User talk:Ravel59

Replaceable fair use File:Great Yarmouth Racecourse - looking down the finishing straight.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Great Yarmouth Racecourse - looking down the finishing straight.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 21:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi There Ravel59, you seem understandably confused by the above note. What this means is that I am asserting that someone could go to the course, take a photo, and upload it under a creative commons licence. AS this is possible then, by Wikipedia's standards, the image is replaceable with free content and we don't host such photos. It is almost always regarded as true here that a freely licenced image could be taken of physical things that still exist. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As an example, there is a freely licensed photo on the Chepstow Racecourse page, and one of Great Yarmouth racecourse here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand how to reply to editors comments such as those of Peripitus and Ghmyrtle. Is it done by typing this here? If yes, I have specific questions to follow. One is as follows. In order to keep the image File:Great Yarmouth Racecourse - looking down the finishing straight.jpg will it be sufficient for the racecourse (who provided it) to say it's freely available to the public? And should I end this with these four little symbols? Many thanks. Ravel59 (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You can indeed reply here: since they have posted here, it is probable that they are watching here, but if you want to make doubly sure, you could then edit their talk-pages (such as User Talk:Peripitus) to tell them you have replied: see Template:talkback for a way of doing this.
 * If the owners of the copyright choose to make the image public domain, or to license it under one of the licences acceptable to Wikipedia (these require licensing it for any purpose, including commercial) then the image can be used. They would need to take the actions described in WP:Donating copyright materials.
 * The four tildes are the usual way to sign your posts, and this is strongly recommended on all talk pages (though not in articles). --ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin Fine. Apologies for what may seem naive questions. I will see if I can get the owners of the photo to make it public domain.

I have now received confirmation from the owner of the photo that it is uncopyrighted, and public domain. I was mistaken in thinking it was copyrighted. Can the image please stay where it is, or do I need to upload it again, completing the online form in a way that reflects its true public domain status? Thanks. Ravel59 (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am certainly no expert on this - I suggest you follow the guidance at WP:COPYREQ. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Brighton Racecourse
Thanks for your message about my edits to Brighton Racecourse. I deleted large amounts of text because I could see it had been copied and pasted from the history page at www.brighton-racecourse.co.uk. Unfortunately this is not normally considered a good idea in Wikipedia due to the Copy-paste generally accepted usage, largely due to copyright issues. I'm no expert on this, so you may also want to look at the Wikipedia Copyright FAQ.

Another issue is that the aim of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopaedia rather than a duplication of content available elsewhere. You should also remember that anyone's edits to Wikipedia are consequently Wikipedia's responsibility rather than your own. No one owns their edits in Wikipedia, if you like.

Another unfortunately thing is that you have said that you are the author of the text at the external website and indeed of the book. I can't find the correct policy on this, but that doesn't feel like good Wikipedia etiquette to copy text from your own research. You might want to have a read through the No original research policy.

Although I did delete all that text, I had meant to then expand the history section and then give appropriate references back to the external site (i.e. you text). I just hadn't got round to it! Seaweed (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Seaweed. I will study the Wikipedia links you mention.  I must say I find their instructions immensely long and likely to put off the occasional contributor.  Would you mind if I came back to you to discuss my further thoughts/possible revisions?  Ravel59 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)