User talk:BMcCJ/Archive 2007

Your picture

Hi BMcCJ. I wanted to ask a question about the image on your user page. I noticed that it was uploaded as a copyrighted publicity photograph. Do you own the copyright in the photograph, or was it created by Ford Motors or one of its employees? If you own the copyright in the photograph (in other words, if you created the image), then I recommend that you release it under a free license by modifying the image description page appropriately. If you do not own the copyright, unfortunately, the image will have to be removed from you page per the fair use policy regarding images on user pages. Just let me know. Thanks! · j e r s y k o talk · 03:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had uploaded it as a fair use public domain publicity photo. It was taken by FoMoCo for me and then released internally and externally into the public domain. The picture is of me and I believe that has been released publically. I think it is a fair use. Pehaps it should be recategorized, I thought I had made the correct selection. Thanks. -BMcCJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.56 (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Take a look at the articles on fair use and public domain. Basically, they're incompatible, as a public domain photograph would not be covered by copyright protection, whereas a fair use photograph is, by definition, a copyrighted photograph (which we are claiming a right to use). Public domain photos are acceptable on user pages or articles, fair use photos are only acceptable in articles (and even then, under limited circumstances, see WP:FU). Since you aren't entirely certain what copyright license the picture is under, and because it's currently tagged as a fair use photo, it would probably be best to keep it off your user page for now. Believe me, I know copyright issues can be complicated sometimes (if I hadn't had three years of law school, I doubt I would have even bothered to try to understand Wikipedia's complex copyright rules). Anyway, I hope you don't mind going photo-less for a little while. Thanks for understanding. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since its me, I thought I have fair use of it. But, that's OK, I have a better one I clearly own and can use instead. Thanks.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BMcCJ.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:BMcCJ.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BruceJones.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BruceJones.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. BigDT 03:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Latpiox.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Latpiox.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. 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, Bruce Jones (surfboards), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Bruce Jones (surfboards), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. — Coren ^(talk) 02:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Good work. You may have noticed I've already removed the tags from the article as your work was in progress. Happy editing! — Coren ^(talk) 04:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... made it better

Edison

I believe so, I wrote the editor of the Edison papers, but haven't heard back yet. If you want the obits to write full articles, let me know. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me who you want first and I will email it to you. I have to look them up again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 05:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Montblanc Special Theme Edition pens

A tag has been placed on Montblanc Special Theme Edition pens, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD G12.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tag gone now as the copyright issue is resolved. However, might I suggest you consider merging this into the main Montblanc article since it isn't very long (and I suspect it won't get much longer)? Or perhaps merge it into Montblanc Limited Editions? (With redirects, of course.) I'm of the mind that larger, more substantial articles with sections for such things as this are more useful to readers, as they are more likely to find this information that they might not have known about when it's off in a separate small article. Just a thought, and I welcome your feedback. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Tissot Dupont

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Simon Tissot Dupont, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.joonpens.com/upload/ST_Dupont_history.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 05:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues

Please stop posting text from other websites on Wikipedia. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks 06:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you shouldn't post copyvios in the sandbox either. And you shouldn't start writing an article by copying somebody else's text. But if you need the sandbox, it's here. Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks 06:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]