User talk:GateFreeWiki

Welcome!

Hello, Dema9049, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of OpenQA

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on OpenQA requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://os-autoinst.github.io/openQA/, https://progress.opensuse.org/projects/openqa-improvement/wiki, and http://os-autoinst.github.io/openQA/downloads/. 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 or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — 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 or image 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ciridae (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of OpenQA

Hello Dema9049,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged OpenQA for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TimothyJosephWood 14:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Di Donato moved to draftspace

It appears that you may have a conflict of interest with the subject of Melissa Di Donato and/or SUSE, and as such you should submit this article to be published through the Articles for Creation process. Before editing the article further, please first disclose on your user page and on the article's Talk page whether you have received money to write this or other articles on Wikipedia, or if you have any other kind of conflict of interest concerning the subject. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. Before submitting, you should make sure that the article is fully compliant with Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability policies, as well as our notability guidelines. When you’re ready, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. This process is encouraged, but optional. If you choose not to participate in it, you can remove the AfC template and move the article back to mainspace. You should also consider reaching out to the Teahouse for additional feedback and aid from experienced editors. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Melissa Di Donato has been accepted

Melissa Di Donato, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

KylieTastic (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! However, you should know that it is not a good idea to remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Billy Graham. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Billy Graham, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. It also appears there was a veiled threat in your edit summary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely false. The religious aspects I see taking place with false positions noted in wikipedia based on "deletion of content" is wrong @Walter Görlitz. Happy for have a conversation of historical/true facts based a discussions. However, if reverting posts on billy graham's false facts persists, donations to wikimedia will cease. You're false propagation is unacceptable. We all know that half the world did not see this speech, which would be the amount be expressed in the source. During that time and at any time during the world, it would be impossible. It would be like saying now everyone say "xyz (4 billion people saw) the US is president talk about xyz." That is not even possible. Remove now. Dema9049 (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"amount be expressed in the source" Or lack of source for that matter. Dema9049 (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel it is absolutely wrong. Take it to the article's talk page because you clearly made some changes that make MOS:ACCESS more difficult. You clearly removed sourced content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, this edit where you wrote, "unsubstantiated statement. editorializing." is simply wrong. The supplied source is https://web.archive.org/web/20081203122410/http://cincinnati.com/billygraham/p_man.html and there is a sentence there that reads, "Face-to-face, Graham has carried the word of the Bible to more than 100 million people on six continents in crusades that, having long ago outgrown tents, have often broken stadium attendance records. Including those who have heard him on radio, television or via satellite broadcasts, Graham's lifetime audience tops 2 billion." (emphasis mine). So what part of that is unsubstantiated? What part is editorializing? Again, the place to discuss this is on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Hi Dema9049! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Billy Graham that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. -- dsprc ^[talk] 22:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Graham article

If you could engage in constructive dialogue with your fellow contributors, and stop the long-term, persistent edit warring on the Billy Graham article, that would be most welcome. Failure to do so may result in being topic banned, or potentially blocked.

For example, Walter Görlitz previously asked for elucidation on the specific objection in question a year ago, and there appears to be no follow up.

I understand the objections, but a simple attribution of the statement, as I have since done, should be sufficient to assuage interested parties…(?) -- dsprc ^[talk] 22:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Billy Graham. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Additionally: Please also cease misusing the minor edit feature, as previously requested – failure to do so may result in being blocked from editing. Again, please see: WP:MINOR for more information. Please also understand we do not care about Truth™ – only that which is Verifiable. Please engage in discussion with your fellow contributors, as aforementioned. Content is decided upon through consensus on Wikipedia – which can not be reached if one fails to engage in meaningful discussion. Thank you. -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John E. Deaton moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to John E. Deaton. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and you may have a possible Conflict of Interest. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about John E. Deaton

Hello Dema9049, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, John E. Deaton, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John E. Deaton (2nd nomination).

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Fiachra10003}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Dema9049, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:John Deaton.png

Thanks for uploading File:John Deaton.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 {{permission 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. Here is a list of your uploads. 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. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: to answer your question "Is this really allowed??" when you put the no permission tag, no it isn't allowed as it fails WP:NFCC#1, since Deaton is alive and running for the seat. Apparently, it would also fail WP:NFLISTS as well, from what I was told from another image similar to this. reppop^talk 05:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I figured there must have been some problem with the reasoning they were claiming. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions are made as stated in the standards cited. 80.245.73.43 (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since no Creative Commons image of John Deaton is available, and the image is significant in representing him as a candidate in a major U.S. Senate election, this fulfills the criteria for non-free content use on Wikipedia. Look at the sources provided. GateFreeWiki (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it doesn't. It violates WP:NFCC#1 since he is alive and running, and theoretically, someone could take a photo and make it free to use. As it says: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." It also fails WP:NFLISTS, which says that images discussed in detail are preferable to something that only adds visual identification (the image would only provide visual identification of Deaton, and isn't discussed in detail within the article). reppop^talk 15:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#1 policy isn't about theory; it's about actively following policy that doesn't have a bias. Whether liberal, conservative or somewhere in between, readers deserve a space where they can trust that information is being presented without the interference of editorial agendas and status quo policies that have electoral effects since the incumbents automatically have their images in the public domain. This is a campaign image. By definition, a campaign photos of a candidate is for the public and is considered for public domain. The whole point is for media outlets to use these images without permission. It's right here GateFreeWiki (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I bolded it for you in my previous message; a photo of Deaton can be created, so it fails WP:NFCC#1. This isn't about "we need to have every photo", its "if we don't have a photo, we don't have a photo." Saying that its about "actively following policy that doesn't have a bias" the a very odd interpretation of that policy that seems pretty clear on what its asking.

And no, campaign photos are not public domain, any photo is considered to have a copyright automatically unless stated otherwise. Distributed publicly does not mean public domain. Per Wikipedia:Copyrights: "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed. Generally, Wikipedia must have permission to use copyrighted works." If you really want this to be on here, get the campaign or the photographer themselves to send permission or give a valid Creative Commons license. reppop^talk 19:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been doing that without results apparently. The world is a big place and not everything falls into a Wikipedia definition. The point of this whole venture was to document history; it seems that must fall into a fine definition to be recorded, which means it may or may not have happened. Guess these things get lost in the matrix or whatever this world has become. 2A01:599:A2A:17E9:4497:3170:3AA3:55B0 (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]