User talk:Longshot1944

 edit count | blocks | deletions | protections

File copyright problem with File:Heathrow Cargo-Tunnel-Entrance.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Heathrow Cargo-Tunnel-Entrance.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:SU-AOX from LT Bus 82.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:SU-AOX from LT Bus 82.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Cargo-Tunnel-Entrance.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Cargo-Tunnel-Entrance.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:SP-GEA from LT Bus 82.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:SP-GEA from LT Bus 82.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 created [ in your upload log]. 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 11:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
v/r - TP 00:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. When you recently edited BOAC Flight 777, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pan American (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) 10:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

YGM
PeterWD (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British European Airways, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St Mary's Airport (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) 11:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

June 2013
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Flickr. Articles should quote reliable secondary sources rather than being individual editors' personal interpretations of what is and isn't significant from forum posts - the Flickr article already has a secondary source reporting that "large number of users complained about the new look", and any new information would require the same level of sourcing. McGeddon (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We appreciate your contributions, but if you could find sourcing for the info you put it, that would be great! CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you just leave the contribution as it stands and let a Flickr official give their version? I was attempting to be fair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longshot1944 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 4 June 2013‎
 * That's just how Wikipedia has decided to work. Wikipedia draws from reliable sources (such as books and newspapers) that have already written about a subject, rather than being built from the fresh original research and personal evaluations of editors. If we've got a controversy raging in a website forum, we look to sources that have already evaluated it, rather than relying on our own subjective opinions (or, even worse, a website official's subjective opinions!) of which aspects are and aren't important. --McGeddon (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I see you've now added your own summary of what you think is happening with the forums, and how important this is. This is still original research; as I said above, Wikipedia does not operate on a "site user writes what they think is happening and waits for an official to present a counterpoint" system - we just read existing sources, and quote and summarise them as clearly as possible. --McGeddon (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Existing sources' get taken out to nice PR lunches and shown new wonder tech toys working in prototype form, all later sources relating the field performance of new look flickr need to be looked at....the blog page I quoted which was removed was   actually  balanced, didn't accuse disgruntled flickr users of 'whining' like Pogue and its inclusion as a link would actually have helped people use new look Flickr.

The quality and content of the 'existing sources' quoted are an eye-opener to me as are your comments....I think we can expect a new raft of 'existing source' material at the Yahoo shareholders meeting 25June...Longshot1944 (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * One of the five basic pillars of Wikipedia is that it's written from a neutral point of view and does not publish the personal opinions of its editors, or of bloggers. The articles you read here would look wildly different if that were not the case, and if every disputed statement could be countered with a quote from a blog or another editor's opinion. We need to stick to reliable sources. --McGeddon (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Postscript October 2013 Well it pays to be friendly when you're a tech journalist :-) http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/yahoo-hires-tech-columnist-pogue-to-expand-technology-news-offerings-435469  Longshot1944 (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk page headers
To answer your question at Talk:Flickr; if you're posting a comment that doesn't really fit into any of the existing sections on a talk page and isn't a direct response to another user, you should start a new section for it. If you're replying to someone's comment, it doesn't need a new section unless you think it's a significant change of topic and the new topic is worth discussing by itself.

One other thing while I'm here. A few times you've added spaces to the start of a line - Wikipedia displays this as a block of grey-background text, which perhaps isn't what you intended. If you were trying to indent your comments, you want colons at the start rather than spaces. WP:INDENT explains how it all works. --McGeddon (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk page usage
Hello again. Just a reminder that Wikipedia talk pages aren't forums - they're for discussing improvements to the article, rather than talking about the article subject in general, or offering technical advice to other readers. Your last comment at Talk:Flickr doesn't seem to relate to the article content. --McGeddon (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't figure how to 'Talk' how do I include a reference to 'source' my sentence on pagination as it shows as being on Flickrs 'black list' though its an official Yahoo/Flickr response? And I can't include the ref here because it rejects it!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longshot1944 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 25 March 2014‎
 * It'll be on Wikipedia's blacklist if it's being rejected when you try to use it as a source. If you tell me the name of the source and article I'll take a look, but if it's on the blacklist, that's likely to be for a good reason. --McGeddon (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying... I got a reply to my suggestion on the Yahoo User Voice Flickr page...a searchword 'Pagination'should get you to the reply I got from the Flickr community Services manager confirming that Flickr does NOT intend to re-install pagination in search results...this limits the number of results that can be usefully displayed to about 500 (being generous!!) whereas Flickr could always show 4,000 results previously. I'm Mick West on there and A30yoyo on flickr EDIT! I must be psychic...the New Photo Experience" photopage, some 6 months in beta with massive criticism went permanent todayLongshot1944 (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you believe, Flickr just gave the 'mobile' site a makeover yesterday (April 3rd)...there are also whispers the whole main site is about to receive a second major facelift in under a year.Longshot1944 (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Flickr RfC
Hey longshot - it would help if you would support option A or D on the Flickr RfD, casting your vote to show a presence of supporters for keeping the controversy in the article. Just go to the "Survey" section and type either Support Option D or Support Option A and add your reasoning. Thanks. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=601900317 your edit] to Flickr may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * last=van Grove|first=Jennifer|date=2009-03-11|work=Mashable|accessdate=2009-05-18}}

September 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=682742352 your edit] to Douglas DC-3 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (later used by Hap Arnold).

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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Winston Churchill travelling to Hounslow Barracks
Hello there! Since you have read the book, I was wondering if you would be kind enough to provide the page number stating this fact in there. I'm currently editing the station article. Thank you Vincent LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 15:06, 5 September 2020 (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) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)