User talk:Eccentricsleevenotes

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Said Liquidator concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Said Liquidator, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Said Liquidator


Hello Eccentricsleevenotes. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Said Liquidator.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Fenella Fielding
Thanks for your edits to Fenella Fielding, but, apparently along with some possibly useful information, they included presumably inadvertent things like removing the subject's photograph, adding in some sample image stand-ins, and some "buy this book" advertising, so I had to revert them. They're still available in the article edit history, if you want to try to add the useful parts back more carefully. --GRuban (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks! As a sign of good faith, cropping the image to remove the drum kit. It's not a great photo, but it's the only free image I could find, so better than nothing. --GRuban (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Your Files for Upload request
I accepted the file, you can find it at File:Fenella Fielding on her 90th Birthday.jpg. I marked it LicenseReview on Wikimedia Commons, to have another person confirm that it is marked for free use. There is a slight, but non-negligible, chance that that reviewer will complain that it is only marked Creative Commons Attribution, but not Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, as on your request. (The differences between version numbers are minor for most purposes, but some of us reviewers can be exacting.) So if you read this before they complain, and can update the page to make it say Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, that would be best. Thanks again! --GRuban (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, GRuban. The photographer, Etienne Gilfillan, says he's granted full rights to Wikipedia for other images that belong to him and he's very happy to have this one and sent it to me for use on Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to mark it Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, but that would be accurate. Eccentricsleevenotes (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. What I meant is that the page, https://www.fenellafielding.com/fullscreen-page/comp-jcuw9ksm/7ff29b43-c4e6-46a5-b2d0-d92de26fbd4f/32/%3Fi%3D32%26p%3Dfqr08%26s%3Dstyle-jhon8m4c, the one that states "licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License" - ideally it should state "licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License". Also, please note that we can't accept images that are "granted full rights to Wikipedia" - one of the principles of Wikipedia is that it be reusable, so we need images that are reusable by other people as well; this usually means Creative Commons Attribution, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or Attribution Share-Alike, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. (Any version number will do for our purposes, but as above, some reviewers can be particular that the number be specified.) --GRuban (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now added 'licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License' to the image where it resides on Fenella's website. Best wishes. Simon Eccentricsleevenotes (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)