User talk:Bushost

September 2007
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Steve Chapman. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Kesac 02:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place  on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's . Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article.  Erechtheus 03:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from articles you have created yourself. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion.  Erechtheus 03:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Calgary Homeless Man (2014).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Calgary Homeless Man (2014).jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Calgary Homeless Man (2014).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Calgary Homeless Man (2014).jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See 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. Eeekster (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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

If you are the copyright holder for 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 Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See 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. Eeekster (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Artur Pawlowski 2014 on the Streets.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Artur Pawlowski 2014 on the Streets.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See 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. Eeekster (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Artur Pawlowski Outside Calgary Courthouse (2014).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Artur Pawlowski Outside Calgary Courthouse (2014).jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See 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. Eeekster (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

An explanation
Hello, Bushost. I read your message on Talk:Artur Pawlowski and I am sorry to hear your experience of Wikipedia has not been a good one. I will do my best to answer your questions specifically; if there is anything you are still confused about, feel free to post a message on my talk page.

1. Why are my images marked for deletion?

For non-public domain images, there are two ways they can be uploaded to Wikipedia. First, you may have taken the picture yourself and released it under an appropriate license. Second, someone else may have taken the photograph, and they gave you permission. The second case is applicable here, assuming you are not Artur Pawlowski. Saying "Provided with permission from Artur Pawlowski" is not sufficient evidence of permission in this case. We need to know specifically that Mr. Pawlowski is allowing Wikipedia to use the images under an appropriate license (such as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0), and have him send an e-mail (using this format) to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Unfortunately, it is a complicated process, but in the past people have uploaded pictures of celebrities stating they had permission when they really didn't, hence why we need an e-mail.

2. What is wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information?

One of Wikipedia's most important policies is the neutral point of view policy. As a rule of thumb, it should be impossible to determine the viewpoint of the editors who wrote a neutral article because the wording used is so bland. Take a look at some well written examples: Napoleon is still a highly controversial figure, yet his article does not lean either way. It states what historians on both sides think of him, but does not try to persuade the reader either way.

Here are some examples of promotional language I think should be removed from Artur Pawlowski's article:
 * "In Pawlowski's fight for freedom": Fighting for freedom is a very loaded term. What some people view as a fight for freedom may seem misguided to others. Aiding the homeless is certainly a very worthy cause, but at the same time, we don't take a position on it. If everyone believes the cause is good, there is no need for Wikipedia to promote it. The virtue of the position is already evident. Change this to "Pawlowski has faced stiff opposition to his advocacy. He has been arrested..." Advocacy is a neutral term; it doesn't take a position on whether what Pawlowski is fighting for is to be admired or disliked.


 * "holding regular protests four times a week, year round": This goes into unnecessary detail about the frequency of the protests. Just say "holding regular protests" and the reader will get the point.


 * "Artur Pawlowski is an advocate for the poor and brings needed attention to the issue of homelessness. He is also a Canadian clergyman and civil & human rights activist." This is a good sentence. It simply states the facts and doesn't cast aspirations on whether his activities should be thought of as good or bad.


 * Paragraph starting with "From that time, he began charity work..." In general, your writing style is a bit too dramatic for an encyclopedia, and uses terms that carry an emotional charge. In this paragraph specifically, you should remove all the newspaper article titles (the readers get the point, homelessness was a serious problem). "Pawlowski decided...falling through the cracks": Idioms like "falling through the cracks" and "walk away never to return" should be used sparingly. Overuse makes them lose their meaning and hurts the professional tone the encyclopedia is aiming for. A better rewrite would be "Pawlowski decided to quit his million-dollar business to work full-time for the homeless." This rewrite states concisely what Pawlowski did. "Within a few years...countries including Canada": Summarize, summarize, summarize. "Pawlowski's ministry rapidly expanded, beginning cable broadcasts and opening new locations in several countries". "His advocacy work was recognized": Be sparing in the number of times your mention recognitions. If Wikipedia mentioned every single time Barack Obama was recognized for something, readers would get tired pretty quickly. Usually, major recognitions like official prizes are best.

There are quite a few other places that should also be fixed. You might want to directly ask some other editors for assistance. Be prepared if they have many objections about your wording...as a whole, many parts of the article do seem biased in favor of Mr. Pawlowski.

3. Why does my article need more links to other articles to integrate it into the encyclopedia?

Unlike the heavy, burdensome encyclopedias of the past, it is easy to navigate within Wikipedia! Forget the past days of searching through eight point font of Volume H to look up the term Hydrogen Hydroxide only to be told see Water. Ugh! Now you have to look for Volume W. (Notice how that was promotional wording? :) ) Instead, Wikipedia uses internal hyperlinks, which are formatted using brackets: Link goes here . Just add more links to relevant articles like Calgary or Homeless shelter. Once you've done this, feel free to remove the tag.

4. Why is my article orphaned?

Orphaned articles are isolated from the encyclopedia. No articles link to them, so it is almost impossible for the reader to find it. To un-orphan an article, add a link to it from another relevant page. For example, you could add a mention of Pawlowski on Kożuchów.

5. How can I contact the editors objecting to my edits?

Your best bet is to message the editor directly on their user talk page. For example, User:eeekster was the editor who marked your article as having promotional language, you can ask him why on User talk:eeekster. Many Wikipedia editors use automated webscripts to make repetitive edits extremely rapidly, such as tagging articles for promotional language. Unfortunately, they rarely bother to explain why, as new editors just create a page and never bother to fix it. At least you are doing the right thing by being proactive and asking questions.

6. Where else can I get help?

I highly recommend visiting the Teahouse, where there are many friendly editors who signed up exclusively for answering questions! Unfortunately, messages left on article talk pages are rarely read. I only happened to stumble across it on New Pages Patrol. Another highly trafficked pages where you are likely to get your questions answered is the help desk.

This message has taken a long time to write, so I hope it will be useful to you. Good luck! Altamel (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Denise Mountenay for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Denise Mountenay 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 Articles for deletion/Denise Mountenay 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Binksternet (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Edit to Abortion
Hi, regarding your recent edit to Abortion, you may want to read WP:MEDRS where we discuss the guidelines for reliable sourcing that have been established by consensus for medical articles. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. BakerStMD T&#124;C 16:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration. A lot of experienced editors can be less-than-welcoming to new editors. If you use review articles or consensus guidelines as references (for medical articles at least, about which I know the most) you are generally on firmer ground with your edits and are less likely to be reverted. Hang in there! It is worth it, and after a while you will see that we're not out to get you, we just have high standards, which is all for the best in the end. Let me know if I can help with anything specific. BakerStMD T&#124;C 20:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Artur Pawlowski for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Artur Pawlowski 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 Articles for deletion/Artur Pawlowski 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Gbawden (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

How to ask for help
I saw your question at Talk:Artur Pawlowski; I was probably the first person to see it. Nobody is reading talk pages of such articles, I am afraid. In future, please ask your questions at places described in Where to ask a question. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)