User talk:Clercfan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Image copyright problem with Image:Laurent clerc 1869.jpg
2 License tagging for Image:Amos Kendall3.jpg
3 December 2007
4 Laurent Clerc
5 Your recent edits
6 License tagging for Image:Edward miner gallaudet 1893.jpg
7 License tagging for Image:Columbia institution for the deaf circa 1893.jpg
8 License tagging for Image:George veditz 1898.jpg
9 Duplicate images uploaded
10 Speedy deletion of Sophia Fowler Gallaudet

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Laurent clerc 1869.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Laurent clerc 1869.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 (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Amos Kendall3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Amos Kendall3.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

Your recent edit to Laurent Clerc (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laurent Clerc

Your edits to this article appear to be extracts from a book, thus copyright violations. They also don't adhere to the manual of style. I have reverted them. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 08:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The information is good, valuble, and appreciated, but it should be written in your own words rather than copy pasted out of a book to ensure it's relevant. I also noted that some of it was in the first person, which isn't appropriate for our articles. By the way, I moved your message to the bottom of my talk page, if you want to reply. Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 08:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not common in Wikipedia because we don't accept autobiographical material, see WP:AUTO. You are welcome to rewrite it in your own words and cite the autobiography as a source, see WP:CITE. And please reply to the comment at the bottom of my talk page, where your other comments are (use Ctrl + F to search for your username if you can't find them). — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 08:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read Wikipedia:Autobiography, specifically ""The problem with autobiographies", before accusing me of jumping the gun etc. I also point out that if, indeed, we do allow autobiographies in some cases (and as far as I know we don't), you'll need a much stronger justification than "Others will want to read it, and it is proper to add it." I can't think of a proper justification, because to the best of my knowledge we just don't do this sort of thing. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 08:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read the section and see nothing directly justifying your edits. Please point me or quote something that does. Thanks, — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 09:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume you refer to the paragraph starting with "Finally one should also make considerations of time and effort upon the Wikipedia community..." - I don't think your edits were completely neutral or verifiable. If you disagree, so be it, you can re-add them and see what others who review the article think, if you like. Otherwise, this discussion isn't really going anywhere...it's up to you. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 09:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The bot, VoABot II (talk · contribs), is run by Voice of All (talk · contribs), not me - talk to him. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 22:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 10:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Edward miner gallaudet 1893.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Edward miner gallaudet 1893.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

[edit] License tagging for Image:Columbia institution for the deaf circa 1893.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Columbia institution for the deaf circa 1893.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

[edit] License tagging for Image:George veditz 1898.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:George veditz 1898.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Amos kendall by mathew brady.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Amos kendall by matthew brady.jpg. The copy called Image:Amos kendall by matthew brady.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 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Sophia Fowler Gallaudet

A tag has been placed on Sophia Fowler Gallaudet requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)