User talk:PaulBarner
The image you uploaded is marked with a clear copyright notice and is not creative commons - thus a copyright violation. In addition, if brought back under the correct copyright (a non-free image) it would not be used because the person is alive and a free image could be found for the person. You'd be best to find a free (non-copyrighted) image for a living person. Skier Dude (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. if you usurped this user name, you can delete the nonsense above - it will remain in the history but will not be here. Skier Dude (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I know the photographer personally, she didn't mind me using the picture for Wikipedia. It's also publicly on her website www.teamwayta.com to which I provided a link to.
I hope that helps in any way. Or do you need some sort of 'proof of permission'? PaulBarner (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
January 2012
[edit]
This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at El Rod, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You've been warned several times. Do not remove the maintenance templates again without addressing the issues they point out. OlYeller21Talktome 23:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear O1Yeller,
The reason the templates were removed were because of the fact they were already removed by members/editors of Wikipedia. The only one that was kept was the 'orphan' template, that one I just now accidentally removed I JUST saw, my bad! I meant to only delete the other 2. After a new edit recently, shortening the piece, removing links and adding valid new ones, the other templates reappeared which didn't make any sense because ya'll already reviewed the edits and figured it was ok to remove them yourselves. At one point ya'll removed the templates and only left the 'orphan' one. Which I thought was fair. Only to see the templates reappear after making the piece even shorter than it was! That's why I deleted the templates earlier on.
Could you, remove the 'intricate detail' and 'additional citations' templates again as they were before? The orphan one was a valid one as the article continues to grow but the others were, like I said already removed by Wikipedia editors themselves.
Thank You!
P.S. By the way, for every edit I make, I type a quick summary of what I changed. Which is 'proof' so to speak about the work I've actually done on a piece. I don't know if ya'll read that but isn't that supposed to be the bridge between a writer and an editor and cause for dialogue? I don't want to remove templates in the future and get a warning for a rule I DID follow but was overlooked by an editor you know? Thanx!
PaulBarner (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]
Message added 01:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
OlYeller21Talktome 01:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I couldn't even begin to read that message. You placed your text inside of mine making it impossible to understand who said what. Per WP:REFACTOR, I've reverted the refactoring of my comments because I feel that it the refactoring made my comments unclear. Please reinsert your text below mine. Using a ":" at the beginning of a paragraph offsets your text to make it more clear as to who is saying what. Additional colons increase the offset. OlYeller21Talktome 19:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
March 2012
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to Talk:El Rod, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. Tgeairn (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Seriously?
[edit]Seriously? In this edit, you claimed to have " Adding link to orphaned article" which you obviously did not (looking past your apparent misunderstanding of what an orphan is). I'm reporting this to ANI unless you can explain why it appears that you have intentionally attempted to remove a template that you have tried to remove several times with a misleading edit summary. OlYeller21Talktome 16:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article El Rod is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Rod until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The file File:El Rod - Belle Époque.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Uploaded for El Rod. No other use.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
