User talk:Devlin77


 * }

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Train at station.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Train at station.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 17:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Brunkild the community
Hi. Regarding your revert at Brunkild, Manitoba, you are probably approaching this from the perspective that the term "hamlet" is simply a standard generic class noun that automatically includes all unincorporated communities. This is because in many US states, "hamlet" isn't a special designation that has to be conferred on any community by an outside authority. What probably is not realized is "hamlet" is in fact a special designation conferred on only certain communities in Manitoba by the provincial government. The misconception that it is correct to generically refer to all unincorporated communities as hamlets is not limited to Manitoba however. The same misconception is present in Saskatchewan and Alberta as well. Please review this related discussion about hamlets in Saskatchewan. You’ll notice within that I once fell within this misconception in the Alberta context. If you go to Category:Hamlets in Manitoba, there is a reference from the Province of Manitoba’s “Manitoba Land Initiative” in Esri shapefile format. The shapefile package of files includes a DBF that lists over 16,000 geographic names in Manitoba. In this listing, the "hamlet" designation is only applied to four places in Manitoba for some reason – Howden, Vogar, Waldersee and Wanless. On the other hand however, Brunkild is simply designated as a "community" within the same listing (along with 472 others). This is why Category:Hamlets in Manitoba no longer applies to the Brunkild, Manitoba article, and why it now only applies to the articles for Howden, Vogar, Waldersee and Wanless. I hope this helps explain why I have reverted your revert. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)