User talk:Mthsr1

File permission problem with File:KellyStation Alien Drawing.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:KellyStation Alien Drawing.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File 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. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * These images are the property of the US Army. I have verified that. Are you suggesting that you need a written release from the US Army to reproduce these here? They aren't going to do that. This requirement would mean that any document produced by the US government would be impossible to reprint if the government simply refuses to admit that they are government produced.

File permission problem with File:Kelly UFo Incident drawing of alleged aliens and spacecraft.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kelly UFo Incident drawing of alleged aliens and spacecraft.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File 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. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Drawing of aliens and spacecraft by Pfc Gary Hodson of US Army.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Drawing of aliens and spacecraft by Pfc Gary Hodson of US Army.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File 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. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Kelly2asm.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kelly2asm.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands 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. 17:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Kelly2sm2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kelly2sm2.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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File 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. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Kelly2sm.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kelly2sm.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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File 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. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Kelly1sm.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kelly1sm.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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File 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. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. LuckyLouie (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
Hi,

I recently received a notice that you had removed some images that I uploaded to an article (Kelly-Hopkinsville encounter). The images were reproductions of drawings done by an employee of the federal government - a PFC in the US army. I had tagged them with whatever tag says basically "Property of the US Government - not susceptible to copyright".

I'm not really sure how to fix this problem and get the images back to the article. I think the images adds a lot to the article.

Thanks for any assistance you can offer, MTHSR1


 * Hi Mthsr1. The images you supplied were claimed as having arisen from a US Military investigation by member(s) of the 101st Airborne Division. (According to unit records, the 101st was not stationed in Ft. Campbell until 1956) This being an extraordinary claim, it requires verification, aside from your own word that you found it in a newspaper described as such. Can you supply information that identifies the US Government publication, US Military report, or other Federal Government source that these images were taken from? - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi again. The images I uploaded came from an article that appeared in the Louisville Courier Journal of August 22, 1955. They are attributed to "Pfc Gary Hodson of the Education Department at Ft. Campbell". Since I am from the are and the 101st has been at Fort Campbell my whole life, I jumped to a conclusion. I think I may have read another article that said that Hodson was with the 101st. Obviously, this is an error. As far as I can tell, these images have never been published anywhere and were provided to reporters at the time of the incident. How do I fix this so that these images can stay with the article?Mthsr1 (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Without seeing the original newspaper article, it's hard to tell how you may have misinterpreted it. The images might possibly be property of the Louisville Courier Journal. Since as you say, "these images have never been (re)published anywhere", we need a source that provides definitive attribution for the images, one that is verifiable. For Wikipedia to state that the images originate from the US Army at Ft. Campbell, we need a verifiable US Government source that confirms it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't really misinterpret anything. The article specifically says what I quoted above. That the drawings were done by "Pfc. Gary Hodson of the Educational Department at Ft. Campbell". I'm holding the original article in my hand right now. The only mistake I made was to assume that the 101st was at Fort Campbell in 1955. I see now that I made a mistake there. But - the drawings were still done by an enlisted serviceman who was an employee of the US government. This places the drawings in the public domain. I'm about 99% sure that absolute "proof" of all of this does not exist. The only evidence is probably in the article that I am holding. When I look at the underlying info for any image on Wikipedia, all I see is the claim by the uploader that it is OK to use the image because (whatever). No actual "proof". What to do??? Mthsr1 (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Images published on Wikipedia - especially ones attesting they are works of the US Government - are always supported by more than just a claim. For example, this image is directly verifiable as being from M 11-235 manual that can be directly traced to the original War Department documents. And this image can be directly verified as originating from the Army Signal Corps Collection in the U.S. National Archives. In addition, neither of those images is being used to make the extraordinary claim that it is the result of a US Army soldier "investigating" a UFO report "as part of their duties". It could be true...or it could be Pfc. Hodson sent his drawing to the newspaper as a joke during his off-duty hours. Without any way to verify it was actually issued by the US Government, I'm afraid Wikipedia can't license it under the . - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I can understand your concern over using potentially copyrighted material. However, this is a drawing from a nearly 60 year old newspaper. The newspaper itself attributes the drawing to a US government employee. This article does not even show up in the Courier Journal's archives. I'm stumped regarding how to provide you with anything like "proof" that the Courier Journal's (the newspaper of record for the state of Kentucky) original reporting was true. I may well have the only existing copy of this. Where would the army even store something like this? Also - I don't recall saying that a US Army soldier was "investigating" a UFO report. Only that Pfc. Hodson made the drawings (again - per the Journal). I also do not remember using the phrase "as part of their duties". Also - isn't it just a little ironic that you are concerned about such an "extraordinary claim" when the entire article is composed almost solely of one extraordinary claim after another. I'm just saying.... Mthsr1 (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't take it personally. The "as part of their duties" is a phrase contained in the licensing statement. You (or somebody) agreed to it when adding these images to Wikipedia under the US Government Public Domain license. And somewhere along the line, someone seems to have added the caption that Hodson was "sent to interview the witnesses" . Not your fault, but all these are problems that need to be addressed. If you feel that the article contains extraordinary claims that are not adequately verified by reliable sources, the solution is to fix them, not to add more. - LuckyLouie (talk)


 * I'm not taking it personally. However, my understanding of your original use of the "extraordinary claim" phrase was in regard to my mistaken statement that Hodson was a member of the 101st. I have edited that out of the article. On the other hand, it may be that you felt that the claim that the US Army would investigate a UFO report is extraordinary, but I'm sure that the USAF does this a lot. Other than that mistake, the only things I have added to this entry are directly traceable to contemporaneous newspaper articles (Kentucky New Era and Louisville Courier Journal) and are, in my opinion, the only truly reliable information in the whole entry. I tried, early on, to edit out some of the things that I knew to be later and questionable additions to this very strange story - but - folks just kept putting them back. I guess they thought it made a better, scarier tale. You may have noticed that this is the only Wikipedia entry that i have edited. I did it as an experiment to ascertain to my own satisfaction the nature of the Wikipedia process and the reliability of its entries. If your final suggestion is that I edit the entry to make it more accurate - well - I would start by putting the images back. By the way - how do you insure that the text of an entry is not simply lifted from some other source? Mthsr1 (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey Mthsr1, good to hear you're interested in improving the encyclopedia's articles. (I agree with you that there's a lot of dubious material in the article, mostly gleaned from UFO books, which are considered biased and unreliable by Wikipedia. Most of that stuff should be excised or rewritten. We should not be using these dubious sources to quote facts, only opinions couched in neutral language, e.g. "UFOlogist X wrote that the creatures were wearing metallic suits".) I wouldn't add those images back until you can verify their ownership status. As for your question about sources, there's WP:RS which discusses how to determine which sources are reliable, and how to distinguish primary from secondary sources. There's a lot of reading you can do to familiarize yourself with this stuff. I'm going to put a standard welcome template below and hope it helps point you to some of the basics. Regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's the deal. I am from Hopkinsville which is less than 10 miles from the site of the alleged close encounter. My mother gave me the clipping from the Courier Journal that I referenced earlier. I also have a copy of the original local newspaper article from the Hopkinsville New Era. I knew several of the people who are mentioned in all three articles from Wikipedia, the Courier Journal, and the New Era, including Police Chief Russell Greenwell who was a good friend of my grandfather. We also knew Mr. Ledwith of the radio station (WHOP) who made the other drawings that I also have copies of. I used to be a UFO buff and have spent many hours reviewing the details of this incident because it occurred so close to my home and I knew those involved. Although I never spoke with any of the adults who were present during the incident, I have met one of the Lankford children and another child who was present at the time. I am 99% sure (as sure as I can be without actually talking to Pfc. Hodson) that the images that I placed in the Wikipedia article were drawn by Hodson and that he was at the site in his capacity as a US Army soldier trying to help the local authorities. This was all reported at the time and is supported by my personal investigation. The Wikipedia article, as it now stands, contains a number of details that I have never heard before and opinions that are not supported by the original witness reports given within a day of the incident. I am also an attorney and can say with great confidence that, if I published the images in question in a book and were to be sued for copyright violation, I would win the case under the defenses of Fair Use, Good Faith, and Public Domain. As I said earlier, I edited this article because I had been told that Wikipedia was "an interesting concept" but not reliable for several reasons and I wanted to see for myself. I have seen. I really appreciate the time that you have taken to explain all of this to me. You sound like a very interesting person. However, I don't have the time right now to pursue this much further. Thanks again. Mthsr1 (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome Mthsr1! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are users!

Hello, Mthsr1. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm LuckyLouie, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page, and someone will try to help. Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes   at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp. The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun! To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload create your own private sandbox] for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put  on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

 Sincerely, LuckyLouie (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LuckyLouie&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
Hello, Mthsr1. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:‪Drawing of aliens and spacecraft by Pfc Gary Hodson of US Army.jpg‬
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:‪Drawing of aliens and spacecraft by Pfc Gary Hodson of US Army.jpg‬, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. LuckyLouie (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Drawing by Pfc. Gary Hodson of alleged aliens.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Drawing by Pfc. Gary Hodson of alleged aliens.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. LuckyLouie (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)