User talk:Yolodave

License tagging for Image:Small mallard-skyline.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Small mallard-skyline.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) 05:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Small canada-geese-and-skyline.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Small canada-geese-and-skyline.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) 06:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

 * Hi! I was recently viewing the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area and saw that you did a lot of work on it. I presume that you are the Wildlife Area manager according to the DFG website and your Wiki username. I have a few comments about stuff I did to the article though. I removed some advertisement-like language. I just briefly skimmed parts of it, and I'll go through it more thoroughly in the near future. Wikipedia article are required to have a neutral point of view. I understand that this article is about a preserved land, but we still need to keep overly promotional language out. You have a conflict of interest since you work as the manager of these lands, which in itself doesn't exclude you from working on the article, but it does mean that you should be even more careful about what you add. See also WP:NOTADVERTISING as some of the point in it apply to this case.

I hope I don't seem too negative or harsh. I'm not trying to be at all. On another note, I am glad you created the page. Yolo County is a great place in my opionion. But I guess I'm party to a conflict of interest there ;-)    Killiondude (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

PS, the welcome box above is a little belated (by about a year), but it has some useful links you'll probably like if you want to use wikipedia more (which I hope you do!). Killiondude (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparing the edited and unedited pages I see three major changes: 1. Deletion of the link to the hunting regulations 2. Deletion of the link leading to volunteer opportunities. 3. Deletion of the link to the photographs.

I don't see how this is advertising or a conflict of interest. Hunters must be familiar with the regulations and this link is the only official document where these regulations are located. All volunteers go through the Yolo Basin Foundation, so this link will help facilitate their involvement if they are interested. The photograph link is a page filled with photos in the public domain. There is no marketing of photos taking place. These are available for people who are interested in seeing more of the Wildlife Area images.

I created the page because the Wildlife Area was falsely represented on another page called the "Vic Fazio Yolo Wildlife Area."

Yolodave (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you aren't taking offense; my intention wasn't to make you upset. I was referencing my deletion of the word "successful". In the context it was written, it was somewhat promotional. When I wrote the first message to you, I didn't fully read the rest of the article. I have now read it, and I see that there doesn't seem to be any more promotional material in it. Here are my reasons for deleting the things you listed (respectively):


 * I deleted that because the link didn't directly lead to the hunting regulations for the Wildlife area in question. If there is such a page, that could be linked. Does the standard rules for the general state of California (for hunting) also apply to this Wildlife Area? (I'm not too informed on hunting maters in general). If the standard rules apply, then the sentence could be re-written in the article to reflect that, and the external link could be supplied in the References or External Links section.
 * This link (in this context) would be considered "promoting an entity". The article could state something about ongoing volunteer opportunities, but [WP:NOTDIR|Wikipedia is not a directory]].
 * I'm haven't used the Picasa photo site before, but I didn't see anywhere where it gives information about the copyright status of the photos you uploaded. In any case, that didn't belong in the body of the article. Perhaps in the External Links section (which I will now fix).


 * What I meant by saying "conflict of interest" was that you are employed as the manager of the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area. You therefore have a conflict of interest. If you click on that link, it'll explain it further. Like I said before, this doesn't mean you can't work on the article. It just means you have to be careful and try to provide a neutral point of view. Thanks for responding to my message though. Feel free to ask any other questions (or if you want to continue this discussion thats fine too). Killiondude (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Umbrella Barn.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Umbrella Barn.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. 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. 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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 02:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Giant Garter Snake 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Giant Garter Snake 1.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. 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. 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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 02:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Giant Garter Snake 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Giant Garter Snake 2.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. 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. 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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 02:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

License Tags
Hey Dave, it's been quite awhile since we talked last (over a year by the timestamps above). I guess I still had your talk page on my watchlist on Wikipedia. I think you're stating on each of the three photos that you got warnings for above, that you're the photographer and therefore copyright holder. That's great. To be on Wikipedia, you just have to assign them a free license (meaning that other people can use your images as long as they follow the stipulations that may accompany the license, each one has a slightly different requirement). You can see a list on WP:ICTIC of what licenses you may choose. I would recommend <-- where the "attribution details" is the part you replace with how you want to be attributed (you can pick just your name, or a name and a link to a website, etc). If you have any further questions, please let me know! Killiondude (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Escolta plaque.jpg


The file File:Escolta plaque.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, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Canada-geese-and-skyline.jpg


The file File:Canada-geese-and-skyline.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "orphaned image, no encyclopedic 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.

Also:
 * File:Feliz adobe.jpg

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) 01:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)