User talk:Mark Preston

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here!Llamadog903 02:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Bull Cook and Authentic Historical Recipes and Practices (With Berthe Herter)
Hi there. I've added the "prod" template to the article Bull Cook and Authentic Historical Recipes and Practices (With Berthe Herter), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the article (also see What Wikipedia is not and Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Bull Cook and Authentic Historical Recipes and Practices (With Berthe Herter). If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.. At the very least some additional indications as to why he is notable should be made (and the title badly needs shortening). Regards,  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  21:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again, Thanks for the mail - of course there's no problem taking time to expand the article.  I was just browsing, came across it and it looked unusual and I thought it was going nowhere.  But it's happened many a time that I've been totally wrong and very interesting articles have emerged.  Good luck with it!  (but could the title be shortened?)  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk

License tagging for Image:Am Literature p6.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Am Literature p6.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 02:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your posts on talk pages
Hi Mark. Sometimes in the long discussion we've both been involved with on Talk:St. Louis, Missouri you've neglected to sign your comments with the four tildes ( ~ ). Please make sure you do as even though I can tell when it's you that has written a comment, others may not. — GT 00:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

St Louis
Re your comments; It feels miserable - has happened to me more than once (and no, that's not why I sometimes end up there). Good news is it keeps us academically on our toes, and tends to make WP a better place (although admittedly often in terms of three steps forward, two steps back) If you have to prove your point (sometimes to the obstinately thick as a brick) you end up through teaching knowing your subject much better, and sometimes you end up saying 'hey, I never looked at it that way'. It's the nature of the beast. If we can't stand it, we get grumpy and/or leave. If we are passionate about what we do, we get used to it. Assume good faith, & don't ever take it personally - ya end up with ulcers ;-) Just remember, unlikely you will either win or lose all the debates you have on WP (there are some remarkably brilliant folks here, also some remarkably ignorant, obtuse, imaginative, progressive, liberal, conservative etc.etc.). No hard feelings (whatever the page ends up saying).Bridesmill 20:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to second everything here. Even though we disagree about the quote it's not really a big deal. I hope we resolve this matter soon and you can start to focus your attention on some other articles as well as I think you have a lot to offer this project. — GT 01:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I got your e-mail about the TS Elliot quote as a proposed "preamble" to the St. Louis article. Thanks for writing. I have been away from Wikipedia for several weeks and editing rather rarely the last couple months. Just too busy with other things. I have looked over the discussion among several editors about the proposed preamble, but there is a lot to catch up on. I still fundamentally feel the same way I did when you first proposed the preamble - while I like the quote and identify with the sentiment, I don't think it adds much to the encyclopedic quality of the article, especially not at the very start. Somewhere along the line someone proposed putting it in a quote box, and I like that solution well enough. Someone also seems to have proposed a quote section, which I think could work. Thanks again for your edits and for soliciting input on the article. TMS63112 17:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ingemar_Johansson.jpg listed for deletion
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Ingemar_Johansson.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission.  While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, a non-profit website, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self-no-disclaimers to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Media copyright questions. Thank you.

CAIR
Mark, regarding your recent talk page comment at the CAIR entry, I would advise you take a more collegial tone. I've reverted your addition and responded to you there. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * New comments go on the bottom of talk pages. I moved your initial comment there.  Please continue the discussion at the bottom.  Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit warring and disruptively trying to put contentious links into the EL section of the entry. What applicable part of WP:EL suggests to you that every critic of an organization should be linked in their entry?  We generally don't link any of them.  Noteworthy criticisms go into the entry itself with reliable sourcing.PelleSmith (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Wicks Organ.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Wicks Organ.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --TheImaCow (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)