User talk:Starmerf

Start a talk page frank 10:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Frank. It seems that you want to make sure that your images cannot be used commercially, if I've understood the discussion at commons:Image_talk:Tour_de_france_2005_21st_stage_sm_01.jpg correctly. If you really want to have your images removed, you should retag them as cc-by-nc-sa, at which moment they'd become candidates for immediate deletion. However, may I suggest an alternative approach? (I just hate to see such good images go.) Why not license them under the terms of the GFDL? While it is true that this license, as a free license, theoretically allows commercial uses of the images, such stand-alone commercial use is unlikely to occur, I think, because the GFDL requires that the full text of the GFDL itself be distributed with any republication. Something to think about... Lupo 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Duke nus new 0483 map.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Duke nus new 0483 map.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) 10:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Duke nus new 0483 map.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Duke nus new 0483 map.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 Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image 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. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rodhull andemu  16:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

February 2015
Hello, I'm Safiel. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Not a valid speedy deletion reason, please do not tag for speedy deletion again. Safiel (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. ''I did read your message to me on my talk page. There is no such thing as "page ownership" on Wikipedia. Once a page has been placed on Wikipedia and notability of the subject is established, the page may not be removed. The wishes of the subject of the article are entirely irrelevant. If there is blatantly false information on the page, you may of course, remove that information. But you have no standing to request deletion of the article for the reasons you have given.'' Safiel (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School
Also, I would STRONGLY suggest you do not restore the speedy deletion template at Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School. If you do, you will be in violation of Wikipedia's three revert rule WP:3RR and could be subject to an immediate block. I will preemptively warn you now as a courtesy. Safiel (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

frank (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Again - I'm trying to delete the Duke-NUS page - why this is considered vandalism is a mystery to me. I've asked repeatedly how to delete the page, following a directive from our Dean and Comms depart. If its impossible, I'd appreciate a simply - 'sorry, page cannot be deleted'. Thanks  Frank