Jump to content

User talk:RonnieDobbsNL

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 2012

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Newfoundland and Labrador New Democratic Party, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 117Avenue. The edit is correct. please see the BC NDP as an example. Also, the party website - nl.ndp.ca - and the caucus website - nlndpcaucus.ca use this abbreviation. The caucus twitter account is: NL NDP Caucus. You can also view the latest news release from the party; it includes the use of 'NL NDP': http://nl.ndp.ca/node/1096. 'NL NDP' and 'NDP' are used interchangeably depending on the context of the sentence. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RonnieDobbsNL (talkcontribs) 11:29, 30 October 2012
All of these cases require the party to separate itself from other "NDP"s. In an encyclopaedia article it is a given as to what we are talking about. In writing a good article, we are encouraged to first explain an abbreviation before using it, and use that same abbreviation through out the article. It doesn't make sense to first explain that the "Newfoundland and Labrador New Democratic Party" is referred to as "NL NDP", then go on to talk about "NDP". 117Avenue (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right on. New version looks good. Thanks. RonnieDobbsNL 31 October 2012

Email send to permissions-en@wikimedia.org R

File permission problem with File:LorraineMichaelNLNDP.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:LorraineMichaelNLNDP.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 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 on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!