User talk:M.chohan

Hey
Sorry it took so long for me to reply. Just slipped my mind and all. And of course, I'm always up for making a new friend on Wikipedia :) ^ demon [omg plz] 07:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The BM
Hi Muj – apologies for fiddling with the page without discussing what I was doing. The deletion of the images was an experiment with aesthetics and formatting– the cluster of images at the top, I felt, had to go, though the solution you came to (which kept the head of Amenhotep III) is probably better than my more drastic one. The Persepolis artefact, however, was out of place in a section on Egypt and the Sudan – perhaps a place will be found for it in the Near East section?

I would still quite like to have the Rosetta Stone illustated on the page, considering its immense popularity; most visitors to the page would, I imagine, expect it to be there. Is the view of the Egyptian sculpture gallery one of the "hugely important" ones of which you spoke? The article already has some very evocative pictures of the interior (the one of the Assyrian wall reliefs I like particularly – how were you able to find the galleries so empty?) and it would be good to match image with content by having the Museum's most famous Egyptian piece illustrate the list of highlights.

Thanks for cheering me on with the National Gallery page as well! There's still more I want to do with that article, though that's on the back burner for the time being. My ultimate aim is still for it to be promoted to FA, and I would think the BM's page will soon be eligible for Peer Review if work continues to the high standards (and dedication) you've shown so far.

Cheers again,

 Wham! Bam! Thank you,  Ham 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

University College London
I noticed you recently placed a reference request on the UCL article. However with the exception of the one citation requested inline tag I am unable to see where else references are needed. Could you please therefore go through the article and add individual fact tags to those pieces of information or claims which you feel require a reference. This will better facilitate myself and other users in providing them.

Thanks. LordHarris 20:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation Tags
Hi, firstly for the British Museum I have added the inline citation tags on those claims, pieces of information etc that I think need a reference to attribute them. For details of the policies please see WP:REF and Attribution as to why I placed them there - there are only a few remaining now.

Secondly, I wish to ask you to do the same to University College London. Although it may just be a coincidence the reference tagging of this article seems like a personal rebuttal for my referencing of your main work on wikipedia, I wish to Assume good faith. So if your desire is to get more references for the article than thats great, but unfortunately I do need you to identify where they are needed. So as I have done to the British Museum article, could you please do to the UCL article. The following is a useful guide to where citations should be needed. They are generally not required for historical facts e.g. dates but for assertions or claims about something that is likely to be disputed e.g. this university has a famous library, hence the citation.

Why sources should be cited
 * To improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia.
 * To credit a source for providing useful information and to avoid claims of plagiarism.
 * To show that your edit is not original research.
 * To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor.
 * To help users find additional reliable information on the topic.
 * To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise.
 * To ensure that material about living persons is reliably sourced and complies with Biographies of living persons.

Thirdly I hope you do understand that my original placing of the tag for the British Museum was to help you and other editors realise the need for placing references, whilst adding text to the article, not to be done a long time after etc. I think the article is great, the images and the text fit perfectly. I also think its almost at Good articles status. If you add those references I have asked for, I think it would pass GA. Then perhaps you could consider nominating for FA status. I hope that we can work together on improving the British Museum article and wonder if you would care to contribute on a template to link all the relevant British museum associated articles together. I have already mentioned this on Talk:British Museum and would be quite happy to make a go of it and see what you think?

Thanks. LordHarris 11:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Peacocking
Hello.

First, I'd like to thank you for your contributions. However, I would ask you to read Wikipedia's style guidelines about peacock terms. It is much better to let the facts speak for themselves regarding the quality of the institutions you write about, rather than breathless prose. --Eyrian 19:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Wallace Collection Inventory
Template:Wallace Collection Inventory has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Eyrian 19:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

British Museum - Middle East Department
That is the name of the curatorial department now (see here and here). The name of the department, and the information on the Asia Dept as it stood was downright innaccurate. To rename them and re-sort the Islamic material into Dept of Middle East does not show "something against Islam", nor is it "Utter Rubbish", but is merely a statement of fact. This movement of the Islamic world from "Asia" to the "Middle East" may be something you disagree with, but that is how the Museum sorts it now, and the page should reflect that. Nothing was removed, it was merely pulled into the department to which it is now relevant (And please do not accuse me of a lack of knowledge of the collection - I work at the BM!) Neddyseagoon - talk 16:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

BM still in operation?
Just to ask, are you still interested in improving the BM article, as your last entry on the talk page is dated as August, and no substantial changes seem to have occurred. It seems a shame to leave it hanging when so much hard work has already been done, cheers --Williams119 (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Its me again, sorry it took me so long, been snowed under at work, if you contact me on the BM talk page we can start from there Williams119 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Original Research
If you are writing an article on this subject, and are including your own writing (as your last edit summary stated), then this constitutes original research and is a clear violation of one of Wikipedia's core policies. You must cite references. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also see my comments on this article's talk page. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Western European & American Paintings
Template:Western European & American Paintings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Random thanks
I have no idea if you'll see this, but the use of footnotes looks quite good in the article British Museum, as does the way they are clearly and unambiguously distinguished from references. --Kiz o r  17:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: King's Library
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as King's Library, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from at least some fragments of http://www.britishmuseum.org/the_museum/history_and_the_building/kings_library.aspx, see talk, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:King's Library and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, King's Library, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:King's Library with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:King's Library. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:King's Library saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In British Museum, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Ionic (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) 10:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Help
Hi, I accidently uploaded an incorrect image here...and would like to delete the image and upload a new one...how can I do this?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Garden_Party_Scene.jpg

Thanks Muj
 * Go there, edit the page, and add the code  to the page. An admin will then delete it for you. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. When you recently edited Victoria and Albert Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Della Robbia (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) 10:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. When you recently edited Royal Collection, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cranach and Charles I (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) 10:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

February 2018
Your addition to Wallace Collection has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Replying to your email. The labels in each room are copyright, same as material available online or in a book. It does not surprise me that the same material is available in multiple sources, and does not change its copyright status. The content has been present at https://londonhuawiki.wpi.edu/index.php/The_Wallace_Collection since June 2017, which is earlier than the date you added it to Wikipedia. I won't be restoring the removed images, as the English Wikipedia is not intended as an image repository. That's the function of the Wikimedia Commons. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Image source problem with File:The Wallace Collection - The Back State Room, view to the west.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:The Wallace Collection - The Back State Room, view to the west.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, 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 images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the 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 16:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC). 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. Ron h jones (Talk) 16:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Image source problem with File:The Wallace Collection - The Back State Room, view to the south.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:The Wallace Collection - The Back State Room, view to the south.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, 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 images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the 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 16:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC). 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. Ron h jones (Talk) 16:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Image source problem with File:The Wallace Collection - Jean-Baptiste Oudry, The Dead Wolf and The Dead Roe, 1721.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:The Wallace Collection - Jean-Baptiste Oudry, The Dead Wolf and The Dead Roe, 1721.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, 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 images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the 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 16:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC). 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. Ron h jones (Talk) 16:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Image source problem with File:The Wallace Collection - Andre-Charles Boulle, Grande Armoire, c.1715.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:The Wallace Collection - Andre-Charles Boulle, Grande Armoire, c.1715.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, 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 images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the 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 16:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC). 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. Ron h jones (Talk) 16:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Image source problem with File:The Wallace Collection - Commode by Joseph Baumhauer, c. 1765-70.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:The Wallace Collection - Commode by Joseph Baumhauer, c. 1765-70.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, 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 images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the 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 18:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC). 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. Ron h jones (Talk) 18:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)