User talk:MBernal615

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Zanimum (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * So you know, I've redirected the article you created to List of Puerto Rican writers, and existing article. I've moved your info into that existing page. --  Zanimum (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Help!
Zanimum,

Thank you for your kind note to me.

I left an entry on your talk page regarding the following...

This article I built for NELSON ANTONIO DENIS has disappeared!

There's no trace of it on the internet.

I didn't receive any notice or feedback...it's just gone.

I returned to it today, to re-format the references and links in conformity with the Wikipedia format, but it was gone.

I saved everything, so I was still able to work on it, but the system does not accept my post.

I tried to enter the article as NELSON DENIS, but it made no difference.

Can you offer any guidance about this?

I really appreciate any help.

Thank you, MBernal615 (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I may be able to help you, I found your article Nelson Antonio Denis, with all your edits intact! If you need anything else, re-activate your helpme template, by removing the tnull in front of it! PS: Caps matter in Wikipedia, if a name is Nelson Antonio Denis, putting in NELSON ANTONIO DENIS will not find it. Be sure to keep an eye on the capslock key, if you're searching for something specific! Neuro √ Logic  06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Zanimum,

I promise to get out of your hair as soon as possible.

I really appreciate your response (that was quick!) but I still don't see the article on the internet.

When I google Nelson Antonio Denis, there is no Wikipedia article.

When I google Nelson Antonio Denis Wikipedia, I still see no article.

The article seems to exist in some internal editorial loop...but nowhere else.

Do I just wait, until it shows up eventually?

I'm sorry for sounding so helpless here (and clueless), but I guess I am.

I reiterate my promise to get out of your hair!

Thank you, MBernal615 (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My name is Neuro √ Logic  =) I'm the one who's been helping you. It will probably show up soon, most commonly edited pages that people look up, pop up at the top of Google. Such as "Barak Obama" or something. It will be a little while before your article is up at the top of the search engines. It does exist though, I promise! =)  Neuro √ Logic  07:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Neurologic, a huge THANKS !
Neurologic,

That was GREAT news to hear!

I can now toddle off to sleep (at last), thanks to your re-assurance about the article.

My coding skills are limited, so I REALLY appreciate your getting back to me.

Thanks again, MBernal615 (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Height of Ignorance
Zanimum,

Please excuse my ignorance in advance (!)

I received your note, but I must be missing something here (perhaps some gray matter).

The article for Nelson Antonio Denis exists internally, but it does NOT appear in the internet world.

When I google Nelson Antonio Denis...it does not appear.

When I google Nelson Antonio Denis Wikipedia...it does not appear.

The article exists in a closed loop, but not in the "outside world."

Is there something else I'm supposed to do? Or just wait?

Please excuse my repeated ignorance. I'm just new to this, and stumped.

Thank you again, for taking the time to help. I really appreciate it.

MBernal615 (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is actually a normal occurrence, and no, it's not "the height of ignorance".


 * You created the article on Mr. Denis just a couple of days ago, and Google's "web crawlers" haven't yet found the page. Basically, they have their computers completely re-index the web every couple of weeks, gathering any changes on those pages. When Wikipedia is reindexed, the crawlers will discover that the links to this biography (from pages like List of Puerto Ricans, Puerto Rican literature...) now lead somewhere, and they'll add the biography to their index of the web.


 * There is a page on Google where you can supposedly encourage them to index the page quicker... "Add your URL to Google, but I'm not sure how much that process speeds things up, if at all.


 * So you know, indexing time varies. Sometimes, it takes a week or so, other times, they decide to reindex Wikipedia every day. Exactly how Google's search engine is programmed is a trade secret, so no one can really completely explain its choices. --  Zanimum (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Zanimum,


 * Your note was a big help.


 * Does that mean I should refrain from further editing/updates to the article, until it visibly appears on the internet?


 * Or in the alternative, should I rush to make those changes (if any), in order to avoid a second incubation period?


 * Thanks again for your information. This has become a real learning experience!


 * All best,
 * MBernal615 (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * By all means continue to make updates to the article, as much as you want. It doesn't terribly matter what content is in the article when Google indexes it, it's likely to rank in the top 10 automatically, seeing that its on Wikipedia. It should start to re-index quicker in the future, once it knows that the article is in the databased. Regards, --  Zanimum (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Trouble with uploading photos
I am trying to add the following photos to the Nelson Antonio Denis article which I wrote. They are all Free Content with no use restrictions, and available for public domain use worldwide.

Denis Photo#1.jpg

Denis Photo#2.jpg

Denis Photo #3.jpg

Denis Photo #4.jpg

I uploaded the first of these into Wiki Commons, then tried to insert it into the article.

No luck.

I read the Wiki tutorials for uploading an image and tried to follow them.

Again, no luck.

This is the first Wiki article that I write, so I'm learning as I go along.

I'm stumped here! Could someone tell me the steps to follow?

Thank you so much! MBernal615 (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you give us a link to the image that you uploaded? I can't find it on Wikimedia Commons at the moment - there nothing under the names given or uploaded by your username... let us know. Anyway, all you need to do to include them is  [[Image:ImageName.jpg]]  in the article, where ImageName.jpg is taken from the top of the Commons page. Hope this helps,  Alex Muller  09:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Alex, I already did those things.
Alex,

These four ARE the links to the four photos themselves:

Denis Photo#1.jpg

Denis Photo#2.jpg

Denis Photo #3.jpg

Denis Photo #4.jpg

I uploaded #1 into Commons but nothing happened, when I tried to insert it into the article.

I didn't try anything with the other three yet. Once I succeed with #1, I will simply replicate the steps.

I USED the nomenclature you suggested, but this is all that happened:

I just got a red box saying "Image: Denis photo"

What do you suggest?

Thanks!

MBernal615 (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool, let's continue the conversation here. That's what I mean, I can't find the photos myself - and neither can the Wikipedia software. What's the website address (beginning http) that you're on when you can see the photos? This'll help us find where they're located. Cheers,  Alex Muller  10:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

These are the links.
Alex,

Thanks again for responding.

If you cut & paste any of the following into your "address toolbar" (is that what it's called?)

you will immediately see the photo:

Denis Photo#1.jpg

Denis Photo#2.jpg

Denis Photo #3.jpg

Denis Photo #4.jpg

Those are the links.

Thanks,

MBernal615 (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey MBernal - I'm sorry, but those aren't the links... they need to be somewhere on Wikimedia Commons so that everyone can see them. Where would you go on Commons if you needed to find the photos again? Cheers,  Alex Muller  10:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Commons #101 (Uploading Photos)
Alex,

I uploaded photo #1 into Commons, but nothing happened (including showing up in Commons).

I supplied all the information requested in the "Uploading Images" page, and even used their template.

Could you give me any pointers, as to how to do this properly?

Maybe I went to the wrong place, filled out the wrong page.

I also read somewhere, that I'msupposed to wait 4 days for a photo to clear.

Did I read wrong? (entirely possible).

Even a correct link address might help.

Thanks, onward and upward, MBernal615 (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What's your username on Commons? Also, try the right hand side of Commons:Help:Contents as it might explain some stuff. If you're still having trouble, ask at Commons:Commons:Help desk as they'll be better suited to helping you - I'm by no means an expert on Commons. Cheers,  Alex Muller  13:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Alex!
Alex,

THANKS!

That's exactly the kind of help I needed. I'll get on it.

Really appreciate it,

MBernal615 (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ruben Diaz Jr.
Hey there! Good job adding references to the above article. Since they are offline and not cited in the article, could you place them as inline references, for example ?

References

Cheers, GeneralBelly (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, General Belly
Dear General,

Okay. Thanks for your editorial help on this one.

I was in the process of adding the references, when you first encountered the article.

I did it right away, and am continuing right after we talk here.

I will place the refernces in-line - though that will take me a little longer, because I never did it before -- please be patient and thanks!

Sincerely, MBernal615 (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers - you're doing a great job! Let me know if you need help formatting, etc.  GeneralBelly (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Need your assistance, if possible
Dear General,

I just saw the Weasel Word tag again.

In addition to completing the piece (photos, etc.) I am still adding even More Documentation.

I've added 18 references to the piece, and I will add the on-line annotations this weekend.

The link to the New York State Assembly Website (also supplied in the article) provides complete access to every piece of legislation sponsored by the Assemblyman...the entirety of every bill.

I will also add specific Legislative Bill numbers to each piece of legislation cited.

Is there any area(s) that you wish to see Particularly Annotated?

Please let me know, and I will do it.

In the meantime, I will remove the Weasel Word tag and go to sleep (I work in 4 hours).

If you re-instate the tag (as is your complete right) I will be in a three-revert situation, even though I am documenting this article with great care and appreciation for your comments.

Will you allow me to work on this throughout the weekend, without the Weasel tag?

I will do it responsibly and thoroughly, as I have been doing.

I would really appreciate it.

Thank you in either case.

Sincerely, MBernal615 (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi MBernal615. The weasel tag has nothing to do with photos/documentation/references, but rather concerns style and wording.  Examples of problems include:
 * "...and is widely recognized as a model for citizen advocacy and service delivery"
 * "Due to these efforts, and his deep personal commitment, Diaz became known internationally as a man dedicated to civil and human rights."
 * "In dramatic Bronx fashion..."
 * "Diaz is now considered a leading candidate for the position of Bronx Borough President."
 * The above examples read like tabloid fawning and speculation rather than part of a fact-based, referenced Wikipedia article. While I realise that you are editing in good faith, it is poor etiquette and makes no sense to remove a tag when you have not addressed the problem that caused it to be added.  I'm replacing the tag because it is appropriate and necessary and it should only be removed after discussion and consensus on the article's Talkpage.  There is no reason why you cannot continue to work on the article while the weasel tag is in place and the weasel words can be edited out by whomever gets around to it.  Good luck with your edits.  GeneralBelly (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruben Diaz Jr talkpage
I'd question the appropriateness and usefulness of cutting and pasting our conversations onto the article's talkpage - what would future editors gain from the discussion? At the very least I'd suggest you remove the first part about referencing. GeneralBelly (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...Issues will be addressed
Dear General,

Thank you for specifying your instances of weasel words.

They will all be addressed...annotated, substantiated and/or modified where necessary and appropriate.

Your specific enumeration of these was helpful, since it now allows for direct editorial action on them.

As I indicated, I will perform these over the weekend, in addition to an overall and continuing review of the article.

I am sorry you did not remove the Tag you placed again, but that will be addressed and resolved in due time.

I am confident that this article will not present the issues and editorial history of Ruben Diaz, Sr.

Thank you again for providing specifics.

Sincerely, MBernal615 (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the point of pasting all of our interactions to the Ruben Diaz Jr talkpage? It's taking up space unnecessarily and not really of interest to anyone but ourselves.  If you're keen for other editors to read our correspondence then I'd suggest you remove it from the talkpage and replace it with a single, succinct paragraph summarising what you want to say and then linking to your own user talkpage for the actual discussion. GeneralBelly (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Equal...I have one question (about footnotes)
Dear Equal,

I appreciate the editing you did on the Ruben Diaz article.

I can see you spent some real time with it!

Thank you very much for your time and your help.

I have one question about the footnotes...they no longer appear in numerical order.

In the introduction the footnote numbers start as usual: 1,2,3

In the "Early Life" section the footnote numbers, instead of continuing with the number 4, start back at 1,1

In "Advocacy and Legislation the numbers show as 1,4,5,6,7,8,9

In the last three sections, the footnote numbers now appear as 60,1,61

The problem - which you were correcting - is that the Ruben Diaz biography (from the New York State Assembly Directory) is cited several times in this article.

You worked hard at correcting it...I can see from your entries!

I appreciate this work, but please consider this: since we can't have it both ways (multiple citation and numerical order)...then from the reader's point of view, wouldn't it be a cleaner read, if the footnotes appeared in numerical order?

I left the footnotes the way you placed them, since this can be easily addressed at any time. If you have a moment, please let me know what you think about this.

Finally regarding the "citation needed," you're absolutely right! I had to get some sleep, and am now back...adding more in-line references.

Thank you for your help, Equal!

All best,

MBernal615 (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, no, citations should be common whenever possible for References section brevity (the numerical order of footnotes isn't important.) You can read up on this stuff here: WP:REFB
 * Also, there should be no spaces between text/punctuation and footntes (see WP:REFPUNCT)
 * best —EqualRights (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, Equal
Dear Equal,

I received your note re citations.

Thanks for the extra information.

I'll follow your lead, and continue as you suggested.

I appreciate the time you took on this!

All best,

MBernal615 (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

GeneralBelly...please review the Ruben Diaz Jr. article (Thank you)
Dear General,

I documented the Ruben Diaz Jr. article with complete in-line references.

I also reviewed the language, for any ambiguity or bias.

Please review the article in its current form.

If it meets your standards, I ask (with utmost respect) that you remove the Weasel Tag which you placed.

If there is still any area of concern, please let me know and I will work hard to resolve it.

Thank you for your time and attention to the Ruben Diaz Jr. article.

Without editors and fact-checking, a lot of writing does not become as rigorous as it should be!

Thanks again,

MBernal615 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message but please stop cross-posting to the article's talkpage - it's cluttering up the page needlessly. I'd suggest you remove the comments you've pasted on the page as they are already available on both of our own talkpages.  In future if you just post to my talkpage I'll see it and reply.  Well done on adding the in-line citations.  I'll check the article and remove the weasel tag.  Best, GeneralBelly (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To General Belly, re Ruben Diaz Jr. article
Dear General,

You edited entire sections and more than 10 footnotes out of the Ruben Diaz Jr. article.

Though I don't agree with this, in the interest of a consensual process, I left your version intact.

I made one minor word change since "American Politician" is not a value-neutral term, and the potential bias is avoided through simpler word choice.

You reviewed the piece yet left the Weasel Tag.

Is there any outstanding issue you wish me to address?

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

MBernal615 (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. If you need to message me, you should leave the message on my talkpage as I am not actively watching yours.  Please refrain from using the large spacing on my talkpage as it clutters things up.  I removed entire sections because, while sourced, they were not relevant to the article and were not NPOV.  If you can edit them concisely to avoid undue weight and can make them more relevant to Diaz himself, then that would be good.  "American politician" is used on a number of wikipedia pages without any objections.  Diaz is 1) American and 2) a politician, therefore I don't see the difficulty.  It is a job description, not a value judgement. I removed the weasel tag earlier today. Best GeneralBelly (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you GeneralBelly
Dear General,

Thank you for removing the Weasel Tag.

I understand your point about press releases, and I agree with you. However, the State Assembly materials used in the Diaz Jr. article were not press releases. They were 1) legislative bill summaries and 2) State Assembly Newsletters. A press release is sent by anyone to the press, in hopes of getting press. A New York State Assembly Newsletter is generated, edited, and mailed by the State of New York. It undergoes a strict editorial and fact-checking protocol because it is promulgated by, and bears the authority and responsibility, of a government-issued publication.

I am not writing this to be argumentative, but merely to contextualize the usefulness of a government newsletter, as compared to a mere press release.

Regarding copying and pasting: I cited the Assemblyman's legislation in key areas with my own language, then provided footnote citations to that legislation. I don't see where this constitutes copying and pasting, but perhaps I missed something.

General, thank you for helping with the hyperlinks. I worked hard on the footnotes and references, but could not get the hyperlinks to work. I will devote some time to learning this process...but as with the in-line footnotes, it will take me a little time.

Thank you again for your interest and assistance with this article.

MBernal615 (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Civility extends beyond politeness and salutations, so I'd appreciate it if you would stop ignoring my request and stop clogging up the Diaz article's talkpage with unnecessary copies of our dialogue. If you insist on putting them there, you could at least archive the page.


 * An example of the text you used: "Upon taking office, Diaz assembled a professional community and social advocacy staff in order to deliver substantive constituency services to the 85th Assembly District"... virtually identical to this page. We can't change every word, but the sentences should not read like fraternal twins.


 * You seem to have a much more intimate knowledge of politicking than the average Wikipedia editor, and your explanation of what a NY State Assembly Newsletter is is impressive, but it is still not NPOV; this one, for example, is filled with weasel words like:


 * To really protect the environment, Assemblyman Diaz proposed that there should be an in-depth analysis of our city’s energy use...
 * These brownfield reforms do two very important things for the Bronx.
 * The Brownfield Cleanup Program was a good start, but it needs to be adjusted because as it stands now it’s fallen short of the anticipated cleanup and redevelopment in the Bronx. We needed to institute these new measures to ensure that the program works to the best of its ability – so that we’re protecting our environmental resources, children’s health, and also building a vital economy.


 * These are all biased in favour of Diaz and his legislation. Unless the newsletter is written by a 3rd party/bipartisan I doubt it can be considered reliable unless used strictly as a source for factual lists, e.g. legislation introduced. GeneralBelly (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

State Government Publications
Dear General,

You’re right about specious civility. The Diaz talk page is growing long, so I’ll post to your own page…and extend my apology for the length of this and previous notes. I believe your concern regarding sources, and the time and attention you’ve spent on the Ruben Diaz Jr. article, deserve nothing less.

For information (not conjecture) about New York State legislation, the official publications of the New York State Legislature are a primary resource.

New York State Assembly Newsletters are edited, vetted, typeset, printed, and mailed by the government of the State of New York.

Every time a State Assembly Newsletter is cited in the Ruben Diaz Jr. article, it is to reference a fact – not a viewpoint or opinion.

With respect to the particular New York State Assembly Newsletter which you quoted:

In the area of Brownfield Cleanup Legislation the Assembly Newsletter provides the bill number (A. 11768) and this bill summary: “will provide more than double the current tax incentives for actual site cleanup – up to 50 percent of the costs of remediation; limit the redevelopment credits on non-manufacturing sites to $35 million or three times the cost of site cleanup, whichever is less; limit the redevelopment credits on manufacturing sites to $45 million or six times the cost of site cleanup, whichever is less; allow any project application that has been received and approved by the DEC to continue to be eligible for current-law tax credits; and increase by 2 percent the redevelopment credit for sites developed in conformance with the Brownfield Opportunity Area Plan.”

In the area of Green Roof Property Tax Abatement, that same Assembly Newsletter provides the bill numbers (A.10234 and A.11226) and the following bill summary: “This tax abatement will offset 35% of the costs of installing a green roof on a standard roof.”

This level of detail and precision, applies to every instance in which a New York State Assembly Newsletter is cited (as a footnote) for the purpose of supplying a legislative fact, and a credible source for that fact.

Precedent exists in Wikipedia, for using a government publication in this manner. You don’t need to look very far.

Please review Reference #87 in the Wikipedia article of David Paterson, the current Governor of New York State. Here is a direct link to the text of this Reference: http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/press_0729081.html If you have time, please review Reference #106 in that same Wikipedia article. Here is the direct link to its content: http://www.patersonforny.com/main.cfm?s=dap

The Ruben Diaz Jr. citations are specifically selected. They supply the direct facts, regarding legislation as it appears, in the body of the Wikipedia article.

This use was more carefully and narrowly drawn, than Reference #106 as shown above.

Again I must affirm, that for information (not conjecture) about New York State legislation, the official publications of the New York State Legislature are a primary resource.

General, thank you for your time, and for your help with the overall article.

68.173.125.102 (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

La Foto
Gracias por tus palabras. You just made my day (night).

1. You must have the photo in your computor.

2. "Click" on "upload file".

3. "Click" on  "Entirely my own work - I created it, own all the rights to it, and have not used anyone else's work in making it."

4. Fill the information in the "summary".

5. "click" on "Browse" and look for the photo that you want to upload.

6. "click" on "upload file".

7. Wait until the photo appears then post it in the article this way:

That should do it. If you have any more problems, let me know and I'll help tomorrow. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention that I have never uploaded in "Wikipedia Commons" just in the regular fashion as I explained above. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you own the rights to the photos, then send them to me via e-mail to: "NMB2418@aol.com". Make sure the format is JPG and I will upload them for you. Once it is done, you will have to sign a release form (which I will e-mail to you) and send it to "OTRS" giving Wikipedia permission for their use. Just "de pura curiosidad" are you related to Ruben Diaz? Tony the Marine (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a small problem. If the photos belong to Ruben, then we can not legally upload them unless he personally relinguishes the copyrights to Wikipedia. If I can be of any help in any other area, please do not hesitate to write. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi MBernal615 - I notice you have uploaded photos for which you do not seem to have copyrights. If you do not own the copyrights you should remove the photos until you have fixed the issue. Wikipedia is very strict about this and if you leave them up they will be removed by another editor. Best, GeneralBelly (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos
Dear General:

I am coordinating with the office of Assemblyman Ruben Diaz Jr. and the Assembly Office of Communication and Information. Photos were uploaded and licenses obtained, in conformity with the copyright information that pertains to each photo.

It's certainly not incumbent upon you to know this, so it's understandable if you didn't: newsletter photos are taken by the individual legislators. They take their own photos; they own the copyright to their own photos.

They provide these photos to the Office of Communication and Information (retaining their personal copyright), and allow the OCI to publish them in their Assembly Newsletters.

The copyright of all photos taken by the legislators (Assembly and Senate) remains with the legislators. They never relinquished it. The subsequent publication (in newsletter form or otherwise) does not vitiate or modify the underlying copyright.

The upload information is accurate and manifestly disclosed, on the Summary Form as provided. If there is evidence to the contrary, please provide it so that I may act properly and expeditiously.

If there is some protocol I have missed, please inform me (I would greatly appreciate it!) so that I can complete this article, and proceed with other matters.

Thanks as always,

MBernal615 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Diazphoto-2 .jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Diazphoto-2 .jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lincolnite (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC) --Lincolnite (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Diazphoto-5.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Diazphoto-5.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Lincolnite (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Diaz photo-1.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Diaz photo-1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Lincolnite (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Diazphoto-3 .jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Diazphoto-3 .jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Lincolnite (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no duplication
Dear Lincolnite,

You notified me today, of a pending deletion of photos in the Ruben Diaz Jr. article.

I understand the issue you presented. However that issue was addressed in my message to GeneralBelly, earlier today and prior to your own notification to me.

The "duplication" you refer to, is of a photo of Ruben Diaz Jr. for which Diaz owns the copyright.

Diaz did not duplicate anything. The source itself, is Diaz's own photo for which he owns the copyright.

Did you have a chance to see that message to GeneralBelly?

Here it is below, in its entirety.

I received identical notices for three other photos in the same article...please advise, so that I may resolve this.

Thank you,

MBernal615 (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am coordinating with the office of Assemblyman Ruben Diaz Jr. and the Assembly Office of Communication and Information. Photos were uploaded and licenses obtained, in conformity with the copyright information that pertains to each photo.
 * Dear General:

It's certainly not incumbent upon you to know this, so it's understandable if you didn't: newsletter photos are taken by the individual legislators. They take their own photos; they own the copyright to their own photos.

They provide these photos to the Office of Communication and Information (retaining their personal copyright), and allow the OCI to publish them in their Assembly Newsletters.

The copyright of all photos taken by the legislators (Assembly and Senate) remains with the legislators. They never relinquished it. The subsequent publication (in newsletter form or otherwise) does not vitiate or modify the underlying copyright.

The upload information is accurate and manifestly disclosed, on the Summary Form as provided. If there is evidence to the contrary, please provide it so that I may act properly and expeditiously.

If there is some protocol I have missed, please inform me (I would greatly appreciate it!) so that I can complete this article, and proceed with other matters.

Thanks as always,

MBernal615 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there, thanks for your message and for your detailed explanation. I just want to second the message that Tony the Marine has placed below. The fact that Mr Diaz owns the copyright is of no consequence unless he agrees to release it under one of the applicable licenses. You should follow the steps he suggests, I think. Thanks again. — Lincolnite (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Diaz, Jr.
Hello mi amigo, I read the article and I really enjoyed it. Nice job! I hope that you do not mind, but I made some minor format adjustments. I noticed that you are going to have some problems with the uploaded images. Try to get Diaz or someone in his office to make the images public domain. Send them the following via e-mail and have someone fill it out:

"I _____, as the copyright holder of the image attached/in url xxx, agree to release in under the terms of GFDL/CC-BY/CC-BY-SA (choose one license. the links are important so that we know the copyright holders understand what he/she's talking about) . I understand that this allows anyone to use the image for any purpose, including commercial use, as long as the constraints in the license, like attribution, are respected."


 * Once this is done, the permission must be sent to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org" by you or the copyright holder himself/herself.


 * First go to every image File and remove the deletion notice and add "Permission will be sent to OTRS". The Lic. which I recommend is "GFDL". Tony the Marine (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Printed name is fine. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Suerte, Tony the Marine (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

NO to re-naming Ruben Diaz Jr.
Equal,

I have just reviewed the recent editorial history of another article, that of Ruben Diaz (as opposed to Ruben Diaz Jr.)

Here are the most recent entries:


 * Given that his name is properly written "Rubén Díaz",[1] I propose the article be renamed (with a redirect from the current non-accented name per WP:Proper names.)—EqualRights (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. GeneralBelly (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Done (though I'm not sure that Ruben Diaz should continue to redirect to this article rather than the Rubén Díaz disambiguation page...)—EqualRights (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, this innocent "name change" then results in a de facto restriction of access to the initial Ruben Diaz article.

Due to those actions a journalist, student, or member of the general public, could search for Ruben Diaz and miss the article entirely.

In view of this editorial sequence, and the suppression of access which it may cause, I add to my comment above, with respect to the name change of yet another article: Ruben Diaz Jr.

This is a very harmful path...the suppression of access to information.

I firmly advise against altering the name of this article, and restricting any access to it.

Thank you,

MBernal615 (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Contact with Ruben Diaz Jr.
Equal,

That was a sensible approach...to receive direct feedback from Ruben Diaz Jr. and the Assembly office of Ruben Diaz Jr.

I have done so and the clear, decisive answer is that he does NOT desire the accents.

For repeated affirmation of this, please note the manner in which Ruben Diaz Jr. signs his own name.

In every Assembly Newsletter, he signs it without any accents.

Here is an example:  http://assembly.state.ny.us/comm/ARRC/20060802/

Thank you,

MBernal615 (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Permissions sent to OTRS
Dear Tony the Marine and Lincolnite:

Thank you for your advice on January 16, 2009 regarding the copyright licensing procedure, for the photos of Ruben Diaz Jr.

Tony, I followed your advice exactly as you stated on 1/16/09, and as seconded by Lincolnite on that same day.

In accordance with this procedure:

Permissions were all sent to OTRS, and all notices and adjustments were placed on the summary page of each respective photo.

Thank you again Tony, for your great help.

All the best,

MBernal615 (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruben Diaz Jr.
I'm glad that things worked out. I have one suggestion. Go over the article once more and merge the "lone" sentences into a paragraph. For example, in the introduction you have two "lone" sentences:

"Ruben Diaz, Jr. (born April 26, 1973) is an American politician representing District 85 in the New York State Assembly. When elected in 1996, he became the youngest assemblyman in the history of New York."

"Prior to his election, this distinction belonged to Theodore Roosevelt.[1][2]"

"His constituency consists of Bronx River, Harding Park, Clason Point, Hunts Point and Soundview"

Merge them into the paragraph, so that it will look like this:

"Ruben Diaz, Jr. (born April 26, 1973) is an American politician representing District 85 in the New York State Assembly. When elected in 1996, he became the youngest assemblyman in the history of New York. Prior to his election, this distinction belonged to Theodore Roosevelt.[1][2] His constituency consists of Bronx River, Harding Park, Clason Point, Hunts Point and Soundview."

Check out the rest of the article and merge any other lone sentence which you may have. Your article will look much better. If you ever need my advice do not hesitate to ask. Tony the Marine (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your Deletion of a photo from Ruben Diaz Jr.
Dear Stifle,

On February 16 you deleted the following photo:


 * 12:55, 16 February 2009 Stifle (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Diazphoto-2 .jpg" ‎ (Listed on PUI for over two weeks: Since Jan 15)

This photo was deleted from the Ruben Diaz Jr. article.

I do not believe this photo should have been deleted.

On January 16, 2009 an Administrator named Tony the Marine wrote the exact procedure I should follow, in order to properly upload the photo.

You can read this procedure, as sent by the Administrator, on my talk page (1/16/09).

I followed the procedure to the letter.

1) Permission was sent by Ruben Diaz Jr. to permissions-en@wikimedia.org

2) A notice that Permission was sent to OTRS was prominently placed in the Image File of the photo.

3) The deletion notice was removed.

4) The photo was uploaded.

5) I notified the Adminstrator of all this on 1/21/09 (see my talk page, 1/21/09).

6) The Administrator acknowledged this and approved on 1/21/09 (see my talk page, 1/21/09).

In view of this, I do not know why you deleted the photo.

I tried to re-instate the photo but was not able to.

With utmost respect, I ask that you re-instate the photo, or communicate the reason why the photo was improper.

I will then seek to resolve this, as expeditiously as possible.

Thank you for your assistance.

MBernal615 (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
 * It does not appear that the permission email you sent to OTRS was received and validated.
 * If it was validated, you would have received a reply with a ticket number in the subject. Please let me have the ticket number.
 * If you did not receive such a reply, please tell me the email address you sent it from and to, and, if you remember, the subject line. I will then search the email database for it. (If you don't wish to supply that information onwiki, you can email it to me.)
 * Chances are good that this is a misunderstanding, and we should be able to work this out quickly. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruben Diaz Jr. - photo permission to OTRS
Dear Stifle,

Thank you for responding about the Ruben Diaz, Jr. photo.

Below is the information you requested, regarding the permission that was sent to OTRS.

Thank you again for your assistance.

MBernal615 (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Subject: Photo 2 Copyright

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:58:32 -0500 From: Assemblyman Ruben Diaz, Jr.  Organization: New York State Assembly

To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org

CC: mbernal615@aol.com

I, Ruben Diaz Jr., as the copyright holder of the image attached in Diaz_photo-2.jpg, agree to release it in under the terms of the following licenses:

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License

GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

I understand that this allows anyone to use the image for any purpose, including commercial use, as long as the constraints in the license, like attribution, are respected.

Re-upload of Ruben Diaz Jr. -- Not Working
Dear Stifle,

Thank you for verifying the permission for the Ruben Diaz Jr. photo.

You mentioned "some other issues" with respect to the image permission...

When I read the Image File, the only issue I saw was that the photo had been "listed on PUI for over two weeks." That issue has now been clarified and addressed.

Here are the latest three entries in that file:


 * 21:25, 19 February 2009 Stifle (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Diazphoto-2 .jpg" ‎ (oopsie)


 * 21:24, 19 February 2009 Stifle (Talk | contribs) restored "File:Diazphoto-2 .jpg" ‎ (3 revisions and 1 file restored: permission received)
 * 12:55, 16 February 2009 Stifle (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Diazphoto-2 .jpg" ‎ (Listed on PUI for over two weeks: Since Jan 15)

I am not sure what the "oopsie" refers to, in your last entry.

I spent two hours last night and another hour today, trying to upload this photo.

Could you please assist with the upload of this photo - either upload it, or convey a clear set of instructions, so that I may complete this process?

I would greatly appreciate your help.

Thank you,

MBernal615 (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've replied to your message at my talk page again. Stifle (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate articles
I am having a hard time understanding why you created two articles at Nelson Denis and Nelson Antonio Denis about the same person, and have edited both of them at various times over the past two months. This makes it practically impossible to merge the histories and is going to be confusing to readers. Please avoid creating duplicate articles in the future. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks, Tony
Hey my friend, you're welcome, that is why I'm here. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Boricua in Space

 * I want to share with you and every Boricua in Wikipedia that today March 19th, our "Boricua" astronaut Joseph M. Acaba, proudly displayed and placed the Puerto Rican Flag in the Discovery Shuttle and that he played "Que Bonita Bandera" while doing so. His pride in his heritage, makes me even prouder of mine. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: A nod to forever
Recently in my talk page I have been receiving very kind words which truly humble me. I thank everyone for those words, but I am only a small part of a wonderful group of Boricua Wikipedians who, regardless of their political or personal believes, have selfishly dedicated themselves to writing about the unbiased truth of the history and the amazing people of our wonderful and beautiful island. I thank God everyday that there are people like Joelr31, Caribbean H.Q., Pr4ever, Jmundo, Cerejota, Boricuaeddie, Mtmelendez and Demf just to mention a few, whose contributions are helping to create an awareness that despite the size of our island, we are a people that have a lot to be proud of. I firmly believe "Un pueblo que no conoce la verdadera historia de su pasado, no esta capcitada para elijir su futuro" and you can quote me on that. Gracias y que Dios los bendiga. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Franklin Moore re: NPOV of Ruben Diaz Jr. article
Dear Franklin,

I noted the thoughtfulness of your commentary regarding the Ruben Diaz Jr. article.

As a University Professor and reader of Reinaldo Arenas, you set a high standard of discourse!

I will address your points one at a time, though this will probably take a day or two. Hopefully by the end of that, we will have a foundation for a reasonable point of consensus.

In this note today, I will address the validity of New York State Assembly Publications (including newsletters) as a source of information regarding the New York State Legislature.

A few months ago, I sent a similar note to an editor named GeneralBelly...you can read this note in my talk page.

NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY PUBLICATIONS

For information (not conjecture) about New York State legislation, the official publications of the New York State Legislature are a primary resource.

New York State Assembly Newsletters are edited, vetted, typeset, printed, and mailed by the government of the State of New York.

Every time a State Assembly Newsletter is cited in the Ruben Diaz Jr. article, it is to reference a fact – not a viewpoint or opinion.

For example, with respect to a New York State Assembly Newsletter which GeneralBelly quoted:

In the area of Brownfield Cleanup Legislation the Assembly Newsletter provides the bill number (A. 11768) and this bill summary: “will provide more than double the current tax incentives for actual site cleanup – up to 50 percent of the costs of remediation; limit the redevelopment credits on non-manufacturing sites to $35 million or three times the cost of site cleanup, whichever is less; limit the redevelopment credits on manufacturing sites to $45 million or six times the cost of site cleanup, whichever is less; allow any project application that has been received and approved by the DEC to continue to be eligible for current-law tax credits; and increase by 2 percent the redevelopment credit for sites developed in conformance with the Brownfield Opportunity Area Plan.”

In the area of Green Roof Property Tax Abatement, that same Assembly Newsletter provides the bill numbers (A.10234 and A.11226) and the following bill summary: “This tax abatement will offset 35% of the costs of installing a green roof on a standard roof.”

This level of detail and precision, applies to every instance in which a New York State Assembly Newsletter is cited (as a footnote) for the purpose of supplying a legislative fact, and a credible source for that fact.

Precedent exists in Wikipedia, for using a government publication in this manner. You don’t need to look very far.

Please review Reference #87 in the Wikipedia article of David Paterson, the current Governor of New York State. Here is a direct link to the text of this Reference: http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/press_0729081.html

If you have time, please review Reference #106 in that same Wikipedia article. Here is the direct link to its content: http://www.patersonforny.com/main.cfm?s=dap

The Ruben Diaz Jr. citations are specifically selected. They supply the direct facts, regarding legislation as it appears, in the body of the Wikipedia article. This use was more carefully and narrowly drawn, than Reference #106 as shown above, for the Governor of New York State.

Again I must affirm, that for information (not conjecture) about New York State legislation, the official publications of the New York State Legislature are a primary resource.

Thanks again for your attention to the Ruben Diaz Jr. article.

Regards,

MBernal615 (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Franklin Moore re: Rainbow Coalition / Rainbow Rebels
Franklin,

Herein is the additional context you requested, with respect to the Rainbow Coalition.

1) RAINBOW COALITION vs. RAINBOW REBELLION

The New York Times designated them as the Rainbow Coalition. See:

http://search.aol.com/aol/search?&query=Bronx+Democrats+Split+on+Judicial+Race%2C&invocationType=tb50aoldesktopab

The New York Sun also referred to them as a Rainbow Coalition. See:

http://search.aol.com/aol/search?&query=Bronx+Democrats+In+Post-Primary+Disarray%2C&invocationType=tb50aoldesktopab

2) FACTS REGARDING THE BATTLE FOR CONTROL OF BRONX COUNTY

Franklin, this battle was fascinating and often surreal.

It included:

a) the stealing of a P.A. system in order to prevent a mandated vote

b) senior citizens bussed in for a "free show and a chicken dinner"

c) the seniors forced to vote (they didn't know what for) then sent home...without any chicken

d) all of this orchestrated by Bronx County Leader José Rivera, trying to retain his power

3) SOURCES FOR THIS CIRCUS-LIKE BEHAVIOR

Naturally, this astounding spectacle did not escape the notice of the New York press. Here are some sources, all of which are listed in the current Ruben Diaz, Jr. article:

Kappstatter, Bob, (12/6/08), New Dem Boss Carl Heastie Ushers in Calm After Disruptive Storm Over Power, New York Daily News

Benjamin, Elizabeth, (9/29/08), Seeing Double In The Bronx, New York Daily News

Giove, Candice, (9/29/08), Rivera, Rebels, Each Claim Bronx Victory, The Village Voice

Giove, Candice, (9/29/08), Bronx Dem Boss Storms Meeting, The Village Voice

4) PRIOR INCLUSION OF THIS MATERIAL IN THE RUBEN DIAZ JR. ARTICLE

The above-cited events were previously included in the Ruben Diaz, Jr. article, but were deleted by the editor named GeneralBelly.

In order to avoid any NPOV controversy, I did not dispute GeneralBelly's deletion.

BUT PLEASE NOTE:

Given the above history, as documented by the New York press, the Ruben Diaz Jr. article has been more than conservative in maintaining its NPOV.

It avoided any inflammatory events, accepted GeneralBelly's deletion, and adhered to the documented facts.

Regards,

MBernal615 (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Reponse to Ruben Diaz, Jr. NPOV issues
Hi there, I have posted a response to your comments on both the article page and on my user page. I think we can decide to put these on one page alone (probably the Diaz page as it will be more likely to draw in other users and the more people we have the more likely a better article). So I will not repost my response here. I look forward to working with you. I do note that you made reference to my work on the Reinaldo Arenas articles. Thanks, I am great fan of his work. --Franklin Moore (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Franklin Moore re: Ruben Diaz Jr. NPOV issues
Franklin,

I sent you a response regarding the Ruben Diaz Jr. NPOV issues.

You can read it on the Ruben Diaz Jr. Discussion Page.

Please review when you are able, and best wishes for the Easter season.

MBernal615 (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick note
I posted some comments and proposed changes on the Ruben Diaz page. Stay warm up there! --Franklin Moore (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, Franklin
Franklin,

The Ruben Diaz Jr. edit worked very well. Thoughtfully and artfully done.

I followed up on some small things (typos, minor syntax) and voila! It was a nice addition to the piece.

Thanks, Franklin.

MBernal615 (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Rainbow Rebels -- word choice/syntax
Franklin,

I pared down the the Rainbow Rebels section.

The first sentence is simplified, sourced, and documented by the seven in-line citations that follow it.

MBernal615 (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

removed POV Tag on Ruben Diaz, Jr.
I removed the POV tag from the Diaz page. I still think the article needs improvement and hope we will still work together on that, however, I believe the article now is coming into balance and does not warrant the tag. I am working on some improvements to the Rainbow Rebel part (I like the changes you have made, but think a little more can be done. I'll post some proposals in the next day or two.

As to your reference to my prior issues on the Cuba article; it was a strange and frustrating experience trying to work on that page. When I began trying to edit it, the page was in the hands of about 4 or 5 people who thought Castro walked on water. To them I was a "CIA trained American Imperialist." Then a group of the Miami contingent joined in and to them, I was a "Communist sympathizer." Basically, all I was trying to do was stick to the facts. It seemed as if neither group cared at all about the facts. Anyway, I basically gave up and just let the factions continue the never ending war. --Franklin Moore (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Franklin
Franklin,

Thank you for removing the NPOV tag from Ruben Diaz Jr. and yes, I look forward to working with you on this.

You have a strong editor's eye and a good way of working with people.

Both are really appreciated.

All best,

MBernal615 (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nelson Antonio Denis
Dear R'n'B:

I saw your editing recommendations for the Nelson Antonio Denis article.

In-line citations will be placed into the article.

With respect to Peacock Words -- could you please help by listing the peacock words you found, so that they may all be addressed? Otherwise we may miss one, or several, which you feel are important.

Thank you for your assistance, and we'll get to work on it!

Regards, MBernal615 (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nelson Antonio Denis (Peacock Terms)
Russ,

I provided in-line citations for the Nelson Antonio Denis article.

When you get a chance, could you please inform me of the Peacock Terms that you think should be addressed?

This would help me, so that I don't miss any PT's which you think are significant. I want to make sure I address all of them.

Thank you for your assistance!

Regards,

MBernal615 (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nelson Antonio Denis -- Peacock Term removal
Russ,

I did not receive feedback from you regarding the Peacock Terms, but I went ahead and identified/removed what could be construed as PT's from the Nelson Antonio Denis article.

Please review, and thank you for your assistance.

Regards,

MBernal615 (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank You, Russ
Russ,

Thank you for your review of Nelson Antonio Denis.

The page is stronger now; the in-line references a big help.

Regards,

MBernal615 (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for working on Ed Vega!
Much appreciated -- looks great! Best, Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed Vega
Aristophanes,

It was my pleasure. I knew Ed for some time, and he really deserved it. Thanks for the note!

All the best,

MBernal615 (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:GLphoto.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:GLphoto.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 uploaded by following this link. 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.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 08:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Nelsondenis248. Thank you. Sole Soul (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Adamclaytonpowellpress-thumb.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Adamclaytonpowellpress-thumb.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:ACPowell -1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ACPowell -1.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:AdamClaytonPowellJr..jpg
Thanks for uploading File:AdamClaytonPowellJr..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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Powell600.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Powell600.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Powell-1- edited-1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Powell-1- edited-1.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Brewery smoke.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Brewery smoke.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Pinnacle tenants.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Pinnacle tenants.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Denis Photo-3.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Denis Photo-3.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Denis Photo-2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Denis Photo-2.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Denis Photo-1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Denis Photo-1.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Vote For Me!.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Vote For Me!.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Ed Vega Yunque in 2008.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ed Vega Yunque in 2008.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:YvetteDiago-2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:YvetteDiago-2.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Nelson Antonio Denis
Hello MBernal615,

I will review the article as you requested and post my comments on the article's talk page. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about the Super bowl. Football and Boxing are the only sports where we, the humble and poor, can sit down and watch millionaires kick each others asses (smile). In regard to the "Vote For Me!" image, if you know Denis or someone who knows him, have them or him send a permit for usage to "OTRS" or otherwise, someone is going to delete it in the long run. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:VFM! Grocery.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:VFM! Grocery.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My advice
MBernal615, since I have limited my active participation in Wikipedia, this is what I suggest. Put a complaint and present your case here: ANI requesting a prompt solution from the group of administrators who handle these issues. After you do this, notify User:Off2riorob in his talk page that he/she is being discussed and provide the user with the discussion link. Post the link in your "watchlist" and keep informed of the discussion. This is the best way for uninvolved administrators to determine who is in the right and what course to take. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock puppet
You have been. (blocked by –MuZemike 17:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

You may contest this block by adding the text below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

File permission problem with File:Denis Photo-2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Denis Photo-2.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Denis Photo-1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Denis Photo-1.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Diazphoto-5.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Diazphoto-5.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

==Speedy deletion nomination of File:YBWECATVR3TWCAZ3IH9OCA8Z1R3ECA6OGZ0HCA34COAXCAF6VIQUCAJ5ZIEECAODQT3MCAQYU3FHCA6NF1BQCA7RI5L8CATR2O0FCAR54064CA4LQREZCA2YJYSXCAJH5C6KCAX4XSEDCAND5Z78CAI7Z2NZ.jpg== A tag has been placed on File:YBWECATVR3TWCAZ3IH9OCA8Z1R3ECA6OGZ0HCA34COAXCAF6VIQUCAJ5ZIEECAODQT3MCAQYU3FHCA6NF1BQCA7RI5L8CATR2O0FCAR54064CA4LQREZCA2YJYSXCAJH5C6KCAX4XSEDCAND5Z78CAI7Z2NZ.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:The comeback.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:The comeback.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:08vega 190.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:08vega 190.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Omaha Bigelow photo.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Omaha Bigelow photo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Blood fugues2.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Blood fugues2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Casualty Report.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Casualty Report.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Diazphoto-4 .jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Diazphoto-4 .jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Diazphoto-4 .jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Diazphoto-4 .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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Diazphoto-3 .jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Diazphoto-3 .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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Denis Photo-3.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Denis Photo-3.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Denis Photo-3.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Denis Photo-3.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Denis Photo-2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Denis Photo-2.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Bill_Bailey_in_2008.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Bill_Bailey_in_2008.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. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Vote for Me! Poster.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Vote for Me! Poster.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 uploaded by following this link. 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. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 21:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Images
Hi, File:Denis Photo-4.jpg, File:Denis Photo-1.jpg, File:YvetteDiago.jpg, File:VFM! Grocery.jpg, and File:Bill Bailey -2.jpg are nominated for deletion for missing evidence of permission. Regards Hekerui (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)