User talk:Jcalamity

2

Image copyright problem with File:Yahoo google Haifa.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Yahoo google Haifa.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Oktoberfest Beer Stein.png
Thank you for uploading File:Oktoberfest Beer Stein.png. 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. Image Screening Bot (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 10ZiG


A tag has been placed on 10ZiG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (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 article's talk page 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. jæs (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Warning
It appears that for a long time you have been uploaded images from multiple different websites, always declaring them your "own work". Since you are evidently not the copyright owner of all those different websites together, these are evidently all copyright violations. Please never again upload images as your own work unless you are, literally, the photographer who took them. I strongly suggest you refrain from any further image uploads until you have made yourself thoroughly familiar with our WP:Image use policy. Further bad uploads would result in a block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 10ZiG


The article 10ZiG has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No significant assertion of notability, no reliable sources establishing notability apparent.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. jæs (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of 10ZiG for deletion
The article 10ZiG is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/10ZiG until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. jæs (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

10ZiG
Please tell me how to improve the 10ZiG page so it will not be deleted.

Regards,

Jane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcalamity (talk • contribs) 14:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at our notability guidelines for companies, which you can find at WP:CORP. If you believe there are reliable sources that indicate your company meets those guidelines, please share that information at Articles for deletion/10ZiG.  Let me know if you have any questions.  jæs (talk)  15:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:10ZiG Logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:10ZiG Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

10ZiG
The general consensus at the deletion discussion was that the references didn't support the claim of notability. If you'd like, you could recreate the article at User:Jcalamity/10ZiG with better sourcing and then have the page moved into the mainspace once you've sourced the notability properly. You could also ask any administrator to provide a "copy" of the page as it was to your userspace so that you don't have to start all over. I have to tell you, though, that I think it's very difficult to establish the level of notability required by WP:CORP, and rightly so. Wikipedia is not a directory of businesses, even interesting ones. Only a very, very small percentage of all of the businesses in the world achieve any level of encyclopaedic notability, and my feeling is that 10ZiG isn't there yet (at least, based on the sourcing that was present in the article before its deletion). This isn't a negative reflection on the business; in fact, many companies "achieve" notability through infamy, in which cases their articles here can become a collection of sourced-but-sometimes-unflattering information they'd probably rather not see centralized and presented in such a matter-of-fact manner, so keep that in mind. In any event, I hope this helps explain. Take care. jæs (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, I really appreciate it I will look into it and if I can find some notable sources, I will try again. Regards (Jcalamity (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)).

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Wyse
Hello Jcalamity. I am just letting you know that I deleted Wyse, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Ged UK  16:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The page is still live - the page has zero references and it is self serving as their only links are to their own website, what is the appropriate speedy deletion request for this? (Jcalamity (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC))
 * The article log shows the article was restored about a half hour after being deleted with the summary, "Notable company, just badly sourced" —teb728 t c 08:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this may help you to understand: Your article 10ZiG was deleted not merely because it lacked references. The user who nominated it for deletion looked for references to support its notability and couldn’t find any independent reliable source that mentions the company more than simply in passing. Other users commented that the article was written like an advertisement. (See the discussion at Articles for deletion/10ZiG.) Wyse, on the other hand, although the article lacks references, is well known to be a notable company; so references supporting its notability could be found. The article also is written from a neutral point of view.


 * In direct answer to your question, there is no applicable criterion for speedy deletion for Wyse: A7 is for articles that make no credible claim of significance or importance; G11 is for unambiguous advertising or promotion. Neither applies to Wyse. I hope this helps. —teb728 t c 12:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Kinesiology. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mokele (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Human anatomy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Mokele (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a photo not an external link.Are photos also not allowed?{Jcalamity (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC))


 * There are two possibilities
 * If you work for the company where you got those images, using these images constitutes advertising and isn't allowed.
 * If you don't work for the company where you got those images, the images aren't free and cannot be used.
 * Either way, those images should not be on WP. Mokele (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Images are free with attribution, I have sent permission for use of them to wikipedia permissionsJcalamity (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)]]

Images
I notice you have re-uploaded many of the images that you had previously falsely claimed as self-made and that I deleted in January. You are now providing an external source and claiming you have "permission" from the copyright holders.

We need proof these permissions exist. Please forward the relevant mails to permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I have sent the permission, please confirm receipt Jcalamity (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)]]

File permission problem with File:Yahoo google Haifa.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Yahoo google Haifa.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. ☼ 14:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 09:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Two issues: (i) text from those websites may not be copy/pasted for copyright reasons; (ii) Those websites do not comply with wikipedia policies because they are selling the services they describe. You have been warned against adding advertising links, which is why this block. There is no evidence in your unblock request that you understand these policies and will comply with them. Materialscientist (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Am I still banned? Jcalamity