User talk:Paulmcanders

Welcome!

Hello, Paulmcanders, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Ilovethebeach.com, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! red dog six (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Ilovethebeach.com


A tag has been placed on Ilovethebeach.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. red dog six (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Re your message: You are welcome to recreate the article if you can provide the necessary citations to reliable sources covering the website. You need to show that the site meets the notability guideline for websites or the general notability guidelines. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Re your message: You left me a message while logged out, but I responded here. To properly format the article, I suggest that you review Wikipedia's guide to writing your first article.  You can also use an existing Wikipedia article about a similar website as a template to build a new article (see Category:Erotica and pornography websites for a listing of similar sites).  As for the inclusion of potentially explicit images, while Wikipedia is not censored, the use of explicit images should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available (see Offensive material and Pornography for additional details). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Re your message: I have restored the article into your user space at User:Paulmcanders/Ilovethebeach.com so that you can work on the article. You can move the page into main space once you have finished the article.


 * As for your question about the use files in articles, Wikipedia has an extensive help document about how to upload and use files at Help:Contents/Images and media. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=upload&user=Paulmcanders

Edit tests on Mr. Skin
Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Mr. Skin worked, and it has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''This is an automated message from 28bot. False positive? Please report it.'' 28bot (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Ilovethebeach.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ilovethebeach.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ilovethebeach.com
Re your message: As the article stands now, it would not meet the notability requirements for websites as it does not include any references to third-party sources. All of the references you have included are from the site itself or trivial (robtex.com). You need to locate news articles about the site for it to be notable. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Godo Dodo I have made serveral changes to my page please tell me if it is ready to move it to the main page.Paulmcanders (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think it is ready yet. Your addition of the statistics about visitor traffic does not establish the site's notability.  In fact, you should remove everything but the first paragraph in the article as the remaining paragraphs are trivia and not encyclopedic material.  What you need to find to establish the site's notability are articles by major news organizations about the site.  For example, have any newspapers, magazines, or other websites (but not traffic statistics or domain information sites) written about it?  Awhile back, you said that the site gained some notoriety because of a connection with Victoria Beckham.  Having articles about that incident may establish the site's notability.  If you look at the article for Mr. Skin, you will see what I mean by newspaper articles as it has references to the articles from the Chicago Tribune, Reuters, and The New York Times.  If you can find similar articles for this website, that that is what establishes notability, not visitor and domain information.


 * On a side note, if you need more feedback or have another question, please leave me another note on my talk page so that I will notice. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Re your message: Yes, there does need to be some coverage of the site from news organizations in order for the article to remain. There is nothing I can do as an administrator to allow the article to remain if it does not meet the notability guidelines.  The sitetrail.com link is not a reference as that is another domain traffic site like Alexa and does not establish a site's notability.


 * What you can do is ask for feedback from other interested editors at Requests for feedback. Others might be able to assist you with finding enough references to meet the notability guidelines.


 * Wikipedia does have a few articles about the topic of secret photography and photography and the law that touch on the issue of privacy. There is also an article about what sounds like a similar site: Voyeurweb.  -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Re your message: The porninspector.com review leans towards notability, but not the other two. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Re your message: You don't need my permission to move it back into main space. However, I will tell you that in my opinion, if you do move it back into main space as the article stands now, it will likely be deleted again as you have not satisfied the notability guidelines.


 * You have to go to my talk page in order to leave me a reply. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Re your message: The porninspector.com reference is borderline towards notability in my opinion. You really need multiple references in order to meet the notability guidelines.  You should remove all of the statistics and server/domain information (essentially everything but the first paragraph) as they do not add anything to the notability of the article and is not encyclopedic.  I can't help you with Wikia questions as I only deal with Wikipedia.  On a side note, you are editing while not logged in.  While you can do that, I would recommend that you sign in to your account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Re your message: I think one of the differences is that the Voyeurweb reference is a solid one from Wired, while the ilovethebeach.com reference that you found is borderline in my opinion.

There are over 1,500 administrators on Wikipedia. Any of one them can delete it through the speedy deletion process like the article was originally deleted or it can be deleted through community discussion via the proposed deletion or articles for deletion process. Usually, what happens is that an editor will tag the article for speedy deletion and an available admin will act on it. That is what happened in the first deletion. It was pure random chance that I was the deleting admin. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Re your message: I don't think any of these reviews establish the site's notability either. The problem I think you have is this site seems to be just one of thousands of pornographic sites with no particular distinction beyond site reviews.  You could pack the article full of reviews, but that doesn't distinguish why this particular website is different than all of the other sites that are reviewed by these review sites.  With the Voyeurweb article and all of the other pornographic sites, the references were not just site reviews, but articles by reliable news organizations discussing some particular cultural aspect of the sites. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Re your message: Being one of the oldest may or may not make the site notable, but the problem is finding a reliable source to back up such a claim. The review is not a reliable source for such a claim. As for XVideos, the statistics are used to claim notability as the most viewed pornographic website. Does that mean it is notable?  Maybe, maybe not.  But the fact that other articles exist does not exempt other articles from the notability requirements. As for your last question, I will not delete the article through the speedy deletion process nor will I defend or support the article from deletion by participating in any community deletion discussion should it come to that.  I may monitor the AfD if it comes to that, but I will not express an opinion on either to keep or delete the article.  With all of the assistance that I have provided you regarding the article, I think it would be best if I remain as a neutral source for you in the future. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Re your message: The process of speedy deletion is not quite what you think it is. For speedy deletion, an editor will tag the article, it will get listed in a special category, and any admin can review the article and take appropriate action.  It is pure random chance on whichever admin decides to look at the category and act upon any particular article.  Articles for speedy deletion are not sent to a particular admin.  Some admins will also review the list of newly created articles and delete the without another editor tagging them for speedy deletion first.  Therefore, to answer your question, any admin may delete the article through the speedy deletion process.  There does tend to be a particular group of active admins who have chosen to work on deletion of articles, but there is no definitive list of those admins.


 * For the community deletion process, any editor may start a deletion discussion. The article is discussed for a fixed amount of time and then an admin determines consensus towards or against deletion of the article.  As with the speedy deletion process, there does tend to be a particular group of active admins that close AfDs, but the closure of them is not determined by the admin's opinion alone, but of the consensus of all participants in the discussion.  The admin can not override the consensus of the discussion.


 * The short answer to your question is: If you are looking for a list of people who you can contact before the article is published to prevent its deletion, there is nobody you can contact. It can be any admin or any editor that deletes the article through speedy deletion or starts an AfD on an article, respectively. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Re your message: When I last looked the article back in November, I told you then that I did not think the article was ready for release. You published it in late December and it went through quite a history as your talk page notices indicate. First, it was nominated for speedy deletion by Daemonic Kangaroo, but the deletion was declined by StephenBuxton. The article was then noticed by Billinghurst who initiated the community deletion process that I told you about above. The discussion was held at Articles for deletion/Ilovethebeach.com. Finally, the AfD was closed as a speedy deletion by TParis. You will need to contact TParis about the closure of the AfD and undeleting the article as I can not do it for you.

The copy within your user space is still available at User:Paulmcanders/Ilovethebeach.com. It was only blanked by Billinghurst, not deleted. You will need to ask them why they did that. The article history on your user space copy has the complete record of your edits to the article and you may recover the work that way. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Re your messages: In my opinion, none of these sites help your claim to notability, because none of them are written about ilovethebeach.com itself. Most of them don't even mention the site name at all.  Instead, they are just pointing to content distributed by ilovethebeach.com.  Notable sites linking to other sites does not make the other site notable as notability is not inherited.


 * As for your connection to potential privacy laws, unless you can show that Victoria Beckham video led to laws either being passed or proposed, then there is no notability attained that way either. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to get potential privacy issues regarding sites like these to the foreground.


 * As for the reviews links provided by the site itself, we had gone over many of these before. I don't think any of these particularly helps notability either.  The rankings mean nothing since all them are member rankings or rankings within the reviewing site.  One of the links doesn't even work anymore. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Re your message: Unless you can find sources that are reliable there probably is not much you can do to get the article re-published. Unfortunately, the site does not appear to be notable at this time with the references available.  I think it is admirable that you are putting in so much work to get the article up, but sometimes a website just is not notable enough for inclusion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Re your message: My recommendation to you is to abandon your work on ilovethebeach.com and instead work on something else that interests you. You can leave the article in your user space and if some new reliable sources appear, you can resume the work.  There over three million articles on Wikipedia, so my guess is that you can find an article that interests you.  Or you can join one of the collaborative WikiProject groups on a topic that interests you.  Look around and see what interests you, start with smaller edits instead of trying to write full articles, and then see how things go.  I suspect that you will find this path much less stressful than trying to start an article from scratch.  Creating a new article is not easy and you are not judged by how many you create.  I've been here for over five years and have created very few articles.  If you prefer to stay away from writing articles, there are many maintenance tasks you can do that are as just as important. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Ibeachlogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ibeachlogo.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 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 .

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 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus ( Film 2000)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus ( Film 2000), and it appears to include material copied directly from https://www.miniacipac.com/FF_SantaClaus.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ilovethebeach.com


A tag has been placed on Ilovethebeach.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To note that the speedy has been declined. — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Ilovethebeach.com, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hardcore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Ilovethebeach.com for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ilovethebeach.com is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ilovethebeach.com until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:CNN Cold War.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:CNN Cold War.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. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. The Haz talk 19:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ilovethebeach.com


A tag has been placed on Ilovethebeach.com, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Iruth madoff.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Iruth madoff.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Louis Réard bikini.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Louis Réard bikini.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. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please stop uploading copyrighted images with CC licenses claiming that they're yours, you don't have the legal right to do that. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for sending me this message. I seriously need help. How can I add pictures to wikipedia with getting into copyright trouble? Almost every picture I upload is deleted and I can't do anything to stop it. May you please teach me the correct procedure on how to upload pictures onto wikipedia without them being deleted afterwards?

Paulmcanders (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Members 01 sm.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Members 01 sm.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cold WarTV.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Cold WarTV.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ilbeach.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Ilbeach.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Delete account
Re your message: It is not possible for you to delete your account. You can either just abandon your account or invoke your right to vanish. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Godo

Thanks for the help so far. I am having trouble with some of the pictures I uploaded may you please teach me how I my be able to upload pictures and not have them deledted for copyright? Also I still can't find my page from ilovethebeach.com I spoke to the guy you asked me too see but there is still no answer. May you please help me un blank it?

Paulmcanders (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Re your message: First off, please be more careful when leaving me additional messages. You removed other editors comments.  If you want to reply to me, just find the appropriate section on my talk page and click the Edit link on the right.


 * The many images that you uploaded and were deleted or nearly deleted was because you improperly license tagged them. You can not upload images that other people have taken or images of television show DVD covers, title screens, promotional images, or book covers and claim that you own the copyright.  The original producer of those shows or books owns the copyright.  I recommend that you read Uploading images for additional details.  Also, the initial upload screen gives you hints on what you should and should not do in the "Where is the media from?" section.  Just click the appropriate link for whatever you are uploading.


 * The reason you can not find the copy of your article in your user space anymore is because you moved the user space copy into the main space per your move log. You should have not moved the user space copy into the main article space in an attempt to get the article published again.  As I told you, the article was deleted through an AfD discussion and your attempt at republishing it without addressing the issues resulted in your moved article being subject to speedy deletion per policy.  You can ask either TParis or RHaworth to restore and move the article back to your user space for you, but then you must not re-publish the article until the notability issues have been addressed.  If you do re-publish with addressing the issues, it will be deleted again and I wouldn't be surprised if the article name is locked to prevent you from re-publishing it yet again.  I can not restore the article for you, but I have left the two admins in question a note about it.  Only they can restore it or I can if they consent to me restoring it for you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Re your message: The image you uploaded of Ruth Madoff is unusable on Wikipedia because you copied it from the New York magazine website and you do not have any rights to assign it to the public domain. You did not take the photo, so you do not own the rights.  I think the short answer for you since you do not know image copyrights very well is to avoid uploading any photos unless you took them yourself (and even then there are certain restrictions depending upon the subject of your photo).


 * While TParis has consented to undeletion and userfication of the article, I have not heard anything back from RHaworth. It is only with RHaworth's additional consent that I will restore your article.  My warning to you about not re-publishing it until you have corrected the notability issue still stands. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I see that StephenBuxton has restored the article for you in your user space.  However, to repeat myself, you must work on the notability of the article before any attempt at republishing it.  If you do not do so, it will likely be deleted again. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Re your email
I would to speak to you about the my page you have recently deleted Ilovethebeach.com. I would to speak with you to make the necessary changes to have it reenstated. One problem that I am having is that it was blanked and now i can't see it my you please undo this for me?

Hi Paulmcanders. Thanks for your email, and though I am not the person who should or has the ability to mentor you in articles. You mentioned that you believed that you were blocked, I do not see that this is the case.

I have included a fuller list of article that assist in writing articles for Wikipedia. The issue around the website that you mention is that it simply may not be notable (Notability). Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a listing service, and your creation of the articles crosswiki looked more like a conflict of interest rather than an attempt to improve the encyclopaedia. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Paulmcanders/Ilovethebeach.com
Hi! As per your request, I have userfied the article. This may be found at User:Paulmcanders/Ilovethebeach.com. The entire page history has been restored too, so you should be able to find a version that you can start work from.

Remember: whilst it is unlikely to be deleted from your user page for notability issues, userfied articles can still be deleted for copywrite issues, negative unsourced BLP issues, and for being blatant adverts. I'll pop by later when I get a chance and check how you're getting on.

One thing I haven't asked so far (rather remiss of me, please forgive me) is whether or not you have any direct association with the website. It's one thing for a fan (for example) to write about a favourite website, it's another thing entirely for the website owner to write about it. It isn't against the rules to do so, but people are less likely to look favourably on the article if they discover later on that you own the site and hadn't told anyone.

If you are associated with the website, I recommend you read the guidelines on Conflict of Interest. Also, for transparancy, declare your connection at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard.

Any questions? Drop me a note on my talk page. Happy Editing! Stephen! Coming... 08:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * One other thing - not sure if you've seen the latest note on my talk page. I'm afraid the one thing I am unable to help with is images - copyright law is a minefield, and my understanding of how it relates to images is extremely shakey.  Your best bet would be to ask at the help desk, or talk to User:Gogo Dodo as someone who does understand such matters. Stephen! Coming... 10:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
It has been transferred into your user space in the meantime, see above (User:Paulmcanders/Ilovethebeach.com).

Lectonar (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Non-free rationale for File:Andrew Ross Sorkin’s book.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Andrew Ross Sorkin’s book.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Book Cover Cold War.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Book Cover Cold War.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Cold Warseries.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Cold Warseries.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Greatest Tank Battles.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Greatest Tank Battles.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Re []: Thanks - Now you can do the others :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Andrew Ross Sorkin’s book.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Andrew Ross Sorkin’s book.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ilbeach.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Ilbeach.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Images must be used in the article space, not the user (sandbox) space. If an image is deleted and the draft is moved to article space, any admin/sysop can restore the image for use on the article.  Just drop a note with the image name and article name at WP:Requests for undeletion.  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 00:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because of intentional restraints, only images on commons can be shared cross-wikis; there is no way to use images uploaded to one language's wiki to another without using commons. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 22:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

YGM
— Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I made an edit to your draft here, notice the "invisible comments" (text that shows up in the editing window but not when viewing the article).

Most important: you need a reliable source that says that the website is "influential" at all and that it is "controversial". If no reliable source says that, then the article can't say that either. And if it's not either influential or controversial or anything then it means that it's not notable enough according to Wikipedia's standards.

You have a bunch of links there but most if not all don't look like reliable sources. Of course, I'm only judging by the URLs since I don't want to click through to any of them. So I'm asking you: do any of the links qualify as reliable sources? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Book Cover Cold War.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Book Cover Cold War.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file 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 file 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 files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file 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. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from File:Book Cover Cold War.jpg. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space
Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Paulmcanders/Ilovethebeach.com has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ilovethebeach.com, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Changes
Re your message: No, Terms of Use changes would not affect the article from being published as the Terms of Use have nothing to do with the notability guidelines on Wikipedia. The article would still have the same notability issues. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ilovethebeach.com concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ilovethebeach.com, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Ilovethebeach.com


Hello Paulmcanders. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Ilovethebeach.com.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cold Warseries.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Cold Warseries.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:230px-TheStoryOfSantaClaus VHS.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:230px-TheStoryOfSantaClaus VHS.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:230px-TheStoryOfSantaClaus VHS.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:230px-TheStoryOfSantaClaus VHS.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ancients Behaving Badly.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ancients Behaving Badly.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:230px-TheStoryOfSantaClaus VHS.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:230px-TheStoryOfSantaClaus VHS.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)