User talk:Mjk17

RCM
I'm happy to help.

1) The problem with the images has nothing to do with their classification or their catagorization. The problem is that the were downloaded from the internet, and their copyright status is unclear.  At the time that you uploaded the images, you licensed them as if you had created them yourself, which was obviously not the case.  Wikipedia and its sister sites are really really strict about copyright issues.  It's not enough to say "I have permission to use these images".  Either the RCM website clearly states that the images are freely licensed, or we need an email from them stating that fact.  And typically, to avoid problems, one should obtain that email prior to uploading the images.  Generally, the images that people download off the internet are deleted because they do not meet Wikimedia's licensing requirements (see Licensing for more information). In respect of these particular images, you did subsequently ask RCM to send an email to the Wikimedia OTRS system, and one was received. However, apparently the RCM email said that they released the images under terms similar to the Creative Commons license known as "cc-by-nc-nd" (i.e. the images were free for anyone to use, except for commercial purposes). That's not good enough. It's a fundamental principle here on Wikipedia that all of the materials, including the images, can be used "by anyone, anytime, for any purpose" (including commercial uses). Either RCM sends a new email in the next few days, stating that the images can be used for any purpose, including commercial uses, or the images will be deleted. I know it's disappointing, because I'm sure you put a lot of effort into uploading those images, but the rules for using images and illustrations here on Wikipedia are strict. You can't just download stuff from the web. The easiest way to use acceptable images is to actually take them yourself and then freely license your own work. BTW, you need to provide an actual source for File:Yonge Dundas Toronto CM.JPG, such as the weblink to where ou got it (or the book where you scanned it, etc.) -- the current named source ("The Royal Conservatory photo archive") is very vague and may cause you grief down the road. 2) There is a potential solution for the logo image. You can download the image locally here on Wikipedia under the principles of "fair use" -- see WP:FAIRUSE for more details.  The logo will need to meet the fair use criteria (I think it does, as long as you upload a lower resolution version), and you will absolutely need to include a fair use rationale on the image description page (see, for example, File:Apple-logo.png).  The other images do not meet the fair use criteria (because free equivalents could easily be created by visiting the RCM building and taking one's own photos -- the fact that they might not be as good as the ones from the RCM, or might be from a different angle, etc., does not matter).  But at least it's a solution for the one logo image. 3) Moving the article: Typically, article titles do not contain the word "the" (so the move is potentially controversial, esp. given that there have been past discussions about the correct title), but there are obviously exceptions. You can move the article name yourself, but given the history of this article (and the prior discussions over the proper article name), you should follow the proper process (which is quite simple). If you follow the process (i.e. get consensus), someone else is unlikely to come along later and move the article back to the old name. The steps you follow are set out at Requested moves. As the article is Canada-related, you should also list the discussion at Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. I suspect that you while you might get one or two editors who disagree with your proposed move, most people would agree and an admin will move the article in a week or so after you list it according to this process. Best of luck. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I heard the good news that the necessary permission was obtained from the RCM. Well done.  On a go forward basis, you can avoid these problems in the future if you supply the necessary permission before you upload the images.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Royal Conservatory (disambiguation)
A tag has been placed on The Royal Conservatory (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. Rockstone35 (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Mazzoleni Hall Wiki.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Mazzoleni Hall Wiki.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. ww2censor (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:RCM newIllustration wikipedia.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:RCM newIllustration wikipedia.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. ww2censor (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Koerner Hall RENDERING.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Koerner Hall RENDERING.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. ww2censor (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Glenn Gould 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Glenn Gould 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. ww2censor (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:PeterSimon web.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:PeterSimon web.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 created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)