelming and in this case, they also seemed unnecessary.

The main thing to remember with an article is to provide factual information which can be supported by sources. Do not add trivial information though as this is not what you would find in an encyclopedia.

If you have any more problems or queries, message me on my talk page, thanks and happy editing! - Erebus555 17:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: This is so pleasing - and helpful. I can now see my way to understanding the problems. thanks Erebus Simon Baddeley 18:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Do not waste your time writing a message to me. I am no longer in support of Wikipedia and have joined the ranks of those who oppose it. --ElectricEye (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Jack3.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Jack3.jpg is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Jack3.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 16:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:JackatJWT.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. 23:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SaveBPP.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) 00:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you see the links as an improvement. Perhaps "nonsense" was a little strong in fact, but it seemed fairly clear from the other entries ont eh same page that the bracketed location after the name was siply the place of residence recorded when the person concerned entered the services. Had West Kirby actually been mentioned in the citation, it might have been a reasonable conclusion to draw, but the London Gazette website still isn't that easy to search, so I'd got a bit frustrated sorting it all out - and recent change sto the site mean that all the old urls no longer work, so there's goodness knows how many references to try and fix - and of course some of thedates previously in the article didn't quite match up with what I eventually dug out for the decorations, which mad eit even harder to find what I was looking for. David Underdown 21:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what makes Wiki so good - if people are ready to be as assiduous. Yes I found the Gazette rather hard going. You've made access (from my point of view) much easier. Best wishes Simon Baddeley 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your photo of the small yacht in Bequia is terrific. I am in Bequia now, on my 4th visit on my own yacht and wow, I would love to have been able to visit back in the 60s when that photo was taken! There is about 100 yachts here right now. Is it a centerboard boat? Its shockingly close to shore and all the beaches here are pretty shallow that close to my knowledge. I am thinking of printing your photo out and going for a walk, to see if I can find the exact angle you took that shot from and take a current day one to add to the Bequia article for the shocking comparison! Russeasby (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the flattering remark about my photo of long ago. 'Young Tiger' was a fin keel boat with a draft of less than 30 inches - they were ballast keels so gave great stability in rough weather but made her a bit slower than a single keel boat. We loved being able to get her so close to shore and the fact that she'd stay upright when tide stranded. I will try to miss the comparison. I know why you say 'shocking'. The human imprint...etc. How our species swarms upon the earth! I'm no better, just luckier. http://democracystreet.blogspot.com/search?q=clouds+collected Good sailing and safe landfalls. Happy New Year 2008. SimonSimon Baddeley (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simon, thanks for the kind words on my talk page (and fixing the spelling errors on my user page, kind of humorous that many of them were right in the section I suggested its okay to fix my spelling!). When you say "ballast keels" is that the same as what I understand to be "bilge keels"? like on many of the westerlys? a 30" draft should would be handy in cruising! Especially spots like the Bahamas where some of the best spots are beyond where normal boats can get. I intend to cross the atlantic this year, St Martin to Azores and on into the med, the eastern med is what I fancy (particularly adriatic sea, greece, turkey and the black sea), hope to spend a couple years there. Russeasby (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Have a look at Denys Rayner's wiki entry (mostly written by me) where there's a reference to his enjoyment of the various arguments about bilge ballast keels. I have a 27 foot Snapdragon moored in Corfu. She has bilge ballast keels but they are the same shape on both sides. Rayner's version were smooth on the outside and were given a shape on the inside intended to create a Venturi or Bernoulli effect as on an plane wing. The idea was that when going to windward the deeper lee keel would help haul the boat to windward (or at least resist leeway) while the same effect on the windward keel would exert a 'pull-down' righting moment. These keels were tested in the tank lab at Southampton University by Rayner's successor concerned about production costs. David Sanders, Westerly's managing director abandoned these keels on the basis that the results were inconclusive - mainly in relation to the hypothesised role of the windward keel on a heel. Its closeness to the surface, when the boat was heeled, suggested it created slowing bubble-drag which off-set the slight advantage given by the lee keel in resisting leeway. I chatted to an academic at Southampton University Marine Lab in 2006 when I was researching Rayner's life. He said he confirmed the view that one effect off set the other, and that the modern solution used on some racing yachts is to have these assymmetric keels but as dagger boards, not as ballast which remains in the centre - though not in a keel. On a beat the windward assymetric keel is hauled up. This involves technical gadgetry that would have contradicted Rayner's idea of making affordable family boats that could creek crawl and cross oceans, but it goes some way to vindicate ideas, applied by Rayner but pioneered by Lord Riverdale in a series of boats called 'Bluebird' starting in the 1930s.Hope I haven't bored you. Rayner loved the debate and when it died down he'd send a letter to the yachting press to get it going again! I have to say that for me these keels were great for getting close to the shore, lying upright when the tide went down, and feeling safe in a sea. They were wonderful in the Bahamas. I can't say that performance to windward or ghosting was anything that worried me. When the going was slow I'd just set the self-steering and read a good book. Fine if you're not into racing or short of time - which I wasn't in those days.Good sailing and let me know if you are headed for the Ionian s.j.baddeley@bham.ac.uk Simon Baddeley (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand. This was a "family" image taken by a friend for our family album of a boat owned by my family built for us by the subject of this Wikipedia article. The issue of copyright simply didn't arise. Of course the photo was intended for the public domain with full permission for its use. Sorry I haven't replied until now but I had not re-visited this entry until recently. I see the image is still in the article so I hope the problem is resolved. if not please advise. Simon Baddeley (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:JackOoT.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. Skier Dude (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image is not in use anywhere in Wikipedia. To determine this, simply click on the link to the picture above, and then at the bottom of the page look at the "File links" section. Skier Dude (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skier Dude. Happy New Year 2009. If this image is not in use anywhere it's right for it to be deleted. Not sure how this happened as it is my image (or rather my stepfather's, which I inherited) but thanks for sorting it out.Simon Baddeley (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simon - I hope you're still around - your last item on this talk page seems to be a couple of years ago.

The article on Black Patch Park seems to be pretty good, and useful to me as part of my swatting up on things in and around the Birmingham Soho Ward, which wraps around Black Patch in the odd way that the Birmingham - SAndwell border runs. One possible line of editing would be to explain the name - that it was called the "Black PAtch" because of the colour after being used as a rubbish dump for the industry around it. Then the only reason the Romas moved there was because no-one else wanted to live there, so it was the only space available to them. (My sourse is hearing Carl Chinn on BBC WM.) Please contact me if we can work together on articles in this general area. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've already communicated by e-mail. Ive passed this exchange on to Andrew Simons, Hon Sec The Friends of Black Patch Park <andrew.simons@blueyonder.co.uk> Now you are politically involved in the future of this area I hope he and you and we can make common cause, as well as working on locally relevent Wiki pieces. Simon Baddeley (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Henry Maine article does look as if it's from a Britannica biography written a long time ago. I'm vexed to find that the sections on publications, references and links present last time I looked at the article were removed in a revision at 22.27 on 25 February 2010. I've restored these. The removal of such key sections erodes NPOV, removing evidence for views whose neutrality may be disputed.

The Maine article isn't mine although contributed the photo of Maine as a young man from a family archive.

I'm aware of controversies about Maine's work - from the time they were published - and the likelihood that the neutrality of a Wiki piece about him might be challenged. As author of other Wiki articles - Handsworth Park, Denys Rayner, Jack Hargreaves - I'm used to the iterative method of editing. I wish Yamara [[4]] could have changed the Maine article the same way, by adding or questioning facts that can be substantiated rather than posting a NPOV dispute. [[5]]Yamara's point relates to opinion rather than fact.

QUOTE: I came to this page after reading an excerpt of Harold J. Laski, 1921, from Karl Marx: An Essay, pg. 43-45, in which he writes that "No group of men who exercise the powers of a despot can ever retain the habit of democratic responsibility. That is obvious, for instance, in the case of men like Sir Henry Maine and Fitzjames Stephen, who, having learned in India the habit of autocratic government, became impatient on their return to England of the slow process of persuasion which democracy implies.UNQUOTE

What facts - new or old - are disputable as undermining the article's NPOV? What facts suggest the article is 'favourable' to its subject? Without these Yamara's opinion remains an opinion supported by an opinion. If Yamara could list some of the facts that might support Laski's opinion, it could be researched amended or restated. What facts verify Laski's opinion that Maine "learned in India the habit of autocratic government" given that the essence of Maine's foremost work 'Ancient Law' was the discovery by a European of the genius of the Indian panchayat laws of tort, and that Maine's reputation derived from a unique critique from within of the imposition of British Law in India, and his work while on the Council of India in formulating a system of law based on extensive research into and respect for indigenous law - a method pioneered by Maine, possibly unprecedented within a Colonial power? What facts suggest that Maine became "impatient on (his)... return to England of the slow process of persuasion which democracy implies"? Is this a reference to Maine's essays on Popular Government? These included criticisms of democracy, but not ones in favour of autocracy, as Laski's criticism implies. Maine's argument was that democracy without constant constitutional revision, and attention to the rule of law risked being exploited by unscrupulous men (and women) as a form of populist dictatorship comparable to the monarchy it had replaced. In that respect Maine serves, to this day, as a vade mecum for those who want the ideal of democracy to work but have no illusions about human fallibility.

History needs to be and is constantly being rewritten to reflect the great shifts in perspective on international power relations since Maine's era, but it would be unfair to credit him with having shared the view that the population of India during that time were inferiors, needing the beneficial attention of the laws and culture of a superior power; quite the opposite, hence Maine's reputation as one of the forefathers of the modern sociology of law. I don't dispute the talent of Laski, nor the towering genius of Marx. For this reason their opinion of Maine might well be a counter-balance to the imputation that the Wiki article, as well as being transferred from Britannica, is, in [[6]]'s opinion, overly favourable to its subject. My difficulty is finding the fact or facts that we ought to take into account in substantiating the opinion of Laski, who like Marx was not unknown for being disputatious. Absence of 'Laski-like opinion' doesn't constitute an incorrect fact. I've no idea who posted the original article. I believe Maine's latest biographer Feaver thought it acceptable - an opinion of course. I've re-studied Wiki guidance on NPOV, including its first point: 'The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken—that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.' Having looked over Wiki's Neutral Point of View policy I'm unsure where to go.Simon Baddeley (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:GilbertStevenson.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:DenysRayner1943.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

Hello, Sibadd. You have new messages at Aggie80's talk page.
Message added 12:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

Hello! Sibadd, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Your upload of File:Corbel.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) 15:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

.

• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the , or on the .

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

• Please remember to link to the submission!

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Faddle 09:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sibadd. You have new messages at Timtrent's talk page.
Message added 13:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Fiddle Faddle 13:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aristedes Metallinos, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I delighted at this acceptance. I would very much like to work to improve the article and will appreciate advice. Initially I would like to upload an example of the sculptor's workSimon Baddeley (talk)

It may be that you will be challenged over File:Pressing the farmer's olive oil in Ano Korakiana.jpg. Please do investigate donating copyright material just in case. Fiddle Faddle 19:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the caution. Interpersonal relations in the village of the artist's family are 'word of mouth' and 'handshake'. The family of the artist do not have email, which means I will need to communicate about a written permission by land-mail which can take over a week and is not reliable. I would prefer to get the permission recommended when I am in Ano Korakiana in September 2014. The point to be made is that I was approached by the family in October 2013 and asked if I might be interested in the work of Aristedes Metallinos. I visited the closed museum, saw the work of the sculptor, and became intrigued and impressed. After several visits and meetings with the family I asked if I could place the photos I was permitted to take in the museum in the public domain, including on the web. This suggestion was understood by the family. I was reassured that my interest in helping to make the artist better known was respected. I was trusted to write about Aristedes Metallinos and permitted to make public use of images of his work. Simon Baddeley (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like his work. It has a pleasing cleanness about it. I think your acquiring permission in person is an excellent idea. in September. Have a look at the mechanisms before you travel in order that you get it right. Fiddle Faddle 11:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your encouragement . I will check the 'mechanisms'. Is there one specific document to which I can seek a signature? Simon Baddeley (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, but I would aim for Commons, as I mentioned before. No idea there, but it is a better route. It will mean that the Greek Wikipedia can use the pictures without reuploading, a major benefit. Fiddle Faddle 13:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment on that draft. I hope you find it useful for bringing it up to speed. Fiddle Faddle 09:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Richard Pine is uninterested in having an entry. It is proving tricky obtaining the exact provenance of the many citations quoted about Pine's books by reviewers. I will continue searching. I've seen a letter to Pine from the late Seamus [Heaney] about Pine's work on Brian [Friel] which says: “One good contribution this book (The Diviner) will make will be to the understanding of how Friel and his plays transmit meaning within the acoustic of the Irish cultural and political scene. And not just the Irish scene, since the book itself will be part of the transmission and amplification of the plays in a wider context. The particularity of quotation joined with the meditative, associative habit of your mind is the book’s strength. It provokes a thoughtful response in return and, as such, will be a welcome addition to the critical reaction to Friel. It should deepen the sense of his complexity and modernity, while rendering a sense of those 'truths, immemorially posited'." Letter from Seamus Heaney, 5 April 1989 regarding the first edition of Richard Pine’s The Diviner: the Art of Brian Friel:

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard Pine.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Faddle 08:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Pine, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Fiddle Faddle 11:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping the article may now advance from Start-Class Simon Baddeley (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Classes are a weird thing, a vanity, and are useless to our readership, who never look at talk pages (0.8 probability). My usual approach is to ignore them. At some point someone form the relevant projects will wander by and adjust them. If you feel confident, adjust the class yourself. I would prefer that they had not been invented. The article has references. The article is neutral. The article gives information. Those three things are all I need. Fiddle Faddle 12:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• s staff to help set up broadcasting services to allied forces before and after [[D-Day]]. ].
• ]<ref>Briefly [[Social Democratic Party (UK)|SDP]] Obituary in [[Daily Telegraph]] Issue 47,544 (dated 14 April 2008</ref>|| On his discharge in 1948 he went to the [[University of Glasgow]] to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BracketBot, thanks. Correction made. Simon Baddeley (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I just moved your photo to Commons per above.

I was just hoping that you can amend the description on Commons to exclude the words "for use on wikipedia", as this might call into question the legitimacy of the license given. I assume here, of course, that you meant to release it as you did (even though technically, if your wife took it, she is the only one that can release it and OTRS would be needed to confirm all is right, but I'm going on good faith here). Thanks in advance. Deadstar (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lin B says 'fine' and appreciates your trust Simon Baddeley (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cassianto^Talk 17:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Point taken and agreed. My apologies. It was the spelling of Charlie Chaplin as 'Chaplain'...couldn't resist Simon Baddeley (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Vertegans.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. The bot DID NOT tag your file(s) for deletion, so if you would like to know who tagged the file(s), please refer to the edit history of each individual file. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:'Danica', Hardway, Gosport.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 Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:

• File:BlackPatch OS.jpg
• File:BlackPatchPlanSD.jpg
• File:BlackPatchSnow.jpg
• File:ChubVenables.jpg
• File:CorvetteCoreopsis.jpg
• File:DAR Corvette.jpg
• File:HMSVerbena.jpg
• File:HMTLochTulla.jpg
• File:Isobel1965.jpg
• File:Jack1930s.jpg
• File:Jack1957.jpg
• File:Jack44.jpg
• File:Landfall66.jpg
• File:Parkpicnic06.JPG
• File:RajinderStMarys.jpg
• File:Raynerauthor.jpg
• File:Robinetta 1937.jpg
• File:Robinetta06.jpg
• File:RobinettaYM37c.jpg
• File:SaveBlackPatchPark.jpg
• File:StanB.jpg
• File:StMarysChurchyard.jpg
• File:Wintergale.jpg

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT tag your file(s) for deletion, so if you would like to know who tagged the file(s), please refer to the edit history of each individual file. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sibadd. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sibadd. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sibadd. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]