User talk:Thelad101

Proposed deletion

A tag has been placed on The Battle of Sherramoor, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Welcome

Good to have your edits. There is no need to do anything if you agree with the above. As I understand, it will now be dealt with by an admin Finavon 09:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author's request for deletion

I have deleted The Battle of Sherramoor at your request, which applies whenever you are the only contributor and you want a page deleted. If such a situation occurs in the future, place {{db-author}} at the top of the page. Leebo ^T/C 13:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the advice and interest in the articles.Thelad101 13:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Burns_-_Battle_of_Sheriffmuir_Manuscript.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Burns_-_Battle_of_Sheriffmuir_Manuscript.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 13:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Lande

Dear Thelad101, Contrary to your criticism, I actually did look at not only the article's history, but your edit history as well as your contributions. I noticed you've had pages deleted before, but I assumed good faith, and decided not to pass judgment on the article, though I question the notability. I added the "unreferenced" tag for assistance to others who may want to help the article, and the adding of that tag does nothing to detract from the content. I also stated specifically in my edit summary that while I (at that time) question the notability, it was not possible to tell without references, so I was leaving it open. (Summary says: (add unref tag, add ref section, ext links section, question WP:NN. Can't tell without refs)) I would request that you not be so defensive, and realize that those tags are there to assist others, who may also wish to contribute to the article's growth. I should note that you removed the tag, but did not provide any properly referenced, reliable sources. I'd encourage you to put the tag back so others may assist in the article's development. Sincerely, ^Ariel♥Gold 05:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thelad101, I have replied at length on my talk page, and I hope that assists you in your article. (I would also like to gently remind you to "sign" your replies on talk pages, with four tildes (~) at the end, as it helps people know who is posting the message.) Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 06:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Lawence Lande.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Lawence Lande.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 05:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Lawrence Lande.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Lawrence Lande.jpg. The copy called Image:Lawrence Lande.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 06:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:John Law Paper Money.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:John Law Paper Money.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. 07:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lawrence Lande.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lawrence Lande.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. BetacommandBot 05:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Talk:Charles Dickens signature.jpg has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Notices

You are a bit of a nuisance. I am trying to share images that I have created with the public under the creative commons license and you have systematically gone through each one adding a potential copyright infringement notice.

Not only does such inconsiderate and baseless actions cause me much greater work in sharing these images, it also prevents the public from enjoying them as I shall be reluctant in future to post more if it means having to undertake this extra work.

You have no reason whatsoever to presume that there is any copyright infringement on those images. Not only do I own the original manuscripts, created the images and prepared them for the public, I also own the original site from which they are taken (www.adamshamilton.com). As a lawyer, I am fully aware of the distinct lack of copyright infringement issues relating to that material and I suggest you consider reading into why there is certainly no copyright infringement in such circumstances. The work I am putting inot sharing these images is being made very difficult by your interference. I have had to post further explanations and email Wikipedia as a result of your actions.

I suggest you be more selective about causing unecessary work for those attempting to enrich the Wiki experience of others in the future.

Thelad101 (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. However, we cannot accept evidence of "it is my website" as proof that you are indeed the copyright holder. It is recommended that you provide an indication somewhere on the website (perhaps by creating a new page which states that you are uploading the images to Wikipedia under Thelad101, and linking to it in the information section) or by contacting permissions@commonswikimedia.org to establish proof that you are holder of the applicable copyright(s). --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 12:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you may have already gone through this process, as this image has been verified as having been approved by OTRS. I have contacted User:Mike.lifeguard to see if this same OTRS applies to all of your images or if each one has been individually verified. Please understand that I do not mean to say that you are not who you say you are, I'm just saying we need the proof of such; and it does appear that you have already been making those efforts. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib)