User talk:Higherededitor2

Image source problem with Image:Collegeofwilliamandmary.jpg
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Collegeofwilliamandmary.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. 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 Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. HermesBot 14:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

William & Mary
And now that you've reverted my edit you're going to add a source for that unsourced assertion you just added, right? --ElKevbo 05:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take this as a "no". Please review our policy regarding verifiability and learn why we must provide sources for any non-trivial information in articles.  --ElKevbo 19:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Wren2.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Media copyright questions. Thank you.

Edit Summaries
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing. Toddstreat1 20:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:W&m AERIAL 3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:W&m AERIAL 3.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. 19:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to The College of William & Mary
As you can see from the notices above, the images you have added lack use rationale and are therefore subject to removal. There is also the issue that they are watermarked and possibly copyrighted. Even if you do have permission from the creator, that they are copyrighted from another source. I have removed them again. There are plenty of other suitable images up for grabs as long as they follow Wikipedia image policy. María ( críticame ) 12:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in edit warring with you. Images should not be watermarked.  If you did add the watermarks, you should remove them as well as edit the image description to list the image sources (that means not where you got the photos, but who created them and therefore owns the copyright) clearly and correctly, using a template.  If you do not have this information, the image is subject to both removal and deletion.  Please read Uploading images.  María ( críticame ) 18:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read the criteria and from my understanding this actually falls under "Fair Use"--there is no other image freely available online that shows the W&M campus from up top. I have scoured the web and there is none.  Moreover, the copyright holder information IS in the image...click on it and you will see who owns it.  She and I had e-mailed directly regarding her giving permission.  I have placed the watermark there as per Fair Use requirements (I do not see why the watermark is any way a problem, however).  Thank you for your time and patience (as I am new to this).

Is there something in the screenshot showing that the image on the left breaks the layout in some browsers that you fail to understand? "It looks better for me" doesn't trump "It breaks it for others." I fail to understand your selfish position that intentionally screws up the article for others simply to please your aesthetic tastes.

Stop moving the damn image. I've provided a clear screenshot that placing it on the left screws up the TOC. Continuing to move the image in the face of this evidence that it screws up the article is vandalism. --ElKevbo 11:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)