User talk:Phil-the-man

Image copyright problem with Image:Yani.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Yani.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 05:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Yani2.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Yani2.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 05:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

GSDRT
Hi Phil. I can see where you are coming from with your [[User_talk:Dramatic#GSDRT|comments on my talk page}}, but I am merely applying Wikipedia policy.


 * Link to Danny's site: This doesn't fit within the scope of Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. There are many articles on not-for-profit organisations who most likely have their web presence sponsored. Virtually none of them acknowledge that in the article. To allow such credits would be the thin end of the wedge. For example, if the trust had a vehicle sponsored by a certain car dealer, the situation would be much the same. The only exception mught be if there was a citable press release or news story about such a sponsorship - such a story could be used as a reference. As a final point, words like "kindly" are considered unencyclopedic - they express a particular Point of View.
 * References. Wikipedia is a Tertiary information source. It reports/agglomerates what secondary sources have said about a subject. The trust's own website is a primary source. While it is probable that factual information on it will be correct, that is not a given, and the site will always be considered to be biased in favour of itself. I suggest you read Verifiability, Reliable_sources. Conflict of interest may also be relevant - depending on your degree of involvement with the trust. Note that references do not have to be from the internet. Citing a daily newspaper or a professionally published magazine would be fine. In the absence of references, were this policy to be applied strictly, the article would probably be pruned to a couple of paragraphs. dramatic 10:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ambush At Mos Eisley.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ambush At Mos Eisley.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)