User talk:Anon126/Archive 12

Canada Life UK

Thanks for retagging this: I wouldn't have tagged it as a test, except the version I saw was this - I guess someone updated it between when I first opened it and when I hit "submit query" on the Twinkle window. :) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Grammar on User:Anon126/R

You may want to adjust the phrasing of the second sentence on the first line of User:Anon126/R. There is an improper parallel between the first two sentences, as the first says that you will be notified and the second says that you are not. To fix this, you may want to adjust the second sentence to "But if it is somewhere else, I will not be notified" or "But if it is somewhere else, I will not be." Regardless, the page is your page, so you should do whatever you want with it (and leave the wording the same, if you like it better). Have a good day. Piguy101 (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

To editor Piguy101: I've changed it to "I will not be". Thanks for pointing it out! Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank You!

I really appreciated the quick response and your help. The picture is now on my article thanks to you. Jet 03:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Jet.

Note: I've gone over your upload at File:Richard Earl Thompson Artist.jpg, and there are potentially very likely some serious issues with it.

First, what is the exact source of the image? All it says currently is "Thompson Website"; what is the URL? (It should be a page that has some information about the photo, like who took it.)

Second, there is no indication that the copyright holder has given permission under the license you indicated. Wikimedia Commons requires that permission be granted, so I've tagged it for deletion in seven days if this is not fixed. As I said, you should not have used the Upload Wizard, and you should've copied the {{OTRS pending|...}} code that was on the regular upload form. That code means that permission has been sent to the appropriate e-mail address (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) and is waiting to be reviewed. If the e-mail has been sent, let me know so I can change the description to show this. If not, please have it sent to that e-mail address as soon as possible. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Karen Olson page

--Cakaul (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)I have re-edited the Karen Olson page, adding specific categories, tightening inline citations, and getting user permissions for the photos, which I have emailed to Wikipedia and have received OKs for their posting. I would appreciate input on what is left to do to get Wikipedia to take down the issue boxes at the top of the page. Thanks.

Photograph Permission

Hello Anon126,

In regard to the picture on my article, Richard Earl Thompson, permission was granted and emailed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the email template. It was noted on the email from Bruce Thompson that he was granting the photograph to be freely licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 creative commons license. When I tried to follow your instructions, I could not find the permission box. I then thought I was to download the picture first and maybe then I would see the permissions box but it brought up various licenses to select. I selected the one Mr. Thompson had agreed to in his email. If this is wrong, please let me know what I can do to correct my mistake. Thank you for your help.

Jet 04:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet1950 (talk • contribs)

Hi again, Jet. You should go to the image page and edit the "Licensing" section. Replace the two lines {{No permission since|...}} and {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} with the one line {{subst:OP}} and save. This will generate a notice and alert the volunteers who handle these e-mails. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 15:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit Licensing

Hello Anon126, I received your message. I'm not sure how to get back to the image page to edit, but I'm going to try and will let you know when I complete or if I'm having any problems. Thank you for walking me through this process. Jet 15:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet1950 (talk • contribs)

Made Changes

Anon126, Thank You! I actually found everything and made the changes. Please let me know if you think it's correct now or if need to do something else too. Jet 16:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet1950 (talk • contribs)

The updated permission info is correct. If the photo can be found online, perhaps you should change the source from "Thompson Website" to the exact URL. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Checking Permission of Photograph

Hello Anon126, In regard to the editing of the license for permission, is there a place I should be checking to see if everything is o.k. and that permission has been accepted by Wikimedia? Thank you for your help.

Jet 17:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

To editor Jet1950: The place to check is the description page. If the permission has been accepted, then the license will be updated. This can take some time, so please be patient. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Checking for Granted Photo Permission

Thank you again Anon. Your guidance is very helpful and I appreciate it. 71.90.105.26 (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Re : you Deleting our Article , about : Scott L. Fredricks Studios

We do not know much about this process but last might, we wrote an Article about

Scott L. Fredricks Studios

We were also, trying to figure out how to put the long Rectangular Box on the right hand side that show the Company Logo , Address , President , URL for it, etc but before we could find out, it seems you Deleted our Article because you said it was Unambiguous  !

We dont know who you are, to do that, to us, & we dont care - DONT touch what we write  !

Being Ambiguous is a bad thing bur being Unambiguous is good - because it shows we are NOT ambiguous  !

What we wrote is what we meant to, & we do NOT need you to mess with it  !

We stated what Scott L. Fredricks Studios does & owns We stated briefly about its owner & We continued to talk about Scott L. Fredricks Studios & finished it  !

Thats exactly what we wanted to do  !

Now we cant find it, because you deleted it & we need it, to look back at, for other things  ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.A.O.P.M.R.M.R.T.M.M.P.A.F.S. (talk • contribs) 00:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I.A.O.P.M.R.M.R.T.M.M.P.A.F.S.. I understand your frustration, but allow me to clear a few things up.

Wikipedia has policies about what should be deleted. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, pages are deleted depending on whether or not they are suitable for an encyclopedia and collaboration on writing it. One of these is known as speedy deletion, which lists certain types of pages that are highly unsuitable and should be deleted quickly.

As I noted on your talk page, I believe your draft was "unambiguously promotional", meaning that it was written in a way that only advertises or praises the subject. Wikipedia does not allow advertising or promotion; this includes describing someone or something with praising words like "leading" or "innovative" that have no source to back them up. (Those are just examples; unfortunately I cannot recall the specific terms that were actually used.) Certainly, this could have been fixed by further editing, but the idea behind this policy is that it would be easier to just start over.

Only administrators, a trusted set of users, have the ability to delete pages. I am not an administrator; I only marked the page with my concern, which is common practice. It would seem that an administrator (specifically Kww in this case) agreed. You could contact that administrator at User talk:Kww and ask that your page be restored, but, like I said, I think it would be better to start from scratch. To do that, I suggest you read the guide to editing about subjects with which you have a close connection find independent, reliable sources of information (such as news and magazine articles, books, or even television and radio programs) that discuss your subject. (Independent means written and published by someone else; reliable means having a reputation for fact-checking.) Use them as the starting point for your draft.

Time allowing, Kww may stop by here and provide some more specific input on this matter, after reading the deleted draft. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Anon . Both you, & Anna Frodesiak seem very nice. We do not want to contact that person, known with the fake name of "Kww" , because they have been very rude & mean to us, from the beginning  !

We don't know if you saw, our message, but in case you haven't, we don't just need our Article back , for Wikipedia , but like we said in our message, we also need it for our own other reasons .

So either way, we still need it back, to see it, for our own reasons, that have nothing to do with Wikipedia .

If you can get it back to us, we would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.A.O.P.M.R.M.R.T.M.M.P.A.F.S. (talk • contribs) 21:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Why would you expect me to be polite to someone attempting to perpetrate a hoax?—Kww(talk) 21:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Photo License Update

Hello Anon, Yesterday I sent a second "permission request" email to Wikimedia just to be safe. They responded back today saying they received the new email and processed it. Thank you again for your generous help.

Jet 17:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet1950 (talk • contribs)

Interpretation of the 3 R rule

Thanks for the message you left on my talk page. The wording I used is the one which comes when I google 'wiki three-revert rule' I didn't bother to read further. To me it seems a perfectly valid way to read the rule and the two wordings should be brought into conformity. The whole incident has given me a very jaded view of administrators, none of whom IMO assumed good faith on my part, and has damaged such good will as I might have felt towards Wikipedia. RegardsSceptic1954 (talk)

Your draft article, User:Urbaninformative/sandbox

Hello Anon126. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "sandbox".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User:Urbaninformative/sandbox}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)