User talk:Ontheroad111

Unspecified source for Image:Lowstars2006a.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lowstars2006a.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 17:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Lowstars2006.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lowstars2006.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Lowstars2006a.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lowstars2006a.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 17:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lowstarsin2006.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lowstarsin2006.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 17:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Jeffrussolivepicture.jpg

File Copyright problem

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

If you created 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 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 in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image 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 uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 20:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Chris seefried 2006.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Hello, I'm RunnyAmiga. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Tonic (band) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. And so you know, I removed that image because it's lower quality than the one it replaced, it's much too wide for a typical infobox image, and I didn't see an explanation of why the original image isn't preferable. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 16:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tonic (band), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 16:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is, now the picture shows BOTH founding members of the group as opposed to just one, giving a fuller picture of the band.

The image has far lower quality than the one of Hart alone, and it's so wide it stretches the infobox to occupy a third of the article's width. Do you have a smaller, better-quality version of that photo? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 16:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Tonic (band), you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 16:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that your reverting back to a picture that is not fully showing the original members of this band could be viewed as disruptive as well. Please explain to me your reasons for continually removing the picture that is a more accurate representation of this band.

I already explained it but I'll do it again: the quality of the image is bad and its width messes up how the article is presented. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 16:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with you. Why is your opinion correct and mine not? Wikipedia is about information, not about presentation. I am making an edit that more accurately portrays this wiki entry. I am reverting back again. Please do not undo it.

If you disagree with me on the image's quality, that's fine. I don't know why, given how blurry your photo is compared to the other photo. You could tell me that's Gary LeVox and Bruce Springsteen and I might believe it while the other image is obviously, unambiguously Emerson Hart. Is this opinion stuff? Sure. Okay. But it's not my "opinion" that the image's width is excessive and it screws up how the infobox and article are rendered. It's a fact that your photo makes the article difficult to navigate and read.

And even still, it makes little sense for me to continue this conversation if you won't wait until the discussion is resolved before you remove an image that's been at the top of this article for over six years. You're edit warring, you're playing games with the three-revert rule by reverting outside of the 24-hour limit, and you've ignored at least three requests to stop reverting and discuss. So let me know: if I revert you right now, will you let the previous image stay until we've come to some sort of compromise? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 16:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tonic (band)

Your recent editing history at Tonic (band) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 16:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chris seefried 2006.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chris seefried 2006.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 15:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]