User talk:Pr3st0n

Today's motto...

→ Lucida sidera
("The shining stars")

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.

WikiProject Eurovision

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletters

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - August 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

re User talk page enquiry

Sounds like something you could bring to WP:ANI. Cirt (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt, I shall do just that. Pr3st0n (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Informal mediation for List of channels on Virgin TV

Dear Pr3st0n,

I have offered my services as a mediator on the Talk:List of channels on Virgin TV page. If you are happy with me acting as an uninvolved neutral mediator, please would you indicate acceptance there?

Regards,

-- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine with me. Pr3st0n (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Good evening Gareth. I know that you have been busy the past few days at work. Do you think you will have the time to add your comments to the case during your two days off (providing you don't get called in unexpectedly)? Thanks -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm on to it right now, although after a solid 8-day working pattern, my head is a little 'fuzzy'. I will do my best to input my say to the dispute. Pr3st0n (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems, Lostock Hall

Other sub-threads to this can be viewed at User_talk:Pr3st0n/Archived2, in order to allow more space to be available on this talk page for an extensive team-work on rewriting the Religion section of article Lostock Hall. Pr3st0n (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting copyright problems

Gareth, please don't work frantically (or overdose on coffee :)), but slow down and take your time. Some of your revisions are really good, but there's parts that still follow the original too closely. Take this passage for example:

...when a lone enemy bomber dived on the nearby Leyland Motors factory, which British Forces where using as a construction base for new military supplies. British army gunners at the works had opened fire in deffence, causing the plane to swerve from its target, releasing three bombs in doing so.

The source says:

...that a lone enemy bomber dived on the nearby Leyland Motors factory. Army gunners at the works had opened fire, causing the plane to swerve from its target, releasing three bombs in doing so.

You've almost entirely retained the original structure and language, adding or altering only a few words. This kind of alteration creates a close paraphrase, which is a derivative work, and still a copyright violation.

Compare especially this: "British army gunners at the works had opened fire in deffence, causing the plane to swerve from its target, releasing three bombs in doing so."

You've added three words. WP:C says, "Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely." There's no reformulation here, and the majority of these words (including the structure in which they've been used) belong to the source. You've followed it too closely.

If you want to talk about how best to rewrite material in your own words, I am happy to discuss it. Given its brevity, I would rewrite this passage for you, but I know from previous conversations that you prefer to do it yourself. In the meantime, I've removed this passage and will be evaluating the others to see if you have similarly only superficially changed them. I'll update you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The St. Catherine's material seems to have been overall rewritten well, though there were a few passages that remained too close to the source. Since there were only a few, I went ahead and rewrote or removed the material anyway. You can see the alterations I made by comparing the diff. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Memorial Band had a bit of close following, though some of it was very well rewritten. (Particularly I note this passage: "Out of the 16 bands that participated in the finals, the Lostock Hall Memorial Band managed to finish a respectable 7th place. This was to be followed with more final qualifications in 1995 and 2006." That's exactly how to take the facts and put it into a new creative expression.) Since it was just a bit, I have again rewritten it in place. If the language I've chosen doesn't suit you, you are (of course) welcome to craft different expression. Compare to see what I've changed. Let me know if you don't see why. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You've made a good start on the religion section, but it remains a little more close than the others. I've removed it, but remember that the text and the mark-up are still accessible in history. For a few points of comparison:

• "It was the Methodists, who were the first to notice this unique community would warmly welcome a chance to worship this religion in a chapel which was to be built nearby." source: "The Methodists were the first to realise that this new community would welcome the opportunity to worship in a nearby chapel."
• "It wasn't until the end of the nineteenth century, the these letter two religions had noticed the urgent need to bring the ministrations a little closer to the communities of the Lostock Hall and Tardy Gate." Source: "Towards the end of the nineteenth century it was realised that there was a need for these latter two religions to bring their ministrations closer to their congregations in Lostock Hall and Tardy Gate."
• "with a succession of clergu and readers taking it in turn to conduct services in the area." Source: "with a succession of clergy and readers taking turns to conduct services in the newly built edifice."
• Article: "This building was used as a vicarage until the 1930's, when it was sold due to its unnecessarily large for the purposes it was constructed for." Source: "It was used as a vicarage until 1930 when it was sold on the grounds that it was unnecessarily large for its purpose."
• Article: "it was decided that the church of St James' had operated as a mission church for too long, and a transformation was to take place to grant St James' the right of being a parish church in its own right. In 1951, this transformation finally took place with what is known as a Conventional District (a parish in the making), and was permitted with the licence to conduct marriage services of their own. A consecration service was held in 1957, by the Bishop of Blackburn , and with it brought the signal of advancement into parish status, and setting in motion a new responsibility of its own welfare, along with a list of major improvements which were required, including renovation work of the church hall." Source: "Saint James' had been a mission church for long enough, and it was time to be transformed into a parish in its own right. It became what is known as a Conventional District (a parish in the making) in 1951 and was licensed to conduct its own marriage services. In 1957 the Bishop of Blackburn came to lead the consecration service, signalling the advance to parish status. This new responsibility for its own welfare set in motion a long list of improvements, the most obvious change being a complete renovation of the church hall, which more or less doubled its size."

When you retain identical structure and striking words with very little change ("would welcome" "bring their ministrations closer" "what is known as a Conventional District (a parish in the making)" "new responsibility of/for its own welfare"), you create a derivative.

I don't mean to discourage you. Some of this is very well revised. But these are some of the examples of passages that remain too close. One thing you might want to keep in mind is that as a tertiary source Wikipedia is generally going to lose some detail, unless we have multiple, detail-rich sources from which to choose. This is unfortunate, but it's the way it goes. What the source has may be better, but unless they license it, we can't use it. :) When rewriting material myself, I will sometimes reduce it to a bullet point of fact: (became a "Conventional District" in 1951; parish in 1957 w/ ceremony by Bishop of Blackburn; required improvements). I'll then form these facts into a sentence or a few sentences and compare what I get to the original to be sure that I haven't accidentally followed too closely. "In 1951, the church had outgrown its status as a mission church and so was elevated to a 'Conventional District', which signaled that it was to become a parish. In 1957, it did, with its change in stature officiated by the Bishop of Blackburn. Afterward, the church began implementing some of the necessary improvements and renovations its new position required."

Since there is more work needed in this material, I've gone ahead and removed it to permit you to work on it yourself at your leisure. If you should have interest, you're welcome to use the text I generated above. I waive my right to attribution for it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

←The first part of the railway section has some good revision as well, but you seem to have simply abridged the source in some places. Look at this part of the opening paragraph:

A route from Blackburn was constructed so that it could join up with the 1838 North Union Railway's junction at Farington. This connection consisted of sharp-curved spurs that joined the tracks north of the signal box at Farington Junction.

Compare directly with a few changes to the source:

This short-lived company had constructed a route from Blackburn to [was constructed so that it could] join up with the existing 1838 North Union Railway['s junction] at Farington, just under 3 miles south of Preston. The actual connection was originally made by means of a (now long-vanished) [This connection consisted of] sharply-curved spur[s] that joined the NU tracks' immediately to the north of the (also now-demolished) Farington Junction signal box [note: inverted, with "at" placed between].

Omitting some words and moving a a few others around isn't completely rewriting material.

Some of the material that follows seems well rewritten, but there are further issues. Compare article to source:

• "New sidings were laid into spare land close to the Moss Lane site, along with a two-tracked through-road engine shed being erected." → "new sidings were therefore laid-in on spare land adjacent to Moss Lane, with a two-track through-road engine shed soon coming to be erected there."
• "bulk of new business opportunities" → "bulk of new business"

I've already put over an hour into reviewing this material, and I'm afraid that I'm running out of time. At this point, I'm going to amend directly anything I find in this section that seems problematic to me under WP:C. If you have questions about my changes, again, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• All right, I'm done. If I had known when I started that it would take me over two hours to review, I probably would have simply rewritten the first passage. I know you told me you feel strongly about this material and would prefer to write it yourself, but sometimes the demands of the project require otherwise and, of course, this is a collaborative project. :) I've revised what I've found except in that first passage and in the religion section. Again, if you wish to discuss this, I'm happy to do so. You might also consider checking with User:Toon05, a very friendly administrator who also works heavily in copyright matters. User:MLauba could also, I'm sure, offer valuable feedback. Please, just remember that there is no reason to work frantically, as there is no deadline. You have plenty of time to read, absorb and reformulate this material in all new language. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for some of the edits you have made too, sorry that it turned into an unwanted mega-project. Just a couple of things though that may prove to more difficult than anyone could understand.

• The information on the Ward Street bombings, is very hard to word any different to the original source, as when you speak to any of the local war veterans around Lostock Hall, they describe it in the same way as the article from South Ribble Borough Council. As I wasn't alive at the time of the war, I am unable to word it any different, and relying purely on what locals have spoke of.
• At the Lostock Hall MPD, a new building was constructed in 1930's, and some evidence of it is still at the now disused site. I took a little visit to the site today (Saturday), just to get a feel for the area, and stumbled across an old rusty sign that reads "Shed C27 - LHMPD 1930". I didn't have my camera on me either, to take a photo, otherwise I would have done, and I didn't want to take the artefact, as it would be stealing.
• The religion part is too hard to work on also, as it is majority information from the past, and I cannot relate myself to it, and only provide details from reference books from the local library, as well as what is available on the Internet. I wonder if using a Thesaurus to drastically alter words would be a feasible solution? Pr3st0n (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A thesaurus is usually not your friend when it comes to rewriting, I'm afraid. :/ It sounds like a simple and ideal solution, but often the changes made wind up being too superficial. I have a few favorite tricks I use. I mention above the bullet-point format. That can be helpful. Also helpful, sometimes, is to flip the sentence around--find a new subject for it. You have to watch out that you don't wind up just sliding material around if you do that, but it can be a good start.

Let's take the Ward Street Bombings. Bullet point: *Sunday 27 October 1940; *solitary bomber at Leyland Motors factor; *army gunners; *plane released three bombs off target. Looking at my bullet points, I might write the following: "The Leyland Motors factory came under attack by a single bomber on Sunday 27 October 1940. Although fire from army gunners drove the bomber from his target, three bombs were dropped in the vicinity." That's method A. Hmm. And on comparing, I see I inadvertently did Method B at the same time. :) We could also write something like, "Three bombs fell in the vicinity on Sunday 27 October 1940, when a solitary bomber attempting to target the Leyland Motors factor was pushed off course by fire from army gunners." (Either of these might work for you and, again, you're welcome to use either without attributing me.)

If you want to work on the religion section together, I'd be happy to help you out with it. Why don't we do it section by section on your user talk? If you give it a go, I can help you find areas that may remain too close to the source and figure out ways to write them so that there is no lingering problem. :)

Oh, as far as the 1930 work goes, you may need to find a source for that to avoid original research. I (as you might guess) really know nothing about Lostock Hall except what I've learned from you and this article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, the Ward Street bombings suggestion is a good one - I will look at using a variation of that (if I may). The religion section is a bit of a biggy to work on. I will now move majority of these talk threads into an archive, to allow room for use to work together on this religion project. And I admire and respect that as far as knowledge on the village, I'm at a high advantage with living here for all of my 30 years. I bet you feel you know the place so much already, and not even been here LOL. Pr3st0n (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've created a sub-user page of mine via User:Pr3st0n/Article Work, so that we can utilise that space on this team project to rewrite the Religion section of Lostock Hall article. Pr3st0n (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Adopt Offer

Would you be willing to be adopted by me? Here are some of my statistics:

• 5,000 edits
• I have a triple crown
• I mainly specialize in reverting vandalism, tagging articles for speedy deletion, and WP:RFPP.

I do have a somewhat of vigorous adoption. See User:Chamal N/Adoption (adoption page for former adoptee) I am looking to adopt someone who is active and has experience already, and you seem to be the best choice. Please let me know.--LAAFan^sign _review 00:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I accept your offer to adopt me - we will have to arrange some hours though, as I work unsociable ones at a pub, and at times can be called to work at short notice; as has happened today (Friday - my day off), I'm now covering for a member of staff who is off sick. My usual hours are: Wednesday's 7:30pm - 12:00 midnight; Thursday's 3:30pm - 7:30pm; Sunday's 3:30pm - 7:30pm (All times are GMT). Sunday 4th October, I will be working 11:30am - 7:30pm. Pr3st0n (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That shall be fine. As long as you're one Wikipedia once a day I am willing to adopt you. Here is your userbox:

Cheers.--LAAFan^sign _review 22:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your adoption page can be found at User:Pr3st0n/Adoption. Also, make sure you always put an edit summary. In my preferences, under the editing tab, there is a function where you will be prompted if you do not put in an edit summary. I would highly suggest enabling that button.--LAAFan^sign _review 15:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm delighted to see you have been adopted by LAAFan (a trusted, experienced and diligent editor who is in good standing around this place I might add). I've watchlisted your adoption page and, without wishing to step on any toes, please feel free to lean on me if I can be of any help as well. Pedro :  Chat  22:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words Pedro, and I might just take you up on your offer too. Is there such thing as joint-adoption? I could do with a special wikibreak-userbox being made too, to help me show what shift pattern I have at the pub for the week. As this will prove useful for both myself and my adopter(s). Not easy having to balance unsociable work hours at a pub, and doing adoptee tasks set on here :-( Pr3st0n (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes and Templates

I would like some help creating a new userbox/template for personal use. I want a box that I can display at the top of my talk page, to let people know which days I won't be available on Wikipedia, as I work at a pub. These are some of the things I would like to be in the box...

• Each day of the week
• A space to include the times I will be at work for each day.

Can anyone help me with this, or better still, be able to make a box for me. Thanks Pr3st0n (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than a userbox you could do with a simple table to be honest - I'll see what I can cook up. Just remember that you don't want to give out too much personal detail on a highly viewed website.... Pedro :  Chat  21:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Try this:

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

Day	Time
Monday	11:00-17:00 UTC -1
Tuesday	Available all day
Wednesday	17:00 -23:00 UTC -1
Thursday	09:00 - 13:00 UTC -1
Friday	11:00-17:00 UTC -1
Saturday	14:00-18:00 UTC -1
Sunday	11:00-17:00 UTC -1

You can de link the wiki stuff to keep the colours. Does that help? Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's great thanks. I understand about not giving out too much personal details. Although something like this is letting others know I take frequent wikibreak-type sessions due to my main work at the pub. Something like that box is fantastic for job. Thanks Pr3st0n (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No probs. It's not the neatst thing in the world and I'm sure someone could flower it up a bit better but it does the job (you could left align it at the top of your user or user talk as an idea) Pedro :  Chat  22:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)