User talk:Fortbruce

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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Amalthea 00:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Image:Young_ziggy.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Young_ziggy.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Young ziggy.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Young ziggy.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

First Presbyterian Church (Buffalo, New York)
Hello Bruce. I had just deleted your article First Presbyterian Church (Buffalo, New York) since I noticed it to be a verbatim copy of these two links, but now I realize that this page and the text is probably yours. However, I'm afraid that Wikipedia will need some explicit proof of that. There are two ways to go about that, both described at WP:IOWN: you either need to put up a notice at those pages declaring that the content is licensed under the GFDL or another compatible free license, or you can send an email from that domain to [mailto:permissions-commons@wikimedia.org permissions-commons@wikimedia.org] stating that. I know that this is a bother, but I'm afraid that it's necessary to protect copyrights of authors. Could you do that, and mention it afterwards at the talk page of the article please? If you have questions about that, feel free to ask. Thank you, Amalthea  00:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Amalthea,


 * I really do appreciate your diligence in policing Wikipedia, especially concerning my recent entry on First_Presbyterian_Church_Buffalo,_NY The First Presbyterian Church of Buffalo, NY. However, the website I copied some of the information from were in fact my own, there was no copyright infringement involved.


 * Sincerely,


 * Bruce McCausland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortbruce (talk • contribs) 02:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I realized that, which is why I restored it and left you a comment on your talk page. You do realize that you gave up your copyright to the text when you submitted it to Wikipedia, right? I'm asking because of two of the edit summaries you left in, but you probably just wanted to point out that the original text found on the internet was written by you. Have you decided which way to go to mark the text on your website as released under the GFDL? This is I'm afraid a necessary requirement, otherwise it puts Wikipedia in some legal trouble. Thank you, Amalthea  10:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Amalthea,

I was not aware that by publishing my content on Wikipedia that I was giving up the copyright to the text, that was not my intention. My intent was to share the information and educate others which is the greater purpose of any encyclopedia. I have no problem with others using the text, except that I would expect credit to be given, and if possible asked concerning its usage, and where it is used as I have also tried to do. I am unclear as to how this should be done on Wikipedia. I would in fact appreciate your guidance so that I don't make that mistake in the future. I will certainly study the Wikipedia guidelines closer so that i can format the page properly as well. It is a bit different then HTML, and still takes a bit getting used to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortbruce (talk • contribs) 12:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Bruce Beneath the edit box it says "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the GFDL". This clashes obviously with your edit summary, and if it wasn't your intention to release it under the free license and wish it deleted, I will certainly do that for you. The GFDL is a rather complex thing. Basically, anyone can use the text for any purpose, even commercially, but they always have to declare where the content came from, i.e. point back to the Wikipedia article with its edit history. You will not be asked, and you will not be directly credited. The edit page also says, at the bottom: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." It's a crass way to put it, since usually collaboration on an article to make it as good as possible is a pretty nice thing, but you should be aware of it. You're certainly right that it the wiki syntax takes some getting used to. It was designed to be useable by the layman, but it certainly has some flaws. It's often easiest to look at the source code of other articles, and see how they do things. The style guideline for articles have evolved here over the years, and are rather complex, too. But don't worry if you didn't quite get it to look the way other articles do. I've placed that tag on the page to attract other editors to it, in time they will start and format it in a way that it fits in seamlessly. I hope that helps a little, please get back to me and say how you want to go on with your article. Cheers, Amalthea  12:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Again!

I have no problem with others using or modifying or adding to the content for accuracy. There is always the concern about misinformation on the internet, and there is quite a few sites that have inaccuracies published, I know that is however, unavoidable. Concerning its reuse or distribution, so long as the content is not used for profit that is fine with me. My expectations are that this will by 2011 be part of a published book, although my intent is that the profits will go back to the church. Thus, it is more a "labor of love" then a work with any profit motives. One reason I have not posted any recent photos is because of those same copyright issues as I will be taking those photos myself and thus control the copyright. I appreciate your insight and input concerning this!

Cheers!

Bruce —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortbruce (talk • contribs) 13:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that it can't be promised that the text won't be used commercially. If it is to remain on Wikipedia, it has to be released under the GFDL (or a compatible license), which means that it explicitly can be used commercially (with attribution to the respective editors, i.e. with a link pointing to the Wikipedia article). If you're not prepared at this point to release it under a free license then we need to remove it again. Cheers, Amalthea  13:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please leave it on, I'll take that risk. So long as it does not effect my rights in publishing my own the work at a later date, I'm fine with that.

Thanks!

Bruce —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortbruce (talk • contribs) 13:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK great. Reading what I said above again, it wasn't quite correct: You of course didn't "give up" your copyright, by agreeing to have it on Wikipedia you simply licensed it under the GFDL. So it quite certainly doesn't affect your rights to publish your own text, it's still yours, but you agreed that others use it as they please as long as the attribution is left intact. Thank you, Amalthea  14:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for the suggestion! i have been manually signing the pages.

Sincerely,

Bruce McCausland 10:06 31 March 2008 (EDT) aka Fortbruce (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)fortbruce

Speedy deletion of Andrew Van Vranken Raymond
A tag has been placed on Andrew Van Vranken Raymond requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

This page should not have been deleted. This was a stub that I found linked to a wikipedia entry. he was a published author and president of an important institute (Union College). I still has work to do on the page.

````


 * Hi. Would you know of any reliable source (newspaper, books, ...) covering this person? Being president of a notable college counts as an assertion of importance in my eyes, but opinions do vary. If you can provide a source that could support the notability of this person, it's going to help if you want the article undeleted. Incidently, that's what it says right above the edit box when you create an article: "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references may quickly be deleted." Please try to heed that with your next article. It helps you since your article is far less likely to be deleted if it has a references section listing significant coverage, and it helps the readers since he can verify what's in the article. Amalthea : Chat  15:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've asked the admin who deleted it to reconsider, the NY times links you left on my talk page should be more than enough for that. Considering First Presbyterian Church (Buffalo, New York), Moonriddengirl is not pressing to delete it, she only needs some more things, as she said below. As I understand, your email was missing the specific license you were releasing the text under, and it was not sent from an address clearly associated with the publication (i.e. it wasn't sent from the domain brucemccausland.com). If that isn't possible, Moonriddengirl described below the alternative of placing the notice on the webpage itself. If it is still unclear, please feel free to ask either me or her. Cheers, Amalthea : Chat  21:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Andrew Van Vranken Raymond was restored. Amalthea : Chat  22:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have several email addresses including my brucemccausland.com. If it requires that I send my request from that domain I can copy the message and send it from there. Thank you for your diligence in trying to maintain a high degree of integrity on this site, however, it is a bit frustrating for serious researchers such as myself who only want to educate and share our work for the betterment of humanity.

Cheers!

Bruce Fortbruce (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)  ( I have to remember that key! :-D


 * Yes, that would be good, but please do remember to mention the license you want to use, as explained by Moonriddengirl! :) And I fully agree that it is difficult and bothersome to put material into Wikipedia that was previously published elsewhere. I believe I apologized for this in advance in my very first message to you, and Moonridddengirl said something similar. It is, however, necessary to protect Wikipedia, the copyright holder, and even the editor who uploads it. Just imagine if someone else had found your website, found the information useful, registered an account with a name similar to the domain, and uploaded it without your knowledge, thus infringing your intellectual property. I'm sure you'd want Wikipedia taking every measure to ensure that the uploader really owns the rights to the content. Editors upload quite an amount of copyrighted material each day, and staying on top of it is a Sisyphean task. The only way to do it is to require proof from the editor in such cases. And in the end, writing such an email is rather easy, the hardest part is getting the details right is. Anyway, thank you that you're still with us, and you weren't scared off by all those hurdles. Cheers, Amalthea  09:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How to verify copyright permission for article First Presbyterian Church (Buffalo, New York)
Hello, Fortbruce.

Thank you for your interest in donating material from http://www.brucemccausland.com/1stchurch/early_Buildings.htm to Wikipedia. Since we do not currently have a method in place to verify the identity of account holders at account creation, we must verify such donations through external processes. The article has been blanked to allow time for that verification to proceed.

The simplest way to verify is to place a release on that external website putting the material into public domain or releasing it under a license compatible with GFDL, which permits modification and reuse, even commercially, as long as authorship credit is given. This release is irrevocable and must continue to be displayed, or the material may be removed. A statement such as the following, including the link to the GFDL, would be sufficient: "The contents of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) are available for modification and reuse under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 and later and under Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 and later." If you decide to take this route, please put a link to that release on Talk:First Presbyterian Church (Buffalo, New York) so we can restore the contents.

Alternatively, you may reply to the e-mail you will receive from the Wikimedia Foundation from an address clearly associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org] or send a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA. There is a boilerplate release form at Declaration of consent for all enquiries which can be helpful. Once your e-mail is received and processed, the article's contents will be restored if your release is legally sufficient.

If you decide you don't wish to release the material into public domain or under the terms of GFDL, you are welcome to rewrite the text from scratch at [ this temporary page]. As long as the material is otherwise compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it will be used to replace the previous contents. Please leave a note at Talk:First Presbyterian Church (Buffalo, New York) saying you have done so.

If you are not familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you may wish to review Starting an article or Your first article. If you are closely related to the subject matter, you may also want to read our conflict of interest guidelines to get an idea how best to proceed. It may be necessary once permission is verified to address other concerns in the text, if it is otherwise inconsistent with our policies and guidelines.

We apologize for the additional steps necessary, but as copyright is a matter of legal concern, we must ensure that we not only protect the rights of copyright holders, but also guard the Wikipedia project against inadvertent infringement.

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to let me know. I will be watching your page here. We also have a help desk which is typically manned around the clock by volunteers.

Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Concerning : As Moonriddengirl said, such information would need to be placed on the website where the content was originally released, not here on Wikipedia. But don't worry, the licensing trouble with that one should be over now. Cheers, Amalthea  19:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see you were asked to co-licence it ... -- Amalthea 19:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Andrew V V Raymond 1912a.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Andrew V V Raymond 1912a.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've taken care of that. -- Amalthea 09:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Samuel S Mitchell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Clinton, New York and Clinton, NY


 * David Ruddach Frazer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Union Theological Seminary

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16
Hi. When you recently edited Matthew LRP Thompson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Freehold, NJ, Fulton, NY and Broadalbin, New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Samuel S. Mitchell


A tag has been placed on Samuel S. Mitchell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gsingh (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed you wanted to donate your work to Wikipedia, this file can be restored after your work is properly licensed. I'm tagging the other articles with a Copyright violation. Once your work is donated the tags can be removed. Gsingh (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Matthew LRP Thompson
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Matthew LRP Thompson, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.brucemccausland.com/1stchurch/Biographical_Information.htm, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Matthew LRP Thompson and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Matthew LRP Thompson, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Matthew LRP Thompson with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Matthew LRP Thompson. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Matthew LRP Thompson saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Gsingh (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Walter Clarke (minister)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Walter Clarke (minister), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.brucemccausland.com/1stchurch/Biographical_Information.htm, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Walter Clarke (minister) and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Walter Clarke (minister), in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Walter Clarke (minister) with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Walter Clarke (minister). See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Walter Clarke (minister) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Gsingh (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem at George Arthur Buttrick
The material you added to this article was copied from http://www.brucemccausland.com/1stchurch/Biographical_Information.htm. Please read Copy-paste: it does not matter that the source bears no copyright symbol, for legal reasons Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere unless a formal copyright release is made. I see that on your talk page you say that you are the owner of the site, but that is not enough: for one thing, we have no way to be sure that someone on the end of a wire is who he says or has the authority he claims; for another, release to Wikipedia involves more than just permission to reproduce, Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license allows any reader to copy, modify and re-use the material for any purpose including commercial, and it is essential that the copyright holder understands and agrees. For more detail see Copyrights, which gives links to instructions for making a copyright release.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should not be thought of as a notice-board for pinning up material written for other purposes; a better article is likely to be achieved by writing in your own words, which also solves the copyright problem (but beware of WP:Close paraphrasing). See WP:Your first article and WP:Writing better articles for advice, and note that WP:Notability needs to be established by references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

The article was flagged for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, but instead I have restored it to its state on 24 March before the infringing material was added. Please read the note on the talk page, and do not re-add the deleted material without copyright clearance.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: I have checked the other three articles listed above (Mitchell, Thompson, Clarke), but in their cases there is no pre-copyright-violation version to revert to. Please read Copy-paste and the other guidelines linked above, and do not copy any more material in - copyright is a very serious issue for Wikipedia and we have to devote a great deal of effort to detecting and removing it. Users who persist in adding copyright material after warnings may be blocked from editing. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Thaddeus Osgood
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Thaddeus Osgood, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.brucemccausland.com/1stchurch/Biographical_Information.htm, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Thaddeus Osgood and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Thaddeus Osgood, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Thaddeus Osgood with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Thaddeus Osgood. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Thaddeus Osgood saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Gsingh (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Gsingh (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem: David Ruddach Frazer
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as David Ruddach Frazer, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.brucemccausland.com/1stchurch/Biographical_Information.htm, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:David Ruddach Frazer and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, David Ruddach Frazer, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:David Ruddach Frazer with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:David Ruddach Frazer. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:David Ruddach Frazer saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Gsingh (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Miles P. Squier
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Miles P. Squier, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.brucemccausland.com/1stchurch/Biographical_Information.htm, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Miles P. Squier and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Miles P. Squier, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Miles P. Squier with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Miles P. Squier. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Miles P. Squier saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Gsingh (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please submit the appropriate documents to donate your work. Gsingh (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Walter Clarke (minister), Thaddeus Osgood and Matthew LRP Thompson
I've deleted these three articles as they have been listed at WP:CP for over 7 days and no permission has been forthcoming and so we can not keep the text. Please follow the procedure outlined in one of the many messages above if you wish to release the text under an appropriate license. I would also note that the Walter Clarke (minister) article appeared to show no sign of notability so even if permission is forthcoming this article may not be kept. The other two articles appeared to show some signs of notability although I did not investigate that aspect thoroughly so it's possible that they too could end up being deleted for lack of notability even if we receive permission. Dpmuk (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Dr. Samuel S Mitchell about 1900.jpg


The file File:Dr. Samuel S Mitchell about 1900.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious 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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The original photograph was taken over 100 years ago. I will locate the higher resolution of the image and replace the image. 98.117.183.30 (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:David R. Frazer.jpg


The file File:David R. Frazer.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned file with no obvious value in transferring to Commons"

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing 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. Salavat (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)