User talk:Cytowic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Cytowic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I'd also like to add that I read your book when researching Synesthesia in 2006 for a Cognitive Science course, and was very impressed. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

response (hopefully!)[edit]

Scarpy: I'm not sure how to reply, even after having checked the help page. This Wiki coding is alien to me. Glad you found me. What synesthesia publications did you find in 2006? If you haven't already gotten it, please do read "Wednesday is Indigo Blue: Discovering the Brain of Synesthesia." It covers everything and bring research up to date. I'm planning on doing a book page on it.

I finally got my own entry done. It was on my to-do list for 2 years. Richard E. Cytowic (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for not getting to this sooner. To answer the most recent question, Wikipedia has a policy on conflict of interest (see WP:COI). The concern, in the case, being that if the topic of the article and it's author (or major contributor are the same) there is a greater change the article will not meet neutrality standards (see WP:NPOV). I'm is true that other people have written their own Wikipedia pages in the past. There is a list of common arguments used on Wikipedia that veteran editors agree should be avoided (see, in this case, WP:OTHERSTUFF) one is using a Wikipedia article that doesn't follow a guideline to justify not following that guideline in another article.
A softer approach, for people who are the topic of an article, is to make suggestions about changes to it on the article's talk page, and then to let other editors make the larger ones. Daniel Levitin, who you may know, has done this before on his articles talk page (see the comments towards the end of the section). I will do what I can to help in this capacity, should you decide it's a good idea.
Now, that being said, contributing to your on article is not forbidden, even if it can become problematic. The important things are that it be backed with reliable sources (see WP:RS), that it remain neutral and especially that it avoid things like overly flattering language (see WP:PEACOCK). Having a glance at the current article, it seems to follow WP:RS nicely. Also, if someone adds something to your article that is ibelous you can and should remove it, there are strictly enforced guidelines on articles categorized as "biographies of living persons" (see WP:BLP).
I'm not sure what content was in the Wednesday is indigo blue article before it was deleted, but I'd be willing to work on it a bit to see about it's square with Wikipedia's guidelines.
The wiki-code I mostly learned by trial-and-error and from examples. There is a tutorial, although I've never read it. But I can help if there's something you're trying to do and you need the code for it.
I did some research on synesthesia in 2005 and 2006 for couple cognitive science related classes. I originally wrote a literature review (I don't seem to have the paper anymore, but I did review plenty of literature) for CSCI 3702 and then later was working on a modeling project attempting to show a relationship between frequency of a letter associated with a color and the coloring of letters/words in grapheme-color synesthesia, but I never completed it (the idea is more or less in slides eight and nine). -- Scarpy (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help. I looked at Daniel Levitin's page, and that is obviously the way to go. Have you ve seen the heated discussion on [1]? Is there anything I should do, or is it best to stay quiet and not stir the pot? In my attempts to adhere to the initial COI notice and editing out any peacock language and striving for neutrality, I only seem to have made things worse. I am mortified by my blunder. Yet as a scholar I am taken aback at the attacking tone that presumes malicious false statements and intent--a far cry from Wikipedia's stated "presumption of good faith" and Don't bite the newcomer guidelines.
I put up the jacket flap copy for "Wednesday is Indigo Blue." I have 5 books with MIT Press, and they grant me the right to use all material for whatever purpose I wish, so I didn't think that was a CV (I'm slowly getting the hang of these Wiki abbreviations). When that kerfuffle arose, I deleted it and put a factual description in followed by science book stub code. I'll let others flesh it out. I can send you that jacket copy or some other description in my own words if you like.
I also have a quote and citation from Oliver Sacks as a verifiable third party if you'd like. Shall I put it here, or email you?
May 12, 2009--This Scientific American interview was just put up: [2].

Richard E. Cytowic (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Most editors I know had a rough start getting used to Wikipedia, it's kind of like a rite of passage. I share your frustration, though, with the frequency that editors seem to forget about WP:AGF and WP:BITE. But I also know I've been guilty of it a few times myself.
Content under a copyright can be used, but it has to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License ("free" as in free speech, not as in free beer, as the saying goes) there are some exceptions where non-free content is allowed, but one is that there is there is no possibility of getting a free equivalent.
I had a look at the links you posted in response to DGG. There is a lot that could be added to The Man Who Tasted Shapes with them. To write and article on Wednesday Is Indigo Blue we might need a few more.
Is the quote from Oliver Sacks the same one that appears here?
In addition to the Scientific American and Library Journal reviews I also found one in the National Post. That puts it close to meeting the first criteria for notable books, but it would be nice to have a few more. I'm thinking with the 4,170 web results there's probably something else out there that's usable.
Generally when I'm working on an article I make a "sandbox" version of it on my user talk page (e.g. User:Scarpy/Wednesday Is Indigo Blue), and I can work on it from there (as can anyone collaborating on the article, for that matter). When it's more or less together (Wikipedia articles are never done), I just move it over to the main space. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, looks like the National Post one was actually about a different book. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
No, the Oliver Sacks quote you pointed to is from the MIT Website and i generally added as a jacket blurb. The quote I gave you is from Sack's book, "Musicophilia," where he discusses my work and calls it "pioneering." I thought it would be a good third-party verifiable source to mollify the critics.
The citation is: In ‘’Musicophilia’’ <refname=”Musicophilia”> {{citebook| first=Oliver| last=Sacks| Title=Musicophilia| publisher=Alfred Knopf | location=New York| year=2007| pages=178–179| isbn=1–400–04081–0 </ref> Oliver Sacks says, “In the 1980s, Richard Cytowic made the first neurophysiological studies of synesthetic subjects…. In 1989, he published a pioneering text, ‘’Synesthesia: A Union of the Senses,’’ <refname=”SpringerEd”>{{citebook| first=Richard |last= Cytowic | Title= Synesthesia: A Union of the Senses (1st edition) | publisher= Springer Verlag |location=New York & Berlin |year]1989 |pages=354 |isbn=0–378–96807–5</ref> and this was followed by a popular exploration of the subject in 1993, ‘‘The Man Who Tasted Shapes’’. Current techniques of functional brain imagine now give unequivocal evidence for the simultaneous activation or coactivation of two or more sensory areas of the cerebral cortex in synesthetes, just as Cytowic’s work predicted.”
I'm not sure how to cite the actual page numbers, pp 178-179. Is the |pages= tag for the total number of pages in a book, or for citing the actual pages on which references may be found?
I'm going to put some links up re "indigo Blue" on your sandbox page. This Wiki is actually fun--more so than Facebook--once you get past the initial shock of having cauldrons of boiling oil dumped on you. Richard E. Cytowic (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It feels like it has much more lasting value than facebook does. From time to time I'll check the page views on articles I've written or contributed too, and it makes me feel a bit like a Master of the Universe.
the pages attribute you'll want to do as the start and ending pages, unless your just citing one page, in which case you'll just want that number. If you're citing an entire book, you can leave it out.
I added the paragraph you wrote to the sandbox page. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Third-Party Citations[edit]

Scarpy, I've started a new section for clarity.
Disregard. I found it, but on the regular "INdigo Blue" page rather than on any sandbox.

You say above that you've added the Oliver Sacks quote to the sandbox page. Which one? I can't find it on either your sandbox or mine, user:Cytowic/sandbox. If it's all the same, I'd like to see it on my main Cytowic page. Other general citations:

Baroness Greenfield, University of Oxford, writing in London Times Higher Education, May 17, 1966 (P 32), says of “The Neurological Side of Neuropsychology":

“Richard Cytowic’s book should be a rich source of information and inspiration for anyone working on, or thinking about, the brain…. This is a sophisticated book that requires an already informed reader to use established knowledge to challenge accepted concepts and think about new ones. It is eloquently written … an unconventional textbook requiring an unusual amount of reflection…. Once the more conventional primers had been assimilated, Cytowic’s contribution would be of enormous value to both neuroprofessional and general readerships.”

James Joyce Hypermedia Studies: http://hjs.ff.cuni.cz/archives/v8/main/essays.php?essay=munisteri

I've got the fair use rationale in the png version of the Indigo Blue cover. PNG is preferable to JPEG in this case, as it is displays text clearer in images, but more importantly because it's algorithm's patient is more compatible with Wikipedia's philosophy.
I didn't see that someone had recreated the Wednesday is Indigo Blue article (after it's initial deletion) in the main space until after I started working a version in my sandbox (User:Scarpy/Wednesday_Is_Indigo_Blue). So far it looks like the main space version has avoided speedy deletion and AfD. My tentative plan was to work on a version of it using the third-party sources available, move it over, and see how things go. If you want to work on improving the The Man Who Tasted Shapes article and create articles for the other books, I'll do what I can. What do you have in mind? -- Scarpy (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I've posted new code on your sandbox (User:Scarpy/Wednesday_Is_Indigo_Blue). Hopefully, I explained my edits/additions correctly in the Edit Summaries. Whenever you are ready, feel free to move it to the live page. I can send a note to others asking them to chime in, if you like.
See the suggestion section at the end of this page re the Scientific American source.
Setting up sandbox pages for the other textbooks is on my to-do list. Thanks so much for your help. Take a look an an article I edited, Richard McCann. I uploaded File:McCann.png but couldn't get it to appear on the page. The Infobox currently has a jpg, since that's what I've been successful with so far. Richard E. Cytowic (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Indigo Blue" sources[edit]

May 12, 2009 Scientific American interview by Jonah Lehrer: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-senses-intersect

Library Journal.com reviewing “Indigo Blue.” http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6650981.html

"The Man Who Tasted Shapes"[edit]

Times Higher Education: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=161766&sectioncode=30

Curt Suplee, The Washington Post. http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/neur-sci/1993-November/012851.html

NYT review of “Shapes” http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/23/science/when-people-see-a-sound-and-hear-a-color.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

TOC + Jonathan Cole’s foreword is viewable on Amazon. Cole is a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, a member of the Physiological Society, and serves on the council of The British Society for Clinical Neurophysiology. http://books.google.com/books?id=EvA5xS-qKR8C&dq=reviews+%22Man+who+tasted+shapes%22&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=Y6wJSt2eK6KqNbvbgdkL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPR10,M1

KC Web http://204.39.65.123:8000/kcweb/kcContent?isbn=9780874777383&type=review&controlnumber=+++92034698&referedby=titlelist

"Synesthesia: A Union of the Senses (textbook)[edit]

“Synesthesia: A Union of the Senses (2nd ed)” review by Noam Sagiv in Psyche, An International Journal of Consciousess http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/book_reviews/cytowic2/index.html

"The Neurological Side of Neuropsychology"[edit]

Review of “The Neurological side of Neuropsychology” in Psyche by John Allen, Dept of Psychology, George Mason University, http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v3/psyche-3-03-allen.html

Baroness Greenfield, University of Oxford, writing in London Times Higher Education, May 17, 1966 (P 32), says of “The Neurological Side of Neuropsychology":

“Richard Cytowic’s book should be a rich source of information and inspiration for anyone working on, or thinking about, the brain…. This is a sophisticated book that requires an already informed reader to use established knowledge to challenge accepted concepts and think about new ones. It is eloquently written … an unconventional textbook requiring an unusual amount of reflection…. Once the more conventional primers had been assimilated, Cytowic’s contribution would be of enormous value to both neuroprofessional and general readerships.”

Richard E. Cytowic (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009[edit]

Information.svg You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, as you did at Richard Cytowic. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. Dori ❦ (TalkContribsReview) ❦ 02:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Wednesday is indigo blue[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Wednesday is indigo blue requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

wait till there are some reviews. then I'll help you put it back. DGG (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate you guidance, and I'm sorry for the mess I made. Trying to comply with Wiki's standard seems to only to have made matters worse. Librarians are my dearest resources: what they know is astounding. Here are some reviews of my various books:
May 12, 2009 Scientific American interview: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-senses-intersect
Library Journal.com reviewing “Indigo Blue.” http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6650981.html
"Shapes" Reviews (most print reviews antedate the Internet explosion):
New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/23/science/when-people-see-a-sound-and-hear-a-color.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Curt Suplee, The Washington Post.” http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/neur-sci/1993-November/012851.html
(review of Shapes + Union in James Joyce Hypermedia Studies): http://hjs.ff.cuni.cz/archives/v8/main/essays.php?essay=munisteri
http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=3087&cn=396
London Times Higher Education: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=161766&sectioncode=30
"Booklist" review by William Beatty: http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/bioforum/1993-October/006240.html
Exceptional human experience network: http://www.ehe.org/display/ehe-bookreviews55db.html?formtype=d1&revid=23
Goodread’s site: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/47475.The_Man_Who_Tasted_Shapes

MIT’s page: http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10003

Damien Broderick’s review (Fellow at the University of Melbourne in Australia): http://www.panterraweb.com/science%20books7.htm
KC Web (Kid’s corner) http://204.39.65.123:8000/kcweb/kcContent?isbn=9780874777383&type=review&controlnumber=+++92034698&referedby=titlelist
Amy Ione in “Leonardo,” http://www.leonardo.info/reviews/jan2005/fourth_ione.html

Monitor on Psychology: http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar01/synesthesia.html

http://www.akademika.no/node/9689494 (Norway academic?)
eiNet’s synesthesia bibliography: http://www.einet.net/directory/964162/Synaesthesia.htm

IndieLondon re Kandinsky exhibit at Tate: http://www.indielondon.co.uk/Events-Review/kandinsky-the-path-to-abstraction-tate-modern

NationMaster: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/The-Man-Who-Tasted-Shapes

SFSU course material re: Marshal McLuhan: http://www.digitallantern.net/mcluhan/course/fall96/Default.htm

University of Glasgow: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/philosophy/ourstaff/fionamacpherson/research/thesensesbibliography/
TOC + Jonathan Cole’s foreword. Cole is a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, a member of the Physiological Society, and serves on the council of The British Society for Clinical Neurophysiology. 2http://books.google.com/books?id=EvA5xS-qKR8C&dq=reviews+%22Man+who+tasted+shapes%22&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=Y6wJSt2eK6KqNbvbgdkL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPR10,M1
"Synesthesia: A Union of the Senses (2nd ed)" review by Noam Sagiv in Psyche: http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/book_reviews/cytowic2/index.html
Review of "The Neurological side of Neuropsychology" (the book I always wanted to write!) in Psyche by John Allen, Dept of Psychology, George Mason University, http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v3/psyche-3-03-allen.html

Reduced block for sockpuppetry[edit]

I have reduced your block for sockpuppetry to 72 hours from now (when the block will automatically expire) per the request of Scarpy who has vouched for you. All of the other accounts will continue to be blocked indefinitely. In the meantime, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Sock puppetry to see what constitutes legal use of a sockpuppet. Valley2city 23:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As a scholar I am mortified at having caused such a mess, and drawn such vitriolic comments accusing me of falsifying my achievements, which are readily verifiable, and misstating my position in the scientific community. My response to your initial COI note, which I tried to edit for neutrality and from which I tried to eliminate any peacock phrases, only seems to have made matters worse. My apologies. Richard E. Cytowic (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Cover-Indigo.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Cover-Indigo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I read a number of image tag articles and, hopefully, put the correct ones on that image. Richard E. Cytowic (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions[edit]

Hi, you're being discussed at the conflict of interest noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Richard_Cytowic-related_articles. I personally can't see anything too wrong with what you've edited and can see that you have not understood some policies and have since stopped (evidenced here). I do have some suggestions however with how you may be able to improve your editing and prevent further disputes. Firstly I would recommend that you disclose your identity on your user page to make it clear that you realise you have a conflict of interest and that you wish to avoid editing articles improperly. Secondly I would advise you not to create articles such as Wednesday is Indigo Blue in the future. This book has only just been published and therefore I'm not sure whether it is suitably notable for inclusion at the moment. Unfortunately whilst the Scientific American article does illustrate that you yourself are notable the article cannot be used as a source for the article as it is not independent of yourself. Generally speaking you should only remove libellous content from articles about yourself or suggest sources that may be useful to other editors on the talk page. I hope this advice is of use and please feel free to message me on my talk page if you have any further queries. Thanks. One other thing, on discussion/talk pages can you remember to sign after your comments with ~~~~ Cheers Smartse (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Query re Userboxes[edit]

{{helpme|where do I find a list of tags to include in either my user infobox, or the boxboxtop?}} Richard E. Cytowic (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like you've sorted it out. Let me know if you need help with anything else. Smartse (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I meant tags that go in the boxes, such as
en This user is a native speaker of English.
Flag of Colorado.svg This user lives in the U.S. State of Colorado
Plato-raphael.jpg This user is an academic.
Brain logo.svg This user contributes to the Neuroscience WikiProject.

and so forth. Is there a list of approved tags, or do you just make up the text after "user?" (I got these examples from scouting collegues' pages. Richard E. Cytowic (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't just make them up - other people make them as templates (I don't really know how) and the they can be simplified as {{user en}} etc. Do you want them adding to your userpage? Smartse (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This page should help: Wikipedia:Userboxes or more specifically Wikipedia:Userboxes#Gallery. Smartse (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Further conflict of interest[edit]

Information.svg If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article User:Scarpy/Wednesday Is Indigo Blue, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

About: "The Man who Tasted Shapes" and more...[edit]

Hi Dr Cytowic,
I apologise for not responding earlier to your kind words. I couldn't change the pic or the references - I was, and always will be, bound by Wikipedia's "fair use" policies for book covers, and I could only cite the information about the copy of your book I bought and read. And re-read.
Wikipedia is, on dit, no less than a a modern marvel, but it is soooo not like (inter alia) academic works. Every edit is still peer-reviewed, but our peers are every single wikipedian.
--Shirt58 (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The magenta image on your bio article[edit]

I wanted to let you know that I removed the magenta-tinted photo from the article on you, and replaced it with a cropped version with the color stripped out. A magenta-tinted image is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I hope you don't mind, but if you do, please do not revert to the previous without first discussing it on the article's talk page. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:McCann.png.PNG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:McCann.png.PNG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. XXN, 12:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:McCann-sq.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:McCann-sq.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)