User talk:AstroChemist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:ParksTrailer)
Jump to: navigation, search

File permission problem with File:General Jean Paul Palomeros.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:General Jean Paul Palomeros.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 the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Make yourself familiar[edit]

Please make yourself familiar with the following policies: WP:MEDDATE and WP:VERIFIABILITY. The former policy argues that wikipedia favours newer sources over older sources. The latter policy argues that one should "consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step" if information is easily verifiable. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 17:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method and his claim about up-to-date evidence[edit]

With regard to this revert by Pass a Method, see this discussion and this note. Needless to state, he's wrong. For more problematic behavior by this user, you might also be interested in looking at User:Halo Jerk1/User:Pass a Method. In other words, don't put up with his mess for a second. Flyer22 (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

And just so we are clear, WP:MEDDATE is a guideline (a guideline for sourcing health information), not a policy, and even it has exceptions. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael J. Conner concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael J. Conner, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael J. Conner concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael J. Conner, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I need some guidance on starting a dispute resolution[edit]

I am a new editor and I wanted to start a dispute resolution on the Cheema article as the [user:Sitush] over the years has removed cited content from the article and reduced it to one line of text. He claimed Raj era sources aren't accepted but I have found articles where he has been an active editor where he has allowed Raj era sources to go unchallenged. With his last arrogant comment directed at me it raised some suspicions, due to the nature of the work I do as a student I find some discrepancies which are disturbing, there is no uniformity to his citation process. I will provide more evidence if you need but I am new to wiki and I am coming to grips with all the policies. To start with please see: [1] also see: [2] I have also found other sources which proved my initial edits that Cheema is a Jatt tribe, see: [3], he has been unable to explain why 200 years of Raj era published books are being dismissed as unrealiable, while he has edited other articles were he has not reverted and removed content which relies on Raj era books. It's rather baffling that 200 years or more of published historical books and documents can be dismissed, when sources like the chachnama are accepted in India many of the earlier censuses relied on these books he is removing content of as unreliable. Here is what the article looked like some years ago: [4] granted it was biased and needed work done on it, but slow and gradual removal of content was not the way to go. Firstly, for the record I know the British never used military strategy claims of tribes in their theory of martial races those issues should have been corrected and not deleted. Syanaee (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)