User talk:Isabela84: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:11, 29 May 2014

License tagging for Image:Izzy1.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Izzy1.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the image, which might not have been a good idea. Isabela84

Fair use rationale for Image:Mitch.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mitch.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 14:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Sussex county flag.JPG

Image:Sussex county flag.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has got to be a joke of some sort. Izzy (talk)

It appears to be no joke. I have designed a new flag for Sussex and inserted in place of the old one. Izzy (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

Sorry that was a mistake. I reviewed the article below it and deleted the article title without deleting the hold. I'll try to review your article in the next few hours as a make good.User:calbear22 (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe. Thankyou for that.Izzy (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article and put it on hold. The write up is on the article's talk page. Thanks.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geograph Images

I disagree with your revert on Seaford, East Sussex, which also wiped out the rest of my update, and the anon editor valid edits. You will see I have put those valid edits back. As far as I am aware the attribution goes on the image page Image:Seaford.jpg and there is no need to display it on the main article page. I have not seen any other articles where the photographers name appears. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MortimerCat. Sorry if I was a little too hasty and indiscriminate - I should have conferred with you before doing anything. The Geograph Creative Commons Licence requires that uses of its images are attributed to the authors. The appearance of a Geograph image in an article is a discrete "use" and should strictly be attributed. In any event, if someone has been generous enough to make their work available for use then they should be recognised. Izzy (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing wrong with reverting my changes if you felt that there was something was amiss. Thats why I re-reverted (if thats a word) but left the photographers attribute intact. I agree that the the picture needs to be attributed. My opinion is that this is done by the image page, reached by clicking on the photograph. I am not personally going to remove them again though, they do no harm on the main article. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gowcar.jpeg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gowcar.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Damiens.rf 15:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

WikiThanks

Thank you for your contributions to Baccara over the last few days. Looking through your edit history, you've made many valuable edits, so I just thought I'd let you know that your work on Wikipedia is much appreciated ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EyeSerene. Thanks for the appreciation. I first came across Baccara last year when I was travelling in the bible belt and kept hearing Somewhere in Paradise on evangelical radio shows. The song stuck in my head and I had to find out more about it and the singers.Izzy (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - my involvement was because I tagged the article as needing cleanup back in June 07, and was asked by its Spanish author to help out... which in all conscience I couldn't then refuse :P The sourcing still needs work, but it doesn't get much attention so your edits are very welcome! EyeSerene^talk 10:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bacc303.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Bacc303.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Moore image

Carnildo. The image is taken from Lord Moore's biography in the House of Lords website. It is covered by British Parliamentary copyright, see : http://www.parliament.uk/site_information/parliamentary_copyright.cfm

Note the following extract "All Parliamentary copyrights are reserved. The material listed may be reproduced without formal permission for the purposes of non-commercial research, private study and for criticism, review and news reporting provided that the material is appropriately attributed"

In particular "Use of parliamentary photographic images - The photographic images featured on this website are covered by Parliamentary copyright. They may be downloaded and reused without permission in any format for non-commercial use, including publication on a website ..."

Key phrase there: "non-commercial use". That's far from being public domain. Since Wikipedia policy requires that images be commercially usable, I've deleted the image. --Carnildo (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo. In view of subsequent discussion and decision on Mitch, I think it is clear that the LordMoore image is OK for use in this article, and I have restored it. Please take the matter to the IFD forum if you still want to remove it. Izzy (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Mitch.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Mitch.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. 06:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Password Request

Hi, I'm (Englishprince (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)), the head administrator of the English Wikipedia and I have received a number of classified complaints from other users, that you have made no serious contributions to the English wikipedia. As a result, I'm going to have to ask for your username and password so I can see if you have actually made any serious edits. If it turns out you haven't, you will be issued a warning and told to do some serious editing or you will be blocked. You have a deadline of 24 hours. Thank you for your cooperation and only I and other administrators will see your password. It is recommended you change though, once I have a finished looking at your previous edits.[reply]

This is not an admin and his account has been blocked. Please do not give out your password to anyone. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Shoreham2001.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Shoreham2001.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sherool (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a picture taken of me with my own camera and I own the copyright. However, it isn't used anywhere and is redundant. So, you can delete it. Izzy (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Colin Campbell Mitchell.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Colin Campbell Mitchell.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 21:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZooFari. The image is used in Colin Campbell Mitchell. Its apparent "orphaned" status is incorrect. I suspect it is a system fault related to a recent attempt by someone to change the image's name. Please leave this image. Izzy (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Gow2.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Gow2.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think an adequate 'Fair Use' rationale has been given in the statement under the heading 'Licensing'. Izzy (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Isabela84. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi Isabela84! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.

As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:

Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen
Join the conversation on our Twitter feed
Reading and writing for our blog channel

We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)!

WikiWomen - We need you!

Hi Isabela84! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more!

Get involved by:

Visiting our website for resources, events, and more
Meet other women and share your story in our profile space
Participate at and "like" our Facebook group
Join the conversation on our Twitter feed
Reading and writing for our blog channel
Volunteer to write for our blog, recruit blog writers, translate content, and co-run our Facebook and receive perks for volunteering
Already participating? Take our survey and share your experience!

Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First ever Brighton Wiki Meetup

You are invited to the first Brighton Wiki Meetup which will take place at The West Quay, Brighton Marina Village, Brighton BN2 5UT on Sunday 28 April 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Brighton topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Ian Gow circa 1983.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Ian Gow circa 1983.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specific issue raised has now been addressed by an addition to the image FUR. Izzy (talk)

Please learn to indent

Isabela, can you please indent your posts on talk pages? Per Wikipedia:Indentation:

...it should be noted that the use of normal indentation is a behavioural guideline that editors are expected to follow. Such guidelines may be enforced by administrative action, especially when other editors have been unable to persuade an individual to abide by them. The guideline should never be used to bite newcomers who don't know how to indent properly, but experienced users are expected to comply with it, to facilitate threaded discussion on talk pages.

Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scolaire. Indentations are not my strong point. Izzy (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above again. You need to make it your strong point. It is disruptive not to do it and I will not hesitate to ask for admin intervention if you continue to edit disruptively. Scolaire (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scolaire. What do you mean by "editing disruptively"?. In regard to this accusation, please explain yourself. Izzy (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read the quote again. Refusing to indent when you know how to do it is disruptive. It says right there in the quote that if other editors have been unable to persuade an individual to abide by the guideline, it may be enforced by administrative action. I have done my very best to persuade you. The next step will be to report you at the administrators' Noticeboard. Scolaire (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to go that far, I hope. Isabela, please read Wikipedia:Talk page formatting. Your lack of proper indentation is causing a bit of a headache and it makes it very, very difficult to figure out what you are responding to. Yes, that is a bit disruptive and it's easy to fix by the judicious insertion of colons. PLEASE read that guideline; we don't need any more acrimony and trouble on that talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No acrimony and trouble from me. As regards the current issue on the Ian Gow article, please bring the matter to a close, one way or the other. It seems to me that there is a consensus in favour of referring to the car in which Gow was blown up. This is the same consensus as there was on previous occasions when the matter was raised. Izzy (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible to believe that the concept of indentation could cause anyone any difficulty. When you say "No acrimony and trouble from me" while refusing to comply with a very simple and politely made request, it can only be because you want to be deliberately irritating. Much of your "input" on the discussion about Ian Gow seemed to have the same motivation. 99.249.40.159 (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 179: / Line 179: @@
 *It doesn't have to go that far, I hope. Isabela, please read [[Wikipedia:Talk page formatting]]. Your lack of proper indentation is causing a bit of a headache and it makes it very, very difficult to figure out what you are responding to. Yes, that is a bit disruptive and it's easy to fix by the judicious insertion of colons. PLEASE read that guideline; we don't need any more acrimony and trouble on that talk page. Thank you, [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 No acrimony and trouble from me. As regards the current issue on the [[Ian Gow]] article, please bring the matter to a close, one way or the other. It seems to me that there is a consensus in favour of referring to the car in which Gow was blown up. This is the same consensus as there was on previous occasions when the matter was raised. [[User:Isabela84|Izzy]] ([[User talk:Isabela84#top|talk]]) 18:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
+:It's not possible to believe that the concept of indentation could cause anyone any difficulty.  When you say "No acrimony and trouble from me" while refusing to comply with a very simple and politely made request, it can only be because you want to be deliberately irritating.  Much of your "input" on the discussion about Ian Gow seemed to have the same motivation.  [[Special:Contributions/99.249.40.159|99.249.40.159]] ([[User talk:99.249.40.159|talk]]) 22:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)