User talk:Thesweeper2008
Welcome
[edit]
|
Image copyright problem with Image:GBC South Africa.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:GBC South Africa.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
- response from Thesweeper2008. I am unclear about this comment, as the image clearly states that I have released it into public domain: "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." Please clarify: what more needs to be said?
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Image without license
[edit]Unspecified source/license for Image:Caird lectures NA Summer Sessions.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Caird lectures NA Summer Sessions.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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 MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 22:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate Image:GBC Lecturing.jpg
[edit]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:GBC Lecturing.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:GBC Lecturing.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:GBC Lecturing.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- note from Thesweeper2008. The image was originally deleted by mistake by an editor - the release into the public domain was clearly indicated by the copyright holder (myself). I then re-uploaded it, but I uploaded the duplicate image by mistake. The original and the duplicate are both owned by me, and, as I have released it/them into public domain, I hope there is no further problem. Thanks!
Hi. Re this article - please stop just adding comments - the article currently has no references to prove any of the claims made. Please try and concentrate your efforts on improving the article by adding references and sources. Thanks CultureDrone (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh - and G.B. Caird too !
- By the way, I apologise if my original comment sounded rather dictatorial ! It's just that proving statements is an important part of Wikipedia (despite the public perception !) and these articles, whilst no doubt well written and notable, aren't actually currently in line with WP guidelines - perhaps I could have phrased it slightly less like an order, and more like a request - I blame low blood sugar :-) CultureDrone (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Response from Thesweeper2008. Hello, thanks for your comment about not being dictatorial. I am sure you are trying to be helpful. However, in response to your point(s), I am 100% baffled by your statement that "the article currently has no references to prove any of the claims made. Please try and concentrate your efforts on improving the article by adding references and sources." I am not certain how you say that there are currently NO references to PROVE any of the claims made, when the article is virtually riddled with third-party, published references throughout to support the claim or to cite the source of a quotation. And what specific "claims" are you referring to? I hope am not sounding sarcastic, but biographies are not a matter of E = MC2. What do you consider "proof" when dealing with an individual's life, if not the published viewpoints of those colleagues who knew and worked with him, and who published these opinions in major forums and publishing outlets such as The Oxford University Press or the Proceedings of the British Academy? As I say, the article is COMPLETELY referenced throughout with valid citations from publications written by the likes of Professors James Barr, Henry Chadwick, Bishop N. T. Wright, and others. And also, why have you chosen to address me by my actual name rather than my Wikipedia username? Is that the correct way of doing it? I somehow doubt it. I have thus replaced it with my Wikipedia username at the very top. I would appreciate it if you do not change back again. Thank you.
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from G. B. Caird. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. CultureDrone (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- response by Thesweeper2008. Okay, the matter seems to be resolved, so the template is no longer necessary. However, apparent vandalism took place when the memorial pillar in the chapel of Mansfield College was replaced by a photo of someone's pillar form the house in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The image has been reverted to the original Mansfield College image
Sorry, but those aren't references - they're works published by the subject of the article, not independent, third-party references about him. Have a look at WP:V and WP:RS. CultureDrone (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- response from Thesweeper2008. Again, I am baffled by what you mean when you say, "Sorry, but those aren't references - they're works published by the subject of the article, not independent, third-party references about him." In fact, the references throughout are precisely independent, third-party references about him, all of which have been published in reputable books or journals. I am referring specifically to the published, third-party opinions of Wright, Kaye, Chadwick, Barr, Hurst, etc. Please specify what you mean by those in those aren't references.
- If you're going to reply, please at least let me know you've done it - I can't monitor the talk pages of everyone :-) Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- response from Thesweeper2008: I'm sorry, but I'm once again bewildered by what you say. Could you explain what you mean by "please at least let me know you've done it - I can't monitor the talk pages of everyone"? I responded to you where I thought I was supposed to - on this page, where you started the whole thing by placing the template and making your objection. Also, I'm not sure I've yet got an answer to my response to your objection. Here I have a request: this is an outstanding, superbly referenced article; please, unless there are some valid objections to be made, I do wish it could be left alone. Thank you. Thesweeper2008.
- Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot there. What I meant was, comments are usually conducted on the user pages of both individuals, unless there's a note on the user page to say otherwise. It's not possible for me to continually check the user page of everyone I talk to to see if they've replied - generally, they leave a message on my talk page if they have anything to say to me. And please be aware of WP:OWN. CultureDrone (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
[edit]Your upload of File:Caird Commem.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) 14:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Files you uploaded
[edit]Hi, on the off chance that you are still around here, but not editing for the last 8 years... can you confirm by email that you have taken all the photographs that were uploaded - ie that they are your own work? Thanks. Deadstar (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)