User talk:FedDoc

License tagging for Image:TracyAndZachariah198x299.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:TracyAndZachariah198x299.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 01:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:DonLJohnson23kb.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DonLJohnson23kb.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 13:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Pan Dan 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

File permission problem with File:DonLJohnson23kb.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:DonLJohnson23kb.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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 , 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 .

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 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. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 09:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:TracyAndZachariah198x299.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:TracyAndZachariah198x299.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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 , 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 .

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 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. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 11:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

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

If you created 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 , 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 .

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 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) 20:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act
It's important to remember that we are not here to try and adjudicate between different legal opinions. I'm confident that all three sources support the claim that "[LEOSA] does not override the internal policies of a department or agency to which an officer may belong". The FOP memo, under the heading "My agency has a policy that does not allow me to carry my firearm while I am off-duty. Does this mean that this legislation will not benefit me?", states the position, which is although it may be permissible under law, policy still applies: "If you are a qualified active law enforcement officer, you are legally able to carry a firearm under 18 USC 926B. There may be agencies which enforce or adopt policies, rules, regulations, or employment conditions which discourage or punish officers which choose to carry while offduty, but such actions do not mean that the officer cannot carry lawfully under the provisions of this statute."

Similarly, the article in Police Chief magazine, under section 1a, concurs: "Yes, a law enforcement agency may restrict an officer’s right to carry a firearm, including restrictions prohibiting officers from carrying the weapons out of state regardless of whether they are on or off duty. While the police officer would not be violating state or federal law by carrying a firearm, he would be subject to discipline from his department for violating a lawful order from his agency not to carry a firearm. In other words, failure to comply with an agency directive would only be enforceable through departmental sanctions."

And lastly, the CAG memo also agrees, but you must read the whole paragraph: "Yes, as it relates to an officer’s ability to carry a concealed weapon off-duty. However, an officer is still subject to his/her employing agency’s policies and conditions of employment."

These are the sources we have. We are not free to add our own interpretations, however obviously correct they may seem to us. If you can find either sources which state that it is contentious, or sources which state the contrary, then by all means we can try and work them into the article. But as it stands, the three sources we do have support the claim, and that's how it works on Wikipedia. Perhaps we might re-word the sentence in the article to read something like: "Additionally, although LEOSA does provide exemptions in state and local law for the carriage of firearms, it does not override the internal policies of a department or agency to which an officer may belong"

Would that be clearer? ninety:one (reply on my talk) 12:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, we've got to mindful of the fact that when writing an article, we have to represent such facts or opinions as exist, not try and represent "the truth", or the "true meaning" of the Act.
 * I see what you say about including the comments made in Committee. (The reason the previous text was described as "one-sided" was because it did not appear to my reading to be a neutral statement of fact, but rather an attempt to push one side of the argument. Whether it was intended to be so - I don't believe it was and am not accusing you of attempting to do so - is neither here nor there, because that it how it appeared.)
 * A re-worded version that makes reference to the apparent conflicts between what was said during the Committee and the practice now would be acceptable, but here we have to take into account WP:OR - which, briefly, says that we can't make conclusions ourselves (unless they're totally obvious) but that we can only repeat what sources already say.
 * It's also important to remember that the Committee is still opinion, and so can only be described as intention not fact. However, now you've made it clear that a significant opposing argument exists to the previously-stated facts, I'll try and incorporate this into the article. Have a look and see what you think. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 19:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I absolutely recognise that, in a court of law, the proceedings in Congress would have special weight, but here it's not the same. We're not a court, we're not trying to establish one truth, we're here to represent both sides. Although the proceedings in Committee are undoubtedly valid (and I happen to agree with you and their version of it), they are just as valid as other opinions. And even when it comes to it: the opinion of legislators as to what their legislation does is not necessarily the same thing as what the courts might hold it to do! There are enough examples of that in legal history. For now I think we've got a good compromise, and thank you for pointing out some areas that I hadn't taken full account of - the beauty of open editing! Now we'll just have to sit back and wait for a case to come before the courts to settle it either way ninety:one (reply on my talk) 22:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:SigurdOlsonAndDonJohnson640Gray.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:SigurdOlsonAndDonJohnson640Gray.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 Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)