User talk:Goldenanvil

Fair use rationale for File:Rosebud Benitez 4.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Rosebud Benitez 4.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. 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. Morgan Kevin J (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Response
Issue addressed. Entry amended. Goldenanvil (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Rosebud Benitez 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rosebud Benitez 1.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) 14:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Response
Issue addressed. Entry amended. Goldenanvil (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Rosebud Benitez 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rosebud Benitez 2.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) 14:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Response
Issue addressed. Entry amended. Goldenanvil (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Quickfire 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Quickfire 1.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) 15:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Response
Issue addressed. Entry amended. Goldenanvil (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Rosebud Benitez 5.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rosebud Benitez 5.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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Response
Issue addressed. Entry amended. Goldenanvil (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Rosebud Benitez 4.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rosebud Benitez 4.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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Response
Issue addressed. Entry amended. Goldenanvil (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but your re-taggings are self-contradictory. You cannot describe the images simultaneously as non-free fair use and as freely licensed . Also, since you originally said these were non-free, the only way you can now declare them freely licensed is if you are working on behalf of the TV station who is the copyright owner. Please send in proof of such an official function per e-mail to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, will send email. Sorry, new to this.  Still learning how to tag images.  But rest assured, these photographs were taken during the taping of the show using equipment other than those being used in the production itself and was done so with proper authorization.  Thank you.  Goldenanvil (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Quickfire 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Quickfire 1.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media 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 taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images 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 our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII  Undertaker 19–0  11:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't understand. No tag of any sort exists in the image/media description page. Goldenanvil (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The concern has already been reviewed and declined by User:Magog the Ogre Goldenanvil (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Rosebud Benitez 6.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Rosebud Benitez 6.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

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 hang-on 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. Morgan Kevin J (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No such tag exists. Goldenanvil (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The concern has already been reviewed and declined by User:Magog the Ogre Goldenanvil (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Accounts
Now I have another concern: you speak of yourself as "we" here. Is this account being used by several people? Please be advised that Wikipedia has a policy against "role accounts" or shared accounts. I'd ask you to please split up your accounts so that every account is used by a single person only.

Also, since it is now clear you are working professionally to promote Rosebud Benitez, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not for promotion and advertisement. Your article certainly has had a tendency of getting promotional in tone and content. Please check out our rules on "conflict-of-interest" editing, and make double sure you stick to WP:NPOV and a strictly matter-of-fact, neutral presentation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Point 1 ("Split up acccounts") - Done. 2nd account: Bronzebird232


 * Point 2 ("Tone and content") - We don't really work with her professionally. We just assist her every time our schedules allow us to.  This is not the only subject we'll write about.  We'll touch on many more other topics that we're confident of--and most of them will have nothing to do with Rosebud Benitez.  We just started with Rosebud Benitez because we know her and are confident of our knowledge of her.  This all started because we were surprised to find out she didn't have a Wikipedia entry yet.  We didn't include it in our article but if you come to the Philippines, you'll probably realize that Rosebud Benitez is the most easily recognized chef by the general public in this country (and yet, no Wikipedia article).  We were very conscious of our tone and content.  We tried to peruse other Wikipedia entries on Filipino celebrities and personalities and tried to emulate the tone and imitate the type of content used in those pages.  But since you brought it up, we will revisit our article and writing style and make the necessary changes as we see fit.  Thank you.  (We're new Wikipedia users and we're slowly realizing how difficult it is to be a Wikipedian.  So far, we've been feeling so unwelcome.)  Goldenanvil (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no need to feel unwelcome. In reality, Future Perfect at Sunrise was simply trying to let you know about the conflict of interest rules without being too rude about it (I'm sad to admit that I've seen people treated far more rudely over the conflict of interest issue... it's one of our shortcomings on English Wikipedia, whereas for pretty much everything else we have a very friendly precedent). By the way, do you have a website where those images are housed elsewhere? That way, we could go through a process by which we can prove you're the author (you'd send an email to the Wikimedia Foundation). It's OK if you don't. Also, I'm going to give you a welcome template immediately below. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Thank you so much.  There's really no website where those images are housed elsewhere--except maybe a private Facebook and Friendster account.  Does that count?  What email address should I use to send proof of copyright?  Thank you for the advise and welcome template.  Goldenanvil (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can think to do is to put a description on the facebook page for the image that says "This image is dual-licensed under cc-by-sa 3.0 and GFDL." If the pictures are public for us all to see, then that will be sufficient. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The images have already been re-captioned in their respective Facebook pages. Goldenanvil (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon me if I'm being dense, but I don't see the caption. Could you give the URL for those among us who are a bit dull? Face-confused.svg Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Here are the links.  For File:Rosebud Benitez 3.jpg: .  For File:Rosebud Benitez 6.jpg: .  For File:Rosebud Benitez 1.jpg: .  For File:Rosebud Benitez 4.jpg: . Goldenanvil (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!

 * }

Making sure your image stays here
Thanks for contributing File:Rosebud Benitez 3.jpg! In general, we don't simply take someone's word for it that they hold the copyright on a professional picture: this is not because we don't want to trust them, but because we want to make sure that the copyright isn't being infringed by someone falsely claiming to be the holder. Since you own the copyright on this image, there's a very simple way to prove that you're actually who you say you are: using an email address that's posted on your website, send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org that says something to the effect of "Wikipedia user Goldenanvil is authorized to release copyright on images owned by Q 11's Quickfire TV Production" or whatever your company's name is. Such an email will be archived, and a link will be posted on images that you've uploaded that will serve as proof that you're who you say you are. If you have any questions, just go to my talk page and leave a note. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Goldenanvil (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Philippine WikiCon
You are invited to the 3rd Philippine Wiki Conference (WikiCon) on May 26, 2012 9am-1pm at the co.lab.exchange in Pasig City. Please fill this form should you signify interest. --Exec8 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed blackout in protest of RA 10175
Dear ,

Greetings!

As a Filipino Wikipedian, I hope you are aware of the passage of Republic Act No. 10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which was signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III on September 12, 2012. Currently, there is a discussion on the Tambayan, the noticeboard for Philippines-related topics, about a proposed blackout of the English Wikipedia in the Philippines in order to protest the passage of RA 10175, similar to the blackout against SOPA and PIPA held earlier this year. I feel that your input on the subject will definitely help in the discussion.

Please feel free to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines, and I hope your input will help the Filipino Wikipedia community determine which is the best course of action against this law. Similarly, we hope to get as much input from as many Wikipedians as possible.

Thank you and maraming salamat po!

Kind regards,

Sky Harbor (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)