User talk:SasiSasi

Special 301 Report
Wikipedia requires sources for "any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations" (see Citing sources and Verifiability), which is the principle I use when inserting new information. I'm sorry if this offends you, and for your benefit I will add sources to many of the additions I made before I reinstate them.

Also, thank you for fixing the quotations. I have been unable to locate a copy of the original text online (Section 1302 of the 1988 Act), and until someone locates one the secondary source will suffice. -- AaronDLJ (talk) 14 August 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

DYK nomination of Statute of Anne
Hello! Your submission of Statute of Anne at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Areopagitica
In your good-faith edit, your subsitution of "freedom of speech and expression" may be anachronistic and unduly expansive imho: Areopagitica is nearly entirely on the right to unlicensed printing and on the importance of the preservation of books, even heretical books. Does such a description properly belong in the introduction to the article? (I haven't read Areopagitica in the last few months, so pardon me if my memory is faulty.) Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I changes what was //freedom of speech|free expression// to //freedom of speech|freedom of speech and expression// . "Free expression” was a bit odd, and it linked to freedom of speech. The Freedom of speech article contains an important reference to the areopagitica and the advancement of the arguments on freedom of speech (more accurately the freedom of expression):


 * One of the earliest Western defences of freedom of expression is Areopagitica (1644) by English poet and political writer John Milton. Milton wrote in reaction to an attempt by the English republican parliament to prevent "seditious, unreliable, unreasonable and unlicensed pamphlets". Milton advanced a number of arguments in defence of freedom of speech. First, he argued that a nation's unity is created through blending individual differences rather than imposing homogeneity from above; that the ability to explore the fullest range of ideas on a given issue was essential to any learning process and truth cannot be arrived upon unless all points of view are first considered; and that by considering free thought, censorship acts to the detriment of material progress.


 * Unfortunately that section is not referenced (its very old). I see if I can find a reference for the Areopagitica influence on the freedom of speech argument. so we can update both articles.


 * Re "right to unlicensed printing", if you look at the copyright and UK copyright law article it explains the link between censorship, early printing and copyright.--SasiSasi (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind reply. I don't have time to help out immediately, but I shall try to look in the future. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:All rights reserved.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:All rights reserved.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.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Should be public domain.--SasiSasi (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:all rights reserved
-  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 01:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing?!
Please see Talk:Community property (marriage).--Coolcaesar (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 20:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I second this user suggestion. You have made some very MAJOR revisions to some key articles, and it is particularly UN-friendly to the Wiki community to do so without explanation. You should add BOTH the edit summary AND an addition to the discussion page for the more major changes, such as huge deletions you seem to have done. (I am not commenting on revision quality, only Wiki-etiquette.) I have found many of your revisions frustratingly hard to find and evaluate. --gobears87 (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Old Nichol
BorgQueen (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright question
I noticed that you recently uploaded File:Bidder Street.jpg and File:Bidder Street 2.jpg with PD-US, but both of them are listed as 1924 dates, so even if they were published in 1924 (which the sources aren't clear about) they're not in the public domain for their age. Is there some other reason these photographs are listed as being PD? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I put them under the US license, but got the dates mixed up - needs to be published before 1923

This image is in the public domain in the United States. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923 (see the template documentation for more cases). Other jurisdictions may have other rules, and this image might not be in the public domain outside the United States. See Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details.

I just checked the source again, and its 1924, so they will have to go. Pitty (have to wait for a bit). Can you delete them?--SasiSasi (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, so I can't delete them, although you should be able to tag them db-author to get an admin to swing by and remove them. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * will do--SasiSasi (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Devil's acre DYK
Hi SasiSasi, I saw your nomination at T:TDYK for Devil's acre. The template wasn't filled in correctly, but I've filled in what I can at the listing. Could you check it out and add appropriate text to the image? Also, in case you're not aware, on Halloween we'll have a scary collection of hooks on the main page and with a title like this there should be a possibility of using this for it. Can you think of a suitable hook? One other thing, should it be Devil's Acre or Devil's acre? If it's the first the article should be moved. It's a nice article by the way! Smartse (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, should be Devil's Acre really, I will move the article. I will add some text to the image. Re scary hooks, I am really not sure, I am not good with hooks, but any alternative suggestions are welcome.--SasiSasi (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. Can you take another look at the nom? Smartse (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Devil's Acre
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Boundary Street 1890.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Boundary Street 1890.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 created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one page into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. (apropos http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copyright&diff=409361899&oldid=408616763 and discussion on the talk page.) Elvey (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Plagiarism, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. (apropos http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copyright&diff=409361899&oldid=408616763 and discussion on the talk page.)--Elvey (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Traditional knowledge and public domain
Hi there, I noticed the section on TK has been removed. I don't know the ins and outs of this, but I've found some additional sources on this which might help make a more robust section to put back, if that helps, noted on the talk page of Public domain.Jim Killock (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Statute of Anne
Thank you for this article. I've read it with great interest, given that I'm currently preparing an expanded version; could you please explain why you have citations to page 13 of Deazley's work to verify text which is in no way, shape or form, in the source? Ironholds (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the article, I've found multiple instances where you've taken text verbatim from copyrighted sources, and some cases where you've rephrased it so simply as to make no difference. Accordingly, I have removed your version. Please explain yourself. Ironholds (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ironholds (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright concerns
The article Copyright law of the United Kingdom has now been blanked and listed for review at the copyright problems board, as it seems that content you added to the article may have copied or closely paraphrased your sources. Unless this content is public domain or compatibly licensed (in which case it needs to be used in compliance with Plagiarism), we are not able to use sources in this way on Wikipedia. Please review Copy-paste. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The articles Copyright and Sex workers' rights are now also blanked, as content you added to these articles copies or closely paraphrases at least one of your sources. They will need to be evaluated for other concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, (and SasiSasi).  FYI - I just reverted this edit to Public domain - an interesting copyvio of sorts, so I thought I'd let you know. The image is GFDL, not PD - licensed! I guess the WP:CP missed it.  --Elvey (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Your Freedom repeal digital economy act.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Your Freedom repeal digital economy act.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Screenshot data.gov.uk homepage april 2010.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Screenshot data.gov.uk homepage april 2010.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Cyclestreets.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cyclestreets.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. Cloudbound (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Digital Opportunity.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Digital Opportunity.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. Cloudbound (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Stop-mandelson-fb.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stop-mandelson-fb.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Files missing description details
Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as: are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Worker's homes Canning Town 1850.gif
 * File:Cellar dwelling nichol street 1863.jpg
 * File:Reverend Osborne Jay of Holy Trinity Church.jpg
 * File:Boundary Street 1890 2.JPG
 * File:Wych Street 1870.jpg
 * File:Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies.jpg
 * File:Bidder Street 1891.jpg
 * File:Somers town 1837.jpg
 * File:Agar Town 1851.jpg
 * File:Freedom from want 1943-Norman Rockwell.jpg
 * File:Mill's logic 1867.jpg

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:ASS Legal Warning.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:ASS Legal Warning.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright and related rights listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Copyright and related rights. Since you had some involvement with the Copyright and related rights redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Open Rights Group (logo).png


The file File:Open Rights Group (logo).png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Freedom from want 1943-Norman Rockwell.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Freedom from want 1943-Norman Rockwell.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) 18:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Reverend Osborne Jay of Holy Trinity Church.jpg


The file File:Reverend Osborne Jay of Holy Trinity Church.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

[[File:Tiara Andini.jpg]]
Illegal photos, please delete this picture is illegal photos. Cause not licensec and just put on internet! Yemimas29 (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Community property (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Community property (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)