User talk:GSmyth

Image copyright problem with Image:LakeWoorabinda.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:LakeWoorabinda.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

April 2009
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you!  The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 14:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!) Hello, GSmyth, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
 * Be Bold!
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us a bit about yourself
 * Our great guide to Wikipedia

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here!  The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 04:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hillston Bluebirds
A tag has been placed on Hillston Bluebirds 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 club, 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 guidelines for people and for organizations. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Perry Sand Hills, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Kelly (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) 11:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Mildura senior college
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mildura senior college, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.milsen.vic.edu.au/?page_id=204.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This article has been moved to Mildura Senior College. utcursch | talk 00:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Mildura Senior College
Do not restore copyrighted material in this article. Even if the author has given permission for you to use it, we cannot use it unless the author follows the instructions here. Whether the information is relevant or whether the page is worse without it has no bearing whatsoever - we cannot legally use this material. Hut 8.5 07:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Mildura Senior College Oval and Original Buildings.png
Thanks for uploading File:Mildura Senior College Oval and Original Buildings.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 12:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Toby Price.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Toby Price.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This IS my own photo of the subject, which you would have seen if you had checked. -- GSmyth (talk) 21 June 2017
 * You initially uploaded the photo as non-free content for some reason, but it couldn't be used as such in the Price article per WP:NFCC. You would've probably understood this if you had read the above template and checked the "first non-free content criterion" link. Subsequent uploads were tagged as copyright violations by a different editor because the photo could be found used online prior to you uploading it to Wikipedia and the copyright license you chose couldn't be verified. Again, if you had read the notification templates and checked the links contained therein, you probably would have understood why the file was tagged.


 * Files are often tagged as possible copyvios unless it can clearly be shown that the uploader and copyright holder are one and the same. Lots of editors uploads files which they claim to be their own, but which really are the work of someone else. Releasing a file under a free license basically means that permission is being given to anyone anywhere in the world to download the file and use it anyway they want, including for commercial purposes. So, as you can probably understand, Wikipedia tends to err on the side of caution in cases where there might be any doubts and request further verification or even delete the files in question.


 * The latest file you've uploaded seems OK. I asked an administrator to review it to see if there was anything which might still be an issue. It might still be a good idea for you to send a declaration of consent to Wikimedia OTRS just for final verification purposes. Having your copyright ownership of the photo verified by OTRS will pretty much ensure that nobody on Wikipedia mistakes the photo as copyright violation again. The administrator who reviewed the file has also tagged it for a move to Wikimedia Commons. This is a pretty standard thing for freely-licensed/pubic domain images because Commons main purpose is to host images, and images from Commons can be easily used by all the different language Wikipedias. Commons and Wikipedia are part of the same family so to speak, but they have their own separate rules and policies, and not everyone who edits on Commons also edits on (English) Wikipedia. So, another reason why I think it might be a good idea for you to email OTRS is that official verification will make it clear to all editors on Commons and other language Wikipedia that your photo is not a copyright violation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly. I did read the templates, but they are gibberish to me, sorry. I have little to no experience in copyright law or terminology. I tried to do what you said with the text code on the description page, but it obviously did not work.

When I uploaded the file originally (10 July 2013) I intended to give permission for anyone to use it as long as they did not claim ownership, but I obviously chose the wrong option.

I take issue with your claim that it could be found online prior to when I uploaded it to Wikipedia. I uploaded it on 10 July 2013, the day after it was taken. I sent a dispute/verification email prior to the last deletion (Wed 21 June 2017 08:25 Australian Eastern Time) but received no response, and then found the file deleted again. Very frustrating. I will try to email OTRS, whoever they are. I can provide the original uncropped photo with metadata showing the date/time, etc, but I have no idea who to provide it to or how to do so. -- GSmyth (talk) 21 June 2017
 * The templates are just standard notifications but they can be a bit confusing when you see one for the first time. Please understand your previous uploads of the files were tagged in good faith and any mistakes which might have been made were also in made in good faith. As I explained above, releasing a photo under a free license is kind of a big step to take, and there are also a lot of people who claim ownership of images, etc. they do not own; therfore, people can be a little too careful sometimes when it comes to license verifiation. Moreover, things can get a little more complcated when the image in question can be found published somewhere prior to upload. FWIW, I tagged the file for deletion the first time as non-free content, but did not tag it the other times as a copyright violation; so, it's not really my claim you're taking issue with. That template is only typically used when the file is found being used somewhere else online. If you want to know the specifics, then you should discuss this with, the editor who tagged the file per WP:F9.
 * Your file is going to eventually be moved to Commons as explained Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons unless you have any objections to such a thing being done. It should be fine there, but it's possible that someone else will stumble upon it sometime in the future and question/challenge its licensing. The best way to probably avoid such a thing from happening would be to send a declaration of consent to OTRS at permissions-en@wikimedia.org . An OTRS volunteer will review your email and make sure everything is OK. A notice will be placed on the file verifying that you are the copyright holder and have agreed to release the file as licensed and your email will be kept on file just in case verification is requested by someone in the future. When the enitre process has been completed, the file's page will look something like this.
 * The only things you really need to remember are that you can't take a free license back after the fact and you can't really stop people from using the photo as they want, even if they can figure out a way to use it to make money. If those things are not an issue for you, then you're good to go. If you have any reservations about those kinds of things, then you probably should tag the file for deletion per WP:G7 before it gets moved to Commons because things get a little bit more complicated once that happens. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Toby Price.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Toby Price.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:TobyPrice.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:TobyPrice.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. It appears that people doubt that you took this photo yourself because it is posted here, at cloudfront.net.  If you took the photo yourself, you should add to the image description the date on which you took it, and describe the circumstances surrounding how you met the subject on that date and came to take the picture.  Also push the "Contest this speedy deletion" button and give all the information.  Also contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org and ask them for assistance, giving them the url for the image that you are trying to save.  Good luck! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Mildura Senior College for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mildura Senior College 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/Mildura Senior College until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished. UtherSRG (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)