User talk:Jaguar/Archive 1

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Bentworth St Mary 01.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bentworth St Mary 01.jpg. I noticed that 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, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. 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 files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 04:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Home Farm.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Home Farm.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 07:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Bentworth_St_Mary_01.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Bentworth_St_Mary_01.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Hampshire County Flag.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hampshire County Flag.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 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 Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 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. Camaron · &#32; Christopher · &#32;talk 11:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making an effort to fix the copyright problem with the image you uploaded. Unfortunately the website you gave is not enough to classify the image as free for two reasons: a) it is a different website from the source of the image, and there is no evidence that the Hampshire Flag Company are the copyright holders even if they hand make it, and b) the only restrictions allowed for content to be considered free on Wikipedia are requirement of attribution and to distribute the image under the same licence as was given originally. Images with "commercial only" and "no derivative" restrictions are regarded as non-free by Wikipedia, see Non-free content. Not to mention the restrictions given by the Hampshire Flag Company are in direct contradiction to the freedoms granted by the licences you uploaded the image with, for example see CC BY-SA 3.0.

The good news is that the image could be kept as non-free under the Non-free content criteria, though some restrictions on use apply e.g. it has to be used in at least one article at all times. If you agree, I could convert the image so it is marked and tagged as non-free. Camaron · &#32; Christopher · &#32;talk 17:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have converted the image licensing to mark it as non-free, and added a fair use rationale so it can be kept under the non-free content criteria. It appears that the only other option is to have the image deleted, as not enough evidence has been presented that the image is free for Wikipedia as explained above. Camaron · &#32; Christopher · &#32;talk 15:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Bentworth, Hampshire and an overdue welcome!
Hello there, I've reviewed Bentworth, Hampshire against the GA criteria and unfortunately the article does not meet those criteria at this time. I've left some comments at the review page, please don't be overwhelmed by the number of points I've mentioned; there's a lot to be done, but I wanted to give you something to work with. Let me know if you have any questions. I see that you've never officially been welcomed, so I'll leave some handy links below. Regards, -- Beloved Freak  11:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Jaguar (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bentworth St Mary 01.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bentworth St Mary 01.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 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 Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 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. Beloved Freak  11:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Bentworth Population.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bentworth Population.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

The above notice also applies to File:DSCF8139.JPG=600.jpg. CT Cooper (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The results were all keep. Jaguar (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Portsmouth
Thanks for nominating Portsmouth for consideration for listing as a Good Article. I've had a look at the article, and there is a fair amount of information there, though the information could be better presented, and I don't feel the article meets GA criteria at this time. I have left more detailed comments on the GA Review on the talkpage (Talk:Portsmouth), and I have left the nomination open for another seven days to see what progress people are willing to make. Any questions, please get in touch with me on my talkpage. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 23:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have closed the GAN. The article doesn't meet the GA criteria at this time. I will keep the article on my watchlist and when I have time I will come back and help build it to GA status. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 10:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

GA nominations
The GA process is a good one for helping to improve articles, and nominations are a vital part of the process, so we do welcome nominations. I note that your first three nominations haven't gone well. This can happen. If you like, when you see another article that you feel is of a good standard, get in touch with me, and I'll take a look and talk you through how to make a quick assessment. This also applies to rating an article as C or B class. It does help to have someone else talk you through the process just to make sure you are getting the assessments right. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 10:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming people
But please remember to wait for them to make at least 1 contribution. Alright? Other than that, you're doing absolutely great with Wikipedia! :) Endofskull (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoops! Thanks for the tip! Jaguar (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's no problem what so ever. And thank you for cooperating good. Believe it or not, sometimes I don't always get such a nice response. Anyways, thanks so much for welcoming! Endofskull (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Why wait for a contribution? Go ahead and welcome people - it's the friendly, and - well - welcoming thing to do!  SilkTork  *YES! 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Portsmouth for GA?
Hey SilkTork,

I know it may be some time since I nominated Portsmouth for GA, but at the moment I have noticed that we both intend on coming back to it and building it to GA Status. This is fine, I also want to build it back up to GA as well! My first nomination for Portsmouth went better than the others I have nominated. And I know I didn't get a chance to say thanks for helping me nomiate articles but I'm sure when I find another article I'll be sure to ask for help. I haven't found any yet, although the Aldermaston article looks particularly good for nominating.

So I'm just saying that whenever you're ready to rebuild Portsmouth back to GA Status, I'm ready when you are! Jaguar (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's on my to do list. I have Covent Garden and Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China currently waiting for review, and Brewing is my next target. After that, it could well be Portsmouth! Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiltshire assessment page
Hi, I'm puzzled as to why you set up the WP:WILTS assessment page - this is the sort of thing that you'd expect on a category page; indeed it appears to be a direct copy of Category:Unassessed Wiltshire articles. Assessment pages are supposed to show which values are valid for class and importance, and describe each one. For example, here are those of some neighbouring county WikiProjects: Dorset; Hampshire; Somerset. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, I'm very sorry about that - my mistake! I myself am quite new to running a new WikiProject but I have the assessment page figured out now. The only thing I didn't know how to set up with an assessment page with a assessment log. Apparently it said you have to have certain tools to set one up. I'm quite new with making categories and assessment logs and didn't know what to do with them. But thank you very much for fixing that for me, thanks to you, we have pretty much everything running now! Regards Jaguar (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The assessment log has now been set up, it is at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Wiltshire articles by quality statistics and I see that Rodhullandemu has linked it into the main project page, just below the signup section. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Clench
Thanks, you got those changes in just as I was making almost identical ones! -- Snowded TALK  15:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! Jaguar (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled?
Hi Jaguar, I was recently patrolling the New Pages and I saw a lot of articles you were creating. Seeing as you have just about made 100 articles, I was wondering if you might want to request autopatroller right. This right makes any new article you make automatically patrolled, so it is less work for new page patrollers. Just an idea. Cheers!  :  pep  per   11:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I'll try requesting that right away. Jaguar (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!-- HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Portsmouth Climate information
Hi, I am in the process of updating the Gosport article and would like to use the climate section from the Portsmouth article. I would use the information because the climates of Gosport and Portsmouth are very similar. I would add a link to the Portsmouth page at the end of the section and add your username to the reference list at the bottom as an acknowledgement that the section is not my work. Please can I have permission to do this. Rh205 (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course! Feel free to use the climate section of Portsmouth into the Gosport article. And thank you very much for expanding the Gosport article, I am hoping myself for anything around Portsmouth to become GA Status. Jaguar (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review of Bentworth, Hampshire
I'm sorry to have to tell you that I've just closed the review, as I think the work needed to get this to GA is too much to be done in a few days. Please try not to be discouraged though, and take some time to look at articles on similar areas that have already reached GA or FA status. If you've got any questions about anything I said in the review then just ask, but keep plugging away. I'm sure that one day you'll make it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a very serious concern about this article, which may prevent it from ever becoming a GA in its present form. It makes sense to combine villages and parishes if they are coterminus, but in this case it appears that the parish is five times the size of the village of the same name. So the obvious question is this. Is this article about the parish or the village? I don't think that it can be about both. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at your last statement, I too am confused on which the article is trying to explain. I am also confused why the article can't be about both. Bentworth's parish makes it far more interesting to read and it explains a lot more. If the article would be about the parish itself, would the prose would more or less look something like this: "Bentworth is a parish in Hampshire, England and contains an acreage of..." - not describing the village itself! Or if the article would be about the village itself, there would be a lot of cutbacks on the article (especially the Parish section) and would make it far less interesting to read. But I do see what you mean, there needs to be a lot of changes to be made. Jaguar (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been clearer. Depending on how much there is to say about the village (I have the impression that there may not be very much) it would make sense to change the subject and organisation of this article to be about the parish, with perhaps a subsection about the village and any other significant settlements. So for instance "Bentworth is a parish in Hampshire, England, centred on the village of the same name that occupies X percent of the parish's Y acres". Thereafter the article could be focused on the parish unless it's clear that you're specifically talking about the village. Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Portsmouth
Hi SilkTork, I understand how incredibly busy you must be; but now is the time that I have started building Portsmouth to GA Status once more. I understand that you're one of the only few people who have looked at this properly and would understand how much (close) this article would be to GA Status. I have started doing most of the things that were included on the old GA Review including the prose, references and especially the quality of sourcing. Given that it has been quite a while since Portsmouth has been reviewed, I have started to build it up to GA Status. Please, if you can, could you look up this article and tell me what needs doing? I feel that it may as well be close to a GA at this time. Thank you, Jaguar (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to help out on Portsmouth, but that would have to wait until the new year. I just had a quick look. Not every statement in an article needs sourcing, but statements that might be reasonably questioned, or where a reader might want confirmation, would require an inline source. I marked statements that would require sourcing in one paragraph. The intensity of such sourcing would not be required throughout the article, it just happens that that paragraph is particularly rich in information, but it will give you some indication that the article needs a bit more work. I also noticed some one sentence paragraphs, which disturb the flow of reading and so tend to fail in a GA review. I haven't examined much else, but did shuffle the sections around to fit in with WP:UKCITIES, which is a useful guideline. I will take a closer look later. Well done on the work you have done so far!  SilkTork  *YES! 23:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cancelled
Template:Cancelled has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The result was no consensus. Jaguar (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)