User talk:Pr3st0n

Today's motto...

Any kind of knowledge you want, seems a lot closer.

This user will be unavailble at the following times this week due to work commitments

Day	Time
Wednesday 14 Oct	17:30 - 00:00 UTC +1
Thursday 15 Oct	14:00 - 21:00 UTC +1
Friday 16 Oct	Day off
Saturday 17 Oct	Day off
Sunday 18 Oct	14:00 - 22:00 UTC +1
Monday 19 Oct	Day off
Tuesday 20 Oct	Day off

It is approximately 7:44 AM where this user lives.

Lostock Hall photos

Hi, Pr3stOn. I noticed that you have uploaded several photos to the Lostock Hall article granting CC-BY-SA licensing. However, you didn't indicate the source of the photos and I am investigating whether there may be a problem. They do appear on other websites. For example, of the first three black-and-white photos, this photo indicates it is copyrighted by the Lancashire County Council. These two appear under copyright at a photo website. I see from the talk page discussion that you have mentioned a personal involvement with the property, so I wanted to ask you first rather than tag them for CV problems. Could you please explain your source of the photos and how you own copyright to them. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Gareth. File:StJames, lostock hall.jpg, File:Our Lady of Lourdes and Saint Gerard Majella Church.jpg, and File:WatkinLaneUMFC.jpg are also problems. They have watermarked copyright tags to an individual evidently not yourself. I have tagged that they lack evidence of permission, which sets a clock for seven days. The steps for verifying permission are pretty similar to those used for text. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for specifics, and let me know if I can clarify any of this. (Editing to add: I see these came from [1], which does not indicate a licensing release. I've tagged the duplicate files on Commons as a copyright problem, but hope you'll be able to let us know here immediately whether permissin may be forthcoming. If it will not be, we should delete these at once.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Lostock Hall 10D MPD 27-07-68.jpg was previously uploaded at [2]. Do you have permission to release this image? If not, we need to go ahead and delete it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Pleasant Retreat Inn, Lostock Hall.jpg seems to have been copied from [3]. File:Lostocks hall.JPG was published at [4]. Again, do you have permission to release these images? A prompt answer would be helpful. (Anything I've found on other sources that is duplicated on Commons, I've tagged there for more swift handling given the potential seriousness of this.) If there are any images you have placed on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons which you did not take yourself, please take steps immediately to have those removed, unless you are able to quickly provide verification of licensing permission in the acceptable forms. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

←I suspect you did not intend to imply that you took this photograph, which was posted at [5] under full reservation by putative photographer David Scott on September 25, 2007, but the summary remains intact from your first upload: "A photo of Lostock Hall library which I took in 2008." (For that matter, we would need verification to use the first picture, since it is also published at [6].) But on Commons you have File:Todd Hall-2009.jpg, which seems to be duplicating his [7]. There, you list the author as "Forrest, Gareth" and say, "I, Pr3st0n, also known as Gareth Forrest give permission for this to be reused by any person(s)." This is very confusing, since the image was uploaded here over two years ago under copyright of David Scott. They do look like the same picture, right down to the same spray of yellow flowers and shadows. Can you explain this? Are you able to verify, perchance, that you are also the person known as David Scott at that website? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Purchased photos

Hi, sorry for the delay in replying back... some of those photos mentions, were purchased via the respective websites.

• This photo of Todd Hall was purchased via a website called "Lancashire Lantern"; the link to purchase the image can be found directly underneath the photo on the website. Once purchased, they email the image to you, the emailed image however, still has the watermark on it, which I have informed the company about, as it could be an error on their behalf.
• These two photos of Lostock Hall were again purchased, via the Francis Frith website back in 2007, and they posted them to my house, I hold receipt for this purchase. These photos are now framed and hang up on a wall a my home, I scanned them onto my computer for use on this article. The "Frith" watermark shows the same on the images sent to me, as it does on the images shown on the website - which is a l frustrating little frustrating. The link to purchase images from this website can be found at the top of their page.
• With regards to File:StJames, lostock hall.jpg, File:Our Lady of Lourdes and Saint Gerard Majella Church.jpg, and File:WatkinLaneUMFC.jpg; I followed the guidelines set out by the Genuki website here. Mr David Hawgood, the person it states to email; ensured me that he was emailing Wikipedia, to give permission for the images to be used, and that it would be fine to use them. Naturally, I won't know if you have received the email yet.
• File:Lostock Hall 10D MPD 27-07-68.jpg is my own photo, well my late grandfathers, to which his collection has been passed onto me. As you can tell, it is an original photo, which I have scanned onto my computer. Who ever owns this website has obtained a copy somehow, which is a little worrying to be honest.
• File:Pleasant Retreat Inn, Lostock Hall.jpg and the group on website [8] are both mine. If you actually took time to look at the creator for the group, will have seen my name on it - Gareth Forrest. My name also appears all over the Pleasant Retreat group page on Bebo. I worked at that pub at the time the group was created.
• This image, was taken by myself; and although it looks identical to the photo shown on the website you supplied, I can indeed stipulate that it isn't. Naturally some images can seem identical when taken, especially if they are both shot from the same spot. I'm not to know where previous photographers have stood to take images now am I. This also applies for this photograph, and this photograph. Albeit, all 3 look alike, which is very ironic indeed. And without actually posting the negatives to you; I can't find any other way to back up the fact that I also used my camera to take photos of those 3 places. Pr3st0n (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This would be a misunderstanding of copyright, then. If you buy an image, you own the image, but not the rights to license it. It's similar to buying a book or a CD. You can own a paperback, but you can't put the contents of the paperback on the internet and license it for others to copy and redistribute. You just own the paperback. You can show that image to anyone within your physical reach. You can mail it to your friends. But you can't put it on the internet--not legally, not unless you have a licensing statement from the copyright owner (generally the photographer) verifying that you may do so.

With the Bebo website, you can evidently easily place the requisite licensing statement there. Just leave a note indicating you have done so. See WP:DCM for more.

As far as the other images are concerned, if permission arrives from the Genuki website, then that material can be used. If it doesn't, it will be deleted after the usual verification time.

The other images which may have been copied from you can be a problem, unless you can somehow verify this. As far as the library picture, it is difficult to reconcile the facts with your indication that it is coincidence (or irony) that these look alike. You indicate that you took this picture in 2008 and the newer one after painting had been done. But your newer picture is identical to this, which was uploaded in September of 2007...suggesting the paint job was done before 2008. Not only are they identical vantage points, but they feature the same vehicles: a distinctive Nortec van and a station wagon with the same license plate as the one in your picture, parked in the identical position. There is even a reflection of the photographer's flash in the very same place. I do not see how it is possible that these two images might coincidentally be the same, and I believe may need to seek more opinions on this matter. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pr3ston. Regarding File:LostockHallLibrary.jpg I'm sorry to be blunt but you can't have taken it if, as you assert above, you have the "negatives". The metadata contained in the image (scroll to the bottom of the file page) indicates it was taken in 2007 with a digital camera - so there are no negatives. Please don't feel embarassed into a corner - the image was not taken by you and we need to delete it quickly as a WP:COPYVIO. Better to come clean than cause Wikipedia problems my friend. Pedro :  Chat  12:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Argh, I a little confuzzled here now, will need to reply to each of you separately if I may... Reply to Moonriddengirl

• I now understand that purchasing an image doesn't give licensing rights, thanks for pointing that out to me. I thought that uploading a purchased image (either sent or scanned) wouldn't be a violation. I shall rectify these ASAP.
• I'm not sure who to go about sending a requisite licensing with regards to the Bebo one. When I worked at the Pleasant Retreat, it was decided to create a web-group for the pub on sites more commonly used by the regulars, these sites where Facebook and Bebo. And all images uploaded onto either of those groups are owned by myself, the staff who worked there, the owners of teh pub, and any person who uploaded content for other to view. Since I left the pub in December 2008, I passed on the moderator rights for both Facebook and Bebo groups to another member of staff "Thomas Hamilton" otherwise known as Phat Tom.
• With regards to permission from Genuki; I wouldn't know if Wikipedia have received the email from the owner of that site yet - is there any way of finding this out?
• In regards to the other images; File:Lostock Hall 10D MPD 27-07-68.jpg might be hard; as I did mention, they were originally owned by my grandfather, who has since passed away. I was going through these images to find anything I could use for the article. I'm a little concerned as to how that other website have obtained this image without my knowledge. And seeing as I have no means to find out off my grandfather if he was with other people at the time the image was taken, then this will prove difficult to verify which I'm sure you can understand. The ones on Todd Hall, and Lostock Hall Library are mine. As you stated you can see the photographer in the image of the Library, if you look at that person, and cross-check with the image of myself (which can be found on the Bebo website for the Pleasant Retreat), you will notice they are both the same person. The Nortec van is always parked there, as it belongs to a company directly across the road from the library, and they use that parking space all the time - I think they pay for it to be reserved from them, not sure exactly. The library itself, is undergoing even more work on it now, and has scaffolding erected all over it. The paint job I spoke of, is more of a retouching paint work, they were refreshing the place, as the older paint was flaking away from weather erosion. I feel these images are going to be hard to prove, and will need to seek further advice on where to go from here. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now fixed the licensing for File:Pleasant Retreat Inn, Lostock Hall.jpg both on Wikipedia, and at commons (as per WP:DCM). Please could the "deletion" tag be removed, to show the image is safe to use. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Pr3st0n, but I can't reconcile what I'm seeing with what you say. Since you still assert you are the photographer, I have requested review at ANI. As for the licensing on File:Pleasant Retreat Inn, Lostock Hall.jpg, WP:DCM requires external verification. Whoever maintains the website now can easily grant this by putting a license release at that site or by mailing the Wikimedia Foundation. If you need clarification on the process, please let me know. I don't currently have access to my usual computer, or I could check e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation on the other images. I will look when I am able, or, if you'd like, I can ask another OTRS team member to do so. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - did the Eurovision related stuff, go into the separate "Eurovision" archive folder that I created? Pr3st0n (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Pedro

• With regards to the metadata contained in the images, quite a lot of my uploads have included this data, and all with the same year on them. Not sure if that is a problem with my camera. Yes, I use a digital camera, and indeed I mentioned "negatives", but that was the only way I could describe it. I don't know what you call it when you have a "back up" for images taken on a digital camera - so I referred to them as negatives. Apologies if I referred them incorrectly. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for your contribtion relating to WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria. Your recent contribution has helped our WikiProject move closer to our goals. I am looking foward to seeing your futher contributions. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread; think very caerfully before your next explanation

Preston,

Please think very carefully before answering at the WP:ANI#Copyright concerns, User:Pr3st0n thread about your claim of authorship of pictures that you most certainly did not take. I've commented there [9]. The first rule when you're stuck in a hole is, stop digging. I can pretty much guarantee that anything besides complete honesty is going to result in a worse situation for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

To quote from the ANI thread - User:Pr3st0n needs to review what happened to another editor who made a similar mistake; lying, and then getting caught up in the coverup to the lie. Please read and digest. Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to comment at AfD, but it will not let me - how the hell can I be given the chance to put my comments forward if this is the case. I am also undergoing adoption, and need to be able to participate in such assignments set by my adopter. I was in previous discussions with User:Moonriddengirl, and feel a little bit "back-stabbed" here, as she could of easily helped me out, and come to some resolvent over these issues. After all, you do stipulate it is better to help and advise other users than to sanction bans or blocks. This is something I have recently covered in one of my adoption assignments. The image

[File:Pleasant Retreat Inn, Lostock Hall.jpg] is of my own; I already informed that this image was part of a project to create a web-group for the pub which I was working at between December 2007 - December 2008; and image taken by myself, for my own purposes. So I cannot see why this is a problem. I would appreciate it if I would to be given chance to discuss this further, in order to resolve this in a diplomatic and peaceful manner - failure to do this would be in breach of your very own guidance which you like to stipulate so much about. Pr3st0n (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not blocked at this point, so there's no reason you shouldn't be able to edit there. But since you can still edit here, you can make your case here. The ban on uploading is in force until you convince us otherwise, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that claiming that Moonriddengirl "could of easily helped you out" when you were blatantly lying about the images isn't going to fly here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n, the ANI page is not protected against editing at the moment. You should be able to post there. If you can't post there post your reply here and it will be copied over. We are keen to hear your story. The ban is not to be seen as punishment because it is aimed at preventing any further possible copyright issues with your uploading of images. Indefinite is not the same as permanent. Mjroots (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel betrayed by this. I asked you frankly about these images, and told you that I might need to seek more opinions, given your response. When your follow-up left me more, not less, confused, I felt I had no option. Guidance only works in an air of open communication, and when your answers do not reconcile with my observations, there really isn't much else I can do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

But to obtain guidance could have been made an easier way, and not have to go through the AfD route. That path has now made this situation much worse than it needs to be. I have now (as shown below) been blocked from edits - and editing my own talk page is only going to make things worse. I've now been put into a situation where I want to reply, but cannot because of being scared of that block thing. I am doing adoption assignments, and this is now going to be unable to pursue coz of the block sanctioned. If you wanted to obtain further advice on the image matter, you could have easily contacted other people to participate in the discussion via this talk page, and not at AfD which has made it all worse. Pr3st0n (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked users are allowed to continue to edit their talk pages, as long as they don't abuse the privilege (personal attacks, frivolous unblock requests, etc.). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As SarekOfVulcan notes, you are permitted to edit your talk page so long as you do so within guidelines. This was not an AfD matter (which is a process for deleting articles), but was a listing at ANI--the noticeboard where administrators go to discuss specific incidents that need administrator intervention. Your prior copyright situations all seemed to have been misunderstandings. This one looked to me like deliberate deception, and evidently the metadata strongly supports that. Deliberate deception on copyright concerns is a matter for administrator intervention. You know from our earlier conversations that copyright problems can get the project into legal trouble, and they cannot be permitted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

How do I get to put my views across to AfD now though? Do I put them here fr you to copy over? And what about my adoption assignments, am I able to continue with those? I am still in the learning process of Wikipedia, and this adoption process is helping me immensely. I can understand that some of those images may have violated policies, and to which I was going to offer solutions on how this could be rectified without myself being faced with ban or block sanctions. I now feel that these sanctions have been issued, without a virtually "newbie" being shown the right guidance on what to do. Pr3st0n (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The ANI discussion is essentially over, so there's no need for you to participate there. If you have a legitimate reason for requesting an unblock, you can follow the instructions on the block notice. Note that any unblock request that does not admit you've been lying to us is highly unlikely to succeed, and repeated requests are likely to get your editing privileges on this page revoked outright. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and claiming to be a newbie doesn't work when you thought you were familiar enough with Wikipedia policies to request adminship. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The block has now stopped me from working on the assignments set by my adopter - why is this so? I thought the block didn't affect that, as it is part of my own page? Pr3st0n (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the only page you are allowed to edit. Tan | 39 15:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Rightfully understood. And I'm not using the term "newbie" as an excuse. I thought I was ready for RfA; but after talking to other more experienced editors, I realised I wasn't - and now following these assignments set by my adopter, I'm starting to learn the guidance and policies much better - prevention in doing those, is not going to help me learn things. I have created an open discussion section below, with regards to the images; so that a resolution can take place. A block is a little harsh I feel, a ban would have been more appropriate, thus allowing the user the opportunity to learn from their errors, and gain more experience. Isn't this the procedures you like to encourage as a group? It was something that I've learnt so far during my adoption assignments, and this seems to have been overseen by sanctioning a block. Pr3st0n (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. A ban is the effective revocation od editing rights permanently. Seriously, please address the concerns of Sarek regarding the photo in the sections below. If you come clean we can work something out I'm sure. Pedro :  Chat  15:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is getting too long, and I cannot archive the older stuff to provide more space. HELP!!! Pr3st0n (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have archived everything prior to this conversation to User talk:Pr3st0n/Archived2. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrative sanction

Per the discussion at WP:ANI above. You are hereby banned from uploading any further images to Wikipedia. This sanction will be logged at WP:RESTRICT. If you upload any further images before the ban is lifted you will be blocked. You are encouraged to participate in the discussion at WP:ANI. Mjroots (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please comment above - no time has been given for myself to comment on this issue - and a ban has been sanctioned unfairly. I am undergoing assignments on this as part of my adoption process - and I'm fully aware that it is important to allow a user chance to comment before going ahead with such actions. Pr3st0n (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD block

I would like to state that the image on Pleasant Retreat, is of my own. If you visit the group site at Bebo, you will see myself on there, it even shows myself as the original creator of the page (and all images) on the group. You have all now stopped me from taking part in my adoption assignments, and I feel have taken the wrong action without giving a person chance to fix what they have done. As you all know, I am virtually new to this. I only start in 2008, and made small contributions, avoiding such major things as I wasn't aware of what I was doing. Following the copyright problems on Lostock Hall, moonriddengirl was helping me out, along with LAAFan (my adopter), so that I am being made aware of such policies. So in terms, I'm still in the learning process of what is and what is not allowed on here - give a guy a chance to learn. Lack of community involvement is obvious here. Pr3st0n (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My images, and their contributors

Below are a list of the alleged images violating possible copyright issues; and where they have come from.

• Images File:Lostock Hall 10D MPD 27-07-68.jpg and File:47008, Lostock Hall MPD, 25th March 1964.jpg. As I mentioned these images belong to my late grandfather... I would like to know how I'm breaching copyright violations with these? All of his photograph collection was passed down to myself after he died. The iamges shown were scanned from the photos to my computer and uploaded on here. It is only since Moonriddengirl, informed me it this image also appears on another website, that I have now become more concerned about this. I have no means to contact a deceased person to find out if more than one copy of the photo is out there. So I feel that we need to come to some solution regarding this image.

• Image File:Pleasant Retreat Inn, Lostock Hall.jpg. As previously mentioned I worked for this pub during December 2007 (23rd to be exact) and December 2008 (31st to be exact). Whilst an employee for Ms. Lynn Birtwistle (the then owner of the public house), it was decided to create a web-group for the pub via website Bebo, so we could publish any events etc for other to view. A similar group was also created on Facebook. Ms Birtwistle left the Pleasant Retreat Inn, on January 4, 2009. And moved to the Lamb & Packet pub, in Preston City Centre on January 12, 2009 (to which she further employed me to work there). A website for the new pub was also created by myself [www.lambandpacket.co.uk Lamb & Packet].

• Image File:Map of Lostock Hall, 1892.jpg was from the Ordinance Survey Maps; and as this map is older than the 1923 date permitted for copyrights policies on Wikipedia, I was under the assumption it would be fine to use.

• Image File:Thomas Moss & Sons Mills Portfolio 1920 Scanned 2007 from Original print.jpg was on the original Lostock Hall article, and has nothing to do with myself.

• Image File:Tardy Gate Manufacturing Company.jpg was rightfully attributed, following guidance by Moonriddengirl.

• Images File:WatkinLaneUMFC.jpg, File:Our Lady of Lourdes and Saint Gerard Majella Church.jpg, and File:StJames, lostock hall.jpg. An email to the owner of Genuki website was made, requesting use of these images. The owner agreed to contact Wikipedia, to provide permission details. I have no idea if yourselves have received this email yet. However, following the issues raised, I am planning to take new photos of these building on my way to work tomorrow afternoon (when it will be daylight).

• File:Lostocks hall.JPG is an image taken by myself; and despite that it looks similar to this website photo I would like to stipulate that it isn't. As the details shown on the uploaded file itself comment on this. Pr3st0n (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I hereby open this to full and cooperative discussion. Pr3st0n (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you're not discussing File:LostockHallLibrary.jpg above. Probably wise, considering it's identical to http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4894839. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct, I've not included that, or Todd Hall, one in discussion, as I fully comprehend that they look identical. Following what others have said, I have already planned to take new images, with my own camera, as I don't wish to be violating any rules on here. I respect Wikipedia as a community - and do shamefully feel wrong with those 2 images. At this present moment in time, I feel like I've gone from being born within the wikipedia community to thinking I know how to run, walk, jump etc. This is not the case, and know I need to learn more on each policy in detail - hence the reason I'm being adopted, so that I can learn these things. Why am I being penalised, when it is clear I'm still going through a learning process, and obviously made an action which is now wrong, and was willing to help rectify this. Pr3st0n (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You comprehend that they look identical, but do you now admit that they are not in fact your work? It is the apparent attempted deception regarding this that has got you blocked, not the uploading of the photos in the first place. It is not a case of whether you know about wikipedia policies, but when asked about something you lied. That does not require any knowledge of any policies whatsoever, just a bit of honesty. This may also be clouding the judgement of the other pictures, as people may not trust that you are telling the truth any longer. Quantpole (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not a deceitful person, and if any deception may look apparent, then it is pure accidental. To lie is something I do not condemn to. I answered the questions regarding ALL images honestly. And now insight of some issues surrounding the identicalness, am willing to cooperate fully and fairly. I would like to ask also, about my adoption page. When I click "edit" an error message appears at the top; but below this message it states "You are allowed to view, copy, edit this page", does this mean I can still undertake any adoption assignments given to me? Pr3st0n (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, you have forgotten that you stated above that File:Lostocks hall.JPG is not this website photo, but rather was taken by myself; and although it looks identical to the photo shown on the website you supplied, I can indeed stipulate that it isn't. Naturally some images can seem identical when taken, especially if they are both shot from the same spot. Yet a point by pont comparison indicates they are indeed identical - down to the positions of blades of grass and the exact sticks and leaves in the foreground driveway. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me on that one, I was frantically working to cover everything, that I missed that one. Pr3st0n (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• To reiterate from above - you need to come clean here, admit your mistake and something can be sorted out. But as noted that photo *is* a copyvio. Please just tell the truth and we can see what we can do about the block. Pedro :  Chat  15:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Chance be given would be a fine thing; everytime I tried to add something I got an edit conflict - this is the 4th one now, and my previous 3 replies haven't even had chance to show up LOL. I'll let you all read them for now. Pr3st0n (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OK so out of the images causing problems, I am willing to cooperate fully, and obtain new ones in retrospective for:

• File:Lostocks hall.JPG
• File:LostockHallLibrary.jpg
• File:Todd Hall-2009.jpg

I would like to know what to do about these one though:

• File:Lostock Hall 10D MPD 27-07-68.jpg: Original image owned by my late grandfather.
• File:47008, Lostock Hall MPD, 25th March 1964.jpg: Original image owned by my late grandfather.
• File:Pleasant Retreat Inn, Lostock Hall.jpg: Original image owned by myself, for a project on behalf of the pub.
• File:Map of Lostock Hall, 1892.jpg: Image owned by Ordinance Survey, and prior to 1923 date rules.
• File:Thomas Moss & Sons Mills Portfolio 1920 Scanned 2007 from Original print.jpg: Original image already in article prior to my input.
• File:Tardy Gate Manufacturing Company.jpg: Image attributed correctly, and link provided to show copyright permissions.

Still unsure whether the owner of Genuki has sent an email to wikipedia about these (but again, I am willing to obtain new versions by my own camera):

• File:WatkinLaneUMFC.jpg
• File:Our Lady of Lourdes and Saint Gerard Majella Church.jpg
• File:StJames, lostock hall.jpg

Any advice warmly welcome. Pr3st0n (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)