User talk:Wales

Sir Robert Bell

I see what you mean. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing comments

Pleas don't remove comments from my talk page. I understand why but others may get the wrong idea. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esquire

Hello! Just to say, I'm sure we can reach consensus on this page, we don't seem far apart judging from your latest comments on the Talk page, so shall we be optimists and quit reverting for the moment? And just edit towards a consensus? I would like that! And, by the way, as I've said on the talk page, I'm mindful of WP:3RR which I'm sure you will be too. Very best wishes, Chelseaboy 11:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:The_Arms_of_Sir_Robert_Bell_d._1577_Grail_Crest.png

Thanks for uploading Image:The_Arms_of_Sir_Robert_Bell_d._1577_Grail_Crest.png. 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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arms of Sir Robert Bell

This is the real medieval heraldry of the Trinity

This image is not a "logo", it's a coat of arms... Anyway, if you were the one who added it to the Trinity page, then it really has rather little direct relationship to the doctrine of the Trinity -- they are "canting" arms on the name "Bell". AnonMoos 05:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again

Dude, if you're user IP 71.101.81.158, then there a million coat of arms with fleurs-de-lis, and we can't include them all on the grounds that the Fleurs-de-lis is one (rather minor) symbol of the Trinity -- especially since in this image the fleur-de-lis isn't even a part of the coat of arms, but rather is a minor and inconspicuous decoration of the surrounding frame! AnonMoos 05:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ter

Dude, you just deleted the copyright tag -- now it ain't got one. Anyway, the laws regarding copyright are more relevant than the laws regarding heraldry in this case... AnonMoos 06:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quater

Dude, why did you reupload the version which has a lot of surrounding black blank space which does absolutely nothing except increase image download time and degrade image display?? Maybe you should cut down on your involvement in the Wikipedia thing, until you start to get the hang of it a little bit better... AnonMoos 06:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quinquies

Dude, why are you adding a zillion blank lines back into the Robert Bell article?? You may think that you're optimizing the article's appearance, but it probably only works the same way for people who are using the exact same browser version, window size, and Wikipedia skin as you are -- and there are probably better ways of doing what you're trying to do... AnonMoos 06:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bennu

OK, thanks for starting to respond to something. Bennu birds are nice, but what do they have to do with the Trinity? And the version of the image I uploaded wasn't "distorted" -- rather, Wikimedia software told your browser to display the THUMBNAIL of the image at approximate 1 width to 2 height aspect ratio (appropriate to the revised version I uploaded), but you had an old thumbnail in your cache with an approximate 1 width to 1 height aspect ratio, and it was this old cached thumbnail which ended up getting "distorted". The image would not display distorted to people without such cached versions (i.e. who had not viewed the article recently), or if you had viewed the "High resolution" version. Such temporary cache disparities are an unavoidable part of the process of uploading new versions of images to Wikipedia. AnonMoos 06:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Beaupre Hall Outwell Norfolk.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:The Arms of Sir Robert Bell (Knight) Revealed by an Armoured Scroll bearing a Crest with the Holy Grail copy.png

Thanks for uploading Image:The Arms of Sir Robert Bell (Knight) Revealed by an Armoured Scroll bearing a Crest with the Holy Grail copy.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 13:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Copy of Spear and knife.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The Arms of Sir Robert Bell d. 1577 Grail Crest.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:The Arms of Sir Robert Bell d. 1577 Grail Crest.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Wwagner 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Beaupre Hall 19230001 copy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Beaupre Hall 19230001 copy.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Speaker 15720006.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Speaker 15720006.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:The-Trimuph-Of-Divine-Love.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The-Arms-of-Sir-Robert-Bell.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The-Arms-of-Sir-Robert-Bell.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image the Arms of Sir Robert Bell

Can you give me links to the images you want deleted and which you want to keep. Also links to where the image is being used so I can check out the size problem. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted what I think was the right image here. However for some reason the link you gave me still shows the image. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look around and see if I can find it. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Robert-Bell-Speaker-1572000.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Robert-Bell-Speaker-1572000.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:The Arms of Sir Robert Bell.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TBSO-Beaupre-Hall-survey-2-.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TBSO-Beaupre-Hall-survey-2-.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 13:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Fillsack

Richard "Fillsack" Sackville. I'm going to guess that that is not in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). You might want to consider a page move, or a good explanation in the article. Bottom line, if he is not universally & always known by the name you have given him, then the name must change. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that you are mistaken. It is true that I have added the current articles content, however, just to be clear, I must inform you that I did not create the page title. Wales 15:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perhaps being misled by the revision history for the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, in fact, yes you were. Richard Sackville [1] Wales 23:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:George W. Bush are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Thank you. Anastrophe 17:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Arms of Bell Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beaupre Hall 19230001 copy.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Beaupre Hall 19230001 copy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beaupre Hall 19230002 copy.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Beaupre Hall 19230002 copy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Beaupre_Hall3.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Beaupre_Hall3.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. O sama K 19:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Renold Elstrack Queen Elizabeth opens Parliament Prolocutor Sir Robert Bell.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Renold Elstrack Queen Elizabeth opens Parliament Prolocutor Sir Robert Bell.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 15:19, 1 May 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) 15:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Human evolution

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electro Magnetic Evolution of DNA

I like the image, Electro Magnetic Evolution of DNA, you uploaded. It is a very interesting work or art that I'd welcome on an external web site but I think it is too complex and insufficiently diagrammatic for use as an illustration of concepts or theories on Wikipedia (perhaps because the concepts behind it are too complex to capture in a single image). Continuing to push for its inclusion in Wikipedia articles is likely to be quite strongly resisted. Jojalozzo 20:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permission for use of File:The-Arms-of-Sir-Robert-Bell.jpg

I noticed that you uploaded the file, The-Arms-of-Sir-Robert-Bell.jpg, stating that you had permission from the copyright holder (vandaimages.com). I sent them an email asking about that and they responded that "We do not generally give permission for our images to be used on Wikipedia, so it is unlikely that we have given permission for the author of this article to use the image in this way." Please post any records you have of their granting us permission to use the image as soon as possible to avoid deletion of the file. Thanks. Jojalozzo 18:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you have been generally misinformed, no doubt, unintentionally. I would be delighted to furnish the contact details for the appropriate party and contact point so that either you or any Wikipedia Administrator can further police the issue. Please contact me directly at the following email created for this matter. Thank you. jojalozzo@live.com Wales (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was only able to get a general response. Specific information will be helpful. Jojalozzo 16:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send me the attachment to the email you received from [name redacted] in 2006. Thanks. Jojalozzo 18:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also please provide all documentation of permission for another image you have uploaded that originated at vandaimages.com, File:Arms of Sir Robert Bell Knight Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer copy.jpg. Jojalozzo 19:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was made clear that you should contact the relevant party directly in order to verify the permissions you seek. You could also have that party contact me directly, regarding any attachments that you believe you are entitled to, as I will not compromise the integrity of any confidentiality notice, in the fashion that you have attached to the email I sent to you- which Reads: [You are hereby informed that this E-mail message is proprietary and confidential. THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE, AND ANY ATTACHMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN, IS INTENDED WITH SPECIFIC ATTENTION FOR USE BY THE RECIPIENT (S) FOR WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED. AS THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT (S) OR UNINTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY PROHIBITED FROM ANY DISCUSSION, DISSEMINATION, REPRODUCTION, DISCLOSURE, DISPLAY, TRANSMITTAL OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IN ANY MEDIUM, WHETHER ELECTRONIC OR OTHER. ANY THIRD PARTY DISCLOSURE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IN ERROR, YOU ARE HEREBY INSTRUCTED TO REPLY TO SENDER AND DELETE AS ACCORDED BY LAW.] Wales (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The email address you sent me is not valid. My request for information was returned "No such recipient". Since it appears impossible to obtain clear permission for free use of these images, I will nominate them for deletion. Jojalozzo 20:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following the submittal of the contact information you had requested via email (with confidentiality notice attached) I additionally forwarded a correspondence to the party for which you claim came back "No such recipient". No such notice has appeared on my email account, so it might prove a possible remedy to carefully address your message and resend it. Alternatively you could approach V&A Images, and inquire further details about whom to consult with, conduct your due diligence, and if warranted have them contact me directly, in the event that there is a dispute, or the contact information you were furnished has expired. In which case, I would be happy to let them have copies of the previous permissions and correspondences (with confidentiality notice attached) so that they can appropriately reciprocate the details with you. Given the nature of copyright law, namely the Berne Convention, permission was sought to incorporate the images within the article, rather than permitting their inclusion based merely on U.S copyright law. Additional permissions were requested for use of certain portraits within the article with the National Portrait Gallery (NPG, London), however permission was not granted and therefore the images were not included. Honoring their copyright demonstrates a degree of cultural respect, given it would be permissible to use the images under the umbrella of U.S copyright law. The fact that you have, to date, not been successful with your attempts with verification, does not mean that the permission to use the intellectual property was not granted or that the permissions are not clear. I note that you have made further deletions to the article based on non-verifiable information, and question the methods you have employed to make such claims? Perhaps, but not necessarily the case with your former attempts, the contact details have changed with time. More importantly, not honoring or not laboring to conduct ones actions within the framework of the law, regarding confidentiality notices is just not prudent. Perhaps the information is confidential, or the recipients would rather remain private or rather completely anonymous, and not posted here on Wikipedia. In some cases such violations have resulted in law suits on claims of damages. Regardless of the permission with V&A the images could remain here based on the following, however, for what its worth, I would nominate them for deletion if they were to remain solely based on this merit alone. U.S Copyright Law RE: The "Darnley Portrait" "While Commons policy accepts the use of this media, one or more third parties have made copyright claims against Wikimedia Commons in relation to the work from which this is sourced or a purely mechanical reproduction thereof. This may be due to recognition of the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, allowing works to be eligible for protection through skill and labour, and not purely by originality as is the case in the United States (where this website is hosted). These claims may or may not be valid in all jurisdictions.

As such, use of this image in the jurisdiction of the claimant or other countries may be regarded as copyright infringement. Please see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag for more information.

See User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat for more information." Wales (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you can to document the free use permissions. I'd like to keep these images but we need to have documented permission. Private correspondence that leaves Wikipedia out of the loop is insufficient. Please leave a link to "User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat". Thanks. Jojalozzo 01:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, all points being considered, I present no objection from the heraldic images being removed from Wikipedia, aside from the fact that the low resolution images were approved and sanctioned for use here by the V&A, London. Should you wish or desire the images to remain, pursuing the remedy I proposed would be in order to document the free permissions. I hope you find this information helpful. Regards. Wales (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! It appears that a photo of old 2D art isn't considered a copyright-able work on Wikipedia, so we can continue to use it and the other files you've uploaded. I think it might be a good idea to remove your more confusing explanation of rights and leave the simpler explanation that is there. This is an excellent outcome. Jojalozzo 04:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:The-Arms-of-Sir-Robert-Bell.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The-Arms-of-Sir-Robert-Bell.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. Jojalozzo 20:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While Commons policy accepts the use of this media, one or more third parties have made copyright claims against Wikimedia Commons in relation to the work from which this is sourced or a purely mechanical reproduction thereof. This may be due to recognition of the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, allowing works to be eligible for protection through skill and labour, and not purely by originality as is the case in the United States (where this website is hosted). These claims may or may not be valid in all jurisdictions.

As such, use of this image in the jurisdiction of the claimant or other countries may be regarded as copyright infringement. Please see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag for more information. See User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat for more information.

January 2013

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted or removed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be equally beneficial and appreciated if the confidential details that Joja posted regarding the contact information that was submitted to Joja via email and was extracted from said email and posted on Wikipedia can be deleted or removed. I can of course, if necessary, forward the appropriate party the evidence of this. Thank you. Wales (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to contact the oversighters thru Special:EmailUser/Oversight or by emailing oversight-en-wp

wikipedia.org. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. Wales (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Images RE: copyright

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I the up-loader upon careful consideration, find that a copyright conflict exists with the following images. Please delete them as a courtesy as deemed necessary and proper. File:Reneld Elstrack Elizabeth I Opens Parliament Robert Bell Prolocutor.JPG File:Beaupre Hall 19230004 copy.jpg File:Beaupre Hall 19230013 copy.jpg File:Beaupre Hall 19230001 copy.jpg File:Beaupre Hall 19230002 copy.jpg

All done except for File:Beaupre Hall 19230004 copy.jpg; the current version of this file was actually uploaded by Rob, so I can't delete it under G7 as I have with the others. If you still believe there is a copyright issue, please ping me with the details and I'll follow through accordingly. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 06:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I believe the same premise would apply with the removal of the image, File:Beaupre Hall 19230004 copy.jpg; uploaded by Rob even though it was touched up, cropped, and slightly modified. Nothing materially was created, and I believe the copyright holder would have to agree with any permissions for the image to appear, here on Wikipedia. In this case. Christopher Hussey and or Country life Magazine, a Time Warner subsidiarity. Thank you again for your time and attention to this matter. Kind Regards. Wales (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

It appears I failed to list one other image for deletion. Please delete this image. Thank you. Cheers, Wales (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done All the best, Miniapolis 13:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Beaupre Hall3.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Beaupre Hall3.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 object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. George Ho (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bell Impaling Harrington.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Window1.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Window1.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 object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]